Tom's Hardware Readers Pit G-Sync Vs FreeSync In Weekend Battle

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
My problem with these technologies is how our brain adapts. In the end the most popular technology will look better subjectively despite how it stands objectively, if they are dissimilar enough to each other.

I remember a few years ago pushing the limits of my computer and having a game running at 12 to 17 fps, which got used to and did not see a slide show.
 
How about this: why do we need refresh rates and vertical syncing anymore? These are just carry-overs from when we were using display technologies that actually needed to refresh.

LCDs, OLEDs, quantum dots, these all no longer need to refresh. We should be able to just directly change the pixel rather as fast as its response time allows rather than just waiting on some "synching" and redraw the whole thing. We should just get rid of the concept of refreshing in monitors. It would make G-Sync and Freesync a moot point.
 
Sorry @quilciri and @xaephod. I tried to make the headline in such a way that you wouldn't think it was the results. I guess I failed in that. Next time I'll put "(These are not the results)" in the headline 🙂
 
I'd like to know if there is any kind of objective test to see how well freesync/gsync are actually working. For instance, someone may think the FPS is better or worse but a quick fraps test will tell the real story. How do I get a hard nosed, objective, "just the facts, ma'am" handle on the (supposedly) varying refresh rate of my monitor?
 
How about this: why do we need refresh rates and vertical syncing anymore? These are just carry-overs from when we were using display technologies that actually needed to refresh.

LCDs, OLEDs, quantum dots, these all no longer need to refresh. We should be able to just directly change the pixel rather as fast as its response time allows rather than just waiting on some "synching" and redraw the whole thing. We should just get rid of the concept of refreshing in monitors. It would make G-Sync and Freesync a moot point.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting idea. If the pixels just continuously refreshed as fast their response time, say 5ms which is common, it would be a 200Hz refresh rate. There must be a reason why this isn't done but I don't have an answer. Unless companies deliberately throttle monitors in order to sell "faster" ones for more... 😉
 
I'd like to know if there is any kind of objective test to see how well freesync/gsync are actually working. For instance, someone may think the FPS is better or worse but a quick fraps test will tell the real story. How do I get a hard nosed, objective, "just the facts, ma'am" handle on the (supposedly) varying refresh rate of my monitor?
Click to expand...

if its just which monitors are better, right now gsync has the edge, but when you compare good to good, freesync has it because better framerates and cheaper price point

Running at 144hz? Isn't the MG279Q only FreeSync up to 90hz?
Click to expand...

if you are pushing a game to 144hz, and are consistently over, free sync does not help you much if i remember correctly, but for games where you are running it at 90 frames here and it dips to 40-50 here and there, thats where it helps you the most.

granted i may have the point you are making wrong.
 


it seems the point of the coming articles will be that folks did not know what they were playing on. this is as close to "objective" subjectiveness it can come to. WAY too many people are so brand biased that simply knowing what they are on is all they need to form an opinion. actual fps and such won't matter at all to these people so long as they already know it's one company or another. they automatically say anything by ______ will suck or by ________ will be awesome and will be tainted before any actual testing gets done. setting it up like a double blind medical test is about as good as it can be to get honest opinions about how it affects the gaming. i'd like to read this type of article more than anything to see how people feel the technology actual enhances or hurts the gameplay. how many people can truly tell the difference between 60 fps and 100 fps without fraps telling them there is a difference? i'll bet in a blind test many players will not be able to tell the difference. i'm sure many will come on here and swear they can tell and all that up, but up against a blind test i'd love to check their fps sensitivity some :)

it's sad but true how horribly biased most folks are. you only have to spend 5 minutes on any tech forum to see 100 examples of this any day.
 
How about this: why do we need refresh rates and vertical syncing anymore? These are just carry-overs from when we were using display technologies that actually needed to refresh.

LCDs, OLEDs, quantum dots, these all no longer need to refresh. We should be able to just directly change the pixel rather as fast as its response time allows rather than just waiting on some "synching" and redraw the whole thing. We should just get rid of the concept of refreshing in monitors. It would make G-Sync and Freesync a moot point.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting idea. If the pixels just continuously refreshed as fast their response time, say 5ms which is common, it would be a 200Hz refresh rate. There must be a reason why this isn't done but I don't have an answer. Unless companies deliberately throttle monitors in order to sell "faster" ones for more... 😉
Click to expand...

I'm just guessing but I imagine it is the same problem you would have with or without V-sync. When V-sync is turned off you can get screen tearing because different parts of the screen show the moving image at different points in time, some new and some older. If individual pixels could update on their own it might introduce artifacts. Also, because the video card sends a frame at a time to the monitor once it is rendered, it would seem to make most sense to have the screen "refresh" any changes between individual pixel states after the monitor receives the new frame. But as I say, I'm just guessing here! :)
 
i think you are pretty close. to change each pixel would be to change how the card works. don't know if/how it would be implemented but right now the card draws a whole frame and send it out. to independently change pixel by pixel at different rates seems like it would tax the gpu more than to simply draw whole frames real fast. i can't imagine how much it would take to program all the pixels in a 4k screen to change independently. just seems like a lot (i know very scientific terms) more work that it does now. maybe it's possible, maybe not....
 
Xenol,
As said by "darrough" you can't just refresh any time you want with a normal monitor or you get screen tear as the frame buffer is updated during sync times thus the need to update the buffer PRIOR to updating the screen (refresh).

And EVERY monitor needs to refresh the screen and always will. Refresh just means the screen is changing the color of the pixels.

You really need to do more reading because clearly you do not understand the technology. NOTHING will make asynchronous technology a moot point. The only way to get rid of refreshing the screen is to have the SAME image displayed at all times which makes gaming problematic.

Lower response times (pixel time to change color) is what you want but that simply helps avoid ghosting/blurring
 
Xenol,
As I read your comment again I think I see where you got confused... you can't update individual pixels very easily. How would that work on the GPU side? In gaming for example the game is going to create an entire FRAME at once. So for a GSYNC/FREESYNC monitor it creates a new frame, then after a very short period the screen is updated.

So refreshing will ALWAYS be with us (even if you address only a portion of the pixels).

The main challenge for asynchronous now is to address ghosting/blurring better with reduced response time and/or light strobing as well as improve how the technology works at the low and high end of the range (such as locking a game to a specific frame rate whilst still using asynchronous). Some is the GSYNC module (FreeSync is more limited) and some is the panel technology.
 


it seems the point of the coming articles will be that folks did not know what they were playing on. this is as close to "objective" subjectiveness it can come to. WAY too many people are so brand biased that simply knowing what they are on is all they need to form an opinion. actual fps and such won't matter at all to these people so long as they already know it's one company or another. they automatically say anything by ______ will suck or by ________ will be awesome and will be tainted before any actual testing gets done. setting it up like a double blind medical test is about as good as it can be to get honest opinions about how it affects the gaming. i'd like to read this type of article more than anything to see how people feel the technology actual enhances or hurts the gameplay. how many people can truly tell the difference between 60 fps and 100 fps without fraps telling them there is a difference? i'll bet in a blind test many players will not be able to tell the difference. i'm sure many will come on here and swear they can tell and all that up, but up against a blind test i'd love to check their fps sensitivity some :)

it's sad but true how horribly biased most folks are. you only have to spend 5 minutes on any tech forum to see 100 examples of this any day.
Click to expand...

I upvoted this reply because it's the most accurate thing I've read on THW in quite some time with regards to human nature. I do want to say this though: the fraps results for each of those rigs should accompany the full article. That will ensure that we get a better understanding of the fundamental differences in the technology and how it impacts on the user experience in terms of numbers.
 
Xenol,
As I read your comment again I think I see where you got confused... you can't update individual pixels very easily. How would that work on the GPU side? In gaming for example the game is going to create an entire FRAME at once. So for a GSYNC/FREESYNC monitor it creates a new frame, then after a very short period the screen is updated.

So refreshing will ALWAYS be with us (even if you address only a portion of the pixels).

The main challenge for asynchronous now is to address ghosting/blurring better with reduced response time and/or light strobing as well as improve how the technology works at the low and high end of the range (such as locking a game to a specific frame rate whilst still using asynchronous). Some is the GSYNC module (FreeSync is more limited) and some is the panel technology.
Click to expand...

New technology, brokered by a GPU co-processor: Change Pixel Tracking (CPT)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom