VSync Pros and Cons and Types

[DukiNuki]

Hey guys

Few questions

1.When Vsync is turned on it helps reduce GPU load and noise and also removes tearing . then why on earth some people complain about few mili second delay it causes ? i have been gaming on 48Hz Monitor and then tried 60Hz monitor , tried Vsync on and off . my gameplay and skills are intact . and Vsync part is really unnoticeable . so i'm asking you guys . is Vsync Input lag something noticeable or people are just being extra super picky ?

2.I hear about fast sync G Sync and lots of other syncs . how many are there and what are the differences ? what do you need for each one to work ? Ill soon own a GTX 1080 and will be using it with 1080p Monitor at 60hz . and probably Probablyyy will upgrade the monitor to 120mhz in the future ( in case it helps knowing )

 

[bystander]

1) Using a 60hz monitor, and using V-sync can introduce about 17ms latency. That latency, when using a mouse for looking around, can make a game feel sluggish. It can also make some people feel nauseated/motion sick. There are others who simply feel it gives them a competitive advantage (or disadvantage to use v-sync). I personally can feel a bit of nausea at less than 80 FPS.

2) Given your thoughts, you probably do not need a GTX 1080 for 1080p 60hz gaming. That's simply over kill.

Various options are as follow:
1) Using a high refresh rate such as 120hz or higher, makes tearing nearly unnoticeable to most, as well as reduce latency further. This is a good option for those with a desire for low latency by not using v-sync at all.
2) V-sync makes it so all frames are displayed only when the monitor refreshes at a constant interval making the refresh rate. 60hz means every 16.7ms between frames being sent to the monitor. If you fail to meet your refresh rate, you'll have inconsistent frame times that jump between 16.7ms and 33.3ms. That can feel like stutter. With triple buffering, your frames are delayed until the GPU has created 2 complete frames before it displays the oldest one, with double buffering, if you fail to reach your refresh rate, you can get stuck at half your refresh rate for your FPS.
3) Adaptive V-sync/Dynamic V-sync turns on V-sync when you meet your refresh rate, and turns it off when you don't. Using them at half refresh rate or any other target FPS, will turn it on or off at that target instead.
4) Fast Sync is new for Nvidia only. This creates triple buffering, to allow the GPU to keep rendering frames, rather than having to wait until the frame is displayed before making a new one, and unlike triple buffering and normal V-sync, it won't force the GPU to show the oldest complete frame, and allow the GPU to keep making new frames even if you have 2 completed frames. It will throw away the oldest frame and only show the newest ones (unlike normal). The downside is it causes stuttering, especially at lower FPS. It's meant for CS:GO players who play at 300 FPS.
5) adaptive synce (G-sync/Freesync) changes everything. Rather than refreshing the image at a constant pace, the monitor will update the image when the GPU finishes a frame. This means that when the GPU finishes a frame, it's displayed with no stuttering caused from waiting.

You sound like someone who should be using a GTX 1060/Rx 480 at the most. Anything more is for higher resolutions and/or refresh rates. You could buy one of those, and put the money saved towards a G-sync or Freesync monitor (G-sync is for Nvidia, Freesync is for AMD).

 

[amtseung]

Vanilla vsync doesn't work particularly well if anything drops below 60fps. Or actually, more like 120fps for a 60hz monitor. It stutters like mad. The best hybrid solution is to use adaptive vsync: on when it's over 60fps (assuming 60hz), off when it's under. Input lag tends to be an issues for people with really fast response times in games that require really fast response times, like every FPS game ever, and in most MOBAs.

Considering most gaming PC's of today have a more powerful GPU and less powerful CPU, does one really need to lower the GPU load?

Gsync is meh, requires you to pay a hefty premium for a Gsync-specific monitor. Freesync was supposed to be open source and available for all, but ended up being an AMD thing. Whether you want to pay that hefty premium (often times in excess of an extra 50% for otherwise identical stats) is entirely up to you. Personally, I'd pick a 120hz or 144hz monitor and skip either proprietary sync technology.

What it comes down to is how many frames per second you're getting in game. If it's consistently a high number (like 200+) then use fast sync if available to you, use adaptive vsync, or just turn vsync off altogether. If the games you're playing have wildly fluctuating framerates, then use adaptive vsync, or just turn it off altogether.

You have to ask yourself: Do you want to trade screen tearing for input lag, or input lag for screen tearing?

 

[DukiNuki]

i'm afraid to go near 120hz monitor because i feel if i get used to it then 60FPS might turn into 30fps for me . you know what i mean ? i never used one so i'm considering its downsides . not all games will run at 120 fps . and im just a bit afraid that it will set new standards . thanks a lot for the detailed answers .

So the best option is to consider 120hz monitor . what if tearing is really noticeable and annoying and i also don't wanna deal with long delays ? triple buffer wont help right ? i also cant pay for expensive monitors with techs you mentioned

 

[amtseung]

You'd be surprised. I dug around Newegg for a bit out of curiosity, and found that only Gsync monitors tend to carry a hefty price premium.

60fps turning into 30fps? What sorcery is this? Jokes aside, I understand what you mean. This happens to just about everyone who tries a 144hz monitor, then goes home to their "mediocre" 60hz panel. Including me. I just really, really don't want to pay for a 144hz monitor.

If you do get a 120hz monitor, I still think the best average solution that does nothing particularly well would be to still run adaptive vsync. If you're playing something like Overwatch or CS:GO or LOL or something, and you can get like 300fps, fast sync would probably be better. Assuming you have an Nvidia GPU. Triple buffer will help, actually, as long as your fps is high enough.

Check out this video for more information on what I'm talking about. Super informative, pretty easy to understand. This guy has a couple videos on input lag comparisons between the different syncs except freesync. Give it a watch.

 

[Isokolon]

Personally Im not very picky. I cant even see tearing most of the time.
But V-Sync is a real pain for me. It's alright if you play single player. But in multiplayer the delay between clicking and the thing happening on screen is noticeable putting you at a disadvantage. While this is less of a problem with game like lol or civ, it's a major issue with shooters, racers and sports games.

I haven't experienced freesync first hand but the standard is kinda messy. If you're buying a G-Sync screen you know what you're getting. With freesync especially on the lower end of price ranges you sometimes get freesync from 52-94Hz on a 144Hz screen. So it pays to really look at the data sheet of a screen before buying otherwise you sometimes get played by marketing divisions.

As for G-Sync, it's more expensive as it's a module inside the screen. This consequently means that your computer's performance is in no way influenced and the GPU can do what it does best - rendering frames - while the monitor has to adjust and manage the refresh rate on its own. This is the main difference between freesync and G-Sync --- freesync is basically software measuring your frame output and sending this information to the screen for it to adjust while G-Sync is a hardware module inside the screen that manages this.
Therefore G-Sync screens are more expensive as this module costs around 150-200$
But the added lag is barely noticeable.
Also G-Sync screens come with ULMB (ultra low motion blur) which is pretty neat.

Are these features worth it?
Maybe not. Probably not.
If you're a (semi-) professional gamer, yes they are.
If you're playing just for fun - probably not.
For the extra price tag you can get a 1070 instead of a 1060 for example.

If you got the cash lying around at home it certainly is a nice feature though.

 

[DukiNuki]

thanks alot man . guess its a great idea to get 120 . GSync is expensive and freeSync is for AMD . i don't think GTX 1080 will have trouble providing enough frames for 120hz monitor , anything between 60 - 120hz cant hurt the eyes . i mean its not like console where your locked with 30 forever .

 

[Isokolon]

A 1080 can run 1440p/144Hz pretty easily^^

 

[DukiNuki]

But if i get 1070 that will ruin the chance to get 2K in the future . guess i'll just stick with Vsync on for single players and off for Multiplayers . i'm just doing online gaming from time to time just for fun , guess ill be ok , until i get my hands on a 120hz . can't thank you guys enough for such detailed info . can't believe how anything about computer is kinda like Double Sided Spear .

 

[bystander]

Don't be afraid of 120hz or better. Yes, you'll get used to it fast, then 60hz will seem like a choppy mess, but if you play at 60 FPS for a week or 2, you'll forget about 120hz and get used to it again.

If you plan to buy a new monitor with this purchase, don't worry about 1440p. By the time you replace your monitor, you'll have a new GPU anyways. Do not plan to buy a monitor you are going to replace in a year or 2. Monitors are purchases you should buy to last 5+ years.

If you buy 1080p 120hz or better, a GTX 1070 is a good choice. If you step up to 1440p 120hz+ a GTX 1080 is better for you. If you stick to 1080p 60hz, a GTX 1060 6GB or Rx 480 8GB would be a better buy.

 

[DukiNuki]

great advice man thanks alot .