Is "Freesync" dead?

[shankly1985]

Freesync 2 is now the new for AMD I very much doubt from here on you will see new monitors that are Freesync 1

Gigabyte just entered the market with a new HDR 165hz Freesync 2 monitor
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/monitors/by-type/freesync-2?ckSuppliers=251&ckTab=0&sSort=2

 

[bru]

?Ay ??

Us the customers are the winners here all because of AMD!! Let's not forget that!
And even this video is blown abit over the top! I have checked the sites and it only seems to be some sales on the USA rainforest that is listing them without Freesync!

AMD still has Freesync 2 that Nvidia doesn't support

and even if Nvidia does support again the customer wins, WHY? Because now they buy one monitor that can support two GPU manufactures!

What AMD set out to do has succeeded no matter what your green-faced glasses might be telling you.

/Rant!

Its not often that I agree with shankly but I do here. the video is very misleading, as the total wipe of the freesync label is nowhere near as complete as the video makes out.

Ultimately the customer wins as we no longer have to choose one or the other.

AMD were genuineness with the Freesync branding and I have long argued that it should have been labelled adaptive sync rather than Freesync, but it wasn't.

What can AMD do about it now, well I'm not really sure, we will have to wait and see.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

Ok? Strange statement that makes you sound like you have a personal problem with AMD or Freesync.

He does.

Its not often that I agree with shankly but I do here. the video is very misleading, as the total wipe of the freesync label is nowhere near as complete as the video makes out.

Give it time... old stock has to be cleared and websites updated...

 

[bru]

Give it time... old stock has to be cleared and websites updated...

Very true, I suppose at the moment someone could order a GSync compatible monitor and receive one with AMD Freesync branding splashed on the box.

 

[TNA]

I bought a new 5700 recently, loaded up my favorite games crash after crash. Drivers were terrible, not only this but the AMD interface is like something out of the 90's yet AMD go on about how good their new 'Adrenaline' drivers are. I returned it back for a full refund and plugged back in my trusty old GTX 1070 and bingo everything works like a dream as it should.

One other thing that makes me laugh is people who go on about how good Ryzen chips. and they only use them for gaming, but really are they that good?

Well lets see my 8600k (stock) would kill a 1600 Ryzen, a 2600 Ryzen and would trade blows with the newest 3600 Ryzen in gaming. The only benefit of Ryzens are heavy workstation loads. Sure they are a bit cheaper but why not pay the £50.00 extra for that little bit of performance?

Here's a user benchmark just to demonstrate what im talking about ;-

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-8600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-2600/3941vs3955

So question is ;
Would I buy AMD again just to save myself £50-£100?, absolutely not I prefer to pay that bit extra for quality reliable products which are supported by quality reliable drivers and software, that's why I always go Intel/Nvidia.

So if anything AMD are the mugs.

Lol. Not sure if serious

I go back and forth from AMD and Nvidia and never have issues. If what you are saying is true I call it PEBKAC. How hard is it to do a clean install of windows these days? Hardly takes any time and you end up with everything fresh and no problems. As for drivers being terrible, in terms of UI and feature-set AMD are miles ahead. Maybe you downloaded ATI drivers somehow?

 

[Darujhistan]

I bought a new 5700 recently, loaded up my favorite games crash after crash. Drivers were terrible, not only this but the AMD interface is like something out of the 90's yet AMD go on about how good their new 'Adrenaline' drivers are. I returned it back for a full refund and plugged back in my trusty old GTX 1070 and bingo everything works like a dream as it should.

One other thing that makes me laugh is people who go on about how good Ryzen chips. and they only use them for gaming, but really are they that good?

Well lets see my 8600k (stock) would kill a 1600 Ryzen, a 2600 Ryzen and would trade blows with the newest 3600 Ryzen in gaming. The only benefit of Ryzens are heavy workstation loads. Sure they are a bit cheaper but why not pay the £50.00 extra for that little bit of performance?

Here's a user benchmark just to demonstrate what im talking about ;-

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-8600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-2600/3941vs3955

So question is ;
Would I buy AMD again just to save myself £50-£100?, absolutely not I prefer to pay that bit extra for quality reliable products which are supported by quality reliable drivers and software, that's why I always go Intel/Nvidia.

So if anything AMD are the mugs.

Sounds like you just threw the toys out the pram, so your experience doesn't mean anything. You've answered your own question there. The 8600K is £90 more than the 3600, no I don't think the price performance improvment is worth it. So yes, I stand by what I said. The intel chip is a mug purchase against the Ryzen. Oh and it uses less power...

 

[TheRealDeal]

Lol. Not sure if serious

I go back and forth from AMD and Nvidia and never have issues. If what you are saying is true I call it PEBKAC. How hard is it to do a clean install of windows these days? Hardly takes any time and you end up with everything fresh and no problems. As for drivers being terrible, in terms of UI and feature-set AMD are miles ahead. Maybe you downloaded ATI drivers somehow?

+1

Was thinking the same myself as no way AMD's UI looks like it's from the 90's. If it does that make Nvidias control panel look like something from the 70's. Downloads 2005 ati drivers and wonders why hes having issues .

 

[Bounce]

Lol. Not sure if serious

I go back and forth from AMD and Nvidia and never have issues. If what you are saying is true I call it PEBKAC. How hard is it to do a clean install of windows these days? Hardly takes any time and you end up with everything fresh and no problems. As for drivers being terrible, in terms of UI and feature-set AMD are miles ahead. Maybe you downloaded ATI drivers somehow?

Yes I did complete fresh install

Sounds like you just threw the toys out the pram, so your experience doesn't mean anything. You've answered your own question there. The 8600K is £90 more than the 3600, no I don't think the price performance improvment is worth it. So yes, I stand by what I said. The intel chip is a mug purchase against the Ryzen. Oh and it uses less power...

I wasn't comparing a 3600 to a 8600k, I was comparing it to a 2600 in gaming conditions but I guess you didn't get the point, anyway its about 20% faster in performance.

+1

Was thinking the same myself as no way AMD's UI looks like it's from the 90's. If it does that make Nvidias control panel look like something from the 70's. Downloads 2005 ati drivers and wonders why hes having issues .

Well I guess its a matter of opinion on the way the UI looks, my opinion is Nvidia is better, especially the Nvidia experience software.

 

[Darujhistan]

I wasn't comparing a 3600 to a 8600k, I was comparing it to a 2600 in gaming conditions but I guess you didn't get the point, anyway its about 20% faster in performance.


And what is your point? I'm mystified, if we accept that the 8600K is 20% faster in performance, then it's still a terrible purchase alongside either a 2600 or 3600...


https://www.overclockers.co.uk/inte...ocket-lga1151-processor-retail-cp-63t-in.html


https://www.overclockers.co.uk/amd-...hz-socket-am4-processor-retail-cp-3af-am.html - 2600 46% cheaper...


https://www.overclockers.co.uk/amd-...hz-socket-am4-processor-retail-cp-3b9-am.html -3600 33% cheaper...


So yeah, like I said earlier, and before you happily provided me with eveb more evidence, the intel chip is for mugs. That's patently obvious!

 

[Stanners]

I wasn't comparing a 3600 to a 8600k, I was comparing it to a 2600 in gaming conditions but I guess you didn't get the point, anyway its about 20% faster in performance.


And what is your point? I'm mystified, if we accept that the 8600K is 20% faster in performance, then it's still a terrible purchase alongside either a 2600 or 3600...


https://www.overclockers.co.uk/inte...ocket-lga1151-processor-retail-cp-63t-in.html


https://www.overclockers.co.uk/amd-...hz-socket-am4-processor-retail-cp-3af-am.html - 2600 46% cheaper...


https://www.overclockers.co.uk/amd-...hz-socket-am4-processor-retail-cp-3b9-am.html -3600 33% cheaper...


So yeah, like I said earlier, and before you happily provided me with eveb more evidence, the intel chip is for mugs. That's patently obvious!

Childish comments such as refering to people as mugs over which brand they purchase is not acceptable. I suggest you stop this now.

 

[Bounce]

I wasn't comparing a 3600 to a 8600k, I was comparing it to a 2600 in gaming conditions but I guess you didn't get the point, anyway its about 20% faster in performance.


And what is your point? I'm mystified, if we accept that the 8600K is 20% faster in performance, then it's still a terrible purchase alongside either a 2600 or 3600...


https://www.overclockers.co.uk/inte...ocket-lga1151-processor-retail-cp-63t-in.html


https://www.overclockers.co.uk/amd-...hz-socket-am4-processor-retail-cp-3af-am.html - 2600 46% cheaper...


https://www.overclockers.co.uk/amd-...hz-socket-am4-processor-retail-cp-3b9-am.html -3600 33% cheaper...


So yeah, like I said earlier, and before you happily provided me with eveb more evidence, the intel chip is for mugs. That's patently obvious!

Not everything is about price.What I'm saying is for that extra £90/£100 you get a 20% increase in gaming performance which is fair bit in my opinion, I'm sure there are a lot people on this forum who would go for the 8600k over the 2600 just for this reason don't get me wrong Ryzen is a good chip for its workload/workstation performance but Intel have always been the better performer on gaming.

 

[Darujhistan]

Not everything is about price.What I'm saying is for that extra £90/£100 you get a 20% increase in gaming performance which is fair bit in my opinion, I'm sure there are a lot people on this forum who would go for the 8600k over the 2600 just for this reason don't get me wrong Ryzen is a good chip for its workload/workstation performance but Intel have always been the better performer on gaming.

It's objectively not worth the premium though. So it wouldn't be an increase in performance if you spent the same on Ryzen. So that argument is nonsense, now if someone just likes Intel, fine buy Intel, but call it what it is, brand loyalty not performance.

The comparison we are looking at doesn't show that Intel is a better performer in gaming at all. If the 8600K was the same price as the Tyzen 3600 for example, then yes, Intel would have the better performing chip.

 

[Hades]

Does the 8600K come with a heatsink? I don't think it does? The 3600x and 3700x do. It's quite a good one as well. A very quick google shows me that the 8600K plus heatsink is more expensive than the 3600X which already includes a good one. In fact the 8600X plus a heatsink is around the same price as a 3700X with an included heatsink. So if spending the same amount then those CPU's are direct competitors. They appear to be on a par for single threaded performance and the 3700x has two more cores than an 8600K, so will be much faster in multi threaded applications. I've not looked at motherboard and RAM cost but no doubt we could find them at similar prices on each platform.

So it looks to me that the 8600K is no faster than a 3700x in single core. It is 30% slower in multi core. It costs the same when a cooler is taken into account and is on an end of life socket, but the next gen of Ryzen is very likely to run on the same motherboard you'd buy today for a 3700x.

I'm not an AMD fanboy. In fact I've not owned an AMD CPU since the Athlon 64. But my next CPU will certainly be Ryzen.

 

[Bounce]

It's objectively not worth the premium though. So it wouldn't be an increase in performance if you spent the same on Ryzen. So that argument is nonsense, now if someone just likes Intel, fine buy Intel, but call it what it is, brand loyalty not performance.

The comparison we are looking at doesn't show that Intel is a better performer in gaming at all. If the 8600K was the same price as the Tyzen 3600 for example, then yes, Intel would have the better performing chip.

Does the 8600K come with a heatsink? I don't think it does? The 3600x and 3700x do. It's quite a good one as well. A very quick google shows me that the 8600K plus heatsink is more expensive than the 3600X which already includes a good one. In fact the 8600X plus a heatsink is around the same price as a 3700X with an included heatsink. So if spending the same amount then those CPU's are direct competitors. They appear to be on a par for single threaded performance and the 3700x has two more cores than an 8600K, so will be much faster in multi threaded applications. I've not looked at motherboard and RAM cost but no doubt we could find them at similar prices on each platform.

So it looks to me that the 8600K is no faster than a 3700x in single core. It is 30% slower in multi core. It costs the same when a cooler is taken into account and is on an end of life socket, but the next gen of Ryzen is very likely to run on the same motherboard you'd buy today for a 3700x.

I'm not an AMD fanboy. In fact I've not owned an AMD CPU since the Athlon 64. But my next CPU will certainly be Ryzen.

Its not fair comparison, the Ryzen 3600 series was released 21 months after the 8600k so those that purchased the 8600k wouldn't have had that option to buy a Ryzen 3600 series. Only recently have the Ryzen (3rd gen) chips have become a serious competitor to intel's dominance in gaming.

Looking at the current gen, a 9600k (£218 on overclockers) vs a 3600X (£240 on overclockers) in gaming scenarios they are roughly the same, but I'd choose Intel because its cheaper and I don't do heavy multi-threaded Workstation loads.
'

 

[Grim5]

Does the 8600K come with a heatsink? I don't think it does? The 3600x and 3700x do. It's quite a good one as well. A very quick google shows me that the 8600K plus heatsink is more expensive than the 3600X which already includes a good one. In fact the 8600X plus a heatsink is around the same price as a 3700X with an included heatsink. So if spending the same amount then those CPU's are direct competitors. They appear to be on a par for single threaded performance and the 3700x has two more cores than an 8600K, so will be much faster in multi threaded applications. I've not looked at motherboard and RAM cost but no doubt we could find them at similar prices on each platform.

So it looks to me that the 8600K is no faster than a 3700x in single core. It is 30% slower in multi core. It costs the same when a cooler is taken into account and is on an end of life socket, but the next gen of Ryzen is very likely to run on the same motherboard you'd buy today for a 3700x.

I'm not an AMD fanboy. In fact I've not owned an AMD CPU since the Athlon 64. But my next CPU will certainly be Ryzen.

As an 8700k owner, there is no way I'd buy it now if I was looking for a new CPU. Just get the 3700x

 

[TNA]

Its not fair comparison, the Ryzen 3600 series was released 21 months after the 8600k so those that purchased the 8600k wouldn't have had that option to buy a Ryzen 3600 series. Only recently have the Ryzen (3rd gen) chips have become a serious competitor to intel's dominance in gaming.

Looking at the current gen, a 9600k (£218 on overclockers) vs a 3600X (£240 on overclockers) in gaming scenarios they are roughly the same, but I'd choose Intel because its cheaper and I don't do heavy multi-threaded Workstation loads.
'

Just pick up a 3600 for under £180 online. That is what I did a few days ago and can get mine to run even better than a 3600X with all cores at 4.4GHz when I want

Not to mention it being a lot more secure than Intels CPU's which have so many security holes in them. Oh and the fact that it is because of AMD that prices are coming down.

But yeah, lets reward Intel.. Lol

 

[melmac]

Just an aside from the thread, Freesync was/is a pretty good brand name. Freesync 2 sucks. Freesync Pro, Freesync HD, Freesync Plus, Freesync HDR would all be better I think.

Back on Topic.

Can't be bothered to do a meme, but a Braveheart meme with "you will never take our Freesync" would be pretty appropriate right now

 

[Darujhistan]

Its not fair comparison, the Ryzen 3600 series was released 21 months after the 8600k so those that purchased the 8600k wouldn't have had that option to buy a Ryzen 3600 series. Only recently have the Ryzen (3rd gen) chips have become a serious competitor to intel's dominance in gaming.

Looking at the current gen, a 9600k (£218 on overclockers) vs a 3600X (£240 on overclockers) in gaming scenarios they are roughly the same, but I'd choose Intel because its cheaper and I don't do heavy multi-threaded Workstation loads.
'

What? It's a comparison YOU made! In your original post!

So, because the comparison has since been shown to objectivelly favour Ryzen in terms of price/performance, the comparison its now unfair?

 

[Bounce]

Just pick up a 3600 for under £180 online. That is what I did a few days ago and can get mine to run even better than a 3600X with all cores at 4.4GHz when I want

Not to mention it being a lot more secure than Intels CPU's which have so many security holes in them. Oh and the fact that it is because of AMD that prices are coming down.

But yeah, lets reward Intel.. Lol

iv got my 8600k on 5ghz on all cores

 

[Bounce]

What? It's a comparison YOU made! In your original post!

So, because the comparison has since been shown to objectivelly favour Ryzen in terms of price/performance, the comparison its now unfair?

The user benchmark I linked was to a 8600k vs 2600, I only said it would trade blows with a 3600 which as I said is 21 months newer, its like comparing a 3 year old car to a new car, improvements are bout to have been made.

 

[TNA]

iv got my 8600k on 5ghz on all cores

Not sure if the IPC is the same however. But saying that I am sure I paid a lot less for my 3600 (£176) than you paid and lets be honest if AMD never upped the competition, the price of 8600K performance from Intel would not have changed much or at all. Probably would have went up

Each to their own, but I am more than happy to have gone AMD on this upgrade. Intel have innovated so little and been so expensive that until this week I was using my 4770K @ 4.7GHz for over 6 years! Crazy that.