skip to main content
research-article

Am I Playing Better Now?: The Effects of G-SYNC in 60Hz Gameplay

Authors Info & Claims
Published:28 April 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

G-SYNC technology matches formerly regular display refreshes to irregular frame updates, improving frame rates and interactive latency. In a previous study of gaming at the 30Hz frame rates common on consoles, players of Battlefield 4 were unable to discern when G-SYNC was in use, but scored higher with G-SYNC and were affected emotionally. We build on that study with the first examination of G-SYNC's effects at the 60Hz frame rate more common in PC gaming and on emerging consoles. Though G-SYNC's effects are less at 60Hz than they were at 30Hz, G-SYNC can still improve the performance of veteran players, particularly when games are challenging. G-SYNC's effects on emotion and experience were limited.

References

  1. Sultan A Alharthi, Olaa Alsaedi, Zachary O Toups, Joshua Tanenbaum, and Jessica Hammer. 2018. Playing to wait: A taxonomy of idle games. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. AMD. 2019. Radeon FreeSyncTechnology | FreeSync 2 HDR Games | AMD. AMD. https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/free-syncGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Michelle Annett, Albert Ng, Paul Dietz, Walter F. Bischof, and Anoop Gupta. 2014. How Low Should We Go?: Understanding the Perception of Latency While Inking. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2014 (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) (GI '14). Canadian Information Processing Society, Toronto, Ont., Canada, Canada, 167--174. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2619648.2619677Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Benjamin B Bederson. 2004. Interfaces for staying in the flow. Ubiquity 2004, September (2004), 1--1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Tom Beigbeder, Rory Coughlan, Corey Lusher, John Plunkett, Emmanuel Agu, and Mark Claypool. 2004. The effects of loss and latency on user performance in unreal tournament 2003®. In Proceedings of 3rd ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Network and system support for games. ACM, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 144--151.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Julia Ayumi Bopp, Elisa D Mekler, and Klaus Opwis. 2016. Negative emotion, positive experience? Emotionally moving moments in digital games. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2996--3006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Julia Ayumi Bopp, Klaus Opwis, and Elisa D Mekler. 2018. "An Odd Kind of Pleasure" Differentiating Emotional Challenge in Digital Games. In Proceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Margaret M Bradley and Peter J Lang. 1994. Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry 25, 1 (1994), 49--59.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Sven Charleer, Kathrin Gerling, Francisco Gutiérrez, Hans Cauwenbergh, Bram Luycx, and Katrien Verbert. 2018. Real-time dashboards to support esports spectating. In Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 59--71.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Jessie YC Chen and Jennifer E Thropp. 2007. Review of low frame rate effects on human performance. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans 37, 6 (2007), 1063--1076.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Mark Claypool and Kajal Claypool. 2006. Latency and player actions in online games. Commun. ACM 49, 11 (2006), 40--45.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Mark Claypool and Kajal Claypool. 2010. Latency can kill: precision and deadline in online games. In Proceedings of the first annual ACM SIGMM conference on Multimedia systems. ACM, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 215--222.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Mark Claypool, Andy Cockburn, and Carl Gutwin. 2019. Game input with delay: moving target selection parameters. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference. ACM, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 25--35.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Mark Claypool, Ragnhild Eg, and Kjetil Raaen. 2016. The effects of delay on game actions: Moving target selection with a mouse. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts. ACM, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 117--123.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Tom Cole, Paul Cairns, and Marco Gillies. 2015. Emotional and functional challenge in core and avant-garde games. In Proceedings of the 2015 annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 121--126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Mary Czerwinski, Eric Horvitz, and Edward Cutrell. 2001. Subjective duration assessment: An implicit probe for software usability. In Proceedings of IHM-HCI 2001 conference, Vol. 2. Springer Verlag, London, UK, 167--170.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Jonathan Deber, Ricardo Jota, Clifton Forlines, and Daniel Wigdor. 2015. How much faster is fast enough?: User perception of latency & latency improvements in direct and indirect touch. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1827--1836.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Matthias Dick, Oliver Wellnitz, and Lars Wolf. 2005. Analysis of factors affecting players' performance and perception in multiplayer games. In Proceedings of 4th ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Network and system support for games. ACM, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1--7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Boris Egloff and Stefan C Schmukle. 2002. Predictive validity of an implicit association test for assessing anxiety. Journal of personality and social psychology 83, 6 (2002), 1441.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Chris Ellis, Syed Zain Masood, Marshall F Tappen, Joseph J LaViola, and Rahul Sukthankar. 2013. Exploring the trade-off between accuracy and observational latency in action recognition. International Journal of Computer Vision 101, 3 (2013), 420--436.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Fraps. 2013. FRAPS game capture video recorder fps viewer. http://www.fraps.com/. (Accessed on 08/29/2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Julian Frommel, Fabian Fischbach, Katja Rogers, and Michael Weber. 2018a. Emotion-based Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment Using Parameterized Difficulty and Self-Reports of Emotion. In Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 163--171.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Julian Frommel, Claudia Schrader, and Michael Weber. 2018b. Towards Emotion-based Adaptive Games: Emotion Recognition Via Input and Performance Features. In Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 173--185.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Video game developer EA DICE and Electronic Arts. 2013. Battlefield. Game[B4].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Chad Phoenix Rose Gowler and Ioanna Iacovides. 2019. " Horror, guilt and shame"-Uncomfortable Experiences in Digital Games. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 325--337.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Anthony G Greenwald and Shelly D Farnham. 2000. Using the implicit association test to measure self-esteem and self-concept. Journal of personality and social psychology 79, 6 (2000), 1022.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Anthony G Greenwald, Debbie E McGhee, and Jordan LK Schwartz. 1998. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of personality and social psychology 74, 6 (1998), 1464.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Anthony G Greenwald, Brian A Nosek, and Mahzarin R Banaji. 2003. Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of personality and social psychology 85, 2 (2003), 197.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Anthony G Greenwald, T Andrew Poehlman, Eric Luis Uhlmann, and Mahzarin R Banaji. 2009. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of personality and social psychology 97, 1 (2009), 17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Juho Hamari and Max Sjöblom. 2017. What is eSports and why do people watch it? Internet research 27, 2 (2017), 211--232. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-04--2016--0085Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Oliver Hohlfeld, Hannes Fiedler, Enric Pujol, and Dennis Guse. 2016. Insensitivity to Network Delay: Minecraft Gaming Experience of Casual Gamers. In 2016 28th International Teletraffic Congress (ITC 28), Vol. 3. IEEE, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ USA, 31--33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Zenja Ivkovic, Ian Stavness, Carl Gutwin, and Steven Sutcliffe. 2015. Quantifying and mitigating the negative effects of local latencies on aiming in 3d shooter games. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 135--144.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Benjamin F Janzen and Robert J Teather. 2014. Is 60 FPS better than 30?: the impact of frame rate and latency on moving target selection. In Proceedings of the extended abstracts of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1477--1482.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Ricardo Jota, Albert Ng, Paul Dietz, and Daniel Wigdor. 2013. How fast is fast enough?: a study of the effects of latency in direct-touch pointing tasks. In Proceedings of the sigchi conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2291--2300.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. J Kampman. 2017. Poll: What's the resolution and refresh rate of your gaming monitor? The Tech Report. https://techreport.com/news/31542/poll-whats-the-resolution-and-refresh-rate-of-your-gaming-monitor/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Carney Landis. 1954. Determinants of the critical flicker-fusion threshold. Physiological Reviews 34, 2(1954), 259--286.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Kristin A Lane, Mahzarin R Banaji, Brian A Nosek, and Anthony G Greenwald. 2007. Understanding and using the implicit association test: IV. In Implicit Measures of Attitudes. Guilford, New York, NY USA, 59--102.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Steven WK Lee and Rocky KC Chang. 2018. Enhancing the experience of multiplayer shooter games via advanced lag compensation. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference. ACM, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 284--293.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Changchun Liu, Pramila Agrawal, Nilanjan Sarkar, and Shuo Chen. 2009. Dynamic difficulty adjustment in computer games through real-time anxiety-based affective feedback. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 25, 6 (2009), 506--529.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Michael Long and Carl Gutwin. 2018. Characterizing and Modeling the Effects of Local Latency on Game Performance and Experience. In Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (Melbourne, VIC, Australia) (CHI PLAY '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 285--297. https://doi.org/10.1145/3242671.3242678Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Michael Long and Carl Gutwin. 2019. Effects of Local Latency on Game Pointing Devices and Game Pointing Tasks. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 208.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Adam W Meade. 2009. FreeIAT: An open-source program to administer the Implicit Association Test. Applied psychological measurement 33, 8 (2009), 643. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/0146621608327803Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Albert Mehrabian and James A Russell. 1974. An approach to environmental psychology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Jeanne Nakamura and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 2014. The concept of flow. In Flow and the foundations of positive psychology. Springer Verlag, London, UK, 239--263.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Newzoo. 2019. New Twitch Rankings: Top Games by Esports and Total Viewing Hours. Newzoo. https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/new-twitch-rankings-top-games-esports-total-viewing-hours/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. NVIDIA. 2019. G-SYNC Ultimate Gaming Monitors. NVIDIA. https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/products/g-sync-monitors/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Jurre Pannekeet. 2019. Global Esports Economy Will Top $ 1 Billion for the First Time in 2019. Newzoo. https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/newzoo-global-esports-economy-will-top-1-billion-for-the-first-time-in-2019/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Christian H Poth, Rebecca M Foerster, Christian Behler, Ulrich Schwanecke, Werner X Schneider, and Mario Botsch. 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Ultrahigh temporal resolution of visual presentation using gaming monitors and G-Sync. Behavior research methods 50, 1 (2018), 26--38.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Shaghayegh Roohi, Elisa D Mekler, Mikke Tavast, Tatu Blomqvist, and Perttu Hämäläinen. 2019. Recognizing Emotional Expression in Game Streams. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 301--311.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Samit Sarkar. 2014. Why frame rate and resolution matter: A graphics primer. Polygon. https://www.polygon.com/2014/6/5/5761780/frame-rate-resolution-graphics-primer-ps4-xbox-oneGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Josef Spjut, Ben Boudaoud, Kamran Binaee, Jonghyun Kim, Alexander Majercik, Morgan McGuire, David Luebke, and Joohwan Kim. 2019. Latency of 30 ms Benefits First Person Targeting Tasks More Than Refresh Rate Above 60 Hz. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2019 Technical Briefs. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 110--113.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Samuel Stewart. 2019. What Is The Best FPS For Gaming? Gaming Scan. https://www.gamingscan.com/best-fps-gaming/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Andrew B Watson and Albert J Ahumada. 2011. 64.3: flicker visibility: a perceptual metric for display flicker. In SID symposium digest of Technical Papers, Vol. 42. Wiley Online Library, Hoboken, NJ USA, 957--959.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Benjamin Watson, Rachit Shrivastava, and Ajinkya Gavane. 2019. The Effects of Adaptive Synchronization on Performance and Experience in Gameplay. Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques 2, 1 (2019), 5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. AF Wattimena, Robert E Kooij, JM Van Vugt, and OK Ahmed. 2006. Predicting the perceived quality of a first person shooter: the Quake IV G-model. In Proceedings of 5th ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Network and system support for games. ACM, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Eric N Wiebe, Allison Lamb, Megan Hardy, and David Sharek. 2014. Measuring engagement in video game-based environments: Investigation of the User Engagement Scale. Computers in Human Behavior 32 (2014), 123--132.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Am I Playing Better Now?: The Effects of G-SYNC in 60Hz Gameplay

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques
          Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques  Volume 4, Issue 1
          April 2021
          274 pages
          EISSN:2577-6193
          DOI:10.1145/3463840
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2021 ACM

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 28 April 2021
          Published in pacmcgit Volume 4, Issue 1

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)29
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!