Poll: ** The AMD VEGA Thread **

[nashathedog]

they really need to hire someone with strategic vision.

 

[mahius]

The only plus point for me is the Freesync version would be the cheaper of the two.

You're right there. But then you look at the fact that they both do pretty much the same and then one realises that this single factor of price pushes FreeSync to the top.

Here's a question, how much would one expect a 24" 1080p 144Hz TN panel to cost?
I see an Asus one costing about £235 (VG248QE or £240 at OCUK). Additional features include built-in speakers and DVI/DP/HMDI for I/O.

How much extra would it cost to get a FreeSync version?
I also see an Asus version costing about £290 (MG248Q) from the exact same retailer as the above model. It's exactly the same as the above monitor, only difference is FreeSync. Call that +£55 for FreeSync, a feature which people may or may not use.

How much extra would a G-sync version cost?
I see the G-sync version of the previous monitors, come in at around £420 (ROG Swift PG248Q) at the same retailer as the above 2. Pretty much the same again, but it ditches the built-in speakers and DVI port, you do get an extra 36Hz refresh rate (180Hz refresh). But it costs an extra £185 for the G-sync, one could say the refresh rate was traded with those other ditched features.

FreeSync costed roughly £50 more, but G-sync cost £130 more than FreeSync. I don't quite think G-sync is worth £130 more than FreeSync.

The funny thing is, I actually went over and saw a G-sync monitor in action the other day. A nephew of mine bought the exact model of G-sync monitor above at £400 something and he was saying that now he's 'gotten used to it' and 'can't imagine not having G-sync'. I asked him how exactly was G-sync better, what can one notice as improved? He couldn't quite answer me. His brother then pitched in saying that their choice of monitor wasn't too great, they paid too much thanks to G-sync and my nephew admitted that he agreed, they had to get separate speakers as the monitor didn't include built-in speakers. I could tell that he kinda regretted not getting a nicer monitor for the same price, especially as he had a GTX 1080 and the monitor was 1080p.

To me, seeing about 40 minutes of G-sync gameplay, nothing stood out to be worth £100+. And the funny thing is my FreeSync monitor cost roughly the same price, except I had the addition of 27" size, IPS panel type and 1440p resolution for that same price.

The day G-sync doesn't cost so much for providing so little, I'll stop hammering it. But until then, I recommend against G-sync. Just get a monitor with FreeSync or no extra Sync tech at all.

 

[Rroff]

The funny thing is, I actually went over and saw a G-sync monitor in action the other day. A nephew of mine bought the exact model of G-sync monitor above at £400 something and he was saying that now he's 'gotten used to it' and 'can't imagine not having G-sync'. I asked him how exactly was G-sync better, what can one notice as improved? He couldn't quite answer me. His brother then pitched in saying that their choice of monitor wasn't too great, they paid too much thanks to G-sync and my nephew admitted that he agreed, they had to get separate speakers as the monitor didn't include built-in speakers. I could tell that he kinda regretted not getting a nicer monitor for the same price, especially as he had a GTX 1080 and the monitor was 1080p.

To me, seeing about 40 minutes of G-sync gameplay, nothing stood out to be worth £100+. And the funny thing is my FreeSync monitor cost roughly the same price, except I had the addition of 27" size, IPS panel type and 1440p resolution for that same price.

The day G-sync doesn't cost so much for providing so little, I'll stop hammering it. But until then, I recommend against G-sync. Just get a monitor with FreeSync or no extra Sync tech at all.

I still find G-Sync low framerate handling is nicer than FreeSync where I start to really notice the input latency earlier and sometimes slightly delayed recovery in latency when higher framerates become available - for normal single player gaming can't really notice it but with competitive shooters if (which isn't ideal in the first place) you are in a scenario where the framerate is rapidly dropping and/or highly varied with dips its quite noticeable to me. G-Sync's low framerate behaviour let me get a few more months out of my previous 780GHz before I felt the need to upgrade which was starting to dip a little into that territory towards the end of its life - otherwise I'd have had to replace it sooner as those odds dips below what would have been previously ideal framerates would have been much less acceptable.

TBH at high framerate gaming the difference is relatively minor - I'd say about 80% of the time its not really different from my previous non G-Sync 120Hz gaming monitor - there is definitely a bit nicer feel to it though left 4 dead on 120-144Hz G-Sync versus 120Hz non G-Sync on my old monitor feels smoother and more responsive on G-Sync overall - for multiplayer gaming there are places I really notice it though for instance on Battlefield 4 on the rogue transmission map with no G-Sync. V-Sync on and getting 100+ fps as you first get a proper view of the D flag coming from RU spawn I really notice the input lag trying to scan the area quickly for hostiles, turn V-Sync off and the input lag disappears but at this point with the combination of turning into view of the flag and trying to scan the area quickly results in nasty and very noticeable tearing - G-Sync on solves both of these issues in one go.

Where I really find the value in it is games where for whatever reason I'm hovering around 60fps - where the visual tearing can be pretty horrific without V-Sync and with the way V-Sync works even a slight framerate drop can result in really nasty input latency - G-Sync means I don't have to deal with either of those compromises.

For me G-Sync is worth every penny I paid for it though I'd be happier if it was cheaper.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

In this it's looking better across the 5 games tested than it did in the testing yesterday.

By the looks of it, when talking about the memory speed problem GN ran into, it could be that you have to reset the VRAM speed when changing the core speed, this guy probably didn't run into the problem because he overclocked the VRAM anyways, so probably a wattdude bug.

It still doesn't look great though. It's losing to a Reference GTX 1080 in DOOM Vulkan with no AA. Where as the old engineering sample was beating a 1080 while having x8 TSAA on.

In short, Frontier Edition at Doom 4K Ultra with NO AA, is slower than Engineering Sample Vega with 8x TSAA.

Videos of Engineering Sample Vega.

https://youtu.be/Y8tDaPLHxiE?t=57s

https://youtu.be/FwcUMZLvjYw?t=25m31s

Also earlier tests of Engineering samples in Ashes, and Vega Sniper Elite 4 were faster than Frontier Edition as well.

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/gpu_displays/alleged_amd_vega_benchmarks_appear_online/1

 

[nashathedog]

You're right there. But then you look at the fact that they both do pretty much the same and then one realises that this single factor of price pushes FreeSync to the top.

Here's a question, how much would one expect a 24" 1080p 144Hz TN panel to cost?
I see an Asus one costing about £235 (VG248QE or £240 at OCUK). Additional features include built-in speakers and DVI/DP/HMDI for I/O.

How much extra would it cost to get a FreeSync version?
I also see an Asus version costing about £290 (MG248Q) from the exact same retailer as the above model. It's exactly the same as the above monitor, only difference is FreeSync. Call that +£55 for FreeSync, a feature which people may or may not use.
.

First off I wouldn't use Asus as an example because as we all know they add there own premium to products, For example if the MG248Q is the 24" version of the MG278Q it's called the ROG Dominator. I bought one and when you get it it's not a ROG monitor at all, It's just a basic Asus model that they're marketing as a ROG monitor, plus it's a 144hz panel but Freesync only works up to 90hz, That's simply Asus cashing in on a product that isn't deserving of the price they charge. Also you said the Freesync version costing about £290 is from the same retailer but there isn't any such model. Not that I can find. I can find them both on the river with a difference somewhere between 25 and 30 quid but again they're marketing it as a ROG monitor even though it isn't. So I imagine that's partly justifying the mark up as the other non freesync isn't pretending to be.
It really annoyed me when I bought the 27" Freesync version, It went back within a few days.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It still doesn't look great though. It's losing to a Reference GTX 1080 in DOOM Vulkan with no AA. Where as the old engineering sample was beating a 1080 while having x8 TSAA on.

In short, Frontier Edition at Doom 4K Ultra with NO AA, is slower than Engineering Sample Vega with 8x TSAA.

Videos of Engineering Sample Vega.

https://youtu.be/Y8tDaPLHxiE?t=57s

https://youtu.be/FwcUMZLvjYw?t=25m31s

Also earlier tests of Engineering samples in Ashes, and Vega Sniper Elite 4 were faster than Frontier Edition as well.

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/gpu_displays/alleged_amd_vega_benchmarks_appear_online/1

So why didn't AMD bundle the drivers used for the demo with the Vega FE??

 

[N19h7m4r3]

So why didn't AMD bundle the drivers used for the demo with Vega FE??

Who knows, those were Fiji ones, with a debugging layer.

Now tests are showing Pro mode on FE is better than Gaming Mode as well.

Bungled launch is bungled. Either AMD is going to pull a driver golden rabbit out of a hat come Siggraph, or they'll have a lot of explaining to do.

 

[Rroff]

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/gpu_displays/alleged_amd_vega_benchmarks_appear_online/1

That linked ashes benchmark is 1080p standard settings and IIRC puts it a little ahead of the FuryX and 1070 but short of the 1080 by a hair which is the same basically as the Gamer's Nexus 4K benchmark in line up.

 

[nashathedog]

So why didn't AMD bundle the drivers used for the demo with the Vega FE??

None of it add's up right, If they tested different settings this time it's be nice to see it tested with the same settings as 6 months ago so we can see if the results change much when it's rendering TSAA (if that's how it does it).

 

[N19h7m4r3]

That linked ashes benchmark is 1080p standard settings and IIRC puts it a little ahead of the FuryX and 1070 but short of the 1080 by a hair which is the same basically as the Gamer's Nexus 4K benchmark in line up.

So 1200Mhz engineering sample at Best, matches a Frontier Edition running 1440Mhz on average without debugging drivers.
Although OC3D stated it's matching a GTX 1080 at the time as well.

Not good

 

[Nablaoperator]

Which imo we should have already had that info, why the hell are they hiding so much stuff ? I guess it generates buzz.

yes, now that FE has been launched.. thats a critical piece of info for anyone considering a FE purchase.. can some community representative reach out to AMD to clarify the transistor count... it could save us a month's time

 

[humbug]

I still find G-Sync low framerate handling is nicer than FreeSync where I start to really notice the input latency earlier and sometimes slightly delayed recovery in latency when higher framerates become available - for normal single player gaming can't really notice it but with competitive shooters if (which isn't ideal in the first place) you are in a scenario where the framerate is rapidly dropping and/or highly varied with dips its quite noticeable to me. G-Sync's low framerate behaviour let me get a few more months out of my previous 780GHz before I felt the need to upgrade which was starting to dip a little into that territory towards the end of its life - otherwise I'd have had to replace it sooner as those odds dips below what would have been previously ideal framerates would have been much less acceptable.

TBH at high framerate gaming the difference is relatively minor - I'd say about 80% of the time its not really different from my previous non G-Sync 120Hz gaming monitor - there is definitely a bit nicer feel to it though left 4 dead on 120-144Hz G-Sync versus 120Hz non G-Sync on my old monitor feels smoother and more responsive on G-Sync overall - for multiplayer gaming there are places I really notice it though for instance on Battlefield 4 on the rogue transmission map with no G-Sync. V-Sync on and getting 100+ fps as you first get a proper view of the D flag coming from RU spawn I really notice the input lag trying to scan the area quickly for hostiles, turn V-Sync off and the input lag disappears but at this point with the combination of turning into view of the flag and trying to scan the area quickly results in nasty and very noticeable tearing - G-Sync on solves both of these issues in one go.

Where I really find the value in it is games where for whatever reason I'm hovering around 60fps - where the visual tearing can be pretty horrific without V-Sync and with the way V-Sync works even a slight framerate drop can result in really nasty input latency - G-Sync means I don't have to deal with either of those compromises.

For me G-Sync is worth every penny I paid for it though I'd be happier if it was cheaper.

Don't forget FastSync as what i would argue 'another solution'.

I have never used G-Sync so cannot comment on it but i do have a FreeSync screen, i did lend a 290X off a friend before i got the 1070, so i did get to use FreeSync for a couple of weeks, my screen has a FreeSync range of 35 to 75Hz, it was very nice, very responsive, no tearing and the image remained pin sharp during motion, it defiantly is much better than not having it.

Having said that i'm now on a 1070 and use FastSync and TBH its a very good alternative to G-Sync and FreeSync. i've started playing things like Insurgency, Day of Infamy, Serious Sam 3, Boarderlands 2.............. with mates, with the shear horsepower of my GPU i'm able to run those games at 4K DSR with maximum IQ at 120Hz and FastSync does a pretty good job of minimizing screen tearing, its not as good as FreeSync and G-Sync for keeping the image sharp but i have to say for a purely software solution to keep the image from going wobbly at high Hz its pretty damned good.

 

[WeSbO]

None of it add's up right

You can say that again !

 

[five8five]

Edit. Seems Frontier Edition is doing worse in Sniper Elite 4 than the last demo's AMD showed with an FPS counter as well. They were showing around high 60's - mid 70's. FE can't even break 60.

Was interested to see the FE performance in Sniper Elite 4 at 4K. When AMD demoed running at 60-70 FPS they didn't state what settings were used so a direct comparison is difficult.

 

[DragonQ]

Don't forget FastSync as what i would argue 'another solution'.

I have never used G-Sync so cannot comment on it but i do have a FreeSync screen, i did lend a 290X off a friend before i got the 1070, so i did get to use FreeSync for a couple of weeks, my screen has a FreeSync range of 35 to 75Hz, it was very nice, very responsive, no tearing and the image remained pin sharp during motion, it defiantly is much better than not having it.

Having said that i'm now on a 1070 and use FastSync and TBH its a very good alternative to G-Sync and FreeSync. i've started playing things like Insurgency, Day of Infamy, Serious Sam 3, Boarderlands 2.............. with mates, with the shear horsepower of my GPU i'm able to run those games at 4K DSR with maximum IQ at 120Hz and FastSync does a pretty good job of minimizing screen tearing, its not as good as FreeSync and G-Sync for keeping the image sharp but i have to say for a purely software solution to keep the image from going wobbly at high Hz its pretty damned good.

As I understand it, FastSync eliminates tearing but it doesn't give you the smoothness and responsiveness of having each frame appear on the screen as it's drawn because it's still locked to the display's fixed refresh rate. A very nice compromise for monitors without FreeSync or G-Sync (or those with nVidia GPUs) but not a full solution.

 

[humbug]

As I understand it, FastSync eliminates tearing but it doesn't give you the smoothness and responsiveness of having each frame appear on the screen as it's drawn because it's still locked to the display's fixed refresh rate. A very nice compromise for monitors without FreeSync or G-Sync (or those with nVidia GPUs) but not a full solution.

Yeah i agree with that.

 

[Kaapstad]

But the freesync (basically adaptive sync) requires no extra circuitry built in. It's the specification of display port and soon to be built in as standard to HDMI 2.1. There shouldn't be a cost increase to the monitor price as its a standard feature of the connectors specification

If this was true my Dell 4k monitor should work with Freesync by default as it uses display port connectors, unfortunately this is not the case.

 

[DragonQ]

If this was true my Dell 4k monitor should work with Freesync by default as it uses display port connectors, unfortunately this is not the case.

Might not adhere to the standard, or it might not be turned on in the monitor's embedded software.

 

[humbug]

FeeSync has a V-Blank Scaler... without that it isn't going to work.

V-Blank Scalers are nothing special tho, a lot of laptops have V-Blank Scalers purely as a power saving feature.

FreeSync is AMD's software which turns the V-Blank Scaler into the Adaptive Sync technology..

 

[Martini1991]

Apparently it's possible to use CRU to force freesync with other monitors on your AMD GPU.
Some work fine, some don't.