980ti w/o Freesync or 580 with Freesync

[loftie]

Yep and I wish I could keep it but with only 1 Display Port, it doesn't fit my needs

Damn, if I'd read your OP completely i would have been able to tell you that and you could have cancelled the order.

 

[Casdawer]

Why didn't you just get a switch?
I've got 4 consoles hooked upto a HDMI switch, that takes up one port on the monitor.

HDMI to DisplayPort adapters can be rather expensive and I'd then need to buy a switch to go with it.

Plus it would mess with Gsync going through an adapter.

 

[nashathedog]

It's this monitor https://displaysolutions.samsung.com/business-monitor/detail/1112/C24FG

I believe its a 48-144 freesync range.

This is why Gsync is superior to Freesync.

Full 30-144hz synchronisation.

No messing about with different monitors doing different ranges and or LFC needing to kick in.

It does what it says on the tin.

G-sync is only superior if the Freesync monitor does not support Freesync properly and considering how much monitors can cost we should all be researching any monitor before buying it anyway, regardless of whether it's a G-sync or Freesync model..

When a monitor doesn't have decent Freesync support that's on the monitor manufacturer not the Freesync technology. The problem has been that manufacturers like LG have taken advantage of the hype around Freesync and branded the worst possible examples of Freesync monitors with the name to help push sales, Their first Freesync Ultrawides had a 48-60 working range, that was them blatantly taking advantage of the hype around the adaptive sync tech and using it to sell so called gaming monitors. When a monitor company as big as LG is taking advantage of the fact that there's no requirements for using the name it's doomed from the start.

To combat the problem of monitors supporting Freesync but giving an inferior experience AMD have maintained more control of the Freesync 2 branding. With Freesync 2 the manufacturer's can only use the name if the panel has a wide working range, supports LFC and meets several other conditions. AMD came up with LFC by copying how G-sync deals with framerate dips below 30 fps.
As an example my Freesync Ultrawide monitor has a 75 hz panel with a working range of 30-75 hz with LFC for when framerates dip below 30 fps. That's as good as it gets from either sync tech. My monitor before that one was a 144hz ultrawide with a 40-144hz range with LFC for when framerates dip below 40 fps, The one before that was a lemon with a 144hz widescreen panel but only a 40-90 hz working range and no LFC support. The problem with Freesync has been inconsistent support, All upcoming Freesync 2 monitors fix that. As for the original Freesync monitors all we need to do is a spec check before buying to know what it's Freesync support is like. Just 10 minutes research can make all the difference when buying a Freesync monitor, A bit of research means you can buy a Freesync monitor that's every bit as good as a G-sync monitor.


https://www.amd.com/Documents/freesync-lfc.pdf

https://www.amd.com/en/products/freesync-monitors

 

[vfdb]

You would have to be insane to swap a gtx 980ti for a rx 580 freesync or not

 

[Casdawer]

Yea, I'm thinking about keeping it.

Been playing around with Afterburner and now have it sitting at 1070 levels and all running good.

 

[vfdb]

I have a gysnc monitor and have been really underwhelmed with it, I fail to see what all the hype is about it tbh.

 

[Rroff]

G-sync is only superior if the Freesync monitor does not support Freesync properly and considering how much monitors can cost we should all be researching any monitor before buying it anyway, regardless of whether it's a G-sync or Freesync model..

Although it is somewhat a moot point as once framerates start dropping towards 40 and below its pretty meh anyhow but personally I find G-Sync's behaviour at lower framerates a lot better - FreeSync I can tell much more it is duplicating frames and the slower recovery/increased input latency from the way it is done.

With G-Sync you also have the option of using FastSync while not without some caveats but that can significantly improve the experience on a 60-75Hz G-Sync display if you have a enough GPU horsepower overhead.

I have a gysnc monitor and have been really underwhelmed with it, I fail to see what all the hype is about it tbh.

Guess it depends how sensitive to tearing and latency you are - where I really notice it now though hah is if I go back to a setup that doesn't have some form of adaptive sync - man do I really notice it then.

 

[nashathedog]

Although it is somewhat a moot point as once framerates start dropping towards 40 and below its pretty meh anyhow but personally I find G-Sync's behaviour at lower framerates a lot better - FreeSync I can tell much more it is duplicating frames and the slower recovery/increased input latency from the way it is done.

That's interesting & something I'd like to compare when I can, I imagine the type of game being played matters a lot as well, I tend to play single player games like the STALKER's, Fallout's, Metro's & other similar titles where it's less of an issue than it'd be with faster moving pvp titles, That said I focus on keeping my fps above 40 anyway which with an RX480 pushing 3440x1440 means lots of lower graphics settings. That said I've yet to find a game that it can't keep looking good & running comfortably so I've not got much to complain about.