Gaming on 4K TVs....anybody doing it???

[Josh128]

Just curious about 4K. Im not a resolution whore by any stretch of the imagination and think it actually ranks quite low on the list of PQ attributes of a set, but Im am intrigued about what hyper-upscaled retro systems look like on them.

Im not a big fan of how retro to PS2 gen systems look on most 1080p sets without something like a Framemeister to help them out, and Im curious as to whether the massive resolution increase would look better or worse than your average 1080p set, without use of any scalers.

Anybody have any experience with one?

[gray117]

Not really... But yes have tried some out. All the usual issues present when being picky. - lag, ghosting etc. But I think they've all been 3840 x 2160 and generally look rather spiffing.

Personally I wouldn't be fussed buying one over a 1080 for games especially consoles. Retro games wise you'd just be doubling whatever emulation resolution you were using so can't say it'd make much of a difference perhaps other than providing a screen with a finer pixel display

. .. But if you were eyeing up 1440 monitors or something I could certainly see the temptation at looking at 4k / uhd since prices are getting more sensible.

But yeah you'd want some beefy hardware and good source material to really make it worthwhile beyond a nice desktop and doesn't offer anything real special for retro games imho.

Anything plugged into it without a decent scaler will essentially look like it currently does on a 1080 set... Addig more pixels isn't going to make internal processors/scalers better... That's why we seek out specialised ones already... If anything your more likely to have your nice 1080p scaled image softened a tad by your 4k tv...

[neorichieb1971]

Do any scalers go up to 2160p?

I'm not really interested in scalers unless they can match my display for 1:1 pixel mapping.

[parodius]

Could be interesting if they actually scale 720p exactly x3.
It would give a much crisper image for a Framemeister set to 720p, for which scanlines look best IMHO, than on a 1080p display.

[BuckoA51]

PC games can look stunning, but two graphics cards are often needed especially if you want to keep the magical 60fps. - http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... -4k-gaming

Emulators like Mame, Retroarch etc can take advantage of 4K panels with their pixel shaders etc and (I'm lead to believe, though I've not tried it personally) you're getting close to a pixel density there were you can accurately emulate things like shadow masks and aperture grilles.

I think you'll be waiting some time before there's an XRGB 4K.

[gray117]

Yes but they're all about smoothing off jaggies for video from what little I've seen... It might suit some tastes for 720/1080p material but it's probably a mess for 480p 2d games - no idea about lag you will probably find it to be about the same as whatever the tv does when it upscales, just might give better image results for video...

Tv manufacturers have been increasingly conscious of input lag given that gamers are starting to care and despite the increase in pixel count from what I've seen it doesn't feel any worse than most 1080p screens - reckon most are trying to keep close to that 40ms feel... But again I would have only played 1080 or native content on them so your mileage may vary if you plug in 480p... But basically unless there's some clean and quick x2 x4 nearest neighbour scaler I don't think any of these will be doing you any particular favours for appearance or lag avoidance... At least not yet...

[Josh128]

Anything plugged into it without a decent scaler will essentially look like it currently does on a 1080 set... Addig more pixels isn't going to make internal processors/scalers better... That's why we seek out specialised ones already... If anything your more likely to have your nice 1080p scaled image softened a tad by your 4k tv...

Kind of what I figured about the set upscaling> more upscaling= more blur. However, the massive pixel count should allow for more options in custom upscaling algorithms, I would think.

The perfect 3x 720p scaling could be very nice, if properly done. Im picky about upscaling, and rather how 720p-ish games of X360 look on my 720p (XGA) plasma than my full 1080p plasma. Not that they look bad on the 1080p set, I just prefer the look of the 720p one. Would be interesting to see if Micomsoft introduces either an update to the Framemeister or new hardware to deal with 4K TVs.

I'll admit the sets do look rather spiffy running real 4K video content in stores, especially with the larger screen sizes.

[gray117]

Kind of what I figured about the set upscaling> more upscaling= more blur. However, the massive pixel count should allow for more options in custom upscaling algorithms, I would think

There's various edge enhancements that are a lot more feasible but the thing is you'll be needing a decently sized source image to begin with... Thus nothing new for older games...

Still as you say there is an opportunity for some very clean multiples. Combining that with some options to then scale to native res, or leave in the middle of the screen unmolested or with added filters would be nice - but we never really got anything like that for the 1080p generation beyond the xrgb so I wouldn't hold out too much hope... Even if there was a suitable hardware/software combo to do that at speed.

[Lord of Pirates]

I'm fine with my current setup, you can't improve image quality of 3D games natively outside of getting a better signal and processing it well, and I feel that a 4K TV or monitor to play Genesis/Saturn/etc. would be a waste of money over improving other aspects of my setup. As for computer gaming, I don't think it's worth it when you can get decent performance 2560x1440 with a single card and SLI is a requirement for demanding games at 4K. You could tick down settings to get performance but that's pretty unacceptable if you're spending a grand on an SLI setup.

[Xan]

For PC gaming G-Sync/Adaptive Sync is much more important than 4K, especially given that it only works above 30 FPS (the former anyway). I play fast-paced online FPS games a fair bit and the tearing always gives me nausea after a while, so the prospect of monitors combining high refresh rates, non-TN panels and G-Sync finally arriving is really exciting. Just feels about 5 years too late honestly.

[gray117]

yeah but it is exactly those crazy-4xsli-occulus-owning people that first adopt these anyway ... god bless them

Like I'd say not something I'd go for personally over a regular 1080p setup myself for games - though I can certainly see myself looking at one for work/general use perhaps in a year or so.

[Josh128]

For PC gaming G-Sync/Adaptive Sync is much more important than 4K, especially given that it only works above 30 FPS (the former anyway). I play fast-paced online FPS games a fair bit and the tearing always gives me nausea after a while, so the prospect of monitors combining high refresh rates, non-TN panels and G-Sync finally arriving is really exciting. Just feels about 5 years too late honestly.

G-Sync and AMDs Freesync are the future, and by nature can only work with sample and hold display technology, such as LCD and OLED. But, for those worried about SLI setups required for 4K-- a GPU-sync enabled 4K set will give you a MUCH better looking 40 to 50 fps on a 4K than a non-sync enabled one, thus allowing weaker cards to seemingly perform better at these taxing resolutions.

Manufacturers need to start including G/Freesync into mainstream LCD and OLED sets though, not just insanely expensive PC monitors.

At the moment, PC is the just about the only real way to put 4K to good use.

[RGB32E]

The Panasonic AX800 series is currently the most gaming friendly 4k TV - http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/tx-50ax8 ... 193778.htm

Too bad it took Panasonic until November/December to actually get this 2014 model out on retail floors! (Magnolia)

Hopefully the 2015 replacement models (CX800 & CX850) will be at least as gamer friendly as the AX800. I'm tempted to go pick up a 58" AX800!

[Xan]

For PC gaming G-Sync/Adaptive Sync is much more important than 4K, especially given that it only works above 30 FPS (the former anyway). I play fast-paced online FPS games a fair bit and the tearing always gives me nausea after a while, so the prospect of monitors combining high refresh rates, non-TN panels and G-Sync finally arriving is really exciting. Just feels about 5 years too late honestly.

G-Sync and AMDs Freesync are the future, and by nature can only work with sample and hold display technology, such as LCD and OLED. But, for those worried about SLI setups required for 4K-- a GPU-sync enabled 4K set will give you a MUCH better looking 40 to 50 fps on a 4K than a non-sync enabled one, thus allowing weaker cards to seemingly perform better at these taxing resolutions.

Manufacturers need to start including G/Freesync into mainstream LCD and OLED sets though, not just insanely expensive PC monitors.

At the moment, PC is the just about the only real way to put 4K to good use.

I agree, 4K TVs are pretty much a joke right now given that no content is available in this resolution, aside from PC games (where older ones suffer from tiny non-scalable HUD elements, incidentally). Heck, I think TV broadcasts still haven't reached 1080p yet, and are still at 720p/1080i. I see people jumping aboard the hype train since affordable 4K TVs are out now, and buying them for cheap, but it's clear most or all of those are just TN panels where half of the screen probably looks inverted if you only dare to not sit exactly in front of it. So to me, even staying within the realms of LCD technology, it's clear that a good 1080p set is a much wiser purchase regardless of use case.

Although regarding 1080p sets, it doesn't seem like promising technologies really make it into the mainstream; I'm thinking of Sony's Triluminos panels, or full-array local LED dimming. It appears that manufacturers skip on improving picture quality and simply quadruple the resolution, because that after all is a lot more quantifiable and sells more TVs than anything else.

[gray117]

g-sync was an awesome idea but I don't think nvidia really have the penetration to get it going especially since it requires licensing and hardware.

Freesync is basically free and works over standard display port standards on the dispay side... but I don't know if they've been totally clear whether they hold any software/hardware rights to the signal generating side of things - i.e. your videocard/console/tivo box etc...

Neither has much support in the general tv or accessory market ... yet ... and yes it certainly is like 10 years late... which is the main hurdle either has to overcome to garner adoption - proving demand.

[Xan]

The demand is there, and this certainly feels like the first real improvement since the stopping of CRT production. I'd be interested in an in-depth analysis of G-Sync vs. Freesync, because I'd speculate that the stricter integration of hardware in G-Sync might make it better in some ways. They also might be equal for all I know though.

Nvidia actually has a headstart in terms of market penetration - GPUs capable of G-Sync have been on the market since early 2012, while Freesync gaming capable GPUs only appeared in late 2013. A monitor purchase is in order for both technologies so I don't see any issue; those who have been unaware of tearing etc. probably have no use for it anyway, and those who need it can make their pick later this year.

[Xyga]

Although regarding 1080p sets, it doesn't seem like promising technologies really make it into the mainstream; I'm thinking of Sony's Triluminos panels, or full-array local LED dimming. It appears that manufacturers skip on improving picture quality and simply quadruple the resolution, because that after all is a lot more quantifiable and sells more TVs than anything else.

Well, maybe you'll think 'again' but;

- Sony 1080p FALD + QD (Triluminos) $ 1,399

- LG 1080p OLED $ 3,499

Okay that's still 2.5 time the Sony's price, but give it time, in a few years if our world is still there and LG still hanging to that technology, affordable OLED will become a reality.
Fingers crossed for at least one model with decently low lag, because OLED really leaves LCD in the dust, no matter what.

And if it goes well for TV's, OLED monitors will happen. I want to believe.

[Xan]

But is $1400 for that Sony really "mainstream"? That's more high-end I think, even if it's still less than the really expensive XBRs. The typical 4K sets now cost like half of that, and that's what people seem to be largely buying now. So, to me it seems the companies rather invested in making 4K panel production cheap, instead of focusing on OLED or improving LCD picture quality. I really doubt that an average 2015 mainstream LCD TV has many PQ improvements compared to a 2007 model, aside from higher resolution.

[SGGG2]

The benefits of 4K are increased resolution for PC gaming, more detailed CRT simulation for pixel shaders/emulation, but what I'm really excited about is passive 3D at full 1080p (since passive interlace 'blanks' half the vertical resolution per eye), which should scale perfectly with 4 pixel clusters. Passive 4K UTVs can display 3840x1080 per eye but since 3D PC gaming is already pretty demanding, 1080p60 is the sweet spot IMO. Unfortunately, the HDMI 2.0 spec is all over the place and the TV has to support 4:4:4 chroma for PC use.

I think it's only a matter of time before we have a scaler with 4K support and pixel shaders, but that time probably isn't soon.

[Josh128]

But is $1400 for that Sony really "mainstream"? That's more high-end I think, even if it's still less than the really expensive XBRs. The typical 4K sets now cost like half of that, and that's what people seem to be largely buying now. So, to me it seems the companies rather invested in making 4K panel production cheap, instead of focusing on OLED or improving LCD picture quality. I really doubt that an average 2015 mainstream LCD TV has many PQ improvements compared to a 2007 model, aside from higher resolution.

This is the problem for me with 4K. You are correct, most 4K sets have very little to no improvement in real PQ, of which at the top of the list is contrast. This is why at this point its little more than a gimmick. This is why my little darling Samsung F4500 720p plasma beat a (then) $1100 4K LCD set in the CNET shootout I posted early in the F4500 thread.

I love plasmas, and it makes me very sad that they have now ceased production without something to really take their place. The PQ they offer for the price is at this point still untouchable. OLED is coming, but still has some pretty major issues (even besides cost!) that they need to work out before it can really catch on.

Companies need to continue to invest money to improve things like contrast, off angle viewing, and motion of LCDs rather than just throwing more pixels on the screen.

[ZellSF]

In theory increased resolution just gives scalers more room to work with, so they should look better.

In practice, I doubt you'll see any improvement.

Personally I really want a 1440p monitor to perfectly scale 640x480 games, 1080p isn't enough for cleanly scaling that on PCs.

[gray117]

The demand is there...Nvidia actually has a headstart in terms of market penetration... those who have been unaware of tearing etc. probably have no use for it anyway, and those who need it can make their pick later this year.

We're talking at 2 different levels here... Enthusiast demand is there but it's made little headway with the major display manufacturers. Even with their headstart there's only a handful of overpriced gsync monitors on the market and nvidia has not appeared to have fostered any new relationships in manufacturing...amd is making a more open handed play to deliver a ubiquitous standard (and cheaper) and has a clear headstart on at least consoles, but still hasn't really even kicked off yet....Desktop GPUs are all well and dandy but until this tech is in nearly every display - and consoles, streaming boxes, blu ray - It'll just be consigned to a niche market...

At the moment demand for uhd/4k dwarfs demand for this more practical tech...

It's a bit like input lag - how significant it is to game experiences, and yet how impossibly low profile it is...

[BONKERS]

Could be interesting if they actually scale 720p exactly x3.
It would give a much crisper image for a Framemeister set to 720p, for which scanlines look best IMHO, than on a 1080p display.

It's not actually 3x. It's actually 6x. 3x scale per axis.

3x3=6xScale

[Ed Oscuro]

A little note here: This is the 4K gaming thread, so I'm going to assume that this is really about PCs on 4K, in addition to scalers which is what the first post was really asking about. Consoles on 4K just isn't a thing yet, built-in scalers aside.

there's only a handful of overpriced gsync monitors on the market and nvidia has not appeared to have fostered any new relationships in manufacturing...

There's tons of G-SYNC monitors out or announced. Acer is going to release a 144Hz IPS in 27" around March. It's AMD's offerings that are thin on the ground thus far; they've only started to appear more recently. The 21:9 FreeSync example recently announced looks great, but unfortunately it's stuck at 60Hz. I'd consider it more seriously if it was at 96Hz or so! I'm mystified by your comment about nVidia and new relationships in manufacturing - are you making a sly reference to the G84/G86 fiasco?

amd is making a more open handed play to deliver a ubiquitous standard (and cheaper) and has a clear headstart on at least consoles

AMD has stuck it to nVidia for attempting vendor lock-in - but AMD also know that until somebody else starts competing in the same market with them and nVidia, this will be an effective form of vendor lock-in for them as well. Normally I would just say "well done" and buy from AMD, but there's a bunch of unknowns, alongside many apparent facts that don't bode well for AMD.

First, though, nVidia's parting shot at consoles was to dismiss they will be relevant, stating the performance delta between PCs and consoles continuing to widen forever. Well, OK. (I'm not sure of the sensibility of this statement considering nVidia sure seems excited about Tegra stuff still, and consoles are still well loved outside of green pastures.) For TVs and even discrete graphics below $150, FreeSync looks like an unmitigated win, especially for consumers who will be free to choose if other makers - including Intel, smaller manufacturers of tiny PCs and TV devices, and especially nVidia - support FreeSync via the DP 1.2a standard. nVidia's urgent gambit to lock in consumers seems to have caused them to miss this really exciting area, though it's hard to see why they should have made overtures towards the AMD-equipped consoles when setting up this situation. They were apparently hoping that PCs, or other nVidia-driven devices, would end up being the drivers of content for TVs. Indeed, they may still be (at least, that's like probable argument from the nVidia camp). Of course, that's not the question today - there's not yet FreeSync on consoles, TVs, or cheap monitors.

At the same time, does AMD have the technology to deliver competitive graphics cards? And are TV and super low-margin console parts a pathway to success for AMD? I'm hoping to be proven wrong soon, but things aren't looking good for AMD here, especially on the PC / high resolution or high framerate front.

The argument between FreeSync and G-Sync isn't grounded in any direct comparison between the technologies performing on the bench or in the market - just first impressions. Is there any situation where one adaptive sync is better than the other? More importantly, how will the market react to competing products? I think we can guess. Those expensive TN panel-based G-SYNC monitors are there because of supply and demand - and those prices are increasingly historical, clearly early adopter sales. If recent non-G-SYNC IPS monitor announcements are anything to go on, those will be relatively affordable too - not $200 Korean IPS affordable, but then again neither will FreeSync likely be. The question likely won't be that the monitors are too expensive - but rather whether the AMD monitors are a good deal at $100 over non-adaptive sync models, and whether buying into the nVidia ecosystem is worth another $100 over that.

We don't know how big the market will be. We don't know how expensive the adaptive sync scaler module types are - for example, if AMD's parts are sold at a loss to undercut nVidia further (though this seems unlikely), or whether nVidia is charging an excessive premium - or indeed whether the value in each scaler type is equal.

The two major points I hold out for AMD are that open standard and the apparent price of their scaler/sync module. If we can take the cost of the scaler/sync modules at face value, and assume that they are equally useful, then it does look like AMD even has a technological advantage. Unfortunately this would be the only place I'm seeing them at advantage. It seems unlikely either of these things change - but for me the truth to be disproven is essentially that it's easier for nVidia to put FreeSync compatibility into their cards than it is for AMD to beat nVidia's price, performance, power consumption, and features. Monitors come and go, but hopefully AMD will hang in there. gambatte kudasai, amd-sama!

[gray117]

Specialised monitors are small potatoes compared.to tvs (thread title).

Like Xan I think the bigger win for gaming is a fix to sync issus whether or not 4k content was practical and/or scaling worked well to 4k.

Unfortunately if I was to spend $ on a new display for gaming I'd want a 32 inch (arcadey.size) gsync and there aren't any I don't think? Nearest would he a handful of 27s for which I'd have to check input lags for. If you wanted a living room sized display with gsync you're definitely out of luck currently.

Since nvidia lost out to amd on consoles they've made very few moves publicly with mobile/tv/media player/tv suppliers... And the once interesting tegra seems to have fallen off a cliff.... Perhaps it's just a publicity or brand thing but they don't seem to be all that close to the Sony/Samsung/apple types. Perhas they're sticking to what they know - great desktop GPUs and support...fair enough.... But either way it feels like gaming features are pretty low down the informed/demand/manufacturing/supply totem pole when it comes to displays.

Which is a shame if the tech basically exists and works

[Josh128]

At the same time, does AMD have the technology to deliver competitive graphics cards? And are TV and super low-margin console parts a pathway to success for AMD? I'm hoping to be proven wrong soon, but things aren't looking good for AMD here, especially on the PC / high resolution or high framerate front.

Monitors come and go, but hopefully AMD will hang in there. gambatte kudasai, amd-sama!

AMD has proven time and again they have the tech to compete with Nvidia-- its only in the latest generation that NVidia have delivered some spectacular power -efficiency and value, but AMD has yet to release their counter. I have every confidence in AMDs GPU division-- and SINCERELY hope they can dig themselves out of their hole, which is much more about Intel than NVidia in any case.

Intel is the real reason AMD is in danger of collapsing/being bought out. Their CPU tech is at this point so far beyond anything AMD has that there is no real reason to buy AMD. Their APUs are OK, but have over promised and under delivered at this point-- and with every new Intel release Intel is closing the gap on integrated GPUs. Hopefully AMDs new CPU architecture due out in a year or so will help them.

In anycase, I think AMD is leaving the responsibility of the cost and manufacture of the Freesync TV module to the manufacturers of the sets, so I dont think they are losing money other than the original development costs. Nvidia, on the other hand, I think wanted at least a licensing fee for theirs? Im not sure. I still have yet to see one in action in person, but the promise of lack of stutter from 31 to limitless fps is EXTREMELY fascinating to me.

Just think how that could have helped the current gen of consoles!! They would look far more powerful then they currently do, as most target 30 fps because they cant hold 60. Frame rate drops to 45 fps would no longer create stutter, they would essentially look no different! It can be a game changer for sure. I think it could also really help gaming on 4K TVs as single cards currently just dont have the balls to consistently perform over 30 to 40 fps in most cases.

[gray117]

I love plasmas, and it makes me very sad that they have now ceased production without something to really take their place. The PQ they offer for the price is at this point still untouchable. OLED is coming...

Plasmas were a great solution at a certain price point with some lovely colours. But they were never fit for purpose when you talk about high grade picture quality. The way the image displays sequentially to a plasma was never going to win over those who see it flash and flicker (not everyone sees this and again for some they don't 'see' it, but does seem to add to motion sickness tendency etc. - although of course lots of other contributing factors/theories there too), image retention - not burn, but temporary retention - and pixel orbiters never allowed the highest of accuracies. The phosphers - or phosphate (not totally clear on the distinction) - were always going to result in a slightly soft image and was never going to be well suited to retina like dpi. Like crts they will be missed by their fans, but if you're looking to improved picture quality then ultimately their time was limited.

OLED showed early promise, but the early let-downs in this area has still left me very cautious unless your instead looking at something best suited for mobile/exhibition/temporary displays... But we'll see - I'd love to be wrong since it (and it's related fields of fabrication) are fantastic areas to explore.

Regardless of single card performance it'll only be in the future when gaming hardware can support more complex shaders and better basic image processing that higher than 1080p resolution will really pay off ... at which point the additional cost of 2160p really won't be as big of an issue as it is now ... chicken and egg situation... only thing is we seem to have the egg just no way to really cook it and whilst you can eat raw egg, it doesn't taste great ... unless perhaps your into emulating vector games...

[Xan]

In anycase, I think AMD is leaving the responsibility of the cost and manufacture of the Freesync TV module to the manufacturers of the sets, so I dont think they are losing money other than the original development costs. Nvidia, on the other hand, I think wanted at least a licensing fee for theirs? Im not sure. I still have yet to see one in action in person, but the promise of lack of stutter from 31 to limitless fps is EXTREMELY fascinating to me.

Just think how that could have helped the current gen of consoles!! They would look far more powerful then they currently do, as most target 30 fps because they cant hold 60. Frame rate drops to 45 fps would no longer create stutter, they would essentially look no different! It can be a game changer for sure. I think it could also really help gaming on 4K TVs as single cards currently just dont have the balls to consistently perform over 30 to 40 fps in most cases.

G-Sync is specified to work between 30-144 Hz I believe; I'm not entirely sure about Freesync as I've seen conflicting information there. The 30 FPS minimum is an issue that's not to be underestimated though, as I'm sure many current console games can drop well below that mark. I've also heard that backlight flicker can be visible in that low FPS range, and I'm curious to see if that's an issue with the Acer IPS/144 Hz/G-Sync monitor that is scheduled for release in March as well.

And slightly unrelated, but in many game engines (most notably with FPS games on PC of course) frame times have a direct impact on input lag which I doubt G-Sync will be able to overcome. 30 FPS will look smooth enough then, but might still not be enjoyable enough depending on the game.

[Josh128]

In anycase, I think AMD is leaving the responsibility of the cost and manufacture of the Freesync TV module to the manufacturers of the sets, so I dont think they are losing money other than the original development costs. Nvidia, on the other hand, I think wanted at least a licensing fee for theirs? Im not sure. I still have yet to see one in action in person, but the promise of lack of stutter from 31 to limitless fps is EXTREMELY fascinating to me.

Just think how that could have helped the current gen of consoles!! They would look far more powerful then they currently do, as most target 30 fps because they cant hold 60. Frame rate drops to 45 fps would no longer create stutter, they would essentially look no different! It can be a game changer for sure. I think it could also really help gaming on 4K TVs as single cards currently just dont have the balls to consistently perform over 30 to 40 fps in most cases.

G-Sync is specified to work between 30-144 Hz I believe; I'm not entirely sure about Freesync as I've seen conflicting information there. The 30 FPS minimum is an issue that's not to be underestimated though, as I'm sure many current console games can drop well below that mark. I've also heard that backlight flicker can be visible in that low FPS range, and I'm curious to see if that's an issue with the Acer IPS/144 Hz/G-Sync monitor that is scheduled for release in March as well.

And slightly unrelated, but in many game engines (most notably with FPS games on PC of course) frame times have a direct impact on input lag which I doubt G-Sync will be able to overcome. 30 FPS will look smooth enough then, but might still not be enjoyable enough depending on the game.

As Ive said, Ive not seen it in person, but theres no way the backlight strobing rate can be tied to framerate for these sync technologies. Anything under 60Hz would be EXTREMELY visible and detracting. I believe the backlight is either locked to a certain frequency or works in multiples of the GPU refresh rate, I dont remember.

In any case, these sync technologies will have no effect at all on the way 30 fps looks-- it will look exactly as it does on a 60 Hz CRT or plasma-- your eyes can discern 30fps motion, G-Sync wont help that. What it will help though, is what 31-59 Hz look like on a 60 or 120hz monitor-- ie uneven multiples of a (currently) locked refresh rate. The stutter you see would be gone...

[Ed Oscuro]

The "30 FPS minimum" was clearly based on the panels being used, and that could change. But targeting 30fps+ is great for me - it doesn't matter to me if it's tear-free if it's below 30fps; I'd have to tweak settings if I was getting 20-plus FPS to make things feel playable again.

To explain where I'm coming from with the AMD R&D comments, take a look at this short read from The Motley Fool. Not everybody is on board with this read but look at the comments to see things people were holding out as tech advantages for the company in January 2014:

Mantle: At best this helped prepare AMD and other companies for the new close-to-metal DirectX revision (though they could have gone straight to developing the new DirectX as nVidia and Microsoft did). At worst it was a sink for valuable resources to create an API used in only a couple games. I don't see a path to future profitability through here; it's effort duplicated by DirectX.

Kaveri: On the GPU side this competes with...Intel. On the CPU side, it doesn't.

Consoles: As noted before, the margins here are slim enough that nVidia apparently didn't bother putting in a bid. Millions of consoles times...how many dollars? Who thinks that kind of money is really going to turn around the company?

HSA: Looks like the kind of basic technology development that any player in this market needs to develop - but I don't see this as being a special selling point for AMD. It could play off as an advantage, but it's just one facet of developing future tech.

Razor-thin margins and open standards are fine for consumers and they may help AMD get by while they drum up investment. However, I don't see how anybody can look at these facts and believe that AMD is competing in the enthusiast gaming market with nVidia on GPUs or Intel on CPUs.

Likewise, Josh's argument that AMD getting performance parity is just around the corner seems hard to believe. With all the recent layoffs, where's the development coming from? Later last year, their CEO promised to stop cuts in that area, but I think they really need to turn it around and increase R&D. Any products coming from AMD will be bumping up against a new generation of cheap second-gen Maxwell parts. I'm happy to wait for a deal, but being first to market counts in padding your war chest for R&D. Those expensive G-SYNC monitor modules and expensive GTX 9X0 series graphics cards? nVidia (and its partners) have been raking in cash hand over fist with those. AMD has gotten nothing; a lot of early adopters already bought at the highest margins, while it's not clear those left will be swayed towards AMD's FreeSync. While suppliers have been scrambling to bring down adaptive sync monitor prices, GTX cards have only risen in price, slightly, since their release. Meanwhile, AMD has been forced to slash the price of its GPUs across the board. I don't know what kind of margins they were working on before the "maximum Maxwell" cards but this can't have helped.

Of course, we'll know more in a few months, but for the moment I'm just not too optimistic about AMD's chances in the short term, especially in the enthusiast market. While clearly not everybody cares about $150+ graphics cards and expensive CPUs, it's no secret that companies like nVidia and Intel are doing pretty well on scaling performance from the lower to higher end. AMD may find greater success moving to ARM and continuing to reposition themselves, but if they attempt to survive at thin margins in the long term, any missteps could sink the company, at the same time they simply have less capital to research upcoming tech moves - like photonics, for instance.

In any case, these sync technologies will have no effect at all on the way 30 fps looks-- it will look exactly as it does on a 60 Hz CRT or plasma-- your eyes can discern 30fps motion, G-Sync wont help that. What it will help though, is what 31-59 Hz look like on a 60 or 120hz monitor-- ie uneven multiples of a (currently) locked refresh rate. The stutter you see would be gone...

That looks like a roundabout way of admitting that on any platform which can experience tearing - i.e. almost every LCD monitor that's not being fed a guaranteed stable framerate, which includes some console games - adaptive sync helps. I do agree (as I said earlier) with your larger point there, which is that 30FPS is still going to hurt.

The higher framerate benefits of adaptive sync is where things possibly get interesting. I believe it was Blur Busters where I read that some people with high refresh rate monitors have said they no longer eliminate tearing. And this certainly seems plausible - the disparity in apparent placement along a tear line will represent a considerably smaller time slice at a higher frame rate.

My major concern with adaptive sync technology is that it will be used as a crutch to let game framerates get rocky. At nVidia's G-SYNC page, John Carmack and Tim Sweeney didn't show any concerns about frame rate variance or frame rate drops during intense action sequences. I could see when you'd want to be able to push graphics up beyond the normal "corridor" rate (LOL wat John?) but that should not come at the expense of responsiveness, especially when intense action sequences are precisely when you'd expect responsiveness to be important in the game. However, I don't have any real concern that game companies will ignore responsiveness - if they use this to push out laggy games then I won't buy them. I'm more interested in getting appropriate frame-targeting (or locking) on upcoming and existing games.