# Is there a difference between 144Hz and 144Hz Gsync/Freesync ?



## blabla21 (Jul 30, 2015)

I want to know if anyone here has first used 144Hz monitor at 144FPS and then used 144Hz monitor with Gsync or Freesync at 144FPS and if they saw any difference.



I feel some of the people flipping out about it stepped up from 60hz panels. Moving from a normal 60hz to a normal 144hz panel is a huge change alone. I wonder if some are giving more credit to these technologies then they deserve.I am not trying to discredit the technologies I am just curious if some of the hype is just peoples first experience with 144hz.


----------



## puma99dk| (Jul 30, 2015)

G-Sync is only avaliable on Nvidia Graphics, while FreeSync is used by AMD.

As far as ik Nvidia don't have any plans on supporting FreeSync.


----------



## blabla21 (Jul 30, 2015)

What ? That was not what I was asking at all.


----------



## AsRock (Jul 30, 2015)

Then you should of been more clearer about your question.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gsync+and+freesync+differences


----------



## R00kie (Jul 30, 2015)

blabla21 said:


> I want to know if anyone here has first used 144Hz monitor at 144FPS and then used 144Hz monitor with Gsync or Freesync at 144FPS and if they saw any difference.
> 
> 
> 
> I feel some of the people flipping out about it stepped up from 60hz panels. Moving from a normal 60hz to a normal 144hz panel is a huge change alone. I wonder if some are giving more credit to these technologies then they deserve.I am not trying to discredit the technologies I am just curious if some of the hype is just peoples first experience with 144hz.



Differences? OF course there are. G-Sync/Freesync helps with frame skipping that V-Sync had and removes screen tearing. Simples. It doesn't matter what refresh rate its at, it still does the same thing.


----------



## blabla21 (Jul 30, 2015)

AsRock said:


> Then you should of been more clearer about your question.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gsync+and+freesync+differences



I asked people who USED 144HZ screen first and then MOVED to 144HZ Gsync/Freesync monitor, is there any difference at 144Hz between normal and Gsync version of monitors @ 144FPS, im pretty sure i made it clear with the first sentence:


> I want to know if anyone here has *first used* 144Hz monitor at 144FPS *and then used* 144Hz monitor with Gsync or Freesync at 144FPS and if they saw any difference.


----------



## AsRock (Jul 30, 2015)

In that case check that link, Linus trys to show you just that so, just ignore his childishness and you should be good.

But in my opinion both techs are in teething  and need much work on before either are any good.  But feel free to buy in to it as that will lower the price for the rest of us .


----------



## blabla21 (Jul 30, 2015)

AsRock said:


> In that case check that link, Linus trys to show you just that so, just ignore his childishness and you should be good.
> 
> But in my opinion both techs are in teething  and need much work on before either are any good.  But feel free to buy in to it as that will lower the price for the rest of us .


I think you misunderstood me, I was not looking at buying any of these 2 since I already own a monitor with Freesync, I was just looking are there any people who have seen monitors at 144 FPS at 144Hz , and have they tested 144hz monitors with GSync/Freesync at the same 144FPS and is there any difference, I know very well the difference between those 2.


----------



## GhostRyder (Jul 30, 2015)

blabla21 said:


> I asked people who USED 144HZ screen first and then MOVED to 144HZ Gsync/Freesync monitor, is there any difference at 144Hz between normal and Gsync version of monitors @ 144FPS, im pretty sure i made it clear with the first sentence:


 Yes there is a difference as I have experienced a 144hz 1440p monitor that had neither of these techs (A little bit ago now) and recently a Acer Freesync 1440p 144hz monitor and the Rog Swift.  There is a nice difference between them (Just the non Sync version and the Sync Versions as both techs perform the same for the most part).  From what I see it is smoother overall especially when the FPS changes not to mention you can use V-Sync to limit the FPS from going to high (Which reduces stress) without getting a stutter from it.  Its really a nice set of techs to have if you game above 60hz mostly because games are just not optimized for the higher range of FPS and even with insane levels of power your going to have the fps fluctuating which is what causes screen tearing.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 30, 2015)

The main thing you need to know about Freesync and the biggest differnce from G-Sync that affects the consumer is that is does not work well when frames dip below the display's bottom end refresh capability.

Thus Freesync in it's current design state really needs displays that are lower refresh than most currently made ones are capable of. A lot of people look at the two and only see the strobing and price differences, but there's a LOT more to it than that.

If you buy into Freesync now, you'd better hope you have enough graphics power to keep frames from dipping below your display's bottom refresh threshold, or you'll pay for it with some pretty bad tradeoffs onscreen.


----------



## xorbe (Jul 30, 2015)

blabla21 said:


> I want to know if anyone here has first used 144Hz monitor at 144FPS and then used 144Hz monitor with Gsync or Freesync at 144FPS and if they saw any difference.  I feel some of the people flipping out about it stepped up from 60hz panels. Moving from a normal 60hz to a normal 144hz panel is a huge change alone. I wonder if some are giving more credit to these technologies then they deserve.I am not trying to discredit the technologies I am just curious if some of the hype is just peoples first experience with 144hz.



You generally don't use 144Hz gsync "at 144Hz" ... the true frame rate wanders around under 144.  No tearing is very nice, and there are no abrupt fps changes like vsync on (like 120, 60, 40, 24, etc.)  You can use a 144Hz gsync monitor at 144 with gsync disabled.  With vsync on it would most likely act like a 72Hz screen unless the game is not intensive.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 30, 2015)

^Same with Freesync. The ASUS Freesync display on Newegg for instance, which has the most reviews of any Freesync display they sell, forces Freesync to work within a 35-90 Hz range.

With Freesync though, the trouble begins if you dip below that range, and since a lot of power hungry games can easily dip to 30 FPS or even less, it's something to think about.

So while Freesync is a lot cheaper up front, it could end up being more expensive if you feel you have to have a more powerful GPU just to keep the frames from dipping too low.


----------



## AsRock (Jul 30, 2015)

In the end both techs suck, they both have terrible flaws to them.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 30, 2015)

AsRock said:


> In the end both techs suck, they both have terrible flaws to them.




I agree, which is why my plan is to just keep buying inexpensive 32" TVs until they get this sorted.

For just $250, this may very well be my next display.
http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/32-inch/best#best_2


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 30, 2015)

blabla21 said:


> I want to know if anyone here has first used 144Hz monitor at 144FPS and then used 144Hz monitor with Gsync or Freesync at 144FPS and if they saw any difference.


 144Hz monitor will run at 144Hz fixed and GPU can't often provide 144 FPS so you may see some screen tearing ... g-sync or free-sync 144 Hz means 144 Hz is maximum and refresh rate is dynamic and matches frame rate if it's in supported range


----------



## AsRock (Jul 30, 2015)

Frag Maniac said:


> I agree, which is why my plan is to just keep buying inexpensive 32" TVs until they get this sorted.
> 
> For just $250, this may very well be my next display.
> http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/32-inch/best#best_2



Yeah i like the new Vizio's too, just got to make sure it does what ya want it too.

i like 40" panels funny though Newegg have that 32" at  $450 but the 40" at $360 .
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...262401&cm_re=Vizio_E40-_-89-262-401-_-Product

Although i would go Walmart as if there is a issue it's dam simple to take back and you get ya money right away not a week later lol.


----------



## xorbe (Jul 30, 2015)

AsRock said:


> In the end both techs suck, they both have terrible flaws to them.



No problems with gsync here.  What's the rub people are running into, aside from price?


----------



## AsRock (Jul 30, 2015)

xorbe said:


> No problems with gsync here.  What's the rub people are running into, aside from price?



Check youtube you soon see the problems they both have,  you must be pretty unique or play a small range of games but then again you are using a Titan so i truly hope it runs as well as you say.  But by the reviews of the card and games getting more demanding that frame rates going get lower and lower and those issue's will appear more and more often but then again you probably blow another 1k on a new card by time that happens.

And i bet there is plenty of people having a issue with gsync and even a titan.  I know i would have as being a Arma gamer.

Not trying to judge just stating a fact


----------



## xorbe (Jul 30, 2015)

AsRock said:


> Check youtube you soon see the problems they both have,  you must be pretty unique or play a small range of games but then again you are using a Titan so i truly hope it runs as well as you say.  But by the reviews of the card and games getting more demanding that frame rates going get lower and lower and those issue's will appear more and more often but then again you probably blow another 1k on a new card by time that happens.
> 
> And i bet there is plenty of people having a issue with gsync and even a titan.  I know i would have as being a Arma gamer.
> 
> Not trying to judge just stating a fact



Oh I know that NV isn't a bed of roses, especially recently, and $deity help you if you snag a cornercase issue within Linux. Okay I see SLI+gsync (it's always SLI plus $other_feature haha), flickering, and games that "fullscreen" by windowed fullscreen.


----------



## qubit (Jul 30, 2015)

blabla21 said:


> I want to know if anyone here has first used 144Hz monitor at 144FPS and then used 144Hz monitor with Gsync or Freesync at 144FPS and if they saw any difference.
> 
> 
> 
> I feel some of the people flipping out about it stepped up from 60hz panels. Moving from a normal 60hz to a normal 144hz panel is a huge change alone. I wonder if some are giving more credit to these technologies then they deserve.I am not trying to discredit the technologies I am just curious if some of the hype is just peoples first experience with 144hz.





blabla21 said:


> I asked people who USED 144HZ screen first and then MOVED to 144HZ Gsync/Freesync monitor, is there any difference at 144Hz between normal and Gsync version of monitors @ 144FPS, im pretty sure i made it clear with the first sentence:



Yes, I agree and think your question is clear and quite a straightforward one to answer.

The whole point of G-Sync and FreeSync is to prevent judder when frames are dropped by making the monitor sync its refresh rate to the graphics card rather than the other way round. Note I'm talking about vsync on here. If it's not then the frame rates will never quite match and you get screen tearing, hitching etc.

Therefore, running both types of monitor at 144Hz _with no dropped frames_ there won't be any visual difference. Only when the framerate from the graphics card drops _below_ 144Hz will you see a difference. And to clarify, this also applies to a monitor running at any refresh rate. 60, 80, 99, 110, 122Hz, 200Hz, whatever. As long as the card is outputting vsynced frames at the same rate as the monitor refresh you won't see a difference.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Jul 31, 2015)

^Judder is SO not the word for that.

Screen tear, hitching stutter, etc, but judder is something completely different caused by entirely different things.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 31, 2015)

For 144 Hz screen, frame capping to 72 fps (1/2) or 48 fps (1/3) would also be screen tear free provided that GPU can push more. For example adaptive v-sync with half refresh rate on 144 Hz screen would be almost constantly locked at 72 FPS with 980 Ti on new games.


----------



## qubit (Jul 31, 2015)

Frag Maniac said:


> ^Judder is SO not the word for that.
> 
> Screen tear, hitching stutter, etc, but judder is something completely different caused by entirely different things.


Yes, it SO is the right word.

I've clarified that a bit now in my post, but you can see that's what I was driving at if you read it carefully. I had actually mentioned vsyncing in the last sentence anyway.

Drop frames with vsync on and you get judder and possibly hitching too. Actually, you get judder with vsync off too, but it will include screen tearing and those other artifacts too.


----------



## arbiter (Jul 31, 2015)

In theory both panels should look and operate the same, That is in theory not practice. Both can do 144hz but freesync has bit of a ghosting issue which depends on how sensitive you are to you might annoy the hell outta you or you won't notice.


----------



## qubit (Jul 31, 2015)

BiggieShady said:


> For 144 Hz screen, frame capping to 72 fps (1/2) or 48 fps (1/3) would also be screen tear free provided that GPU can push more. *For example adaptive v-sync with half refresh rate on 144 Hz screen would be almost constantly locked at 72 FPS with 980 Ti on new games.*


My monitor can do 144Hz (not adaptive sync capable) and that's exactly what happens, plus the judder is very obvious too. Obviously running an older game helps to keep a solid 72fps rather than dropping frames.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 31, 2015)

arbiter said:


> In theory both panels should look and operate the same, That is in theory not practice.


What about minimal refresh rate supported by a panel? That info is crucial for free sync and completely non relevant for g-sync ...


----------



## arbiter (Jul 31, 2015)

BiggieShady said:


> What about minimal refresh rate supported by a panel? That info is crucial for free sync and completely non relevant for g-sync ...


Well when you go below the minimum refresh rate, g-sync starts doing doubleing, tripleing, etc depends on frame rate. Like if fps is 25fps, then g-sync doubles each frame draw so montior runs 50hz. If it goes say 17fps then it will do triple frame so monitor runs at 51hz. Freesync will if monitor has a floor VRR of 35hz then it will keep refreshing at 35hz no matter what fps is, so there will be tearing and stuttering. AMD could add in to their drivers to do that frame doubling so it would do same as what g-sync module does but if that ever happens is up to AMD.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Dissecting-G-Sync-and-FreeSync-How-Technologies-Differ

Can read up and they have a video explanation of it.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 31, 2015)

qubit said:


> judder is very obvious too


Evenly paced frames at 72 fps should be pretty smooth ... with single gpu that is, but you have SLI so that's another story judder wise ... you can try messing with maximum pre-rendered frames = 1 and triple buffering = on in nvcp to see if it helps. Also when using adaptive v-sync, don't forget turn off the in-game v-sync setting.


arbiter said:


> Well when you go below the minimum refresh rate, g-sync starts doing doubleing, tripleing, etc depends on frame rate. Like if fps is 25fps, then g-sync doubles each frame draw so montior runs 50hz. If it goes say 17fps then it will do triple frame so monitor runs at 51hz. Freesync will if monitor has a floor VRR of 35hz then it will keep refreshing at 35hz no matter what fps is, so there will be tearing and stuttering. AMD could add in to their drivers to do that frame doubling so it would do same as what g-sync module does but if that ever happens is up to AMD.


Yeah I know, that's why I said that minimal refresh rate is non issue for g-sync ... what I meant is that both panels should operate the same only if the frame rate stays in the certain range.


----------



## arbiter (Jul 31, 2015)

BiggieShady said:


> Yeah I know, that's why I said that minimal refresh rate is non issue for g-sync ... what I meant is that both panels should operate the same only if the frame rate stays in the certain range.


They should but when you get to higher rates like 85hz+ freesync has had reported ghosting issues which. That is down to voltage control issue of the hardware in the monitor which has a lot of work that needs to be done. If you notice that some new freesync panels, when freesync mode is off they can go 144hz but when you enable freesync it max's out to 90hz. That is to minimize the ghosting. AMD left that issue on the monitor makers to solve which if you can see ghosting if you can test one. It would be best to wait on buying one for a while til they work it out more.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 31, 2015)

arbiter said:


> AMD left that issue on the monitor makers to solve


Limit to 90 Hz to minimize ghosting = problem solved  and they are not even that much cheaper than g-sync monitors ... gotta love monitor makers


----------



## NutZInTheHead (Jul 31, 2015)

I have actually done a little test while I was switching between ULMB and G-Sync to see how good ULMB is.
For this I tested Battlefield 4 at everything maxed with only MSAA off.
I also overclocked my 2x 970s to about 1400MHz to maintain a frame-rate of 120+

I have to say that G-Sync is amazing even if your frame rates hardly drop below 120
I personally notice the difference between 120FPS with G-Sync off and 120FPS with G-Sync on.
Before getting my monitor I watched people on youtube say things like "you wont believe how good G-Sync is until you have seen it for yourself" and I would be like it cant be that amazing, until I got my monitor and saw how good variable refresh rate is.

I love variable refresh rate and am so happy I made the purchase


----------



## arbiter (Jul 31, 2015)

BiggieShady said:


> Limit to 90 Hz to minimize ghosting = problem solved  and they are not even that much cheaper than g-sync monitors ... gotta love monitor makers


yea it was easyest way to fix the problem instead of spending months or even could be a year to solve it. Nvidia spent A lot of time testing panels to see which respond well to doing VRR, if you buy g-sync monitor it uses one those panels nvidia certified themselves to work with it like they intended. Freesync will eventually work at 144hz, but kw is "eventually".


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 31, 2015)

arbiter said:


> yea it was easyest way to fix the problem instead of spending months or even could be a year to solve it. Nvidia spent A lot of time testing panels to see which respond well to doing VRR, if you buy g-sync monitor it uses one those panels nvidia certified themselves to work with it like they intended. Freesync will eventually work at 144hz, but kw is "eventually".



Every G-Sync panel tested by TFT Central has ghosting.  G-Sync also suffers from inversion artifacts.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 31, 2015)

Xzibit said:


> Every G-Sync panel tested by TFT Central has ghosting.  G-Sync also suffers from inversion artifacts.


That's expected minimal amount of ghosting every panel has. Problem is that some free sync monitors need firmware upgrade for its overdrive control to properly reduce ghosting while using dynamic refresh rate to those expected minimal levels. (link)


----------



## GhostRyder (Jul 31, 2015)

arbiter said:


> yea it was easyest way to fix the problem instead of spending months or even could be a year to solve it. Nvidia spent A lot of time testing panels to see which respond well to doing VRR, if you buy g-sync monitor it uses one those panels nvidia certified themselves to work with it like they intended. Freesync will eventually work at 144hz, but kw is "eventually".


 Are you just trying to make things up as you go???  Freesync DOES work at 144hz, the Acer XG270HU has a range of 40-144hz for Freesync (A monitor I have/am using currently) on my system and it has no issues enabling Freesync at 144hz and moving around the FPS in BF4 without anything being noticeable.  The "Ghosting" issue is the same issue any monitor can have as @Xzibit said


Xzibit said:


> Every G-Sync panel tested by TFT Central has ghosting.  G-Sync also suffers from inversion artifacts.


 It has the *same* issues that can appear...



BiggieShady said:


> Limit to 90 Hz to minimize ghosting = problem solved  and they are not even that much cheaper than g-sync monitors ... gotta love monitor makers


 The Acer XG270HU vs Rog Swift is a common comparison since their specs are roughly the same and picture quality, that is a 250 dollar difference according to newegg's prices currently.

Also this is off subject anyways... The OP asked if having variable refresh makes a difference not the difference between specifically G-Sync and Freesync, the difference without either of them...


----------



## arbiter (Jul 31, 2015)

GhostRyder said:


> Are you just trying to make things up as you go??? Freesync DOES work at 144hz, the Acer XG270HU has a range of 40-144hz for Freesync (A monitor I have/am using currently) on my system and it has no issues enabling Freesync at 144hz and moving around the FPS in BF4 without anything being noticeable. The "Ghosting" issue is the same issue any monitor can have as @Xzibit said


I'm not making up anything. Yes there are SOME that do 144hz but they will have noticeable ghosting over ones that limited the panel to 90hz. It is a short term fix til they fix it at 144hz, But IMO if i am buying 144hz panel being locked to 90hz is bs.



Xzibit said:


> Every G-Sync panel tested by TFT Central has ghosting. G-Sync also suffers from inversion artifacts.


I bet panels that are fixed rates still have ghosting to an extent, but issue is how bad it is compared to other tech.


GhostRyder said:


> Also this is off subject anyways... The OP asked if having variable refresh makes a difference not the difference between specifically G-Sync and Freesync, the difference without either of them...


In an earlier post i said in theory both would work and look the same but what is in theory isn't what might work in practice.


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 31, 2015)

arbiter said:


> I bet panels that are fixed rates still have ghosting to an extent, but issue is how bad it is compared to other tech.



*Viewsonic VP2780-4k*
4k 10-bit+ (10bit+A-FRC) 60hz AH-IPS better than any G-Sync/FreeSync in ghosting for *$799.99* and no inversion issues.


http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/pixperan/viewsonic_vp2780-4k.jpg


----------



## xorbe (Aug 1, 2015)

Xzibit said:


> *Viewsonic VP2780-4k*
> 4k 10-bit+ (10bit+A-FRC) 60hz AH-IPS better than any G-Sync/FreeSync in ghosting for *$799.99* and no inversion issues.
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/m4BKF3D.jpg



Mmm, 60 Hz slide show.  ;-)


----------



## qubit (Aug 1, 2015)

BiggieShady said:


> Evenly paced frames at 72 fps should be pretty smooth ... with single gpu that is, but you have SLI so that's another story judder wise ... you can try messing with maximum pre-rendered frames = 1 and triple buffering = on in nvcp to see if it helps. Also when using adaptive v-sync, don't forget turn off the in-game v-sync setting.


Thanks for the help, but there isn't actually a fault here. The exact way it looks also depends on the refresh rate of the monitor, the type of monitor and one's vision. Let me explain.

Setting vsync to refresh rate means that you get this:

Frame / Movement

1 Move
2 Move
3 Move
4 Move
etc

This leads to perfect movement on a strobed display. Non strobed produces significant motion blur regardless of brand or model, but motion can still look smooth.


Half refresh rate vsync means that you get this:

Frame / Movement

1 Move
2 Stop
3 Move
4 Stop
etc

As you can see the picture stands still for one frame every other frame, hence this stop-start motion is what leads to visible judder. Motion blur as above for strobed / unstrobed displays.

Now, the way this stop-start motion is perceived depends on various things as described below.


*60Hz monitor refresh*

Highly visible judder. Very annoying to look at. Lots of motion blur unless strobed.


*120/144Hz*

Smooth motion, but with edge doubling and motion blur - essentially two pictures superimposed on top of each other. I've not tried 100Hz, which presumably might look someway between judder and smoothness. Might try it at some point, but it's too late at night now to bother with it.


*120/144Hz strobed (CRT like)*

Smooth motion, but with edge doubling. Picture is sharp (no motion blur) but the superimposed images reduce clarity significantly. It's similar to looking at a 3D Vision display without the glasses, except that the two images are identical.



In all three cases, the motion is actually juddering, but at higher refreshes it's perceived differently as smooth motion, but with a doubled picture. The only time you get perfect motion is with vsync and movement every frame along with a strobing backlight. This includes 60Hz strobed displays (usually a CRT) although it looks noticeably smoother and more refined at 120Hz strobed.

I see that unfortunately you only have a 60Hz monitor so you can't check out what I've explained and see for yourself. If you can get your paws temporarily on a 120Hz monitor with strobing backlight I think it would be well worth it.

I tested the above with SLI off as with it on, there can indeed be some microstutter at times to muddy the waters.


----------



## Jo Gill (Aug 1, 2015)

I have a BENQ XL2730Z with Freesync.  I play only CSGO, so for a strenuous test of the monitor, this is probably not the right game.  My PC is a 5930X Intel, MSI X99S MPOWER, 32GB RAM, SSD/HDD, AX860i.  I was using a Sapphire Radeon R9 295x2 and getting 290-299FPS, but substituting an MSI R9 290 Gaming (4GB) also gets around 290-299 FPS at peak.  The game average FPS is all over the map due to something in Catalyst, I am sure.  Once I replaced the DVI-D connection with a DP1.2 cable connection, both cards cause Catalyst to ask if I want to activate Freesync.  Once I do, the FPS drops down a bit but lows are no longer in the 30s and 40s, but in the 80s and 90s, and highs rarely get above 200 FPS.  BUT....the game is WAY smoother, and actually looks MUCH better due to the sync.  I run the monitor at 144Hz, so I am asking the best from it, but the sync seems to make quite the difference.  Since the R9 290 seems to do as well as the 295x2, I am now using only that card for CSGO since the 295x2 is overkill and quite the power hog.  I am building a second gamer, and it will have GTX980Ti cards in SLI, and I fully expect to try the ASUS ROG G-sync 1440p monitor on that. 

Prior to this I was gaming on XFX 7970s in Crossfire using a Samsung 305T, 2560x1600.  although that also provides massive FPS in CSGO is also has a bit of tearing.  The Samsung does not have the same response time either, and its scan in fixed.  I can say that the use of a sync-related solution seems to truly increase my enjoyment of the game, but its a pretty penny to get there.  But gaming now at 1440p or higher is very spoiling, and I have a hard time using a FULL HD screen.  Oops.

By the way, even when not gaming, and doing other work on the PC, the BENQ XL2730Z is amazing.  Such a great display, and so well packaged.  I am entertaining another one for my wife's work PC at home.  Its really bright, and helps her focus.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Aug 1, 2015)

qubit said:


> Yes, it SO is the right word.
> 
> I've clarified that a bit now in my post, but you can see that's what I was driving at if you read it carefully. I had actually mentioned vsyncing in the last sentence anyway.
> 
> Drop frames with vsync on and you get judder and possibly hitching too. Actually, you get judder with vsync off too, but it will include screen tearing and those other artifacts too.




THIS, is the actual definition of judder relating to that which is seen on displays.

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/judder

What you're referring to is not at all caused by the same thing, nor does it even have the same look.


----------



## xorbe (Aug 1, 2015)

That's exactly what judder is.  I guess we're interpreting it differently than you, Frag Maniac.  24 -> 60 -> hosed frame rate.


----------



## MilkyWay (Aug 1, 2015)

Display motion blur and motion lag are different to to judder. People however take to using judder as some sort of all encompassing term when really its to do with interpolation and pulldown.

http://red.cachefly.net/learn/panning-24fps-180.mp4
http://red.cachefly.net/learn/panning-60fps-180.mp4


----------



## qubit (Aug 1, 2015)

Frag Maniac said:


> THIS, is the actual definition of judder relating to that which is seen on displays.
> 
> http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/judder
> 
> What you're referring to is not at all caused by the same thing, nor does it even have the same look.


That's just one particular example example of judder. Yes, it's quite obviously juddery and doesn't negate my point at all, it complements it. I've explained it all in post 39, did you not see it?

The whole point of us enthusiasts spending big money on powerful graphics cards and powerful CPUs is to get rid of judder in our games so I don't understand why this concept is so hard to get. All one needs to know is if the GPU drops frames then the movement judders, it's as simple as that. This is the whole point of G-Sync and FreeSync to reverse the synchronization so one doesn't see this artifact.

Finally, when one goes to the movies, one can see judder (or "strobing" as movie makers like to call it) all the time, especially in panning shots. This is because the movie is shot at 24fps, but the projector runs at 48fps to reduce flicker, leading to that stop-go motion I described above and hence judder. Since the framerate is quite slow, the judder becomes really obvious. I guess I could have added this example to my explanation so people could have related to it and thus understood what I was saying better, perhaps.

Another example are those new 60Hz YouTube videos. They look so much smoother, because on a 60Hz display there are no dropped frames.

Finally, www.blurbusters.com has a section on this too and you can play around with a test of it, here: www.testufo.com/#test=framerates I recommend using Chrome for the most stable testing and lack of hitching.


----------



## GhostRyder (Aug 1, 2015)

arbiter said:


> I'm not making up anything. Yes there are SOME that do 144hz but they will have noticeable ghosting over ones that limited the panel to 90hz. It is a short term fix til they fix it at 144hz, But IMO if i am buying 144hz panel being locked to 90hz is bs.



There is only one (available at this time) monitor that is rated for 144hz that stops at 90hz on the Freesync, the Asus MG279Q which its range is 35hz - 90hz.
The Acer XG270HU is rated at 144hz and its range is 40-144hz
The BenQ XL2730Z is rated for 144hz and its range is 40-144hz

The only other available Freesync monitor is the LG 29UM67P but its and ultra wide monitor rated for up to 75hz with a Freesync Range of 48-75hz (There is another Ultra Wide I believe with a similar range).  Of all the Freesync available monitors the Asus is the only one that has the range limited currently to 90hz even though its max refresh is 144hz.  So this is not *some*, this is most of the monitors that have a 144hz range.



Xzibit said:


> *Viewsonic VP2780-4k*
> 4k 10-bit+ (10bit+A-FRC) 60hz AH-IPS better than any G-Sync/FreeSync in ghosting for *$799.99* and no inversion issues.
> 
> 
> http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/pixperan/viewsonic_vp2780-4k.jpg


Yea but at 60hz it seems to be almost a waste at times even if I am considering waiting for a Freesync 4K monitor with a decent range.  I would say most of where these techs make their viability (At least on being awesome) is in the higher refresh ranges.   But that is one heck of an expensive monitor lol.


----------



## qubit (Aug 1, 2015)

@GhostRyder That Asus 90Hz limit is retarded and a complete dealbreaker for me.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Aug 1, 2015)

qubit said:


> That's just one particular example example of judder.



Actually no, you're trying to redefine judder as it applies to displays, and not really doing so well. Common with gamers I find.


----------



## qubit (Aug 1, 2015)

Frag Maniac said:


> Actually no, you're trying to redefine judder as it applies to displays, and not really doing so well. Common with gamers I find.


I've taken the time to give you a solid explanation over two posts in an intelligent manner. If you're going to try and rebutt it you'll have to do better than being argumentative with a cheap put down and an eyeroll. It's you that's not doing so well.

Judder is judder, whether the source material is CGI of any form, film or other source. It's that stop-go motion that causes it, end of story. And those examples I gave above I actually used my own high refresh monitor to investigate it before posting. Get a similar monitor and then come back to me, otherwise you just don't have a clue as you haven't seen it. Heck, you should be able to see the 30/60Hz stuff at least anyway.


----------



## GhostRyder (Aug 1, 2015)

qubit said:


> @GhostRyder That Asus 90Hz limit is retarded and a complete dealbreaker for me.


Yea not my favorite, I currently am playing games (Borrowing a friends) on the Acer Freesync monitor.  Wanted to decide if I liked having Freesync (or G-Sync) and 144hz at 1440p over 4k 60hz.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Aug 1, 2015)

qubit said:


> I've taken the time to give you a solid explanation over two posts in an intelligent manner. If you're going to try and rebutt it you'll have to do better than being argumentative with a cheap put down and an eyeroll. It's you that's not doing so well.



I've seen your so called explanations, and my statement still stands. You're taking what the word judder as applied to displays was originally called completely out of context, and using your loose description of micro stutter caused by completely different sources as a valid explanation.

Given that you are ignoring that, yes, the eye roll was appropriate, and it wasn't stated as a put down, just an observation. It's the kind of dime a dozen redefining of terms gamers often engage in on forums. If you feel insulted by that assessment, that's you being overly sensitive.


----------



## qubit (Aug 1, 2015)

Frag Maniac said:


> I've seen your so called explanations, and my statement still stands. You're taking what the word judder as applied to displays was originally called completely out of context, and using your loose description of micro stutter caused by completely different sources as a valid explanation.
> 
> Given that you are ignoring that, yes, the eye roll was appropriate, and it wasn't stated as a put down, just an observation. It's the kind of dime a dozen redefining of terms gamers often engage in on forums. If you feel insulted by that assessment, that's you being overly sensitive.


No, you just don't understand and keep claiming that I'm seeing it from a "gamer's perspective" and "redefining terms" when I've explained that I'm not and exactly why. And yeah, it's kind of annoying. Judder is a real simple concept to understand and I've given you a gold plated answer explaining it, so I really don't know why you're making such a meal of it.

Why don't you actually click on that link I supplied and you'll see the judder on your 60Hz display? I recommend using Chrome as it renders the test properly. You might actually learn something about this and stop arguing with me.

Finally, I'm curious, do you think I'm seeing microstutter since I have two graphics cards in SLI and confusing it with judder?


----------



## MikeGR7 (Aug 1, 2015)

blabla21 said:


> I want to know if anyone here has first used 144Hz monitor at 144FPS and then used 144Hz monitor with Gsync or Freesync at 144FPS and if they saw any difference.
> 
> 
> 
> I feel some of the people flipping out about it stepped up from 60hz panels. Moving from a normal 60hz to a normal 144hz panel is a huge change alone. I wonder if some are giving more credit to these technologies then they deserve.I am not trying to discredit the technologies I am just curious if some of the hype is just peoples first experience with 144hz.



Very clear question, and one i was wondering also before getting my latest gsync monitor.

So here is the short version:

YES there is a big benefit in gaming with Gsync enabled @144Hz. 
You basically don't get screen tearing (if you compare to no Vsync) and NO stutters (compared to Vsync) and this is a huge difference since latest games appear to be unstable.
144Hz is a great middle ground for those without Gsync, since it tends to "cover" some of the tearing but don't fool yourself the tearing is obvious even @144Hz.

Did i forget to mention the healthy FPS gain going from Vsync to Gsync?
And did i also forget to mention that Gsync is a gift for people with SLI since it keeps the great performance but hides the sometimes erratic behaviour of the technology? 

The above is my personal experience having used my Acer 1440P IPS@144Hz Gsync monitor combined with GTX 970SLI and now with 980ti G1.


----------



## Frag_Maniac (Aug 2, 2015)

qubit said:


> No, you just don't understand...



I'll just leave you fuming Q, clearly you're not getting it.


----------



## arbiter (Aug 2, 2015)

qubit said:


> @GhostRyder That Asus 90Hz limit is retarded and a complete dealbreaker for me.


2nd that. A waste to spent money to get premium of 144hz to be capped at 90hz, with no way to update firmware, if they come out with one without sending it back for 2 weeks.


----------



## qubit (Aug 2, 2015)

Frag Maniac said:


> I'll just leave you fuming Q, clearly you're not getting it.



Trust me I'm not fuming - I've just won.  It's you who looks like a fool in front of everyone.

You obviously have limited technical understanding, so you don't comprehend what I'm saying, you couldn't manage a rational, intelligent conversation and rebutt any of my arguments with facts to support your claim so you just resort to ever more idiotic comments like this one.

Fact is you haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about and *HAVE ZERO CREDIBILITY.*


----------

