• 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

shankly1985 said:
VVR at 30hz still has the same frame delay has none VVR at 30fps. VVR can not fix this 30fps is still 30fps
Click to expand...
aHLqJr4.jpg

:D


DarrenM343 said:
AMD is not in the same league as NV when it come to top end gaming GPUs especially.
Click to expand...
Yeah but that's not their fault it's the customers, even when AMD have the top cards or offer the best value for money for years on end most people still buy Nvidia because of brand loyalty/fanboyism.

It's understandable that they are currently more interested in making money than catering to customers who only want them to release a 1080ti rival in order to make 1080ti prices drop.
 
TonyTurbo78 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with you.

ubersonic said:
:D

Yeah but that's not their fault it's the customers, even when AMD have the top cards or offer the best value for money for years on end most people still buy Nvidia because of brand loyalty/fanboyism.

It's understandable that they are currently more interested in making money than catering to customers who only want them to release a 1080ti rival in order to make 1080ti prices drop.
Click to expand...

There are many posts in this forum with people writing exactly that. Even to the point they are bashing AMD for not having competitive product, so they could buy Nvidia at lower price.......
And I have seen this exact posts here hundreds of times some from people on previous pages before even gsync existed.

Sometimes I truly believe that they are getting paid by Nvidia.
 
ubersonic said:
aHLqJr4.jpg

:D



Yeah but that's not their fault it's the customers, even when AMD have the top cards or offer the best value for money for years on end most people still buy Nvidia because of brand loyalty/fanboyism.

It's understandable that they are currently more interested in making money than catering to customers who only want them to release a 1080ti rival in order to make 1080ti prices drop.
Click to expand...

:D :D
 
Do we have any clearer ideas on how Freesync 2 and G-Sync HDR will compare yet?

I have a G-Sync monitor and I have been really enjoying it. I'm looking at moving to 1440p with a decent display at some point, though, (perhaps HDR) and it's hidesouly expensive to buy pretty much any 1440p G-Sync monitor.

There are so many Freesync displays that are so much cheaper (though presumably a lot of them have weak VVR ranges). When I do decide it's time to go 1440p I may well go AMD and Freesync 2 if it compares reasonably, as I reckon I could get a display plus a graphics card for not much more than the cost of an equivalent G-Sync display. Unless there's some compelling factors making G-Sync HDR simply better technology.

For me, though, it's going to be the monitor upgrade that will decide things as I'll probably upgrade display and graphics card at the same time.
 
spoffle said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've been enjoying a terrific gaming experience for years with NV+Gsync. I couldn't imagine sitting in front of a normal monitor with my arms folded and a frown on my face just to prove a point to myself. Massive companies get up to all sorts of tactics to protect and build on their market share, there are countless examples of this. Personally, I set a budget and I buy whatever provides the best experience and I have zero interest in all this BS about marketing tactics etc..

If AMD brought out a card that could beat my 1080ti by 20%, I would not consider buying it because my Gsync monitor would provide a better experience at the lower frame rates. However, if AMD consistently brought out better cards then I'd consider swapping to Freesync.

I could actually buy a better card than a 1080ti right now that would give me higher frame rates and also be compatible with Gsync, but that card costs more than I am prepared to pay so again I'll be content with a smooth experience at lower frame rates. It's got nothing to do with brand loyalty or the good guy versus the bad guy, it's all about making an informed decision based on budget, experience and common sense.
 
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...

It's for the tearing, not response times :)
 
TonyTurbo78 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Notice I chose a few words carefully previously :). I don't disagree with what you said, it's good enough, but if you're talking about the Vega cards they're not really gaming targetted cards, more workstation cards that can do gaming (IMO), proven to me by the fact that their gaming performance is not as good as the chip specs suggest. As an overall package, they're still not in the same league for gaming. Take power consumption for example. So sure, they may perform good enough in the scenario you mentioned but use 30% or whatever power more than the equiv NV card may use
I don't care about AMD vs NV stuff but we can all see the obvious. One obvious thing to me is the sheer amount of £ NV can throw at GPU development. AMD seem to be focused on other areas for the moment and yep, doing well in those (at least CPU's anyway).
So back to the original post, as said, AMD would really need to put in consistent outperformance of the competition for folks to move away from g-sync and NV GPU's to freesync and AMD.
My monitor is now aging and I could do with another so I may opt to buy a g-sync next (hoping dell release a 2718 or 19 soon to supersede their aging 2716) and then when the old one fails, get a freesync.I only intend to use one for gaming but having the second monitor with freesync may be a good idea.

I was tempted to buy a vega 64 recently by the way. IMO, not a bad card, just not as gaming focused/optimised as equiv NV card but sure, for workstation stuff it would probably blow away the likes of the 1080 and maybe even Ti in performance. The chip definatley has good specs.
 
Last edited:
if AMD could make a card within 10-15% of a NVIDA fastest card, i would switch without a shred of hesitation. Nvida and Intels pricing shenanigans has put me off both companies to be honest.
 
DarrenM343 said:
Notice I chose a few words carefully previously :). I don't disagree with what you said, it's good enough, but if you're talking about the Vega cards they're not really gaming targetted cards, more workstation cards that can do gaming (IMO), proven to me by the fact that their gaming performance is not as good as the chip specs suggest. As an overall package, they're still not in the same league for gaming. Take power consumption for example. So sure, they may perform good enough in the scenario you mentioned but use 30% or whatever power more than the equiv NV card may use
I don't care about AMD vs NV stuff but we can all see the obvious. One obvious thing to me is the sheer amount of £ NV can throw at GPU development. AMD seem to be focused on other areas for the moment and yep, doing well in those (at least CPU's anyway).
So back to the original post, as said, AMD would really need to put in consistent outperformance of the competition for folks to move away from g-sync and NV GPU's to freesync and AMD.
My monitor is now aging and I could do with another so I may opt to buy a g-sync next (hoping dell release a 2718 or 19 soon to supersede their aging 2716) and then when the old one fails, get a freesync.I only intend to use one for gaming but having the second monitor with freesync may be a good idea.

I was tempted to buy a vega 64 recently by the way. IMO, not a bad card, just not as gaming focused/optimised as equiv NV card but sure, for workstation stuff it would probably blow away the likes of the 1080 and maybe even Ti in performance. The chip definatley has good specs.
Click to expand...

But they fly in gaming https://www.3dmark.com/fs/14348525 :) only competitive card that is faster is a 1080ti and then the outrageously overpriced Titan cards.

Vega gets a rough ride, but it's certainly no slouch. And if you picked one up for £450 like myself on launch, you got one hell of a card. Yes disappointing because it's behind the competition regarding time of release and power required, but there's no way in the world i'd say it's a "failure" as said by so many. It's given me months of gaming bliss.

Anyway, getting off topic a little here.
 
Last edited:
I considered a complete change when Threadripper came out to AMD only products. I like the little guys and the price is easier to swallow but not when the tech was so far off.

I couldn't give up the G-Sync or similar though. It's been my best upgrade for years. I'd have to test Freesync first. As long as it gives the same performance I'd consider it.
 
B1gbeard said:
I considered a complete change when Threadripper came out to AMD only products. I like the little guys and the price is easier to swallow but not when the tech was so far off.

I couldn't give up the G-Sync or similar though. It's been my best upgrade for years. I'd have to test Freesync first. As long as it gives the same performance I'd consider it.
Click to expand...
It is the same. Had both. Only difference comes with the range. G-Sync tends to offer a better range. Definitely the case for 4K monitors anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom