Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why isn't there a bigger fuss about this?
The input lag increase is in fixed refresh rate mode. Reproduced reliably with different 1000-series cards, fresh Win 10 installs...I'm in the gsync on vsync on and in-game fps cap category and things look good. For both freesync and gsync.
As said above, and video explains the testing process. I don't see a reason to believe that there is no input lag increase here, potentially affecting all monitors out there in fixed refresh rate mode.You're taking the video and results therein at face value, with an especially bold claim.
You should start by telling us why you're doing that. Why do you believe the results? What do you corroborate them with?
Classic whataboutism: Turn it around when you don't care for what people find when Nvidia hardware/software is put into question.You're taking the video and results therein at face value, with an especially bold claim.
You should start by telling us why you're doing that. Why do you believe the results? What do you corroborate them with?
You're taking the video and results therein at face value, with an especially bold claim.
You should start by telling us why you're doing that. Why do you believe the results? What do you corroborate them with?
As said above, and video explains the testing process. I don't see a reason to believe that there is no input lag increase here, potentially affecting all monitors out there in fixed refresh rate mode.
Classic whataboutism: Turn it around when you don't care for what people find when Nvidia hardware/software is put into question.
I've seen similar results from other tests a few months ago and it's true
Why isn't there a bigger fuss about this?
Practically for competitive gaming, AMD is the only meaningful solution currently.
G-Sync was never made for high frame rate competitive gaming. Where it shines is when you are in that sub-60 FPS area in demanding titles where you would want v-sync to eliminate tearing, but can't maintain above a consistent 60hz. This is why you use g-sync, and where it shines. In this type of scenario you largely aren't worried about a marginal increase in input lag as having tear free experience at sub-optimal frame rates is the key.
Clearly you didn't even watch the video results. The input lag is the biggest in your high framerate scenario without sync. In 138FPS limited non synced scenario, average difference is 6.7ms, in 300FPS non synced its about 9ms.If you're running those high of frame rates to boot any form of sync is largely worthless and should be turned off as it is.
G-Sync was never made for high frame rate competitive gaming. Where it shines is when you are in that sub-60 FPS area in demanding titles where you would want v-sync to eliminate tearing, but can't maintain above a consistent 60hz. This is why you use g-sync, and where it shines. In this type of scenario you largely aren't worried about a marginal increase in frame times as having the tear free experience at sub-optimal frame rates is the key.
I'm not really sure what we're supposed to take away from this video as it's testing a scenario that is largely irrelevant. To truly show what 'sync' method is better we'd need to see a test in the sub 60hz range, and also compare if having a full G-Sync display w/ the actual g-sync FPGA gives the user a 'smoother' experience at sub-optimal FPS. This high FPS test, as I mentioned, is a scenario that really doesn't make sense. If you can push 120+ FPS without a problem you'll just turn this crap off.
Clearly you didn't even watch the video results. The input lag is the biggest in your high framerate scenario without sync. In 138FPS limited non synced scenario, average difference is 6.7ms, in 300FPS non synced its about 9ms.
With sync activated NVIDIA is comparable directly to AMD, and lag is lower than without sync. The issue is when sync is not activated.
Also disagree that sub 60FPS is where gsync is the best. Textures are all blurry, input lag is very much there, and 60FPS doesnt even look smooth. ~140FPS on a 144Hz monitor gives you smooth lagless and visual error free image. It's at that 300FPS mark I would turn G-sync off for the less input lag and short duration tearing such high frames offer.
Clearly you didn't even watch the video results. The input lag is the biggest in your high framerate scenario without sync. In 138FPS limited non synced scenario, average difference is 6.7ms, in 300FPS non synced its about 9ms.
With sync activated NVIDIA is comparable directly to AMD, and lag is lower than without sync. The issue is when sync is not activated.
Also disagree that sub 60FPS is where gsync is the best. Textures are all blurry, input lag is very much there, and 60FPS doesnt even look smooth. ~140FPS on a 144Hz monitor gives you smooth lagless and visual error free image. It's at that 300FPS mark I would turn G-sync off for the less input lag and short duration tearing such high frames offer.
That's why you forget about 4K until mid 2020's and go for 1440p until that.You aren't hitting 140 FPS, or anywhere near even 100 FPS @ 4k resolutions. I've used G-Sync on my X27 specifically because any modern game like AC Odyssey, even with a 2080ti, you are still hitting sub 60 FPS and if you aren't running G-Sync you either deal with tearing, or you deal with V-Sync stutter.
Also the comparison is between each vendor GPU on a Freesync/G-Sync compatible monitor, without testing other G-Sync compatible monitor, a sample size of 1 is meaningless to draw any conclusions.You're taking the video and results therein at face value, with an especially bold claim.
You should start by telling us why you're doing that. Why do you believe the results? What do you corroborate them with?
That's why you forget about 4K until mid 2020's and go for 1440p until that.
Also the comparison is between each vendor GPU on a Freesync/G-Sync compatible monitor, without testing other G-Sync compatible monitor, a sample size of 1 is meaningless to draw any conclusions.
This is what you said:So you're not questioning the results.
I'd recommend looking up whataboutism. It isn't asking why someone would post results from one source as fact.
Then post them?
If it's clearly 'true', then it should be easy to prove. Further, given how obsessed eSports'ers are with response time, there should be some corroboration available from that community as well. Do they all run AMD for lower response time?
Yeah because making bold claims is your job, believing the results is because he prolly watched the video.You're taking the video and results therein at face value, with an especially bold claim.
You should start by telling us why you're doing that. Why do you believe the results? What do you corroborate them with?
This is what you said:
Yeah because making bold claims is your job, believing the results is because he prolly watched the video.
Dear god AMD is better then Nvidia and the world as you know it is collapsing ....
Yeah because making bold claims is your job, believing the results is because he prolly watched the video.
Dear god AMD is better then Nvidia and the world as you know it is collapsing ....
Why isn't there a bigger fuss about this?
Practically for competitive gaming, AMD is the only meaningful solution currently.
Do you not see the other critiques above?
Are you blind?
In this aspect, I'd expect them to be the same. I'm not going to take a single video as proof, or single anything, especially given the complexity of the issue and the implications.
The OP asks, "why doesn't this get more coverage?", on the assumption that the information presented is universally true. Applying just a hint of critical thinking leads to the conclusion that if it were universally true, there would definitely be more coverage.
So if the OP is true, we should be able to find more proof.
Especially the same youtuber test Freesync vs Gsync and found Gsync is faster but not by much and of course only 1 monitor for each solutions so very small sample size.This is limited to one monitor that is freesync. You can't make such a ridiculous sweeping judgment based on that.
One monitor, one driver, one GPU for each side. As we all know, drivers are never improved or updated. And monitors all display the same lag characteristics according to the GPUs used, no variables whatsoever. And RTX lag = Pascal lag = Maxwell lag and Polaris lag = vega lag = Navi lag, no variables whatsoever.This is limited to one monitor that is freesync. You can't make such a ridiculous sweeping judgment based on that.
How many people can react to visual stimuli in less than 9ms?Clearly you didn't even watch the video results. The input lag is the biggest in your high framerate scenario without sync. In 138FPS limited non synced scenario, average difference is 6.7ms, in 300FPS non synced its about 9ms.
None, but there is some effect in how the controls feel at those 9ms. You can feel the mouse reacting sharper when you go from basic 8ms USB to 1ms USB. And given equal opponents in equal grounds, those 9ms would mean that the AMD user wins.How many people can react to visual stimuli in less than 9ms?
No. The RX 580 + 19.1.1 driver + Asus VG258 monitor shows slightly better results than the GTX 1060 + 417.71 driver + Asus VG258 monitor. That is all. Is there a test with 430.86 driver + another monitor + another GPU with different specs, ie, DDR6, etc, that precisely reproduces the same results? Or is there a Vega 64 with different driver + monitor that also does the same? You are using a very limited data set with zero other variables to reach far greater conclusions than that limited evidence can possibly show.... And given equal opponents in equal grounds, those 9ms would mean that the AMD user wins.
I think most just assumed G-Sync is better without actually bothering to look. It's better in most metrics but this is definitely an interesting one that needs further investigation. I'm going to keep digging and will post if I find other data.D
So if the OP is true, we should be able to find more proof.
You aren't hitting 140 FPS, or anywhere near even 100 FPS @ 4k resolutions. I've used G-Sync on my X27 specifically because any modern game like AC Odyssey, even with a 2080ti, you are still hitting sub 60 FPS and if you aren't running G-Sync you either deal with tearing, or you deal with V-Sync stutter.
Depends on what you play though. I moved to 4k in 2013 on an R9 290 and was still CPU limited. I am definitely ready for 4k144 for the older games I play. Sure, there are many games that I have to lower settings to maintain 60fps at 4k. I think the bigger deal with 4k144 is waiting for HDMI 2.1....
I am quite impressed with the input lag on Gsync overall. I always do Gsync + Vsync off and the lack of tearing is something I take for granted now.
Just ask for a second source that is seriously not whatboutism because you did not say what about a second source that can verify this
According to this test, and from everything i've heard you want to have VSync On while using gsync. It's best to keep it forced 'On' in the NVCP, generally.
You guys ever try this test?
https://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime
Because for me... if we’re talking in the tens of milliseconds for response time it’s negligible lol.
And given equal opponents in equal grounds, those 9ms would mean that the AMD user wins.
According to this test, and from everything i've heard you want to have VSync On while using gsync. It's best to keep it forced 'On' in the NVCP, generally.
And yet this is what you wrote :What I asked was of the OP, and why they believed that the results were fact- and universally so as per their thread title- with a single source.
You're taking the video and results therein at face value, with an especially bold claim.
You should start by telling us why you're doing that. Why do you believe the results? What do you corroborate them with?
Now consider what the OP states, and consider the excruciatingly small sample sizes being used to 'prove' that statement. Further, we shouldn't be looking to prove it so much as looking to find out why these results are being generated. Part of that is showing that they're consistent across many configurations, because they may not be. Hell, they probably aren't consistent across many configurations. I'd expect to find configurations where the results are reversed; where both vendors are 'slow'; where both vendors are 'fast'; and so on, and I'd expect on average for both vendors to be about the same.
Why don't you disprove it then. All this fancy talk and you can't disprove it.So you're not questioning the results.
I'd recommend looking up whataboutism. It isn't asking why someone would post results from one source as fact.
Then post them?
If it's clearly 'true', then it should be easy to prove. Further, given how obsessed eSports'ers are with response time, there should be some corroboration available from that community as well. Do they all run AMD for lower response time?
If someone talk about sync without bringing up framebuffers