• 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.

Would you change to AMD GPU if there the fastest and you have a G-SYNC monitor

TonyTurbo78 said:
That's partly because you've never experienced adaptive sync
Click to expand...

I've used g and free sync, guys at work have them.

They're nice but I'm an IQ whore ;)

That and I have found 120HZ very good for eliminating screen tearing (or I should say, making it less noticeable anyway) in most games + the epic pixel response time of OLED helps.

Also, if I CBA, messing with FPS limiters + vsync in game or enhanced sync to completely eliminate screen tearing without adding any noticeable amounts of input lag but this requires too much faff for my liking now so I usually just play without a FPS cap/sync.
 
Last edited:
MrRockliffe said:
I don't need it to be faster, I just need it to be as fast, but better prices. Something like a RX 590 (580 x1.2 performance) with GDDR5X to keep costs down.

Then I want a freesync monitor that's:

VA 1440P @ 144Hz with freesync range of 30-144 Hz, not the 48Hz stuff you get with many monitors.
Click to expand...

VVR at 30Hz still looks like 30Hz to me. It's better than non VVR but... Above 100 FPS it's not really needed.

My ideal scenario would be 60-100 FPS with freesync with a game that can actually cope with that kind of refresh frequency. After that ping is is usually the biggest PITA for me.
 
jigger said:
VVR at 30Hz still looks like 30Hz to me. It's better than non VVR but... Above 100 FPS it's not really needed.

My ideal scenario would be 60-100 FPS with freesync with a game that can actually cope with that kind of refresh frequency. After that ping is is usually the biggest PITA for me.
Click to expand...

Yup, g/free sync is not a silver bullet.

You still want to be getting at least 60+ fps mainly for the better motion clarity, at least in my experience.
 
VVR at 30hz still has the same frame delay has none VVR at 30fps. VVR can not fix this 30fps is still 30fps

Anyone that says I now game at 30fps Gsync or Freesync and its now like 60fps is talking rubbish :D
 
This, price, and quality control, are why I don't have a gsync monitor.

Tbh. I've had such bad experienced with AMD in the past, I doubt I'd buy their card even if it was quicker.
 
I don't really have much of an issue with sync anyway, so I am really not sure it would worry me ~ losing something I don't fully appreciate.
 
Aurhinius said:
You have to wonder if gsync is better than freesync which they claim and justifies the price hike on monitors circa £100-150 then why doesn't nvidia put there money where their mouth is and enable both on GPU's? If gsync truly is better people will buy it anyway? Not enabling it suggests you are trying to hide something.

I have gsync and I agree it is good but I haven't tried freesync. I doubt there is any perceivable difference and nvidia are just enjoying tying people in to an ecosystem that isn't justified in cost.

It will probably happen anyway when nvidia are forced to adhere to the HDMI 2.1 spec which includes VRR.

I do hope.
Click to expand...

Is all about money. That is why they are releasing Gsync TVs. Keeping their market nice and tidy by allowing as few milking cows to escape as possible.

There is an article today stating that the HDR Gsync module costs north of £500!!!!
Yet there are the NU8000 Samsung TVs out there (55"+) with Freesync 2 HDR costing around £1000 for the whole unit!!!

https://hexus.net/tech/news/monitors/119531-nvidia-g-sync-hdr-display-module-adds-500-bom/

Atm I am downgrading from GTX1080Ti (is on MM if anyone is interested) to Vega 64 because I want a new monitor and refusing to pay the gsync tax.
Also I want a new Freesync2 TV later in the year, (55NU8000 more likely) to go with the XboneX and the PS5 next year.
 
I just buy what I like the look of and what suits the majority of my requirements at that time, right now in my workstation/gaming machine that is a 4k freesync monitor and Vega mostly because of how the Vega performs in certain compute scenarios, when I do game it's generally more than good enough for my gaming requirements as well. Looking at it from the other way, would I swap to NV and G-Sync if that was most suitable for my requirements? Of course I would! If significant advantage was to be gained or if revolutionary performance was to be had for my most common tasks then I would be all over it.

I was just thinking about this and it seems a lifetime ago that I actually owned a high end nv card, not that I would call myself particularly bias but genuinely the last high end NV card I remember owning was a geforce 3 ti500. Actually my old laptop has a 6gb gtx 970 if that counts?
 
I'm not touching G-Sync with a bargepole. I'm not into that proprietary ********. I'll be interested when nVidia support the open VESA standard. Until then, I'm gonna go without.
 
People stuck with NV back when AMD were making better products because people knew eventually NV would own AMD.
Thing is, AMD would need to be consistently ahead. Few realistically are going to sell a g-sync monitor and buy an AMD GPU and Freesync monitor if AMD were to bring out a GPU faster than top end offerings if they know NV are likely going to blow it away soon too.
So if AMD brought out 2-4 generations of GPU that were consistently ahead of NV in the same time cycle (I don't mean at the end of a cycle pipping them for a short time) then sure more people would make the change by buying a new monitor to go with the GPU. If AMD brought out a GPU now that was 5% ahead of a 1080Ti, it wouldn't be that great would it when we know anytime soon NV is probably going to jump that by another 25-30%+, so people would be fools too sell their g-sync in that scenario.
AMD is not in the same league as NV when it come to top end gaming GPUs especially.
Personally I feel both side are guilty of trying to lock customers in on their sync tech. I still game on an old monitor - if you don't experience g-sync/freesync you don't know care so much about it :).
When I do upgrade my monitor would I have an issue paying say £25 more to have both freesync and g-sync? Nope
 
Last edited:
As I'm getting older I have started to want better image quality than just high fps so with that said, my next display will be an OLED regardless of GPU manufacturer.

Not getting into that argument of the good vs evil company that keeps springing up lately.

Having owned a 1080 Ti with a G-Sync monitor which was great and using a Freesync setup before that, I am taking a break and giving the consoles some love with a large 4K HDR TV.

Not missing that VRR tech at the moment but will return when I feel to while my PC is just sitting there. :D
 
DarrenM343 said:
AMD is not in the same league as NV when it come to top end gaming GPUs especially.
Click to expand...

Financially and the very top tier yes I'd agree with that. But the flip side of that, gaming at over 100fps on a 1440p 144hz freesync monitor with all the eye candy turned up on the vast majority of triple AAA titles, I'd hardly call that not on the same level. That's great gaming experience right there and is in the same league.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom