NVIDIA Introduces G-SYNC Technology for Gaming Monitors

[Solidstate89]

Yet again, more useless, proprietary and gimmicky crap from Nvidia. This is nothing that can't be implemented as a firmware upgrade for literally every monitor available by forcing it to drop excessive frames or simply stopping the GPU from rendering more than the refresh rate allows in the drivers. I'm pretty certain several monitors, including mine, already implements something like this unofficially, as I see no tearing even in ancient games like COD4 and Q3A that run well over 250FPS.

Also, have these guys ever heard of Dxtory?

Please GTFO with more of this proprietary, overpriced and useless bullshit to further fragment PC gaming, Nvidia.

EDIT: and good lord, that stupid name...G-SYNC? Sounds like the name of an Nsync tribute band.

Really? You think bi-lateral communication with the monitor's ability to control the frame rate delivery of the GPU so it's completely in sync with the monitor can just be easily implemented via a firmware update?

The official white paper hasn't even been released yet and you have to gall to make such an inaccurate and ballsy statement such as that. What standard do you think it can already use? There isn't a display protocol that is capable of doing that. From what I've read on Anandtech, it's a modification of the DisplayPort standard - meaning non-standard - meaning it can't be implemented on ANY of today's monitors without that specific hardware bundle.

 

[Crap Daddy]

Really? You think bi-lateral communication with the monitor's ability to control the frame rate delivery of the GPU so it's completely in sync with the monitor can just be easily implemented via a firmware update?

The official white paper hasn't even been released yet and you have to gall to make such an inaccurate and ballsy statement such as that. What standard do you think it can already use? There isn't a display protocol that is capable of doing that. From what I've read on Anandtech, it's a modification of the DisplayPort standard - meaning non-standard - meaning it can't be implemented on ANY of today's monitors without that specific hardware bundle.

This is needed in the monitor:

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Could they not do something similar to this that goes between the card and monitor in the cable, maybe a box, so it will work without a new monitor?

 

[The Von Matrices]

This is needed in the monitor:

http://img.techpowerup.org/131018/gsync-module.png

The mounting holes are evenly spaced around the "processor," which indicates to me that this needs a heatsink when operating. I hope it doesn't need active cooling; having a small, loud fan in a monitor is certainly not a good thing.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

The mounting holes are evenly spaced around the "processor," which indicates to me that this needs a heatsink when operating. I hope it doesn't need active cooling; having a small, loud fan in a monitor is certainly not a good thing.

Looks like a MXM card for laptops

 

[Serpent of Darkness]

Re:

I can only see G-Sync being useful or desired by consumers if it did the following:

1. Increased Frame Rate Performance. If this gimmick actually increased your FPS. As if there was some form of loss or leakage in performance, and G-Sync prevented that from happening. Instead of actually getting 60 FPS on Tomb Raider with maxed out graphics settings, you're only getting 32 FPS. G-Sync would push it closer to 60 FPS.

To imply that NVidia users need a hardware component in the monitor to improve video fidelity, also implies that NVidia cards still suffer from their own form of micro stutters and screen tearing.

Sadly, in my opinion, I think this is the only innovative niche NVidia could come up with in such a short period of time. Especially when the spot-light just got wider, and it was placed on AMD since RX9 series, Consoles, and AMD Mantle have been the top buzz in the news as of late. AMD is gaining momentum. NVidia wants to push it's own game bundle. No surprise there. Copying the concept from AMD to continue competition, and react to the current situation. AMD is pushing AMD Mantle (can be used by both AMD and NVidia), TrueAudio, DX11.2 Support, PCIe CrossfireX through the PCIe Bus, and the buzz about the RX9-290 possibly outperforming GTX Titan. It seems like AMD lit a match under NVidia's foot besides Microsoft. Now, NVidia is reacting...

If this niche is proprietary, nobody is going to buy it unless the 3rd party benchers like Techpowerup.com, Anandtech.com, and others glorify it. Otherwise, I see this as an unnecessary, supplemental feature that's cause the NVidia Base Consumers to purchase more NVidia products for outrages prices with very little improvements...

 

[MuhammedAbdo]

NVIDIA will allow people to purchase the G-Sync module , and install it by modding their monitors , you don't actually have to buy a new monitor at all !

Alternatively, if you’re a dab hand with a Philips screwdriver, you can purchase the kit itself and mod an ASUS VG248QE monitor at home. This is of course the cheaper option, and you’ll still receive a 1-year warranty on the G-SYNC module, though this obviously won’t cover modding accidents that are a result of your own doing. A complete installation instruction manual will be available to view online when the module becomes available, giving you a good idea of the skill level required for the DIY solution; assuming proficiency with modding, our technical gurus believe installation should take approximately 30 minutes.

If you prefer to simply buy a monitor off the shelf from a retailer or e-tailer, NVIDIA G-SYNC monitors developed and manufactured by monitor OEMs will be available for sale next year. These monitors will range in size and resolution, scaling all the way up to deluxe 3840x2160 “4K” models, resulting in the ultimate combination of image quality, image smoothness, and input responsiveness.

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/ar...evolutionary-ultra-smooth-stutter-free-gaming

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Unless it is GPU manufacturer neutral and standardized, it's a gimmick just like the rest. If NVIDIA was serious about improving monitor tech, it would create a forum so all manufactures can implement it (even if there is a reasonable licensing fee involved).

 

[MuhammedAbdo]

I can only see G-Sync being useful or desired by consumers if it did the following:

1. Increased Frame Rate Performance. If this gimmick actually increased your FPS. As if there was some form of loss or leakage in performance, and G-Sync prevented that from happening. Instead of actually getting 60 FPS on Tomb Raider with maxed out graphics settings, you're only getting 32 FPS. G-Sync would push it closer to 60 FPS.

To imply that NVidia users need a hardware component in the monitor to improve video fidelity, also implies that NVidia cards still suffer from their own form of micro stutters and screen tearing.

Sadly, in my opinion, I think this is the only innovative niche NVidia could come up with in such a short period of time. Especially when the spot-light just got wider, and it was placed on AMD since RX9 series, Consoles, and AMD Mantle have been the top buzz in the news as of late. AMD is gaining momentum. NVidia wants to push it's own game bundle. No surprise there. Copying the concept from AMD to continue competition, and react to the current situation. AMD is pushing AMD Mantle (can be used by both AMD and NVidia), TrueAudio, DX11.2 Support, PCIe CrossfireX through the PCIe Bus, and the buzz about the RX9-290 possibly outperforming GTX Titan. It seems like AMD lit a match under NVidia's foot besides Microsoft. Now, NVidia is reacting...

Seriously , AMD is the one suffering from a colossal crap load of dropped frames, tearing, frame interleaving and micro-stuttering in their CF systems , that's why they are trying to mitigate the issue with CF over PCIe.

TrueAudio doesn't mean squat , and R290X is not really the answer to Titan at all , you will see that when the review comes about.The only real advantage for AMD now is Mantle, but it remains to be seen whether they will really get it to shine or not .

On the other hand, NVIDIA always has been the brute force of advancement in the PC space, AMD just plays catch up, and today's announcements just cements that idea.

NVIDIA was the first to introduce the GPU, SLi, Frame Pacing (FCAT) , GPU Boost ,Adaptive V.Sync, first to reach unified shader architecture on PCs, first with GPGPU , CUDA , PhysX , Optix (for real time ray tracing) , first with 3D gaming (3D Vision) . first with Optimus for mobile flexibility , first with Geforce Experience program , SLi profiles , shadow play (for recording) and game streaming .

They had better support with CSAA , FXAA , TXAA , driver side Ambient Occlusion and HBAO+ , TWIMTP program , better Linux , OpenGL support, .. and now G.Sync! all of these innovations are sustained and built upon to this day.

And even when AMD beat them to a certain invention , like Eyefinity , NVIDIA didn't stop until they topped it with more features , so they answered with Surround , then did 3D Surround and now 4k Surround.

NVIDIA was at the forefront in developing all of these technologies and they continue to sustain and expand them till now , AMD just follows suit , they fight back with stuff that they don't really sustain so they end up forgotten and abandoned ,even generating more trouble than they worth. Just look at the pathetic state of their own Eyefinity and all of it's CF frame problems.

In short AMD is the one feeling the heat, NOT NVIDIA, heck NVIDIA now fights two generations of AMD cards with only one generation of their own, Fermi held off HD 5870 and 6970 , Kepler held off 7970 and x290 ! and who knows about Maxwell !

 

[RejZoR]

Desperate AMD fanboys likes AMD's "exclusive" features onscreen tearing, stuttering and lag.



Today local pharmacy closed earlier. Did you attacked them because they are selling useless, proprietary and gimmicky pharmacy companies drugs?



Mantle won't work on Nvidia. Why it's not useless?

You can't compare awesome Mantle with useless G-Sync. Besides, isn't Adaptive V-Sync suppose to solve all the image tearing problems? I guess it wasn't as wonderful after all if they need to design some crappy special monitor to counter that...

 

[MuhammedAbdo]

It's funny when the greatest minds of game development speak highly of G.Sync and it's application, while AMD fanboys try to shoot it down on the basis of nothing but their ignorance!

 

[The Von Matrices]

I can only see G-Sync being useful or desired by consumers if it did the following:

1. Increased Frame Rate Performance. If this gimmick actually increased your FPS. As if there was some form of loss or leakage in performance, and G-Sync prevented that from happening. Instead of actually getting 60 FPS on Tomb Raider with maxed out graphics settings, you're only getting 32 FPS. G-Sync would push it closer to 60 FPS.

To imply that NVidia users need a hardware component in the monitor to improve video fidelity, also implies that NVidia cards still suffer from their own form of micro stutters and screen tearing.

I want to clarify what G-Sync is and why it is different than other technologies other posters have presented.

G-Sync is meant to be used in conjunction with frame pacing; both solve different problems. G-Sync has nothing to do with NVidia specific issue; it is one faced by any output with a fixed refresh rate. Monitors currently only draw whole frames at a fixed interval. Therefore, if your framerate output by your video card is lower than your monitor's refresh rate, then you will have some frames duplicated and others not resulting in judder.

Let me explain the difference, using an example where you are displaying a game at 45fps on a 60Hz monitor. This should be helpful to anyone who is confused about the purpose of G-Sync. Let's use a small portion of this scenario (1/15 second or 4 60Hz frames)


Scenario 1 has no frame pacing or G-Sync:

2ms - Frame 1 is written to the video buffer
4ms - Frame 2 is written to the video buffer
16.7ms - Frame 2 is displayed on the monitor since it is the most recent frame
33.4ms - Frame 2 is displayed on the monitor again since it is still the most recent frame
35ms - Frame 3 is written to the video buffer
50ms - Frame 3 is displayed on the monitor since it is the most recent frame
66.7ms - Frame 3 is displayed on the monitor again since it is still the most recent frame

In Scenario 1, the effective frame rate is 30fps since only two distinct frames were displayed by the monitor. The frames were displayed for identical periods of time, so the framerate appears smooth.


Scenario 2 has frame pacing but no G-Sync:

2ms - Frame 1 is written to the video buffer
4ms - Frame 2 is written to the video buffer
16.7ms - Frame 1 is displayed on the monitor since it is the oldest frame in the video buffer
33.4ms - Frame 2 is displayed on the monitor since it is the oldest frame in the video buffer that is still newer than Frame 1, and Frame 1 is deleted from the video buffer
35ms - Frame 3 is written to the video buffer
50ms - Frame 3 is displayed on the monitor since it is the oldest frame in the video buffer that is still newer than Frame 2, and Frame 2 is deleted from the video buffer
66.7ms - Frame 3 is displayed on the monitor again since no newer frames are available

In Scenario 2, the effective frame rate is 45fps since three distinct frames were displayed by the monitor. However, the third frame was displayed for twice as long as either of the first two, so judder is experienced.


Scenario 3 has frame pacing and G-Sync:

0ms - G-sync realizes that the graphics card is generating frames at an average of 45fps and adjust's the monitor's refresh rate to 45Hz
2ms - Frame 1 is written to the video buffer
4ms - Frame 2 is written to the video buffer
22.2ms - Frame 1 is displayed on the monitor since it is the oldest frame in the video buffer
44.4ms - Frame 2 is displayed on the monitor since it is the oldest frame in the video buffer that is still newer than Frame 1, and Frame 1 is deleted from the video buffer
35ms - Frame 3 is written to the video buffer
66.6ms - Frame 3 is displayed on the monitor since it is the oldest frame in the video buffer that is still newer than Frame 2, and Frame 2 is deleted from the video buffer

In Scenario 3, the effective frame rate is 45fps since three distinct frames were displayed by the monitor. In addition, all three frames were displayed for equal amounts of time, so no judder is experienced.


The whole point of this is to have a variable refresh rate on the monitor. Standard frame pacing can't adjust the monitor's refresh rate; it only helps to make sure that all the frames generated by the graphics card are displayed. Nothing currently can remove all judder when the frame rate is different the monitor's refresh rate. This is what G-Sync aims to solve

G-Sync won't improve frame rate, but it will make lower frame rates look better. This is something that cannot be solved with frame pacing alone.

Adaptive V-Sync suppose to solve all the image tearing problems? I guess it wasn't as wonderful after all if they need to design some crappy special monitor to counter that...

Adaptive V-sync was meant to reduce the performance impact of V-sync; it doesn't change anything visually. The idea behind Adaptive V-sync is that if your monitor's refersh rate is higher than the frame rate output of your graphics card at any given time, then V-sync does nothing and the extra computational power required by V-sync is wasted. Adaptive V-sync turns off V-sync in this situation thus resulting in extra performance when the frame rate is low.

See http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/adaptive-vsync/technology

 

[Solidstate89]

You can't compare awesome Mantle with useless G-Sync. Besides, isn't Adaptive V-Sync suppose to solve all the image tearing problems? I guess it wasn't as wonderful after all if they need to design some crappy special monitor to counter that...

You clearly have no idea what the point of Adaptive V-sync is. It's to keep your frame rate from reducing to 30 if it ever drops below 60 (which is what it does, intervals of 30). Basically it was a way to get the best of both worlds.

 

[NeoXF]

LOL, hypocrisy at it's finest level, nVidia saying PC gaming is awesome this and that... then releasing sum'more proprietary crapware to fragment it even further.

Jesus, I kinda wish Intel did pursue that dGPU thing... 3 GPU players = pretty much no one affording to fragment an already mother-less and scattered segment of modern video gaming...


AMD might not be perfect, but at least they are more open-minded and aware that walled-garden features aren't the future... They're the Linux of computer hardware...

Give me SteamOS/Mint + OGL w/ good driver support & a low-level API and I'm game.

 

[SoundChaos]

I have been waiting for this feature in a monitor for years now, tearing and stuttering have always annoyed me more than overall FPS / Picture quality. If this really can fix these issues, I would pay just about anything to get it.

In regards to some other posts, this can not be done with a firmware upgrade for monitors, and no current videocard/monitor combination is free from the terrors of constant or even occasional micro stuttering / tearing... Some people's eyes seem to be less sensitive to it though.

Cant wait for a test drive, but it will make me sad to have to trade off my crossfire 7950 setup..

 

[The Von Matrices]

LOL, hypocrisy at it's finest level, nVidia saying PC gaming is awesome this and that... then releasing sum'more proprietary crapware to fragment it even further.

Can we at least let NVidia confirm that it's proprietary before you complain? The only thing announced was that it was running on NVidia hardware and an NVidia display controller. NVidia said nothing about disallowing other manufacturers from producing control boards.

 

[NeoXF]

Mantle won't work on Nvidia. Why it's not useless?

Please link me to where it says it won't, cause I'm reaaaaaly curious just from where the BS spring blows. And even if it wouldn't, AMD is in the position to slipstream DX11 HLSL port pretty much every multi-platform game coming out in the next half-decade or so, so having 75% chance that, after a certain point, multi-platform next-generation games can and will be written in Mantle pretty much cements them into API relevancy, w/ or w/o a leading share in the market.

Can we at least let NVidia confirm that it's proprietary before you complain? The only thing announced was that it was running on NVidia hardware and an NVidia display controller. NVidia said nothing about disallowing other manufacturers from producing control boards.

Name one nVidia branded tech that ISN'T proprietary.

 

[The Von Matrices]

Name one nVidia branded tech that ISN'T proprietary.

There's no point in debating an assumption. I'm going to wait to hear more before I make any conclusions.

 

[GC_PaNzerFIN]

You know what this means...

good bye SLi microstuttering. Give me naooo

I can't believe you guys are calling this useless.

Guru3D - NVIDIA G-SYNC Overview - Shaky Cam Voice ...

 

[NeoXF]

There's no point in debating an assumption. I'm going to wait to hear more before I make any conclusions.

Fair enough.

You know what this means...

good bye SLi microstuttering. Give me naooo

I can't believe you guys are calling this useless.

Guru3D - NVIDIA G-SYNC Overview - Shaky Cam Voice ...

Not useless, but walled garden gaming isn't my idea of PC gaming... or entertainment, in general... Also it's very very debatable of how effective or easy-to-implement this will actually be (yay, from the really small number of choices for gaming displays, now we'll get an even smaller palette!). If TXAA, 3D Vision or PhysX are things to go by... it will be a stillborn horse that nVidia (with it's massive budget) will still be beating on for years and years, even after it's basically just a pile of bones.

 

[acerace]

Like always, hate fest! Why am I not surprise? Typical..

 

[Xzibit]

Another question is...

With the current Asus VG248QE going for as low as $249-$269. Is the $130+ mark-up on G-Sync ($399) worth it.
or
Are you better off saving it for a second monitor since its 50% of the price.

Will it be a set price or scale with screen size $$$$

 

[kn00tcn]

as a red team guy, the hatred in this thread is ridiculous (on a related note, amd setting up a 290x demo across the street from nv's event made me uneasy)

name non proprietary nv tech? someone was blind on a videocardz thread as well, physx on the cpu is multiplatform & in many games+consoles! the new FCAT method runs anywhere, FXAA (although i want to say that's one guy), how about helping devs add DX10 or 11 support? not all nv sponsored titles have locks on them, amd has done the same in helping codemasters games be good looking & efficient

sure GPU physx & cuda are very annoying, not doubting that, it's not 'good guy nvidia', but many things start out proprietary to show that they work

we should be pressuring VESA/displayport/hdmi for an adaptive refresh technique like this

i dont get why nv doesnt license things out so that everyone can enjoy instead of locking down to only their platform (look at bluray, it's standard, just a royalty is paid, it's not locked to sony products)

just cuz we didnt hit a perfect or open world doesnt mean we should destroy it, this is still better than deciding between matrox+rendition+3dfx+whoever else all at once if you want to play various games in the 90s

 

[anonymous6366]

I'm skeptical, I would like to sit down and play some games with this to see if I can actually tell a difference

 

[haswrong]

instead of braving the 60+ fps, they aim for 30fps@30Hz hahahahahaha

I'm skeptical, I would like to sit down and play some games with this to see if I can actually tell a difference

well, dont try that with a crt monitor or you end up in epileptical convulsion in no time