• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

***AMD Freesync owners thread***

GoogalyMoogaly said:
Just as with GSync I can't see me buying a new monitor just for this feature.
When we start seeing 4K 120/144Hz panels (IPS would be nice) then I may look to get a new monitor at which point it'd be nice to get one with GSync/Freesync.

I believe there was talk that my Iiyama screen could be updated/upgraded to Freesync, but it seems like too much hassle to be worth it.
Click to expand...

Same, on that I wouldn't upgrade just for *sync as a feature.... I've just been waiting an age to upgrade. 120hz+ 1440p. I've been waiting for something I consider a higher spec than a 23-24" 120hz 1080p screen. I could have gone 27" 1080p but to me the reduced pixel density feels like a downgrade, dropping down to 60hz for 1440p was a non starter. If the Swift had been non insanely priced I would have bought one of those, with g-sync(had g-sync cost nothing extra and not lost you extra inputs) because it's the spec of screen I've been waiting for regardless of *sync feature.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Same, on that I wouldn't upgrade just for *sync as a feature.... I've just been waiting an age to upgrade. 120hz+ 1440p. I've been waiting for something I consider a higher spec than a 23-24" 120hz 1080p screen. I could have gone 27" 1080p but to me the reduced pixel density feels like a downgrade, dropping down to 60hz for 1440p was a non starter. If the Swift had been non insanely priced I would have bought one of those, with g-sync(had g-sync cost nothing extra and not lost you extra inputs) because it's the spec of screen I've been waiting for regardless of *sync feature.
Click to expand...

If I was still at 1080p 120Hz I might have been tempted to go with a 1440p 120/144Hz monitor as an upgrade, but since I already have a 4K panel any less than 4K feels like a downgrade. Since the current 4K monitors are only 60Hz I really wouldn't be gaining much.

The other issue for me is that if you're an Nvidia fanboy you can safely buy a GSync monitor and if you're an AMD Fanboy you can safely buy a Freesync monitor, but those of us that will happily buy AMD or Nvidia depending on how we feel and what's available at the time, it's not an easy choice of what to get. I don't want to have to change monitor every time I change GPU vendor and if I don't then I could be getting a new monitor with a feature I can't use when I next change GPU.

Also, I'm not pro enough at games that I can't manage with either FPS limiting or VSync, so the attraction of GSync/FreeSync is reduced.


* And yes I know 3840 x 2160 is UHD not 4K, but it's just quicker...
 
~Mike~ said:
Not getting one any time soon, quite happy with the monitor I currently have.
Click to expand...

GoogalyMoogaly said:
The other issue for me is that if you're an Nvidia fanboy you can safely buy a GSync monitor and if you're an AMD Fanboy you can safely buy a Freesync monitor, but those of us that will happily buy AMD or Nvidia depending on how we feel and what's available at the time, it's not an easy choice of what to get. I don't want to have to change monitor every time I change GPU vendor and if I don't then I could be getting a new monitor with a feature I can't use when I next change GPU.

Also, I'm not pro enough at games that I can't manage with either FPS limiting or VSync, so the attraction of GSync/FreeSync is reduced.
Click to expand...

Sums it up for me, along with FS is an unknown entity as yet and if Nvidia adopt AS(which I think they will), I might change my mind later down the line.
 
tommybhoy said:
Sums it up for me, along with FS is an unknown entity as yet and if Nvidia adopt AS(which I think they will), I might change my mind later down the line.
Click to expand...

I very much doubt NVIDIA will adopt FS - doing so would be practically admitting it's superior to GSYNC in terms of the costs.

NVIDIA know that enough % of the market are prepared to pay a premium for their hardware, and with more and more games supporting gameworks technology, which cripples AMD's performance in those games, it's likely they'll keep being able to charge a premium for the GSYNC support.
 
To say freesync is free is like saying your brand new car came with two years free servicing. The service isn't free as the cost is included in purchase price of the car in the same way freesync isn't cost free as adding a displayport to a monitor has cost in itself and to even be able use DP you need to belong to vesa group and purchase the latest spec (thats how vesa makes its money to continue development of DP).

Saying that freesync is a lot more elegant then gsync sort of reminds of when sli and crossfire hit the market to use crossfire you needed a master card and an external dvi cable to connect the two cards. This time it's AMD who have got it right first time around.
 
The gsync premium may only be there until freesync launches, I think it will get a lot more competitive after that. If it doesn't then my next card will be AMD as I'm not paying £100 or more for pretty much the same feature.
 
Obviously have to wait for reviews and final pricing but I'm still torn between one of the 144Hz/1440p models and the Samsung 4K ones. Just can't decide what I'd appreciate more, the extra fps or the extra resolution.
 
Not many Freesync owners yet.... :D

Joking of course but I do look forward to seeing what people think of this amazing tech. I personally would find it very hard to go back to normal tearing/stuttering gaming after so long with G-Sync.
 
Freddie1980 said:
To say freesync is free is like saying your brand new car came with two years free servicing. The service isn't free as the cost is included in purchase price of the car in the same way freesync isn't cost free as adding a displayport to a monitor has cost in itself and to even be able use DP you need to belong to vesa group and purchase the latest spec (thats how vesa makes its money to continue development of DP).

Saying that freesync is a lot more elegant then gsync sort of reminds of when sli and crossfire hit the market to use crossfire you needed a master card and an external dvi cable to connect the two cards. This time it's AMD who have got it right first time around.
Click to expand...

It's perfectly obvious to everyone what is meant by free when talking about freesync, someone will surely come along and say you can't have freesync without buying a monitor at some point. AMD could charge to license Freesync and change anything from 10p to £100 for it, they don't, thus to any sensible person it is free.

By comparison Nvidia both charge a licensing fee AND require the g-sync module both of which have a significant cost, both costs which do not exist in regards to Freesync.

There is also nothing electrically different about the display port 1.2a over 1.2 afaik, it's just an agreement to effectively use the signal on a spare channel that was left spare for future things like this to be used.

The simple fact is that if freesync did not exist, lets take the Acer freesync screen, without freesync it would still have a DP port, which is identical, and it would still need a couple of chips and some power circuitry and Acer would still be a member of Vesa and still pay the exact same amount for the usage of a DP port. Thus there are no extra costs there, that freesync uses a DP port which necessitates a Vesa membership is completely irrelevant when those costs are identical to screens not using freesync but use DP(which most even half decent screens do now).
 
For me Freesync has already won over Gsync before I have even tested.. One simple feature from Freesync that Gsync dont..

Given the user full control over the frame rate! That alone for me personally is enough!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom