no i have a g-sync i got on sale its not worth if you play competitive games. On the other hand if you only play rpg or single player games that's fine it looks really nice. Just get your standard ASUS 144hz for like 250$ or something(i dont remember). Its bad for fps games and competitive games because it has a very noticeable latency to it.

g sync is awful for fps games

adaptive sync is only useful if you can not hit your fps cap at all (maxing out a game and getting 30 fps locked, etc)

also it is really bad for fps games

so no

does the same thing about input lag apply to freesync and its applicable monitors?

it's basically the same thing (adaptive sync) except nvidia essentially drm locked it behind their gpu's.

the only really unique feature g-sync has is nvidia's special frame collision avoidance tech and it does not resolve the input lag issue no (just reduces stuttering more).

http://fakkelbrigade.eu/i/18_FreeSync_vs._G-Sync_Delay_Analysis_-_YouTube_2017-07-24_10-50-06.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVNRNOcLUuA&feature=youtu.be&t=13m

G-sync is great, just overpriced.

If you're consistently hitting over your fps cap, what method can you use to turn both types of adaptive sync off to reduce your input lag or is this just not possible? I'm considering which monitor to buy next time I build a pc and input lag is a large consideration.

#1
Do you have an nVidia GPU? No -> can't use it.
Do you get more than 144 fps -> useless, won't do anything.
Do you get less than 144 fps on the settings you want to use -> would actually be useful.
Obviously it isn't recommended to run a competitive game at 60 fps (unless it's hearthstone) because input lag goes up as fps go down.

Worth it? Technically no because FreeSync does exactly the same for free. Nvidia even uses that on notebooks because no one would buy them at a few hundred dollars premium with no technical advantage. But for desktop the drivers do not support it because guess who makes money off of G-Sync modules?
If you already have an nVidia GPU and will not upgrade anytime soon then you're locked in so if you really want adaptive refresh rate then G-Sync is your only option and it becomes technically worth it because by being the only option.

#2
Doesn't really have more lag than capping at the refresh rate. Of course you'd try to run competitive games at 288fps or something like that, which obviously results in lower input lag.

#3
Not any more awful than capping your fps. Unless you really enjoy screen tearing you should cap your fps.
It doesn't do anything if your fps hit your refresh rate though.
So it's not awful, it's simply useless in that case.

#4
Same as #3.

#5
It doesn't happen on either, so no.
See above, same limitations apply for both. Higher fps than refresh rate -> useless.

#6
Correct.
Stop going on about nonexistant input lag.

#7
This guy gets it.
There used to be an issue with framerates above or close to the maximum refresh rate, which cause some additional input lag with G-Sync.
http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview2/
Basically >120Hz weird lag could occur.
I think it's fixed now as far as I know (or was limited to certain models) and it was greatly exaggerated.
Also why would you even enable G-Sync at >144 fps?

#8
Yes, you can turn it off. In fact it should be off by default.
No, there should not be any additional lag anyway, so you could leave it on.

@Setsul

On a slightly related note, do you have any idea how long the input lag is on a modern 144Hz display, say something like a BenQ XL2411Z? I'm specifically referring to the gap between the display receiving the signal and the moment the pixels begin changing on the panel.

Or to phrase it differently: If you turned on V-sync, how much of the input lag would actually be additional, and how much of that lag would you be experiencing even with V-sync turned off?

1

#10
Some monitors have a lot of forced processing, so especially TVs can get quite high, even if the are 144 Hz,
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/benq_xl2420t.htm#input_lag

but generally it's quite low on those "1ms" or "2ms" displays.
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_mg248q.htm#lag

Of course it's never actually 1ms, so it's kind of laughable when someone chooses a "1ms" monitor over a "2ms" monitor as they'll most likely both be somewhere between 4 and 6ms.
V-Sync can add a full frametime (8.33ms @120Hz, 6.94ms @144Hz) or even more (if you drop below half the refresh rate), but apart from adaptive refresh rate there is no easy fix because without it there will be terrible screen tearing. There's triple buffering but DirectX can't drop frames so with DirectX it doesn't work nearly as well as it should.

In case you haven't already thought about it: Prerendered frames obviously have to add that many multiples of frametimes as input lag. Some games use quite high numbers as default, e.g. 5, so reduce that if you can before messing with anything else.

#11
That guy is on way too many drugs.

So all monitors are shit except Iiyama and Viewsonic.

He's complaining about viewing angles on a TN panel.

He's complaining that TN panels got worse image quality than IPS panels.
What kind of magic is supposed to make 144Hz TN panels have better colours than 60Hz IPS panels?

The monitor he likens to the second coming of Christ uses the same AUO M240HW01 V8 panel every and their mother has been using for 144 Hz monitors since the dawn of time.

He's complaining that no LCD offers perfect backlight uniformity.

He blamed the manufacturer for a problem that was fixed by replacing the cable and has since edited that part out of his post.

Yeah no offense, but I wouldn't trust the rant of a random russian guy on a forum who buys gaming monitors based on image quality, but doesn't even calibrate them and is genuinely surprised by TN panels looking worse than IPS panels.

EDIT:
That guy is legitimately on drugs, got more money than sense and really no idea about either the monitor business or monitors. I mean come on, he thinks the VG248QE is better than the XL2411Z.

So after reading all the responses, I see that:

-G-sync eliminates screen tearing and reduces input lag when you are under 144hz (something that does sometimes happen to me, but not a lot)

-Otherwise, g-sync is kind of pointless when your constantly above 144hz

-Overall though not worth it

Am I wrong?

Correct.
It's not only kind of pointless it it 100% pointless when constantly above 144 fps (Hz != fps).

Only worth it if you're really desperate to run games at higher settings.
I mean if you've already got a good enough monitor then for that price you can get a nice GPU upgrade. Problem solved.
Or lower the settings and get 144 fps again. Problem solved again.
Or if it's not a game that really needs 144 Hz set your monitor to 60 Hz. Problem solved again.
I mean if you're getting 30 fps then it'll feel like shit, G-Sync or not. If it's 50 fps on 60 Hz or 100 fps on 120/144 Hz lower settings easily fix it.

It's rather nice if you get it for free (basically any recent 144 Hz monitor comes with FreeSync), but spending 100-300$ extra? Hell no.