Freesync vs Gsync for new monitor

[MonsterMoshi]

Hi guys I'm looking to purchase a new ultrawide in the next few days most likely the PG34Q but I'm wondering if they are worth the extra for the Gsync module vs say the LG 34UC98-W
As you can see form my specs I'm running two AMD280X cards which obviously don't support Gsync but don't support Freesync either So I'm looking at this as an investment. I will be upgrading my cards next year likely to Nvida cards as I really miss not having driver issues...

But... is Gsync here to stay? Seen as they do essentially the same thing is freesync/DP adaptive sync going to win out and Nvidia begin to support that on their cards making the extra on the PG34Q a waste? Would Gsync monitors support Freesync with firmware updates?
Thanks

 

[chaparral]

But... is Gsync here to stay? Seen as they do essentially the same thing is freesync/DP adaptive sync going to win out and Nvidia begin to support that on their cards making the extra on the PG34Q a waste? Would Gsync monitors support Freesync with firmware updates?
Thanks

My Guess would be it going be pretty hard for AMD freesync to win the battle when they don't even have any decent GPU's available .....

So I'm looking at this as an investment.

Love to know how you think spending over £1000 on just a PC gaming monitor is an investment ?

 

[llamadal]

Gsync is around for the long term and it's great.

 

[mistersprinkles]

If I had to go back to a monitor without G-Sync I would hang myself with an extension cord.

 

[Smoogels]

Depending on when you're buying next year it could be worth having the AMD Vega cards in mind. The premium between them two monitors is pretty large.

In terms of performance, if you put a properly configured Freesync vs Gsync side by side I doubt you would notice a difference and with AMD continuing to improve it (just recently borderless window support) it is increasingly harder to justify the price premium.

Gsync is here to stay though it wouldn't surprise me if in a few years time Nvidia would support adaptive sync as lacking this feature could loose them sales as Freesync becomes increasingly popular. Monitor marketing would slap on the box how great Freesync is, causing people who are comparing similar cards like the 480/1060 to get the Freesync compatible option.

On a side note if anything it appears Nvidia is suffering more from driver issues than AMD at the moment. For me at least AMD drivers have been rock solid for years.

 

[jigger]

Very topical question. Top and bottom of it is if you're happy to pay a lot of money for something you can have for free?

 

[aatu]

My Guess would be it going be pretty hard for AMD freesync to win the battle when they don't even have any decent GPU's available .....

If you look at the statistics, they would suggest that the manufacturers seem to disagree with you. (the post is originally discussing VA panels, but has good info on FreeSync vs. G-Sync, as well). Here's the important parts involving FreeSync&G-Sync:

But, a little bit of statistics (the 2016 figures are naturally only Jan-Oct):

2015 new monitors in total: 268 IPS, 156 TN, 59 VA
2016 new monitors in total: 178 IPS, 116 TN, 57 VA

2015 G-Sync monitors: 8 IPS, 3 TN, 1 VA
2016 G-Sync monitors: 3 IPS, 5 TN, 6 VA

2015 FreeSync monitors: 13 IPS, 15 TN, 2 VA
2016 FreeSync monitors: 32 IPS, 17 TN, 13 VA

Interesting small tidbits:
- every fourth new VA is FreeSync compatible
- FreeSync seems to have gained ground quite rapidly (every sixth new monitor supports FreeSync)

Disclaimer: These are just hasty calculations from a price aggregation site.

Also check this post (/whole thread) for more discussion. Here's a quote for the post:

Check this post, I collected some market data in October:
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=30092340

Keep in mind, FreeSync is more appealing not only for customers, but also for manufacturers; The nVidia-tax is quite a tangible part of the overall manufacturing costs for G-Sync monitors. For manufacturers, the profit margin decreases, and thus their percentual return-on-investment suffers.

Whereas with FreeSync (/Adaptive-Sync, which FreeSync is based on), you can implement it to your monitors for next to nothing, so there's not much sense to NOT do it. That's also one of the main reasons why most manufacturers offer it more often than G-Sync.

As for customers, it's naturally more compelling to purchase a monitor that costs £100-200 less, but offers the same features. The same price saving could be transferred to purchasing a more powerful GPU, which in case of FreeSync, is by default AMD's.

Also, because the price difference versus a regular monitor is relatively small, there's no compelling reason NOT to purchase a FreeSync monitor, if the other alternative is one without a variable refresh rate, at all. And because of this, more manufacturers will have to implement it, otherwise they will become the "runner-up" in comparisons.

So, if you're an AMD GPU owner, there's no reason to purchase a G-Sync monitor. But if you're an nVidia GPU owner, and you don't want to pay extra for the G-Sync, then there's no logical reason NOT to buy a FreeSync monitor, instead. The FreeSync option will even remain for a potential future AMD GPU purchase, whereas you can for the time being use it as a regular monitor, in any case.

As such, nVidia is actually taking a huge risk, when they refuse to even support Adaptive-Sync. Currently FreeSync monitors and AMD GPUs are perfect complementary products. nVidia's reluctance, which drives more customers and thus manufacturers towards FreeSync, can also drive customers towards AMD's GPUs, as well.

I would reckon that nVidia has smart people in their marketing department, who should be aware of this. So the bigger question is: do they have something up their sleeve, that the market is yet unaware of? Or maybe they're just hanging on to a foolish hope, who knows... But the situation surely ain't looking good for G-Sync, at the moment.

Even Intel has already given their support for Adaptive-Sync, so my take on the situation is that nVidia will eventually just have to swallow their pride and at least start supporting Adaptive-Sync.

In other words, I'd wager that nVidia is most likely going to adopt at least Adaptive-Sync at some point (which is what FreeSync is based on).

Love to know how you think spending over £1000 on just a PC gaming monitor is an investment ?

I think he meant that he'll purchase it as a long term option, carrying over multiple system builds. Also, if you're going for FreeSync, then you're only looking at £750, if comparing to a £1000 G-Sync alternative...

 

[Nexus18]

^^

+1

The sheer number of freesync displays now is incredible and gsync was out for over a year longer too. IMO, if gsync was selling as well as what some claim then I think it is safe to say we would be seeing a lot higher numbers than that.... See link below for other reasons as to why there aren't many gsync monitors in comparison.



As most of the fair expert review sites and people who have had both have said, the end result is the exact same for free and g sync, smooths things out and prevents tearing, only differences are:

- gsync has universally better FPS range support across the monitors, which starts at 30HZ
- freesync monitors have more connection ports due to them having a scaler
- gsync works better with different types of windowed modes (although freesync just got an update to support borderless windowed mode)

Just remember low FPS is still low FPS though... To me anything below 45/50 will be horrible regardless of any sync tech.

Adaptive/free sync won't be going anywhere, not when it is an open universal standard for display port and HDMI, consoles will also be getting the feature and intel will be supporting it in the future.

Article by PCgamer explaining some things about gsync:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3129...ia-g-sync-on-monitor-selection-and-price.html

When Tom Peterson was asked about supporting adaptive sync, his answer:

“never say never,”

To me that says it is only a matter of time until they support adaptive sync. They will still probably keep gsync alive for the "high end" premium gaming monitors though.

 

[Insanties_birth]

If youre willing to pay the price then gsync is 'technically' better ( i hear a lot say they are both really good and you wouldnt notice the difference) with the only real benefit of gsync being that it operates all the time where freesync monitors tend to have a certain range (usually a range people wouldnt tend to be playing their games at anyway) but for megsync is better for 4k where things are definitely pushed and youll run into lower framerates more often, for 1440p you may as well just get freesync and not waste the money.

 

[BluD]

If you get a gsync monitor you know you can get a good card for it when you decide to upgrade because the cards are already out, going for freesync would be a gamble as we dont know if AMDs new GPUs will be any good yet. I would be tempted to wait to see what AMDs new GPUs are like, if theyre a rival to a 1080 you could save a lot of money when it comes to buying the monitor.

 

[JediFragger]

Tried a non-gsync 144Hz monitor last night and dear GOD it was horrid in comparison to my X34A!!! Absolutey ****e

Freesync is supposed to be pretty damn good though, just be sure to get one with a good range on it

 

[.Lethal]

Freesync is so cheap it's included with almost all new monitors.

Gsync is for gamers but comes at a cost, as such it's targeted to a niche area of the monitor market.

Freesync is for the masses, sells to the masses, and some say it will create the demise of gsync despite it being inferior to those who game with superior nvidia graphics cards with gysnc setups.

Is this how some are reaching this conclusion?

Buy a gsync monitor if you game, get a freesync if you don't as it'll save you money.

 

[aatu]

Freesync is so cheap it's included with almost all new monitors.

Gsync is for gamers but comes at a cost, as such it's targeted to a niche area of the monitor market.

Freesync is for the masses, sells to the masses, and some say it will create the demise of gsync despite it being inferior to those who game with superior nvidia graphics cards with gysnc setups.

Is this how some are reaching this conclusion?

Buy a gsync monitor if you game, get a freesync if you don't as it'll save you money.

Like, did you know people actually play games on other GPUs besides 1070, 1080 and Titan? Sounds crazy, I know, but it's true, I swear!

But do you know why everyone is not flocking for the "superior nVidia graphics"? I heard it's because not everyone wants to drop £400-£600 on a new GPU?! I was like, OH-MY-GAWD! They must be poor or something! £200 GPUs are for peasants, for sure. £900 nVidya Titan X 4-t3h-w1n, am I rite?

And, like, what is up with this whole "FreeSync" thing, for free? I don't want no charity bits. I want my £1300 Gee-Sync monitor, biatch!

 

[Smoogels]

Freesync is so cheap it's included with almost all new monitors.

Gsync is for gamers but comes at a cost, as such it's targeted to a niche area of the monitor market.

Freesync is for the masses, sells to the masses, and some say it will create the demise of gsync despite it being inferior to those who game with superior nvidia graphics cards with gysnc setups.

Is this how some are reaching this conclusion?

Buy a gsync monitor if you game, get a freesync if you don't as it'll save you money.

In what way is Gsync superior enough to warrant a £100+ increase in cost?

I simply cannot justify the cost over Freesync.

Edit; May have missed out on a little dash of sarcasm

 

[Seanspeed]

If you look at the statistics

Thanks for that. Confirms what was looking quite obvious just from observation. Freesync's proliferation is quite robust, while Gsync displays are only trickling out, and usually at the higher end.

This is not good news for Nvidia, who are potentially going to start losing more customers to the larger market of Freesync-capable owners. I really do hope that basically forces Nvidia into the Freesync game themselves.

Problem is - most Freesync displays still seem to have a pretty lousy lower limit of 48hz. I wouldn't find that acceptable. But for those with 40hz or lower, it's great. Ideally I'd want them all to work from 20hz upwards. At least 30hz. But 40hz is a decent compromise so long as you're still prioritizing performance *somewhat* via settings.

In what way is Gsync superior enough to warrant a £100+ increase in cost?

I simply cannot justify the cost over Freesync.

Look at my response above. Gsync works reliably from 30fps up. Freesync monitors often dont have variable refresh rate if you dip under 48fps. Which defeats a lot of the purpose of having it for many.

I'm not necessarily saying that definitely makes Gsync worth the extra cost, but I can see that being the case for some who want that full range of VRR capability and cant find a Freesync monitor that offers it *and* suits their needs in the other categories.

 

[Rroff]

In what way is Gsync superior enough to warrant a £100+ increase in cost?

I simply cannot justify the cost over Freesync.

Edit; May have missed out on a little dash of sarcasm

I'd pay it but then I'm coming from a old school quake background, etc. for the general consumer I suspect where G-Sync is better probably isn't worth £100.

G-Sync still has better overall Window mode behaviour even with the new AMD drivers, better framerate range and better framerate floor handling and when properly setup (looking at you Linus) usually lower latency than FreeSync - unless you were coming from an ultra competitive FPS background, etc. you probably wouldn't even notice the latency differences though.

 

[Smoogels]

Look at my response above. Gsync works reliably from 30fps up. Freesync monitors often dont have variable refresh rate if you dip under 48fps. Which defeats a lot of the purpose of having it for many.

I'm not necessarily saying that definitely makes Gsync worth the extra cost, but I can see that being the case for some who want that full range of VRR capability and cant find a Freesync monitor that offers it *and* suits their needs in the other categories.

Many Freesync monitors are 40Hz-144Hz making you only miss out on the 30-40 range and Freesync does have LFC to handle going below the range. Perhaps not as well as Gsync, but certainly not worth the whopping price premium.

I'd pay it but then I'm coming from a old school quake background, etc. for the general consumer I suspect where G-Sync is better probably isn't worth £100.

G-Sync still has better overall Window mode behaviour even with the new AMD drivers, better framerate range and better framerate floor handling and when properly setup (looking at you Linus) usually lower latency than FreeSync - unless you were coming from an ultra competitive FPS background, etc. you probably wouldn't even notice the latency differences though.

The trouble with Freesync is that it's implementation varies so wildly between monitors. If you put a properly configured Freesync and Gsync side by side I doubt anyone could tell a difference. Freesync continues to improve to through drivers and manufacturer implementation so these points and ranges could be improved on as new scalers become available.

 

[Rroff]

The trouble with Freesync is that it's implementation varies so wildly between monitors. If you put a properly configured Freesync and Gsync side by side I doubt anyone could tell a difference.

Certainly does make getting a fair comparison difficult - a lot of people probably wouldn't tell the difference - some games/situations its fairly noticeable to me - maybe not night and day like 60Hz v 120+Hz but noticeable. I spent so many years playing Q2 and 3 at a reasonable level though that I'm hyper sensitive to it.

 

[aatu]

Nice, now we have more discussion of the ranges. I delved into this a bit in an earlier thread, but that effectively shut down the thread. Maybe this thread has more answers? Here's a quote from the thread:

As for the ranges, I've started wondering about that quite a lot. I'm wondering why would the lower range matter, at least on 144Hz monitors? Because the monitor could always double or triple the lower fps frames, so it could just use 48/72/96/120/144Hz for 24fps, or 60/90/120Hz for 30fps, or 80/120Hz for 40fps. Because isn't the whole idea to get the frame as fast to the monitor, as possible? In this sense, only the higher refresh rates should matter. The refresh rate is still variable, so it shouldn't matter as long as the "ready" frame gets delivered as soon as it's ready. Right...?

Or maybe I'm just over-thinking it. Or over-simplifying it, who knows. But I have a practical example to support my theory: My FreeSync monitor (XZ321Q) has a built-in OSD feature that shows the refresh rate in real time on the top right of the screen. And at least in Heaven benchmark, when the fps dips down to 30-40, the OSD's refresh rate reading variates in the 70's. And my monitor has a 48-144Hz FreeSync range.

Because indeed, if the frames are outputted in 40fps (which means a new frame in every 25ms), that means that the monitor could display the same frame three times with 120Hz refresh rate (which means the monitor CAN output a new or old frame every 8.33ms). Right?

Isn't the whole idea of variable refresh rate that we can output the frames at variable intervals? 144Hz would be 6.94ms, but without FreeSync/G-Sync, it would be always at fixed intervals. So, if the game outputs at constant 90Hz (11.11ms intervals), then it will have to make a ~4.17ms wait between every frame, and thus there will eventually be a discrepancy at some point, like with 30-vs-25 fps pulldown on NTSC-vs-PAL material. But FreeSync/G-Sync practically eliminates this.

 

[Seanspeed]

Many Freesync monitors are 40Hz-144Hz

From what I can tell, *most* have a lower limit of 48hz. There's a decent number of 40hz ones, but it's such a limited number that it makes it harder to find a monitor that fits all your other, arguably more important criteria(resolution, display type, refresh rate).