Also as previously quoted....XPlane is going over to Vulkan at the end of the year, or so I have heard. You'll have no problems then.
-
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.
Fps Vs freesync?
- Thread starter mediamatt
- Start date
Also as previously quoted....XPlane is going over to Vulkan at the end of the year, or so I have heard. You'll have no problems then.
Yes that's true actually, forgot about the 2.5x range restriction.Well, technically you do. As in, the maximum VRR range frequency must be 2.5x the minimum frequency for LFC to work. Saying that, if it says the monitor supports LFC then you should be able to take for granted that the max is 2.5x the minimum frequency. If not then its fibbing and shouldnt be called LFC compatible.
https://www.amd.com/Documents/freesync-lfc.pdf
Your always safe with Freesync if you go for a monitor with the greatest VRR range you can get. Mine is 40-144 and that is the reason why I bought the XL2730Z. At that time it had the greatest VRR frequency range and has been a great monitor with my Fury and 1070. I do find that the gameplay is smoother with the Fury and Freesync even though the FPS is higher on the 1070, but the 1070 still runs great with it and I have had no driver issues with either card to be honest. I don't go and update the drivers until I need to though. Saves a lot of to-ing and Fro-ing and piddling about with software IMHO.
Your always safe with Freesync if you go for a monitor with the greatest VRR range you can get. Mine is 40-144 and that is the reason why I bought the XL2730Z. At that time it had the greatest VRR frequency range and has been a great monitor with my Fury and 1070. I do find that the gameplay is smoother with the Fury and Freesync even though the FPS is higher on the 1070, but the 1070 still runs great with it and I have had no driver issues with either card to be honest. I don't go and update the drivers until I need to though. Saves a lot of to-ing and Fro-ing and piddling about with software IMHO.
Ha... Yes FuryX doesn't pull the XL2730Z but I can tell you with that monitor comparing GTX1080Ti (had the Xtreme) and Vega64 (having Nitro+) hands down AMD wins.
Yes less FPS but still on high 100 range (instead of tearing fest 170fps the 1080ti) but so smooth.....
Also have you updated your FuryX bios to the official AMD UEFI one? It was getting 8% up front perf boost clock for clock, and higher overclock headroom.
It could do 1200/600 (1200) my FuryX with that bios. Before it was stuck on 1075/550.
Same applied to the Nano. It could do 1140/550 while before 1050/500.
Well, technically you do. As in, the maximum VRR range frequency must be 2.5x the minimum frequency for LFC to work. Saying that, if it says the monitor supports LFC then you should be able to take for granted that the max is 2.5x the minimum frequency. If not then its fibbing and shouldnt be called LFC compatible.
https://www.amd.com/Documents/freesync-lfc.pdf
The limitation was changed for LFC AFAIK, which is why the Samsungs don't meet it and yet have LFC.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,182
The early Freesync monitors were a bit ropey from what I remember, with the later ones being ok. If you're a gamer just make sure it has LFC!!
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 10,757
- Location
- West End, Southampton
Disagree somewhat. I've two rigs, one with vega64 one with 1080ti. I use a 144hz Freesync screen and can tell you gaming with Vega and Freesync is like butter compared to running high fps on a 144hz monitor with the 1080ti. There are games where even 143fps locked with the 1080ti feels lumpy and terrible compared to adaptive sync experience.
There is no substitute for adaptive sync tech, not even a 1080ti and 143fps makes me enjoy gaming. It's a horrible experience, it's night and day switching between the two systems.
Over ~120 FPS things drop off a bit but for a good number of games input latency and fluidity are so important - some people are happier with a consistent framerate output but personally I tend to notice the extra latency from most approaches to that i.e. V-Sync.
Locked framerate isn't always a good way to go about it - 143FPS locked with V-Sync on will generally feel pretty nasty if you are getting drops to the next V-Sync multiplier down.
+1
Exactly my experience with Vega 56 vs GTX 1080.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 May 2015
- Posts
- 2,510
- Location
- Manchester
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 May 2015
- Posts
- 2,510
- Location
- Manchester
I work in IT with a lot of younger people and they chase the FPS, you've got to have the best card for the highest frames.
Those who know are well aware that smooth gameplay isn't necessarily about higher frames per second, it's more about the frame timings. So I'd much rather game at 60-70fps with G-Sync/Freesync than 100-120fps without. It's the reason this 1070 is having an extremely long life as well.
Depends a bit on the game for me - I'm playing The Division at the moment a lot - 60-70 FPS much of the time with G-Sync it is fine - I used to play BF4 a lot before I switched to playing TD and I needed atleast 100 - more like 120FPS (With G-Sync) to feel fully happy with the game in terms of input latency and general responsiveness - I had to play on my 75Hz Ultra Wide for a few weeks while RMAing my 144Hz G-Sync panel and it wasn't bad but it was far less than I was really happy with and that was with the use of FastSync and being able to render high framerates.
Amen.
GTX1080Ti Xtreme while brilliant card, dishing a lot of fps (160) didn't provided as good experience as the Vega 64 with 110fps and Freesync. Let alone the tearing at the bottom third of the screen, you see everything around moving like a very fast slideshow.
Something that doesn't even happen on the FuryX at 70fps and on the same screen (XL2730Z).