I have a XL2730Z (Freesync monitor). Since I got it, used it with AMD card (295x2, R9 Nano). Apart between mid August this year and last week, where I had a GTX1080.
Experience.
a) If the heavily overclocked GTX1080 @ 2190, generated on a game 120fps+ everything was OK looking, smooth and you will be hard pressed if not impossible to see the difference.
b) If it didn't produced 120fps, but less, I could see the difference between Freesync and no-Freesync quality on the screen. With tears and pretty bad quality like I was back to my old monitor. And I am talking also about 100-120fps range. Let alone games like TW Warhammer which is avg less than 70 all the time.
c) Having put back my R9 Nano (@1140), yes I have less FPS than the 1080, 2/3 of the FPS the 1080 gave me, but the screen is smooth even at 50fps on games like TW Warhammer. Or even when I run benchmarks like Firestrike and Spy!
On 1080, especially Spy looks horrendous, even if the card got 60% more fps than the R9 Nano.
So. Is the Gsync/Freesync tech worth? Yes.
If you have a Gsync monitor, I do not see the point trying to buy "the next best card" as long as you are happy with the settings it deals, the screen is smooth and you are happy WITH THE MONITOR.
As I do not see the point trying to buy an NVidia card if your AMD card is up to scratch delivering constant fps between your monitor working range.
(I bought the GTX1080 because it was my 40th bday).
Yes there are more Freesync monitors and soon Freesync TVs, and the variety will only get bigger to choose a Freesync, because Intel supports Adaptive Sync via DP1.2a not only AMD. And for many companies that is a big point. (let alone the costs)
And yes we have some pretty cool HDR monitors coming out from both LG & Samsung, all of them including Freesync by default.
So for me the main question to the OP is, are you happy with your monitor? Forget your graphic card.
Experience.
a) If the heavily overclocked GTX1080 @ 2190, generated on a game 120fps+ everything was OK looking, smooth and you will be hard pressed if not impossible to see the difference.
b) If it didn't produced 120fps, but less, I could see the difference between Freesync and no-Freesync quality on the screen. With tears and pretty bad quality like I was back to my old monitor. And I am talking also about 100-120fps range. Let alone games like TW Warhammer which is avg less than 70 all the time.
c) Having put back my R9 Nano (@1140), yes I have less FPS than the 1080, 2/3 of the FPS the 1080 gave me, but the screen is smooth even at 50fps on games like TW Warhammer. Or even when I run benchmarks like Firestrike and Spy!
On 1080, especially Spy looks horrendous, even if the card got 60% more fps than the R9 Nano.
So. Is the Gsync/Freesync tech worth? Yes.
If you have a Gsync monitor, I do not see the point trying to buy "the next best card" as long as you are happy with the settings it deals, the screen is smooth and you are happy WITH THE MONITOR.
As I do not see the point trying to buy an NVidia card if your AMD card is up to scratch delivering constant fps between your monitor working range.
(I bought the GTX1080 because it was my 40th bday).
Yes there are more Freesync monitors and soon Freesync TVs, and the variety will only get bigger to choose a Freesync, because Intel supports Adaptive Sync via DP1.2a not only AMD. And for many companies that is a big point. (let alone the costs)
And yes we have some pretty cool HDR monitors coming out from both LG & Samsung, all of them including Freesync by default.
So for me the main question to the OP is, are you happy with your monitor? Forget your graphic card.
Last edited:
(Waiting for SSD to come down in price a tad more to do a fresh win 10 install, I want a big one)
but then it seems I got a good one that had the v2 firmware), probably due to it being £499 at the time and the fact that the equivalent ROG Swift was over £700.
