AMD : FreeSync Monitors Shipping in December – Will Cost $100 Less Than Nvidia G-Sync

[Trentonater]

Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

Trentonater said:

Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

I honestly think that neither of these technologies will persuade most PC gamers to get one or the other cause I feel like that more people are waiting for better 4k ready monitors rather than 1080p monitors with hardware level V-sync enabled. I know that in-game V-sync as well as "adaptive" V-sync isn't always perfect but I really don't think that most people care enough to dish out a few hundred dollars just so they can have better V-sync where as they can spend a few hundred dollars and get a 4k ready monitor and just continue to use software V-sync

And I get that its also available for 4k monitors but 4k monitors are quite expensive as it is so spending more just for a better V-sync option still doesn't seem like it will take off just yet but hopefully in the future, it will

You would be wrong. Gamers in general don't care about 4K because they are just paying a whole lot for crappy monitors with brute-force AA. You are paying more for something so could get for free with AA and probobly don't have the graphical power required to run in the first place. You end up playing at a lower resolution with upscaling so everything actually looks worse. 4K is going to go the way of 3D not 1080p.

G-sync is marketed towards gamers and all gamers care about is higher refresh rates and faster response times. That is why most G-sync monitors are the the 144Hz ones. Gamers also stay away from V-sync in general. They would rather take screen-tearing.

Umm... I highly doubt 4k is going to be a gimmick like 3d was considering how virtually every company is pushing 4k... Sure, our GPU's aren't quite there yet but it will be soon enough just like how our GPU's werent there when 1080p was a brand new thing and 4k does eliminate almost any need for AA because the pixcel density is quite high and I am pretty sure more people would prefer that over AA anyday if given the choice.

I also highly doubt gamers would prefer screen-tearing over V-sync. I know V-Sync is far from perfect which is why technologies like this are being built to combat it in the future but for the people that don't have a G-Sync/FreeSync monitor, the amount of immersion breaking mess that screen-tearing can create, I am sure will be enough to turn on V-sync for most gamers. But of course, that is very game/specs dependent. If you played Mirrors Edge with a 970 with Vsync off, you are in for one terrible ride as an example

3D was also heavily pushed by all companies riding off of the the Avatar hype. It caused more trouble than it improved though. 4K like 3D is suffering from the same issues. Lack of availible content, high pay wall, and inconvenience. 4K suffers huge scaling issues like 3d has brightness and headache issues. 4K also suffers from the law of diminishing returns. There is just no noticable increase in quality in most situation. 4K is only really needed with projectors. it is nowhere near the increase of 480p to 1080 as that also brought an entirely different viewing experience with different display sizes. 4k is just 1080p but better. There is very little mainstreme consumer interest in 4k. They can only get fooled by advertising for so long. 1080p was so successful because it was so noticable. Just look at how much more attention the ASUS ROG Swift got than the similarly priced Acer XB280HK.

A gamer can just eliminate all jaggies with a very cheap AA method with next to no performance cost. They can also go for more intense AA that will increase overall picture quality for a performance cost that is STILL less than 4K.

 

Yes V-sync off has been the choice for any competetive gamer.  Input lag has long been a dealbreaker for gamers. That is why tournaments use CRTs.