I figure a lot of techy people are on this site, so I’m curious to know if GSync is a must have now on gaming laptops specifically. I have it on my Alienware which is a few years old and the display is 60hz. But on a new laptop with 144 or even 300hz, is it still needed, assuming you have a decent powered rig?
If your hardware is powerful enough to get frames equal or better than the refresh rate of the monitor most of the times then yes, helps a lot, if not, it is useless.
So, if you have a 144hz display, will tearing only happen if your game runs higher FPS than 144?
I was under the impression if the FPS was anything different than your refresh rate, meaning higher or lower. If it’s only higher, than as long as you keep the FPS under the refresh it’s a non issue. I’m looking at the Alienware m17 and the new MSI GS66 Stealth, and both have killer displays. Is that why they don’t have GSync, because there’s really no need?
So, if you have a 144hz display, will tearing only happen if your game runs higher FPS than 144?
I was under the impression if the FPS was anything different than your refresh rate, meaning higher or lower. If it’s only higher, than as long as you keep the FPS under the refresh it’s a non issue. I’m looking at the Alienware m17 and the new MSI GS66 Stealth, and both have killer displays. Is that why they don’t have GSync, because there’s really no need?
If the model have 144Hz monitor but the hardware can't get 144fps in the game you want then is better search for another model that can or more cheap with a 60Hz monitor, GSync don't improve performance magically increasing a weak GPU enough frames to match the monitor, instead make a strong GPU being sincronazed with the monitor even when capable of more frames but in a randomly way, making the experience worst.
144fps all the time in a 144Hz monitor is much better for the fluidity than variation all the time like 182fps, 145fps, 201fps, etc...
That sort of makes sense. I get the logic of fluidity and variation.
It doesn’t make sense though that a lot of laptops are sporting 144/240/300hz monitors without GSync since getting those frame rates seems nearly impossible even with an amazing rig.
That sort of makes sense. I get the logic of fluidity and variation.
It doesn’t make sense though that a lot of laptops are sporting 144/240/300hz monitors without GSync since getting those frame rates seems nearly impossible even with an amazing rig.
Because depends of the game you want to play.
Get 144/240/300Hz in HearthStone is far easier than Witcher 3.
Some games are well coded and a decent hardware can get 144fps but crappy ports can't be save even with high-end stuff.
So Gsync is really only good from single player games that are graphical demanding as it will massively reduce the screen tearing you will get if you cant get a high fps, but you don't want to be using it on games like cod and cs:go (fps) as it adds input delay to the game. you will also not get tearing if you surpass the hz of you monitor in fact they have done test i believe on Linus tech tips that having more frames can help reduce it missing frames.
As for the high refresh rate laptops if you are going to spend that much money you might as well build a desktop that will out live a laptop, but unless you get the top spec if will most likely not get those fps on AAA title but for games like counter strike they will hit those frames.
Screen tear can be pretty bad without g-sync/free-sync...but it's not something you miss espeically if you don't have it. Like most upgrades, you really notice it when downgrading in the other direction.
I always thought 60 FPS at ultra settings would look better overall than 144 FPS at medium settings. I guess I’ve have to see videos to compare.
FPS games to play competitive or fast passed games like F1 games = 144Hz is a must but more expensive.
Other games = 60Hz is tolerably and more cheap.
TN is cheaper to 144Hz than IPS but IPS have much better quality image and the 60Hz model don't are so expensive.
All depends the games you want to play.
EDIT: Here is an alert, 144Hz monitor (with 144fps in games, otherwise is useless) is the kind of thing ruins you, after you get used to that you will never want return to 60Hz again.
The answer is both. The fluidity of 144fps looks incredible. I am a big fan of mordhau, and that game in 144fps...the combat is so fluid and gorgeous, the crunch of impact - you feel it more somehow at higher fps.. However, RDR 2 at 60fps max settings is like...the most beautiful game ever. At higher fps you have to lower the settings, impossible to run it otherwise, and it loses some of it's majesty.
I only play single player games for the most part, with the occasional online game from time to time.
for me a laptop is much more practical than a desktop. But oh do I wish I could get a desktop, but I take it back and forth to the office so a laptop is more value for me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I figure a lot of techy people are on this site, so I’m curious to know if GSync is a must have now on gaming laptops specifically. I have it on my Alienware which is a few years old and the display is 60hz. But on a new laptop with 144 or even 300hz, is it still needed, assuming you have a decent powered rig?
If your hardware is powerful enough to get frames equal or better than the refresh rate of the monitor most of the times then yes, helps a lot, if not, it is useless.
So, if you have a 144hz display, will tearing only happen if your game runs higher FPS than 144?
I was under the impression if the FPS was anything different than your refresh rate, meaning higher or lower. If it’s only higher, than as long as you keep the FPS under the refresh it’s a non issue. I’m looking at the Alienware m17 and the new MSI GS66 Stealth, and both have killer displays. Is that why they don’t have GSync, because there’s really no need?
If the model have 144Hz monitor but the hardware can't get 144fps in the game you want then is better search for another model that can or more cheap with a 60Hz monitor, GSync don't improve performance magically increasing a weak GPU enough frames to match the monitor, instead make a strong GPU being sincronazed with the monitor even when capable of more frames but in a randomly way, making the experience worst.
144fps all the time in a 144Hz monitor is much better for the fluidity than variation all the time like 182fps, 145fps, 201fps, etc...
That sort of makes sense. I get the logic of fluidity and variation.
It doesn’t make sense though that a lot of laptops are sporting 144/240/300hz monitors without GSync since getting those frame rates seems nearly impossible even with an amazing rig.
Because depends of the game you want to play.
Get 144/240/300Hz in HearthStone is far easier than Witcher 3.
Some games are well coded and a decent hardware can get 144fps but crappy ports can't be save even with high-end stuff.
I always thought 60 FPS at ultra settings would look better overall than 144 FPS at medium settings. I guess I’ve have to see videos to compare.
So Gsync is really only good from single player games that are graphical demanding as it will massively reduce the screen tearing you will get if you cant get a high fps, but you don't want to be using it on games like cod and cs:go (fps) as it adds input delay to the game. you will also not get tearing if you surpass the hz of you monitor in fact they have done test i believe on Linus tech tips that having more frames can help reduce it missing frames.
As for the high refresh rate laptops if you are going to spend that much money you might as well build a desktop that will out live a laptop, but unless you get the top spec if will most likely not get those fps on AAA title but for games like counter strike they will hit those frames.
Screen tear can be pretty bad without g-sync/free-sync...but it's not something you miss espeically if you don't have it. Like most upgrades, you really notice it when downgrading in the other direction.
FPS games to play competitive or fast passed games like F1 games = 144Hz is a must but more expensive.
Other games = 60Hz is tolerably and more cheap.
TN is cheaper to 144Hz than IPS but IPS have much better quality image and the 60Hz model don't are so expensive.
All depends the games you want to play.
EDIT: Here is an alert, 144Hz monitor (with 144fps in games, otherwise is useless) is the kind of thing ruins you, after you get used to that you will never want return to 60Hz again.
The answer is both. The fluidity of 144fps looks incredible. I am a big fan of mordhau, and that game in 144fps...the combat is so fluid and gorgeous, the crunch of impact - you feel it more somehow at higher fps.. However, RDR 2 at 60fps max settings is like...the most beautiful game ever. At higher fps you have to lower the settings, impossible to run it otherwise, and it loses some of it's majesty.
So I guess it depends on the game .
I only play single player games for the most part, with the occasional online game from time to time.
for me a laptop is much more practical than a desktop. But oh do I wish I could get a desktop, but I take it back and forth to the office so a laptop is more value for me.