xon2 102 Posted August 11, 2015 Hey folks, as we all know, arma 3's fps range from 60+ down to less than 20, depending on how much is going on in a mission. Even the most powerful rigs can't handle it properly in all situations. If we cannot make arma run fast, we can try to make it look/feel smoother, right? So, if we cannot keep the fps above say 40 at all times, wouldn't a FreeSync/GSync Monitor make the gameplay smoother? Does anyone here play arma 3 on such a monitor? If so, does it help with fps less than 30? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeMeSiS 11 Posted August 11, 2015 I thought that these technologies basically remove screen tearing without having to use vsync (which is terrible for performance), i dont really see why the game would be smoother when using this.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xon2 102 Posted August 11, 2015 i have watched gameplay footage with gsync on and off, and it often seems considerably smoother even with a varying framerate at the lowerend (30-60 fps). Apparently, because the monitor waits for the gpu to devilver the picture and only displays what the gpu actually provides, there are no frames ''squeezed in between'', hence no suttering (in theory). Here is a useful explanation i think: http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=476 ....''Furthermore, unlike vsync, gsync doesn't make the GPU wait for the monitor; it makes the monitor wait for the GPU. This reduces input lag, since with vsync, games would get input, render the frame, and then wait for the monitor to display the next frame. This wait at the end is what causes input lag with vsync. With gsync, that doesn't happen; when the game has a frame ready, it's sent to the monitor. The monitor then updates its display as it received the frame (rather that updating the screen at fixed intervals, like non-gsync monitors.) This gets rid of both tearing as well as input lag......'' Of course, the overall frames per second don't change and the frametimes are as variable as with a normal monitor. Still, it seems to be smoother because everything runs synchronous. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeMeSiS 11 Posted August 11, 2015 I typed a post about still not getting why it would become smoother, then reread your source and i am just going to assume that that guy has a different definition of stutter than i have. One i disagree with, but there is no point in discussing that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johnny Drama 33 Posted January 3, 2017 anyone can give some more experience on this? is it worth spending 500$ more on a 21:9 3440x1440 to have Gsync? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
domokun 515 Posted January 4, 2017 On 11/08/2015 at 11:58 AM, xon2 said: Hey folks, as we all know, arma 3's fps range from 60+ down to less than 20, depending on how much is going on in a mission. Even the most powerful rigs can't handle it properly in all situations. If we cannot make arma run fast, we can try to make it look/feel smoother, right? So, if we cannot keep the fps above say 40 at all times, wouldn't a FreeSync/GSync Monitor make the gameplay smoother? Does anyone here play arma 3 on such a monitor? If so, does it help with fps less than 30? Do you have an SSD? If not get one, preferably 240 GB or higher and migrate your OS and A3 onto it. That will help smooth out A3 more than any graphical synchronisation, not to mention improve your overall Windows experience. Suggesting that we cannot run A3 is fast is false. You can you just need an Intel i5/i7 running at 3.5+, ideally 4+ GHz and a recent NIVDIA GPU: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GanX 15 Posted January 4, 2017 55 minutes ago, domokun said: Do you have an SSD? If not get one, preferably 240 GB or higher and migrate your OS and A3 onto it. That will help smooth out A3 more than any graphical synchronisation, not to mention improve your overall Windows experience. Suggesting that we cannot run A3 is fast is false. You can you just need an Intel i5/i7 running at 3.5+, ideally 4+ GHz and a recent NIVDIA GPU: His post was from 2015 :) 16 hours ago, Johnny Drama said: anyone can give some more experience on this? is it worth spending 500$ more on a 21:9 3440x1440 to have Gsync? Hi Johnny I am running a Asus ROG Swift monitor that has Gsync. My upgrade was from a traditional 1080p 60Hz monitor to a 1440p 144Hz. The most noticeably upgrade was the higher Hz, and i am never going back :) about G-Sync well yes it will give you a smoother experience especially since you can drop V-Sync which is a FPS killer. Just don't expect miracles, i didn't notice much of a change at first but when i look at a non G-Sync monitor now without V-Sync on then i am dying inside. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johnny Drama 33 Posted January 4, 2017 2 hours ago, GanX said: Hi Johnny I am running a Asus ROG Swift monitor that has Gsync. My upgrade was from a traditional 1080p 60Hz monitor to a 1440p 144Hz. The most noticeably upgrade was the higher Hz, and i am never going back :) about G-Sync well yes it will give you a smoother experience especially since you can drop V-Sync which is a FPS killer. Just don't expect miracles, i didn't notice much of a change at first but when i look at a non G-Sync monitor now without V-Sync on then i am dying inside. ´Thanks for sharing your experience....yeah I am really struggling with the decision... 4K @ 60hz or just wait another year and maybe get a 1440p 144hz gsync now....many people say its the wiser decision...specially when I saw reports of 27" being to small for 4k when you surf / office ( scaling problems)...some say 4k needs 30"+ ... 1200€ is just overpriced when you see how low the panel quality is on those things... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GanX 15 Posted January 4, 2017 2 minutes ago, Johnny Drama said: ´Thanks for sharing your experience....yeah I am really struggling with the decision... 4K @ 60hz or just wait another year and maybe get a 1440p 144hz gsync now....many people say its the wiser decision...specially when I saw reports of 27" being to small for 4k when you surf / office ( scaling problems)...some say 4k needs 30"+ ... 1200€ is just overpriced when you see how low the panel quality is on those things... At the end of the day it will be your decision and your money, but my opinion is this. I like the detail that 4k brings however i don't think that the current Graphics cards are up to the task yet. You can get some powerful cards and they will also run you 4K however they will get outdated since the games they are running at 4k right now might be running but they are already pushed to the limit, so when new games come out the cards will struggle to keep up. There is also the issue of price as you mentioned for both the card and the monitor. I would go with a 1440p Monitor @ 144Hz (or a 120) instead, that is in my opinion worth more in the long run. You can keep that for some years to come and later on decide if you want to upgrade to 4k when its a lot cheaper and the cards can handle it. On another note, are the monitors you are looking at TN or IPS panels? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johnny Drama 33 Posted January 4, 2017 both right now. i made a list in this topic but yeah. ill dig into the 1440p with 144/120hz tonight and see what they cost...but since i only play ARMA and with 4k its gonna be below 60 FPS most of time anyway.... why not get the 4k 60hz gsync... I never touched any other game in the last 5 years for more than a couple days... did a quick check, so 1440p with 144hz gsync + cost at least 520-600€. So basically the same money i would pay for a 4k 60hz gsync... Tough decision? Maybe stick with my old monitor for another half a year/year until 4k 144hz Gsync drops to ~700-800€ (is this realistic?)? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
