is g-sync worth the money?

>>59448918
No.

>>59448918
No.

>>59448918
No.

>>59448918
No.

>>59448918
Yes.

>>59448918

Let it be known henceforth, that on this 17th of March, 2017, by a vote of 4 nay and 1 aye, G-Sync is not worth it.

>>59448918
No.

The solution to the entire vsync problem is to make developers optimize their games properly. gsync is just going to give devs yet another lazy fucking hack workaround instead of forcing them to actually optimize their shit, and they just offload all the cost onto the consumer.

I can see it now
>"Oh, your game is choppy and shitty looking on perfectly adequate hardware? Do you not have a g-sync compatible monitor and card that costs only $1000 each? LOL, tough luck you poor loser, enjoy your frame skips"

>>59448918
Fuck no. FreeSync is a nice bonus. Paying $150 extra for a shitty monitor just for the GoySync module is one of the biggest scams going. Not to mention the crippling lack of inputs they have thanks to the limitations of said module.

>>59448918
No.

>>59449406
go back to /v/

If you care enough about a smooth image without screen tearing, then yes.

>>59449521
Just use vsync and programs that don't drop below 60FPS regularly (i.e. ones that aren't shit).

>>59449636
Every game will drop regularly.
60fps is shitty for movies.
If you don't have to worry about money, g-sync is superior.

File: Untitled.png (81KB, 1287x991px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1287x991px

It's better than no gsync so unless you're super poor just get a monitor with it, lol

I run my monitor at 120Hz and grab any frames I can when I can above 60FPS using gsync with my aging GTX 770. FreeSync is probably good enough, but I can't use it. I wouldn't have paid extra for gsync, I just got a good deal on a monitor that had it.

>>59449696
I'm sorry I scroted the wrong pane but it was just a pic to add to my post, the post's content isn't harmed by the wrong picture...

>>59449406
This

>Special proprietary hardware for something that should be taken care of already

Tbh the idea isn't terrible but if it's gonna be a thing it should be in every fucking monitor

>>59449696
>>59449720
>tripfag
>retard
>top goy

Not challenging any stereotypes, are you?

>>59449760
Not this.
The problem is not easily solveable.
It is much more retarded that monitors can't handle varying framerates.

No.

>>59448918
no

>>59449696
adaptive sync is free :)

>>59448918
If you've never experienced 100hz+, you're probably going to find that a lot more minbblowing than gsync but they both work in tandum to produce a quality display.

Either way, if you have the money to purchase a good resolution monitor with both gsync and high hertz; do it, you won't regret it, make sure you are getting a IPS panel as well.

Also consider that you will have your monitor forever and will not need to upgrade for decades - just look at how long VGA has been around.

>>59451049
>free to implement
>charges at least 50 more on each model that uses it, specifically because it uses it
it's just like the dp is better and also free fuck hdmi! meme...

do you own a Nvidia GPU? do you want adaptive sync?

if the answer to both these questions is yes then pay up, goy.

At least here, brick and mortar computer shops are dead (you can buy low end tablets and laptops in supermarkets though).

144Hz might be a casualty of this, how can you market something twice the price of the regular product that you can't show to people?

>>59449406
A nuanced and well argued opinion.

C'mon, man.

>>59448918

Gsync 1.0 is living on borrowed time. AMD just needs to release a competing high-end gaming GPU that BTFO's Nvidia's current line-up.

Nvidia will "release" Gsync 2.0 which is essentially green-flavored "Freesync" that is currently being used on their mobile GPU solutions.

We have seen this BS with SLI 1.0 (not 3dfx version) and Nvidia locked its support to their chipset platforms when Intel release chipset platforms and chips that shit over Nvidia's chipset division. Nvidia dropped their chipset division and "miraculously" added SLI support to third-party chipsets.

No.

File: fs.jpg (21KB, 397x193px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 397x193px

>goy sync
enjoy paying for overpriced shit

is FreeSync better then?

File: 8-inch-floppy.jpg (14KB, 430x319px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 430x319px

>>59448918
Depends on your budget I guess. Personally I only want to spend $300 on my monitor, and I'm not interested at all in 1080p. I buy a Korean 1440p unit or a used 4k unit or used 2560x1600 unit. Nothin in this price range has g-sync.

>>59448918
Nope
I have a G sync monitor
Doesn't feel any smother
I've turned it off and can't see any difference
144hz screens don't really get tearing anyways.

My 1440p 144hz dell was only $450 so it's not like G sync costed my any large amount of cash.

>>59452787
They're pretty much equal. You'd need a very high speed camera to even be able to tell the difference between an otherwise equivalent g sync and free sync monitor.