You are reading it right, however at 90+ Hz the G-sync will give other benefits aswell according to Carmack, he didn't specify it though.lacktheknack said:
Nvidia Ends Screen Tearing With G-Sync Display Technology
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
1080p on a 23" Eizo Foris [http://www.eizo.com/global/products/foris/fs2333/]. It's IPS, so better quality than standard TN displays, but with the 8ms response time I'd say is a bare minimum for gaming (fastest IPS I could find). I'm not sure if I would've been better off with a 120Hz TN screen with 2ms response or the like, but this one's great. One should hope so for the priceBoris Goodenough said:What resolution is it?KingsGambit said:It's also tragic that I just bought a top-end gaming widescreen monitor less than 6 months ago so couldn't justify upgrading to a G-Sync one any time soon. Plus my brand new gaming rig (as of Aug/Sept) has no issues with performance/tearing in anything I've tried so farWith V-Sync on and Triple-Buffering where available i have no issues in any game with everything at maximum settings (GTX 780 Classified).
Well, between this and 3D-Vision still being a thing, they just might get me to buy a better monitor. They'll have to tell me what the other benefits are, though, and they'll have to be reaaaaaal good.Boris Goodenough said:
There's no reason this tech can't or wouldn't be "backwards compatible". ie. Monitors with G-Sync would still work with cards that don't support it in the same way they do now. This isn't a "revolution" in PC gaming, but it is a solution to an old problem. On that basis alone I think it's a great idea.
You're misinformed. Triple buffering does indeed fix tearing. The whole idea of having three buffers is that you have enough for one being displayed, another ready to be displayed pending a vertical retrace, while the third can be freely drawn on. It really does give you the best of both worlds, and you only need to enable it.lacktheknack said:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2794/2
Yes, they most certainly could make use of it and ditch DirectX all together. Whether or not they will remains to be seen.Charcharo said:
I really hope they do, as forcing Microsoft out of the scene and quasi-standardizing PC hardware would do great things for the market, but there's plenty of reason for Nvidia to want to stay away from it (or even just make their own).
Then what the heck is Wikipedia going on about?Bad Jim said:
Lemme try this.
<disables V-Sync and Triple Buffering>
Result: barely noticeable screen tearing, physics animations run immensely quick.
<re-enables Triple Buffering>
Result: No change.
?????????
<re-enables V-Sync>
Result: Physics speeding and screen tearing are gone.
Well, this just raises way more questions than it answers.
This will be a feature like Nvidia light boost for 3D gaming, monitors can just come equipped with the technology, but they don't need to be used. I bought a asus monitor because it had a built in 3D IR emmiter and light boost technology so I could 3D game. It's just another little feature people can add to monitors, and this doesn't even seem like much of a chore to integrate into future products. Sounds easy enough to me that it'll just come with most gaming monitors, but it doesn't have to be used.
I just found out why.lacktheknack said:
"Enabling Triple Buffering for OpenGL-based games such as Doom 3, Quake 4, Prey or Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is very simple - go to your graphics card's control panel and enable it from there. However this won't work for enabling Triple Buffering in Direct3D-based games, which are the bulk of modern games. Instead, you will need to use a utility called Direct3D Overrider (D3DOverrider) which comes with free RivaTuner utility."
http://www.tweakguides.com/Graphics_10.html
I don't know why they make it so damn hard to use triple buffering, but that's how you do it.
You're telling me that the in-game option for triple buffering doesn't even work because the game uses Direct3D? And I have to use a completely different tool just to get it working?Bad Jim said:
DAMMIT MICROSOFT!
The idea is great but the execution is lacking. One, I already have a high end, IPS, 27" 2560x1440 monitor and I am not going to down grade for this type of thing.
If was something that could interface with any monitor that would be better, but I understand why that may not work.'
Two, I currently own an AMD card, so now I would have to buy two products, an Nvidia GPU and a new monitor. While I understand why this is Nvidia only, Nvidia is the king of great ideas killed by their proprietary nature, it just limits the market for this technology so much as to render it a non-starter in games.
If was something that could interface with any monitor that would be better, but I understand why that may not work.'
Two, I currently own an AMD card, so now I would have to buy two products, an Nvidia GPU and a new monitor. While I understand why this is Nvidia only, Nvidia is the king of great ideas killed by their proprietary nature, it just limits the market for this technology so much as to render it a non-starter in games.
If nVidia are smart, they'll lease it out to manufacturers for chump change to get it out there as something they can exploit over the long term to every any manufacturer. So long as they don't make it an over priced propriety technology like Apple and hobble it out the door way, this should be very good for nVidia.
Just keep the V-sync on and purge your monitors to best refresh rates they can handle (60 isnt the limit nowadays, bare minimum more like it) and you wont see any tearing and wont need any extra chips. Seriuosly, what exactly is the point of not having a v-sync? larger numbers you can boast about? there is no downsides to v-sync.