The 290 is quiet with vsync on!

RavenXXX2 · 6 Nov 2013 at 19:01

brawl3r said:
Why not.... what's the next best thing for the price, £320 for constant 60 fps on ultra at 1080p on something like battlefield 4, and maybe for next years games.

Some people don't buy graphics cards every 6 months.

True, try maxing out crysis 3 or metro last light at 1080p with 60 fps on a 290, it won't be pretty.

Buy the best you can afford for 1080p because the games are just going to get more demanding.

svensonbanks · 6 Nov 2013 at 19:04

I don't even think that my 290 is that loud, compared to my 6950. But all I do is programming and game

vUNREALv · 6 Nov 2013 at 19:06

brawl3r said:
I am not really interested in moving my neck much while gaming though ,

If you use eyefinity you shouldn't be moving your neck your eyes do a fantastic job spotting enemies in the peripheries, before i tried eyefinity i thought why would anyone want to have to look left to right all the time, then i actually played it and realized what made it so good.

ubersonic · 6 Nov 2013 at 19:06

thefogo said:
V sync makes most games unplayable, though D;

Quite a few games are actually designed around it or frame limiters (effects designed for 60fps that look weird with higher fps)

I always use frame limiters or vsync when available because I hate screen tear.

Gripen90 · 7 Nov 2013 at 08:55

Some times I wonder how on earth people back in the early days of 3D gaming (97~98) on the PC were happy with the 800x600 16bit gaming resolutions with v-sync active and getting a ridiculous fast 30 FPS. I enjoyed so many gaming hours back then... for some weird reason it seems to me that the advances in technologies and faster cards etc just have had a negative effect on people - now everything is wrong if it isn't the exact FPS, the exact Hz or theres some input lag of 0.0002ms.

Some days I just feel like throwing all the new stuff out in protest and go back to my Intel PII 400MHz and gaming with my Voodoo3 3500.

VincentHanna · 7 Nov 2013 at 09:29

Attitudes in here stink sometimes.

I have an R9 290x. I run with V-sync on. I don't notice input lag (that's why I was a bit non-plussed by Nvidia G-sync). This is helpful for people that

A) Don't particularly need 100's of fps
B) Don't like the horrible tearing that comes with having V-sync off (I find this a lot more distracting to be honest)

Yes it won't work on the most demanding games like Crysis 3 that barely manage 60fps in the first place, but 290/290x is quite overpowered for the majority of games currently available (at 1080p resolutions or lower, anyway)

Make · 7 Nov 2013 at 09:35

Gripen90 said:
Some times I wonder how on earth people back in the early days of 3D gaming (97~98) on the PC were happy with the 800x600 16bit gaming resolutions with v-sync active and getting a ridiculous fast 30 FPS. I enjoyed so many gaming hours back then... for some weird reason it seems to me that the advances in technologies and faster cards etc just have had a negative effect on people - now everything is wrong if it isn't the exact FPS, the exact Hz or theres some input lag of 0.0002ms.

Some days I just feel like throwing all the new stuff out in protest and go back to my Intel PII 400MHz and gaming with my Voodoo3 3500.

It's a case of "Once you go black you can't go back".. What I mean is, once you game on a 120hz 27" monitor for a few hours, and then go back into 60hz 24".. You will never feel the same again. The screen just looks weird to you, even if it was the same size, something is off. The FPS. It's not the same as switching between 1440p and 1080p for example, it's the smoothness.. it plays with your brain, as it is not just the image quality.

I am avoiding gaming at 120fps in all instances, not buying a 120hz screen etc Because I don't want to get used to it before I can afford the hardware for it. I rather settle for perfect 60fps than play games that "Could run better in my eyes but I don't have enough grunt".

I love Vsync by the way and I don't notice any input lag, even though my Vsync keeps flipping on and off on the fly (adaptive Vsync).

shadow_boxer · 7 Nov 2013 at 09:41

Yeah personally not too fussed about vsync. As long as game play feels smooth to me I'm happy.

VincentHanna · 7 Nov 2013 at 09:54

Adaptive V-sync (which I think is Nvidia only) is a nice feature, but then you get get tearing when the framerate goes below 60fps.

Dash RipRock · 7 Nov 2013 at 09:54

VincentHanna said:
Attitudes in here stink sometimes.

I have an R9 290x. I run with V-sync on. I don't notice input lag (that's why I was a bit non-plussed by Nvidia G-sync). This is helpful for people that

A) Don't particularly need 100's of fps
B) Don't like the horrible tearing that comes with having V-sync off (I find this a lot more distracting to be honest)

Yes it won't work on the most demanding games like Crysis 3 that barely manage 60fps in the first place, but 290/290x is quite overpowered for the majority of games currently available (at 1080p resolutions or lower, anyway)

Not sure why your non-plussed by gsync,in many ways it's the perfect solution to the downsides of vsync and actually supports your argument about tearing.....cos when your fps drops below screen refresh rate the game won't tear.

ICDP · 7 Nov 2013 at 10:01

Make said:
It's a case of "Once you go black you can't go back".. What I mean is, once you game on a 120hz 27" monitor for a few hours, and then go back into 60hz 24".. You will never feel the same again. The screen just looks weird to you, even if it was the same size, something is off. The FPS. It's not the same as switching between 1440p and 1080p for example, it's the smoothness.. it plays with your brain, as it is not just the image quality.

I am avoiding gaming at 120fps in all instances, not buying a 120hz screen etc Because I don't want to get used to it before I can afford the hardware for it. I rather settle for perfect 60fps than play games that "Could run better in my eyes but I don't have enough grunt".

I love Vsync by the way and I don't notice any input lag, even though my Vsync keeps flipping on and off on the fly (adaptive Vsync).

I have 30" 1600p 60Hz IPS monitor. I tried a 1080p 27" 120Hz TN monitor and it just felt like a massive step down. Poor colours, back light bleed and smaller size and low resolution all vastly overshadowed the fact it was running 120Hz. Horses for courses I suppose.

Mei · 7 Nov 2013 at 10:07

Make said:
It's a case of "Once you go black you can't go back".. What I mean is, once you game on a 120hz 27" monitor for a few hours, and then go back into 60hz 24".. You will never feel the same again. The screen just looks weird to you, even if it was the same size, something is off. The FPS. It's not the same as switching between 1440p and 1080p for example, it's the smoothness.. it plays with your brain, as it is not just the image quality.

I am avoiding gaming at 120fps in all instances, not buying a 120hz screen etc Because I don't want to get used to it before I can afford the hardware for it. I rather settle for perfect 60fps than play games that "Could run better in my eyes but I don't have enough grunt".

I love Vsync by the way and I don't notice any input lag, even though my Vsync keeps flipping on and off on the fly (adaptive Vsync).

you not going to try the eizo 240hz screens then?

rpggamesplayer · 7 Nov 2013 at 10:07

vUNREALv said:
A guy just posts a harmless thread mentioning something he thought could be useful and all he gets is people coming in and letting him know that because they all already know what he's saying its pointless, great what an amazing bunch.

And to be fair vsync and or frame limiting does make the cards quieter just by the fact they dont need to run at full tilt, nobody is making you use it he's just mentioning it.

Very bad form, I must admit people like this will turn people away from this forum. Handclap well done

ToxicTBag · 7 Nov 2013 at 10:11

lets keep the thread on track, op is entitled to share his findings as we all are - TBag

Silent_Scone · 7 Nov 2013 at 10:12

It's only obvious if you already know how it works.

Not every one has the time to both play around and read everything there is to know.

Shame on some of you!

But to the OP, yeah - we know!

ICDP · 7 Nov 2013 at 10:15

I'm using an overclocked GTX780 at 2560x1600 and I still use adaptive vsync to avoid going over 60FPS. The OP made a post saying he was happy with his new AMD GPU purchase but the usual sniping from the opposition cropped up to tell him he was wrong.

Enjoy your purchase Raditaion, and many happy hours gaming on it with vsync.

Rilot · 7 Nov 2013 at 10:17

Indeed. There is no need to round an a member who is sharing information.

A few of you know a lot about graphics cards but many people don't. Snippets of information like the OP posted are useful to a lot of our members.

Make · 7 Nov 2013 at 10:18

VincentHanna said:
Adaptive V-sync (which I think is Nvidia only) is a nice feature, but then you get get tearing when the framerate goes below 60fps.

You won't get tearing below your screen's refresh rate even without Vsync..

Tearing = Drawing more frames than your screen can handle, resulting in some frames shown only as "fractions"

Low FPS is just.. lag, no tearing.

Boomstick777 · 7 Nov 2013 at 10:19

Op was trying to be helpful guys, no need for flaming.

I have a question though. Do people actually run games without Vsync?

I always use Vsync, and if Vsync doesn't work well I use D3Doverider to kill screen tearing and cap at 60fps.

Silent_Scone · 7 Nov 2013 at 10:22

You'll see tearing whenever your frame rate isn't synced to your refresh rate, not just when it's above it. It's just a lot more prominent over the monitors refresh rate as the screen cannot keep up.