Fps Vs freesync?

[mediamatt]

Hi,

Still trying to decide between heart (2700x/Vega64) and head (8086k/1080ti) and wondered if you thought AMD route using Freesync would be better? I thought Freesync would just stop the tearing but have been told today that it would also make the game much smoother (banking over in flight simulation for example). Would love to go AMD if only to put fingers up to Intel and Nvidia but don't want to spend tons and have poor performance.

Thoughts?

 

[pooley]

go with the heart imo, i have a (1600/fury) with a freesync ultra-wide monitor and i love the feature so i have stuck with the fury even though i have been tempted to go green for the extra fps..

 

[Rroff]

Ultimately there is no substitution for FPS - adaptive sync technologies make it a much better experience around 60-70fps whereas before you'd need 100+ to minimise the perception of tearing and/or minimise perception of input latency with V-Sync and can make occasional dips below that far more acceptable but at the end of the day low FPS is low FPS.

 

[loftie]

I still feel stuttering in games with Freesync but it is smoother. As an example, I use Chill with a base fps of 48fps normally, and I normally cap at 60fps as I can normally tell when my samsung screen switches off LFC at 70Hz so I try to minimize it bouncing above and below 70Hz, and I can't feel the dips down to 48fps and it ramping up to 60fps on the fly. Sure it'll do it quickly but I still can't feel it.

On the flip side, I've been playing Fallout New Vegas recently and I can feel the game stuttering even though it's locked at 60fps. Starbound is the same though it has fps drops, and I can feel it in Stardew Valley (also locked at 60fps) when it seems to do it for no reason. All in all, it's no holy grail but it is nice. If you can't feel or aren't bothered by input lag IMO go with the Ti.

Edit:Be warned, freesync (mine does) and gsync (there was a techreport article about it, it may now be fixed) can cause screen flicker. If you're samsung you get away with it by saying it can cause flickering and then it's not a fault

 

[Phixsator]

Hi,

Still trying to decide between heart (2700x/Vega64) and head (8086k/1080ti) and wondered if you thought AMD route using Freesync would be better? I thought Freesync would just stop the tearing but have been told today that it would also make the game much smoother (banking over in flight simulation for example). Would love to go AMD if only to put fingers up to Intel and Nvidia but don't want to spend tons and have poor performance.

Thoughts?

Lets get a few things straight.
1) Freesync can do the exact same thing as Gsync the only difference being the implementation of Freesync done by the monitor manufacturer(early freesync monitors wasn't the greatest). Also Freesync monitors are not limited to 1 HDMI and 1 DP input due to a module. You will find a much broader range of connectivity and options on a lot of the newer Freesync monitors.
2)There is absolutely nothing logical about buying a 8086k. None what so ever. If its Intel you want you might as well get the 8700k. Overclocking Intel is easy and boring. You are going to need a proper cooling setup no matter which you pick anyway (the 8700k or the 8086k).

With that out the way. I personally would get the ryzen 2700x and my personal reason for that the platform package overall is just better imho. You get more PCI lanes to play with(this can be a great boon if you want a board that sports a lot of M.2 or similar connections) and longer platform support. Of course the platform isnt perfect but again to me seems to offer more to me than any z370 build would be able to. And while it wont run away with any intel crushing fps numbers its close enough behind the 8700k once its properly setup that the minute difference means absolutely nothing to me.

For GPU well you gotta weigh the Pro's and Con's with your own use case and desires.
Pro 1080ti reasons could be:
1) Fastests gaming card on the market(not counting Titan XP/V).
2) Wins the performance per dollar chart over vega 64 due to being prices close(within 10%).

Pro Vega reason could be:
1) Sometimes slightly cheaper than the 1080ti? (still looses in most games in terms of price/performance and just overall performance ofc).
2) Broader and cheaper selection of Monitors if varaible refresh rate gaming is important to you(gsync/freesync).
3) A more modern looking driver package and yes that actually is important to some.

In the last few years i've had a r9 290, rx 480 and 580, gtx 780, gtx 980 ti, gtx 1070 and my latest and current is a gtx 1080ti. all of them have been great with the except of the msi twin frozr r9 290 which was so underperforming in the cooling department it was mind boggling and my 980ti which i had major driver issues with the first 6 months after release. Currently very happy with my 1080ti from a performance standpoint but i would most likely be equally happy if it had been a vega 64. Only reason i didnt get a vega card was crypto prices and availability.

 

[mediamatt]

I so want to go all AMD but on a different forum dedicated to flight simulation EVERYBODY is saying to avoid AMD as the they are rubbish (X Plane uses opengl) and that intel still has far superior IPC which is what XP uses .

 

[Rroff]

If you spend a lot of time playing flight sims then AMD doesn't really make sense unfortunately - many of them are heavily optimised for Intel and/or nVidia also older flight sims (where performance is still relevant due to how much is going on etc.) just work better on those platforms.

EDIT: Gonna bug me now but there is one flight sim engine usually used for professional installations that can actually utilise upto 16 AMD GPUs.

 

[mediamatt]

Which one??

 

[Rroff]

That is what is bugging me - I can't remember the name - years back someone showed me an installation they'd worked on using it that had 8x AMD 3870 or something like that.

 

[JediFragger]

Both are good combo's, but I say go with your heart (and Freesync is a bonus!)

 

[Panos]

Hi,

Still trying to decide between heart (2700x/Vega64) and head (8086k/1080ti) and wondered if you thought AMD route using Freesync would be better? I thought Freesync would just stop the tearing but have been told today that it would also make the game much smoother (banking over in flight simulation for example). Would love to go AMD if only to put fingers up to Intel and Nvidia but don't want to spend tons and have poor performance.

Thoughts?

I would say go Freesync. If it is for X Plane only though, get the 8700/8086 and the Vega64.

After that depends the resolution. Are we talking 1080p? 2560x1440? 3440x1440? 4K?

Here are some reviews

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=xplane11-amd-nvidia&num=2

Also the devs are planning to move the game to Vulcan shortly.

 

[mediamatt]

It is 2560x1440. Will look at that link

 

[Panos]

It is 2560x1440. Will look at that link

Is there any FPS cap at 91 on that game? Because all NV cards are capped at 91.
Also there is something weird, the GTX970 beats the GTX1080!

Have a look also here

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15rNa7_naUM8a4YzzrzwrxvWSl4X8SHesshZGm7H54AI/pubhtml

It has peoples systems and posted FPS.

 

[mediamatt]

Them charts show even the 580 isn't far off the 1080ti as the engine is CPU heavy . Wonder if the 2700x would be close to the 8700k with them same gpus

 

[Rroff]

Also there is something weird, the GTX970 beats the GTX1080!

You can get some weirdness with some flight sims due to the types of rendering they do different to a lot of games i.e. they could be rendering an abnormally large number of primitive objects in some scenes which can favour older GPUs that are often optimised around shovelling a lot of simple texels over shader effects, etc. IIRC for a long time in FSX? the 8800 Ultra was king even 3-4 generations of GPUs later - infact I think it still beats many Kepler cards in that.

 

[Panos]

You can get some weirdness with some flight sims due to the types of rendering they do different to a lot of games i.e. they could be rendering an abnormally large number of primitive objects in some scenes which can favour older GPUs that are often optimised around shovelling a lot of simple texels over shader effects, etc. IIRC for a long time in FSX? the 8800 Ultra was king even 3-4 generations of GPUs later - infact I think it still beats many Kepler cards in that.

True that.

 

[mediamatt]

Anyone with a 2700x and 580/Vega 54/Vega 64 would try it out for me? X Plane 11 with high settings??

 

[Panos]

Anyone with a 2700x and 580/Vega 54/Vega 64 would try it out for me? X Plane 11 with high settings??

Maybe ask in the Vega 64 owners discussion as you will find most people there.

There is also a discussion here with your question
https://forums.x-plane.org/index.ph...nder-amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-rx-vega-64/

It all depends how many AI airplanes you have. Multicore CPUs allow for more AI airplanes.
Some even suggest Threadripper for as many as you like

 

[pandem0nium]

I went with 2700x + 1080ti.

 

[DragonQ]

Being able to go above 60 FPS but not needing to hit 144 FPS constantly is an advantage from a budget perspective (and also allows you to increase image quality settings). I find low FPS very noticeable (I hate watching sport on anything but broadcast TV since essentially every other source is 25 FPS instead of 50 FPS) so I try to keep everything running at 60+ FPS but that's not always possible (one fight in Divinity: Original Sin 2 drops to ~15 FPS for example). It's pretty obvious when I drop below 57 FPS and LFC kicks in too.

Playing games, particularly FPSs, at 100 FPS or more is a fantastic experience and I wouldn't ever go back. The only way I'd accept a setup without adaptive sync would be if the GPU was powerful enough to pump out 144 FPS using V-Sync on a 1440p 144 Hz monitor (or better), whilst retaining reasonable quality settings. Right now that's either impossible or stupidly expensive.