erockerMaybe. I also want to try out lightboost. It all depends on price/performance though, I've been very happy with my 7970 but I'm not particular to any brand. Thing is, it wouldn't make sense for me to buy a new monitor.

erockerI would love to see Nvidia have these things setup at retailers. The only way I could make a purchasing decision on something like this is to see it running in person.

qubitI don't think you properly understand what G-Sync does on a technical level or what causes tearing and stutters in the first place. Remember, the only way* to remove stutters is to have the GPU and monitor synced, it doesn't matter which way round that sync goes. NVIDIA have simply synced the monitor with the GPU ie synced the opposite way round to how it's done now.

Check out my explanation above and in my previous post a few posts back. Getting rid of stutters and tearing is a big deal, possibly even more so than the slight lag reduction. This feature may be proprietary for now, but it's no gimmick.

*Not strictly true, sort of. If I run an old game which is rendering at several hundred fps and leave vsync off, then it looks perfectly smooth, with very little judder or tearing - and noticeably less lag. It seems that brute forcing the problem with a large excess number of frames per second rendered by the GPU can really help, even though those frames are variable.

Am*I read your comment in full and it still does not explain sufficiently how this monitor is going to fix stutter/tearing -- be it on a technical or a practical level. Variable frame rates happen because it is impossible to have even GPU load during a scene/map in a game, especially multiplayer -- if the GPU load is uneven, stuttering and lag are going to happen, therefore it does not fix it on a practical level if you're capping the GPU to render just "enough" frames and change refresh rates accordingly. Go and run COD4 at a maxfps rate of say 60. Run it with a refresh rate of 120Hz with this limit and then at 60Hz and tell me what "perceivable difference" you get from effectively doing the exact same function as what this monitor offers, minus the gigantic price tag.

Your last statement contradicts your previous, from what I read. I'm giving you this as an example because I spent far too much time tweaking crap like this to run optimally on my older desktops to know that it doesn't work.

Am*Well no offense, but neither do you, nor anyone else here that hasn't actually demoed it.

Am*As it so happens now, we can only speculate on how useful it will be and that's exactly what I'm doing.

I read your comment in full and it still does not explain sufficiently how this monitor is going to fix stutter/tearing -- be it on a technical or a practical level. Variable frame rates happen because it is impossible to have even GPU load during a scene/map in a game, especially multiplayer -- if the GPU load is uneven, stuttering and lag are going to happen, therefore it does not fix it on a practical level if you're capping the GPU to render just "enough" frames and change refresh rates accordingly. Go and run COD4 at a maxfps rate of say 60. Run it with a refresh rate of 120Hz with this limit and then at 60Hz and tell me what "perceivable difference" you get from effectively doing the exact same function as what this monitor offers, minus the gigantic price tag (none whatsoever).

Your last statement contradicts your previous, from what I read. I'm giving you this as an example because I spent far too much time tweaking crap like this to run optimally on my older desktops to know that it doesn't work. You cannot have one without the other; frame rate synced with refresh rate = uneven GPU load, so you still get stuttering & tearing, vs the normal way, which is render as many frames as you can = maximum possible GPU load, which lessens the effect of tearing/stuttering but which only then becomes directly linked to the monitor tearing if refresh rate is too low. No add-in monitor circtuit board will un-link the effects of this.

And the above does not even take into account that a lot, and I do mean A LOT (vast majority) of old competitive games, like Quake III and Unreal, increase movement speed and/or sensitivity the higher the frame rate gets, due to the way the old game engines work, so Mr Carmack, of all people, should know better than to endorse this worthless crap. Any of the old school competitive gamers will give you exactly the same reasons for why it won't work.

qubitSome things you don't need to see the demo to understand the concept, although it helps. I think this is where you're tripping up.




I'm not sure what you're trying to say about rendering 60fps on a 120Hz refreshing screen? Yeah, you'll see constant judder (I tried it with the half vsync in the driver control panel). In fact, because it's happening so fast, it tends to look more like a doubled image moving smoothly than a judder. Depends a bit on the monitor, the game, your eyes, lighting etc. But basically, you see constant judder as the movement only happens every other frame.

I found th nvidia g-spot sync presentation on YouTube. It's explained by the CEO and has a few diagrams which might help you understand it better and realize that it's not a gimmick. It's not quite as detailed as what I explained, but then it is a marketing presentation lol, not a scientific paper that explores it from every angle. For example, he does explain that the monitor samples, but not the Nyquist limit which applies to any form of sampling. It's also an edited version, at 24 minutes.

NVIDIA 4K and G-Sync Demo - YouTube

theoneandonlymrkI get it , but I don't think It's the game changer some are saying and imho it's mostly of use at Uhd and beyond with three screens because in that case most gpu setups are being run at the limit of what they can do.

What im saying is that 2-3 highend cards like the titan plus 3 g spot(like nv didn't want and expect this nickname) enabled monitors puts this tech out of reach ot all but the highest paid or most enthusiastic pc gamer.
Niche thats it.

The Von MatricesYou also define "stuttering" and "lag" differently than NVidia does. NVidia refers to "lag" as the time between the a GPU renders a frame and when the next monitor refresh comes and that frame is displayed. "Stutter", in NVidia's terms, is the variance in "lag". The "stutter" you speak of, where frames are generated unevenly, will not be fixed by G-sync. However, the truth is that what you call "stutter" does not affect human perception nearly as much as uneven "lag", NVidia's "stutter". Humans anticipate what will occur in the few frames, and when what is displayed on the screen does not match the anticipated timing, "stutter" is perceived. The lack of a frame being displayed (down to a reasonable minimum, NVidia says 30fps) is not nearly as big of an issue as a frame being displayed at the wrong time.

I hope you understand that this proves exactly what you said about running Quake III at an insanely high frame rate; this reduces "lag" or the time between the newest frame is generated and the time it is displayed on the monitor, at the cost of discarding a ton of frames and wasting computational power. G-Sync does the same lag reduction as this without the necessity of wasting GPU power.

qubitSome things you don't need to see the demo to understand the concept, although it helps. I think this is where you're tripping up.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about rendering 60fps on a 120Hz refreshing screen? Yeah, you'll see constant judder (I tried it with the half vsync in the driver control panel). In fact, because it's happening so fast, it tends to look more like a doubled image moving smoothly than a judder. Depends a bit on the monitor, the game, your eyes, lighting etc. But basically, you see constant judder as the movement only happens every other frame.

I found th nvidia g-spot sync presentation on YouTube. It's explained by the CEO and has a few diagrams which might help you understand it better and realize that it's not a gimmick. It's not quite as detailed as what I explained, but then it is a marketing presentation lol, not a scientific paper that explores it from every angle. For example, he does explain that the monitor samples, but not the Nyquist limit which applies to any form of sampling. It's also an edited version, at 24 minutes.

NVIDIA 4K and G-Sync Demo - YouTube

qubitAm* you really don't seem to get the technical details on this. I dunno why you think the monitor needs a frame buffer to work with G-Sync? It just syncs the monitor to the graphics card that's all. The monitor continues to show the same picture until it gets another lot of display data, that's all. That's how LCD monitors work already. The only difference is that currently the fresh display data comes in at regular intervals instead of irregular intervals with G-Sync on.

Also, you should realize that you can't go by how smooth the demo looks on the YouTube video. It's really quite obvious why if you think about it.

I still think you don't get it, but in the end it doesn't matter, because the reviews will tell us just how well it works and when it goes on sale you'll be able to see for yourself.

The one thing I do agree with however, is the price markup. I'm sure it'll be the usual price-gouging markup we see from NVIDIA for a proprietary feature. :shadedshu Just look at the price premium on LightBoost monitors, for example. It's a shame that there isn't something like a JEDEC-style standards body for displays that would allow this technology to be introduced by all players at reasonable prices.

qubitAm* you really don't seem to get the technical details on this. I dunno why you think the monitor needs a frame buffer to work with G-Sync?

The pictures show that the FPGA is paired with a trio of 2Gb DDR3 DRAMs, giving it 768MB of memory for image processing and buffering.

Wile EThe plus side is that if the proprietary features work well and are desired, an open alternative will likely come into being and nVidia will likely support that as well.

That's why I have no issues with companies releasing proprietary ideas like this. They take on the financial gamble themselves. If it fails, it's purely their loss, if it is successful, we'll get other options in the market.

XzibitHe might be referring to G-Sync on-board memory

qubitAm* you really don't seem to get the technical details on this. I dunno why you think the monitor needs a frame buffer to work with G-Sync? It just syncs the monitor to the graphics card that's all. The monitor continues to show the same picture until it gets another lot of display data, that's all. That's how LCD monitors work already. The only difference is that currently the fresh display data comes in at regular intervals instead of irregular intervals with G-Sync on.

Also, you should realize that you can't go by how smooth the demo looks on the YouTube video. It's really quite obvious why if you think about it.

I still think you don't get it, but in the end it doesn't matter, because the reviews will tell us just how well it works and when it goes on sale you'll be able to see for yourself.

The one thing I do agree with however, is the price markup. I'm sure it'll be the usual price-gouging markup we see from NVIDIA for a proprietary feature. :shadedshu Just look at the price premium on LightBoost monitors, for example. It's a shame that there isn't something like a JEDEC-style standards body for displays that would allow this technology to be introduced by all players at reasonable prices.

XzibitHe might be referring to G-Sync on-board memory

Am*In that case, feel free to correct me. This is the slide straight from that presentation explaining the problem of tearing:

images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/6/2/5/7/2/2/Nvidia5.jpg.jpg

From my understanding, G-sync module waits for the frame to complete from the GPU, puts it in its own buffer waiting for the monitor to fully complete the last frame, before passing it onto the monitor to complete another full draw in order to prevent tearing and so on.

By all means, explain to me what "technical details" I'm not understanding that you are on this or how you think it works. Because I'm pretty certain I'm understanding it perfectly.

Update: Status Changed to RUMOR. However we have confirmation that G-Sync will stay with ASUS till sometime next year when it launches in full force.

quolothwww.google.com/patents/US20080055318 Seems ATI already has the patent on this technology? I'm no expert but sounds like the same principle described. The other filings are specifically listed as under ATI. I assume AMD has these now?

Prima.VeraNeh, you can't see schmit on those low res videos. Smells more and more like nvidian propaganda....