It's basically a monitor technology. Should be possible for other GPU vendors to support with minimal changes.This seems like a software feature (or at least not part of 3D arch)...will move thread.
Shouldn't it be "N-Sync"
This seems like a software feature (or at least not part of 3D arch)...will move thread.
While this is nice to have nVidia completely overhyped the impact of lag and stuttering with v-sync enabled. Those are problems in only a few games - i.e. online twitch shooters. For every other game scenario just turn on v-sync to fix tearing and you're golden.
Anyway, requiring the user to own specific monitors etc will just kill this idea completely dead, it will be a bigger gigafail than nvidia shield if that's the only way it can be made to work.
Why would you need high fps for this to work? It actually works better when the fps dips from the forced 30 or 60.A feature that will only work with a few select monitors, probably overpriced ones, and that people will only notice if the game is running at well over 60FPS..
And getting ~100FPS on the latest games requires hardware that is way too expensive to mere mortals.. unless they start lowering IQ to get such framerates.
This is definitely not for me. I'm okay with 50-60FPS + VSync. In fact, I would give more importance to a monitor with a good panel with great contrast, brightness, color reproduction, etc. than something that is just very fast.
I guess that e-athletes should find this useful, but it's definitely not something that will leave a niche anytime soon, IMHO. Maybe it'll get adoption rates similar to 3DVision and multi-monitor gaming, but I doubt even that.
Its rather that you have to work around artificial limitations with double and triple buffering if you have something thats not a even fraction of the refreshrate.While this is nice to have nVidia completely overhyped the impact of lag and stuttering with v-sync enabled. Those are problems in only a few games - i.e. online twitch shooters. For every other game scenario just turn on v-sync to fix tearing and you're golden.
AFAIK, the previous implementations of "adaptive" VSync already take good care of that part.Why would you need high fps for this to work? It actually works better when the fps dips from the forced 30 or 60.
Some e-sports might use it, unless they play with very low settings and their fps goes way over 144fps and they need it for the physics to work properly.
Too bad we just got into a brand new generation of consoles they're already on global distribution and they all use AMD graphics so that's not going to happen anytime soon.Others, especially console ones(if they can add the support) will welcome it.
Yes, they have.. because very, very few people will have a complete "Gsync" setup.Tim Sweeney loved this, because now they don't have to settle on 30fps lock, when the game can handle 60, but sometimes dips to 40.
Its rather that you have to work around artificial limitations with double and triple buffering if you have something thats not a even fraction of the refreshrate.
It just makes perfect sense to output without any delay and let the monitor handle the swap at the best time possible. TVs needed to explicitly support 24fp for movies, otherwise you get a duplicate frame one a second which is a notable stutter.
this also scales down nicely if you barely have screen updates (saving power, think laptops)