JustAnEngineer wrote:MadManOriginal said exactly that in the post to which I responded.
derFunkenstein wrote:I would also love a 24" 1440p monitor, G-Sync or not. Though with, preferably.
Diplomacy42 wrote:This doesn't seem like the type of thing you should adopt early anyway, in a few years...
DeadOfKnight wrote:I'm one of those that turns v-sync on because tearing really bugs the crap out of me even more than lag and FPS jumping around, so maybe I'm an odd case
Chrispy_ wrote:This is arguably why flicker-free monitors required at least 72Hz.
I couldn't see flashing on a 60hz CRT. Still can't, in fact; I have one hooked up to my newly-built Linux gateway -- an old IBM Aptiva CRT monitor. I *could* tell you, in a game, approximately what the MaxFPS was set to, with the display set to 120Hz refresh, though; we tested that quite thoroughly. I guess my eyes are tuned for high sensitivity to fast motion with no sensitivity to flicker.Airmantharp wrote:But you're right, though I needed at least 85Hz on CRTs to eliminate 'flashing'. I could readily tell you if a CRT was running at 60Hz, 75Hz, or 85Hz- and I could still see improvements at 100Hz and 120Hz. Good fun.
I'm not all that thankful for it. Strobing does resolve the problem, though.Airmantharp wrote:Thankfully, LCDs present an image that doesn't have to constantly 'refresh'.
That was mostly folks in the comment thread, not in here, but it bears spreading the word. G-Sync requires custom logic inside the monitor and I wouldn't put it past NVIDIA to check some kind of vendor ID in the GPU.PC Perspective wrote:This technology will be available soon on Kepler-based GeForce graphics cards but will require a monitor with support for G-Sync; not just any display will work. The first launch monitor is a variation on the very popular 144 Hz ASUS VG248QE 1920x1080 display and as we saw with 3D Vision, supporting G-Sync will require licensing and hardware changes. In fact, NVIDIA claims that the new logic inside the panels controller is NVIDIA's own design - so you can obviously expect this to only function with NVIDIA GPUs.
auxy wrote:To be on topic, I can't really get excited about Gsync. Unless I'm totally wrong and the improvement in fluid motion and CLEAR motion is better than that from Lightboost, the exclusivity between Gsync and Lightboost means I'm always going to choose the latter.
You are -- I can't -- this is ridiculous. If you said this to my face, I would jump so I could reach and knock you outbop your nose with a squeaky mallet. You might as well have just said "Nightvision is a cool theoretical but barely relevant feature to modern warfare." No, it's a huge advantage, and so is Lightboost. ヽ(｀Д´#)ﾉChrispy_ wrote:Strobing backlights are great, but they only fix the sample-and-hold motion blur. Even a "slow" 6ms panel exhibits less visible ghosting than the 1-frame blur of sample-and-hold.
If we were still playing fast platform scrollers like Sonic the Hedgehog all day, this would be essential, but most games actually intentionally blur movement for "realism" because this is how our eyes work, making strobes a nice theoretical but barely relevant feature to modern gaming.
auxy wrote:RAAAAAAaaaaaaaggggggeeChrispy_ wrote:Strobing backlights are great, but they only fix the sample-and-hold motion blur
auxy wrote:...it bears spreading the word. G-Sync requires custom logic inside the monitor and I wouldn't put it past NVIDIA to check some kind of vendor ID in the GPU.
Of course that's all they fix. That's the blur. Once you fix that, combined with the 1ms response time of the display, there isn't any blur anymore. It's perfect, smooth motion, like that captured by a high-speed camera.Chrispy_ wrote:Seriously. Show me the bit where (after you had a ragefit) you found and posted a factual link to show that strobing backlights do anything other than fix sample-and-hold blur.
Objects that are static relative to your focal point DO often get blurred in games by "motion blur" effects, even though this is wrong. See Mirror's Edge, Lost Planet, Saint's Row, Dead Space.Chrispy_ wrote:Also your fundamental reasoning behind motion blur is completely wrong; motion blur effects in games do not blur moving objects that are static relative to your focal point. It seems you don't really understand how human vision works.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests