Hi guys I'm looking for a bit of advice. I'm currently contemplating a upgrade.
I've got a i5 4760k oc to 4.2 ghz.
I have a beautiful dell ultrasharp u2715h monitor 1440p but it's a 60 hz monitor.
I currently have no GPU having just sold my R9 390 ..I'm looking at a 1070 or 1080 very soon (I'm missing Woff)
I know a couple of you have Gsync monitors..would you be able to advise me as to why I should sell my Ultrasharp and go GSync?
Would a 1070 with Gsync be a good upgrade?
I'd love to hear any thoughts about why I should go with a Gsync monitor .
Any advice would be massively appreciated ..thanks guys.
Best regards Adger

I really don't like screen tearing and this takes care of it without lowering your FPS to do it. I gladly paid a significant premium for the capability and I have not regretted it one bit.

+1 I love my G-Sync monitor. I hate screen tearing and this fixed the issue quite nicely with no downsides.

BTW, you will love a GTX 1080 if you can actually get a hold of one. The card is insanely fast.

Thanks Major,but if my setup gave a steady 60 FPS with vsync on..wouldn't that be perfect?
Is there a noticeable difference in say 60 FPS to..say 90 or 100 FPS?
I know over 60 with vsync off I'd get screen tear,so vsync has to be on but isn't 60 more or less perfect?
Thanks pal for any advice

Cheers Hellshade,anything over 60 FPS noticeable pal?
Thanks mate

Edit: I actually live within 2 miles of overclockers uk mate. They are one of if not the best system and component suppliers in the uk.
They've got quite a few 1080,s in stock..I'm looking at the Msi gaming X. I might sell my Dell ultrasharp and invest in a Gsync monitor soon aswell.
Thanks again.

Yes, your eyes do notice a difference between 60 FPS and 90 FPS when you get to compare them in the same game.

90 FPS flows much smoother than 60 FPS, but most people do not know that since their monitors only go to 60 FPS.

As for anything over 60 FPS being 'worth it', the answer is technically, no. In fact, humans can't really distinguish much of anything above about 35 frames per second, and this has been proven many times.

If you want proof, consider this: If you look at a video of a brick wall - that is, no movement at all on the screen, it wouldn't matter if it were running 60 FPS, or 600 - or even 1 for that matter. The reason is simple: there's no movement. This example illustrates very clearly that it's not how many frames per second that really matters - it's actually a consistent, fluid frame rate. (That's why stutters are so annoying, too BTW)

It takes right about 35 frames per second to 'convince' your eye that movement on a screen is fluid, provided the frames are distributed evenly, meaning there is exactly one frame every 1/35th of a second.

"Stutters" and the perception of interruption in fluid motion occur, even at higher frame rates, when the frames aren't being updated evenly. Like one frame, then a .2 second pause, then a frame, .6 pause, etc. The reason higher "FPS" everyone screams/brags about seems to make a difference is that, broadly speaking, the more frames there are per unit of time, the less likely there are 'gaps' (and the less time each gap is likely to take). But you can still have 'dips', sometimes even massive half-second-plus pauses, even with otherwise high FPS - this is often reported by people here/playing WOFF.

To summarize, you have the exact right idea: higher frame rates don't necessarily mean anything, especially if they're not evenly distributed. If you're getting between 35-60 FPS and it's a consistent rate, you're not going to see any noticeable difference at a higher frame rate.

As for G-sync monitors, I own one, and have for about a year now. I'd strongly recommend you hold off on such a massive expense until you see how things work with your new card/existing monitor. You may still want G-sync, but you might not need it, and TBH depending on your circumstances, it's not necessarily the night and day difference that some make it out to be. In my case particularly, although I have seen noticeable difference in some games, I see much less difference in other games, and at best it's arguable as to whether it's "worth it".

BTW there are others who share this position about GSync, although most will say it's well worth it. Take it with a grain of salt, is my perspective. Read around online, you'll see.

Everyone has their own experiences, that's mine. Hope it helps.

Thanks PR ,it looks like another upgrade soon,I'm going do some homework on the Gsync monitors and take it from there.
Thanks again guys you've been a great help

I would wait for VR glasses, this could be an succes or fade away like 3d nVidia vision, no one knows but I think until this is not for sure it is better to wait. Now OR does not support games below DirectX10, but wrappers are being made to run even older games like DirectX8 games.

Going For an Gsync monitor (=nVidia) or freesync (=AMD) I would avoid an TN screen monitor.

I did have an 75hz TN monitor but never noticed any difference between 75 or the stock 60 hz when running OFF3, I still think this Hz thing is more for the shooter guys, they have to react very quick. The only thing I did noticed is the big difference between a TN and an IPS sreen.

But I'm not an monitor expert only do try & error stuff.

Kksnowbear... A big thanks for your information very very informative.

I think il grab my card and see how it goes from there. Like you said if I get consistent frame rates then I'm happy.
Big thanks pal

While I do like my gsync setup, it is fluid, I do not really have any past experience to compare it against.

When I was making my choice - it was - well I do not want to be second guessing it in the future, so might as well bit the bullet and get it now.

That being said, I've been meaning to ask, Sometimes while going though clouds, it looks like they are tearing, not the whole screen, just the clouds. Especially when right on the edges of the clouds. Is this, just the way it is?

Thanks.

Cheers Dutch..my current monitor is a fantastic 60hz IPS 1440p model. My old monitor was a 24" TN panel..this IPS 27" is night and day compared to that.
It really is a beautiful piece of equipment ,I've seen some IPS Gsync models..waaayyy overpriced imo.
I'm going stick with my current model for the time being I reckon

Hi Stache..you mean like " flickering" clouds?
I believe that's a sim issue pal I have it sometimes..in VC view a quick zoon in and it mostly disappears
I hope this is what you mean mate?

Movies only look fluid because they use a different system (called motion blur) to transition from frame to frame so they can be as low as 24 FPS, but PC games are different.

In a game, each frame is individually drawn and you can see the difference between 60 FPS and 90 FPS because I see it all the time in my 144 Hz monitor when ever it drops down to 60 FPS from 90+ FPS.

Thanks PR ive looked at a couple of videos between 60,100 and 144hz and yes..it does look like its noticable.
Do you notice it more in first person shooters?
or most games..Thanks again PR

"Motion blur" is not a method, technique, or 'system' used to acheive anything. It's actually a (generally undesired) side effect of capturing moving objects in still images (or a sequence of 'frames'):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur

Yes, it does contribute to fooling your eyes in a way, but that doesn't mean it's a system, or even anything intentional.

Many types of technology have been used to overcome motion blur. Asus' website says "NVIDIA Ultra Low Motion Blur (ULMB) technology decreases motion blur..." (https://www.asus.com/support/faq/1014609).

I cannot imagine they'd spend time to develop a technology to reduce or eliminate something, if it were planned, intended, or even desirable in the first place. In sports, motion blur makes it hard to distinguish to accurately determine the position of fast-moving objects (like a baseball moving past a foul pole), so they use special equipment - again, to get rid of or reduce motion blur.

As for higher-refresh rate videos: Guaranteed you will see a .25 second frame drop, no matter how high your FPS is normally.

What you see is a change in the rate of frames, because your eye and brain expected something to move at a certain rate, and it didn't. A lot like leading a moving target. What you're seeing in your example is the change in consistency of frame rates, from 90+ down to 60.

Just as I explained above: If you were watching a video of brick wall with no visual motion (no shadows or light changing, for example; no movement of any sort, at all) then the picture won't change at all. You wouldn't be able to tell if it were 60 FPS or 600. It could literally be 1 FPS - or even a completely still frame - without motion, how would you know?

But as items move across the screen in the background (be it trees or planes) you can see the difference between 60 FPS and 90+ FPS. At 60 FPS it is not as smooth as 90+ FPS.

Plus, if people could not see the difference, the monitor companies could not sell 60+ monitors to people or would they be making faster and faster refresh rate monitors for gamers.

After using my 144 Hz monitor to play WOFF and other simulations since January, I would rater give up G-sync versus 90+ FPS for realistic smoothness, i.e. immersion if I had to choose, because it makes so much of a difference.

The 'brick wall' example is just that: An example, intended to illustrate that there's no way to tell the difference in refresh rates without motion. It doesn't mean that anyone actually uses a monitor to watch videos of brick walls, of course.

What it means is that it's the perception of change - rather than frame rates - that make it possible for you (or anyone else) to "see" the difference in 60, 90, 30 or 120 frames. If those trees or planes you mention weren't moving, a still image would look exactly the same as a video at 100+ FPS.

You are absolutely correct, on still objects it makes no difference what the FPS are, but in a moving simulation where you are looking at a lot of moving objects, you can see the difference between 60 FPS and 90+ FPS.

It is in looking at those moving objects can you see the smoothness of 90+ FPS versus 60 FPS.

You are absolutely correct. Just as you said, you notice when the frame rate changes.