I'm having a tough time deciding..

U

Usual_suspect

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
317
I recently bought an LG 29WK600 and it has Freesync capabilities. I had a GTX 1070, but I opted to spend the extra money and get myself a Vega 56, now both the Vega 56 and 1070 Ti were $10 apart from one another, and I believe the GTX 1080 was roughly $50 more.

My question is: Should I keep the Vega 56 because of Freesync, or should I opt for the 1070ti or possibly 1080 and forego Freesync?

Another question I have is: Does Freesync make a huge difference? I currently play World of Warcraft as my main game at the moment, I noticed even with the GTX 1070 it was able to keep up with the monitors refresh rate roughly 80% of the time, but often times, especially in the main city hubs it dipped into the 50's, and even high 40's.
 
Well, 1080s are finally coming down in price so getting a GTX1080 is quite tempting. I don't think WoW would benefit much from Freesync but other games would.

Personally I can live without variable refresh rates. So I really don't care about freesync or G-sync. I currently game on a GTX1070Ti on a 4k TV and IMO its great.

I'd say wait for a little while. Maybe prices on the Vega56 will lower and make your choice easier.
 
Well, I got this card at Best Buy:

GTX 1070 Founders Edition - $349.99
GTX 1070 Ti EVGA - $439.99
XFX Radeon Vega 56 - $449.99
GTX 1080 Founders Edition - $499.99

The Ti being cheaper and a better performer (usually around 8-10% better) made this decision really difficult.. I'm still on the fence though: To Freesync or not to Freesync is the question.
 
I think it boils down to how important sync rate and refresh is to you. If you don't mind running Vsync and losing performance in the future or screen tearing, I'd go with the 1070Ti.
 
I think I’m just going to stick with the Vega 56. I noticed how much smoother WoW was last night in areas where I dipped into the high 40’s to mid-50’s compared to my GTX 1070 where I’d often see stuttering and screen tearing.

Plus, I I didn’t even know it until I checked my email that I got three free games with my purchase. I checked the Nvidia offers and none of them offered the same so I figured what the hell thats a pretty good bonus to add.
 
You can hang onto the AMD card and use it for the up and coming glossy gaming monitors that use adaptive sync.
 
I went with the GTX 1080 on my freesync enabled monitor, I didn't want to pay for the Gsync monitor initially, I sort of wish I did, but even the 144hz refresh is a big jump from 60hz.
 
I can hit 100-110 fps in WoW on my 8350 and a rx480 at 1080p and then drop down to the 20-30's in a 15-20 man raid. 5-10 man groups that system hits 40-50fps most of the time. I'd stick with Freesync.
 
This monitor does 75hz and works with all nVidia cards, You can enable this by adding a custom resolution in the nvidea control panel, and it works just fine. You can double check this yourself on Amazon under the questions section for this monitor. In fact, there are many places that will tell you this.

When it comes to video cards, get the fastest you can afford. If the 1080 is only $50 - $100 more, get it all day long. Don't walk, but run.

I have a handful on monitors, Freesync, gsync and an unbranded 144hz monitor. Guess what? They are look and function exactly the same under my 1080 and 1080 Ti. Freesync and Gsync is just branding my man at least in my eyes. 75hz .... 120hz .... 144hz ... etc .. all those frames are synced.

Get the nvidia card. Don't let a few dollars stand in the way off incredible performance.

Don't let branding sway you. You should only be concerned with performance. At the end of the day, you wanted the best FPS you can get.

Trust me, it only takes 3 or 4 days or a lot less to screw off $50 - $100 on eating out, dope, cool ranch doritos. Put that money in the card instead.
 
Traded in my Vega 56 and got a cheap 1080ti (AMP Extreme on ebay) Never looked back. Butter smooth even without freesync. Never thought I would say this.

Only issue is the frameskipping on 2nd monitor still present on newest nvidia driver. AMD, no issues


My point is, a $500 used 1080ti is a huge bargain right now. Fuck those expensive RTX cards. I will wait until the technology matures.

I just hope Pascal doesn't get "Keplered" driver wise on future games.
 
Update: I returned the 29” Ultrawide and got an MSI Optix MAG27C 144hz Curved Monitor with FreeSync. It has a FreeSync range of 48hz-144hz.

My son also plays Overwatch, Rainbow Six Siege, and *shudders* Fortnite. This decision was made with him in mind as I figured WoW would see minimal use for 144 FPS, although damn it’s smoothly

I think what’s attracting me to FreeSync is having the option to dial all my game settings up to max (or near max) and even if I pull between less than 144 FPS it’ll still produce a smooth experience without lag, tearing, stuttering etc. My monitors FreeS

I’ve mainly stuck with Team Green for the simple fact of performance, but after enough research and testimonies it seems like the ~10% loss in performance is made up in the form of having more flexibility. Sure a 1080 (or Ti) would net the highest FPS, but what about 3-4 years down the road?
 
I have a GSync monitor and also a FreeSync TV. If you can safely stay above the refresh rate, normal VSync is still good and always an option.

However, if you are below the max refresh, GSync/FreeSync can save you and produce a smooth image at lower framerates. Which means you can potentially run at higher settings and get an even smoother experience.

With a 1080p monitor, you should have no problems with running a Vega card and getting good performance. I'd really recommend an AMD card here.
 
I've been looking at the 24'' version of that MSI, interested in hearing your impressions of it.
 
Ranulfo said:
I've been looking at the 24'' version of that MSI, interested in hearing your impressions of it.
Click to expand...

It's great so far, although I've read reports of a lot of ghosting/smearing which I have yet to see myself. I'm finding myself floating between 100-140 fps in WoW on relatively high (not max) settings. This game sucks for optimization. I'm going to be trying out other games soon.
 
I suppose refresh rate syncing is very useful for low input lag games, where that is important. If you play CSGO, Overwatch, or any of the other competitive games, then I would vote freesync.

However, I play on a 1440p monitor and have a GTX 1080 to push the highest frames at the highest quality at my resolution. If I were upgrading, would get the ti. But that is a personal preference for the games I typically play and what I’m looking for.
 
Ranulfo said:
I've been looking at the 24'' version of that MSI, interested in hearing your impressions of it.
Click to expand...

I have the 24" MSI and I'm pretty happy with it. Decent color and the refresh rate is awesome, especially coming from an old 27" 60hz monitor.
 
Rvenger said:
Traded in my Vega 56 and got a cheap 1080ti (AMP Extreme on ebay) Never looked back. Butter smooth even without freesync. Never thought I would say this.

Only issue is the frameskipping on 2nd monitor still present on newest nvidia driver. AMD, no issues


My point is, a $500 used 1080ti is a huge bargain right now. Fuck those expensive RTX cards. I will wait until the technology matures.

I just hope Pascal doesn't get "Keplered" driver wise on future games.
Click to expand...

Kepler never got Keplered. There’s been several reviews investigating this myth and it’s just that. A myth. Keplars problem was the architecture itself that simply didn’t age well. Another problem with Kepler is most of the cards were 2GB which became inadequate not long after launch. The performance woes had nothing to do with drivers, except for maybe SLI support but they goes for the entire nvidia lineup.
 
Well, I think I’ll stick with this setup in my computer: Vega 56/144hz 1080p FreeSync monitor. Although, after the fact I read about the nano-PCB Vega 56's being bad on OC'ing and BIOS locked, I can say I'm happy. I undervolted the card, and temps tend to stay well below 70C under full load.

I would love to get a 1440p 144hz Freesync monitor, but I prefer to buy my stuff locally since the stores around me price match Amazon (Frys and Best Buy), and neither have any decent monitors in stock that would be relatively close to what I paid for this monitor.

Unfortunately no card within my price range ($500 and below) can run games at a consistent 144 FPS across all of my games, even at 1080p with ultra settings. Which is a bummer as I’ve always gone with Nvidia. It sucks that Nvidia pulled an Apple with their proprietary shenanigans along with the premium to go with it. I would have gladly gotten a GSync monitor/1080 over Vega 56/FreeSync since the whole point of my original question was brought about because I was very much on the fence between giving up FreeSync to stick with the better performing brand (currently).

After a week with adaptive sync though, I feel it would be tough to go back to a non-GSync/FreeSync monitor as I can up the IQ and still pull between 80-144 FPS without having to worry about much stuttering, and virtually no tearing, and to me that's worth sticking with an inferior card when price is a big factor. Sure Nvidia has the extra FPS by a decent margin usually, smooth gameplay means more to me. For me, I can say it's probably the best investment I could have made with going with an adaptive sync setup as I feel it gives me a sense of future-proofing, especially when new games drop that become more demanding, even at 1080p.

Thank you to everyone for the responses.
 
Last edited:
Usual_suspect said:
Well, I think I’ll stick with this setup in my computer: Vega 56/144hz 1080p FreeSync monitor. Although, after the fact I read about the nano-PCB Vega 56's being bad on OC'ing and BIOS locked, I can say I'm happy. I undervolted the card, and temps tend to stay well below 70C under full load.

I would love to get a 1440p 144hz Freesync monitor, but I prefer to buy my stuff locally since the stores around me price match Amazon (Frys and Best Buy), and neither have any decent monitors in stock that would be relatively close to what I paid for this monitor.

Unfortunately no card within my price range ($500 and below) can run games at a consistent 144 FPS across all of my games, even at 1080p with ultra settings. Which is a bummer as I’ve always gone with Nvidia. It sucks that Nvidia pulled an Apple with their proprietary shenanigans along with the premium to go with it. I would have gladly gotten a GSync monitor/1080 over Vega 56/FreeSync since the whole point of my original question was brought about because I was very much on the fence between giving up FreeSync to stick with the better performing brand (currently).

After a week with adaptive sync though, I feel it would be tough to go back to a non-GSync/FreeSync monitor as I can up the IQ and still pull between 80-144 FPS without having to worry about much stuttering, and virtually no tearing, and to me that's worth sticking with an inferior card when price is a big factor. Sure Nvidia has the extra FPS by a decent margin usually, smooth gameplay means more to me. For me, I can say it's probably the best investment I could have made with going with an adaptive sync setup as I feel it gives me a sense of future-proofing, especially when new games drop that become more demanding, even at 1080p.

Thank you to everyone for the responses.
Click to expand...
Have you tried disabling FreeSync, now that you've gotten used to it, just to see how much of a difference it makes having it on? I know that with new tech, I usually don't notice an upgrade until I go back to use the previous option, and then I realize how much better the new one actually is.
 
Timobkg said:
Have you tried disabling FreeSync, now that you've gotten used to it, just to see how much of a difference it makes having it on? I know that with new tech, I usually don't notice an upgrade until I go back to use the previous option, and then I realize how much better the new one actually is.
Click to expand...

I tried it, and for the most part it's not OMG different, but I could definitely see a difference. It felt no where near as smooth, but considering I have a 144hz monitor and the only games I have that I could pull a constant 144 FPS are Overwatch, Doom, and Fortnite having FreeSync definitely did make a noticeable difference in all the games I couldn't maintain a constant 144 FPS. All in all, for the time being I feel this is the best solution for me as a comparable Gsync monitor is roughly $200 more, which sucks as I prefer Nvidia. Unfortunately though, unless I had 1080Ti I wouldn't be able to pull 144 FPS constantly, even at 1080p from the benchmark's and tests I've seen/read.

Which brings me to another question I have: What are people's thoughts on High Refresh Rate vs High Resolution? I was looking at a 1440p monitor with Freesync, but the highest refresh rate within my budget was 60hz and wasn't sure if stepping down in refresh rate was worth it for higher resolution. The 144hz 1440p monitors are about $150+ more, and as it stands now I've gone well over my budget. I did have my son test out Fortnite/Overwatch with both a 60hz and 144hz monitor and he told me he definitely felt a difference in smoothness, and for me playing mostly single player outside of WoW I thought I wouldn't see much of a difference, but it's there, especially when games can maintain between 80-100 FPS+ it's definitely noticeable.

So, ultimately my question now is: Graphics Quality vs FPS? Google results are pretty much a wash, 50/50 some prefer higher resolution, and some swear by higher refresh rates I'd like to get [H]'s opinion on the subject (and yes I did watch the video's Kyle posted comparing both Gsync and Freesync).
 
Usual_suspect said:
So, ultimately my question now is: Graphics Quality vs FPS? Google results are pretty much a wash, 50/50 some prefer higher resolution, and some swear by higher refresh rates I'd like to get [H]'s opinion on the subject (and yes I did watch the video's Kyle posted comparing both Gsync and Freesync).
Click to expand...

You tell us.. ?

FirstPersonShooter - I always go Frames over Quality.
 
Mega6 said:
You tell us.. ?

FirstPersonShooter - I always go Frames over Quality.
Click to expand...

Well the games I'm playing now are Doom, and WoW. I have GTA V, Deus Ex Mankind Divided, Just Cause 3, Fallout 4, Star Control Origins, Civ VI, and Total War: Warhammer that I intend to play after I finish Doom. I also plan on eventually buying Rise of the Tomb Raider and Shadow of the Tomb Raider when I get more money.

My son plays strictly Fortnite, Rainbow Six Siege, and Overwatch.
 
Usual_suspect said:
I tried it, and for the most part it's not OMG different, but I could definitely see a difference. It felt no where near as smooth, but considering I have a 144hz monitor and the only games I have that I could pull a constant 144 FPS are Overwatch, Doom, and Fortnite having FreeSync definitely did make a noticeable difference in all the games I couldn't maintain a constant 144 FPS. All in all, for the time being I feel this is the best solution for me as a comparable Gsync monitor is roughly $200 more, which sucks as I prefer Nvidia. Unfortunately though, unless I had 1080Ti I wouldn't be able to pull 144 FPS constantly, even at 1080p from the benchmark's and tests I've seen/read.

Which brings me to another question I have: What are people's thoughts on High Refresh Rate vs High Resolution? I was looking at a 1440p monitor with Freesync, but the highest refresh rate within my budget was 60hz and wasn't sure if stepping down in refresh rate was worth it for higher resolution. The 144hz 1440p monitors are about $150+ more, and as it stands now I've gone well over my budget. I did have my son test out Fortnite/Overwatch with both a 60hz and 144hz monitor and he told me he definitely felt a difference in smoothness, and for me playing mostly single player outside of WoW I thought I wouldn't see much of a difference, but it's there, especially when games can maintain between 80-100 FPS+ it's definitely noticeable.

So, ultimately my question now is: Graphics Quality vs FPS? Google results are pretty much a wash, 50/50 some prefer higher resolution, and some swear by higher refresh rates I'd like to get [H]'s opinion on the subject (and yes I did watch the video's Kyle posted comparing both Gsync and Freesync).
Click to expand...
If you're used up 144Hz (or beyond 60, at any rate), I think you won't be happy going back to a 60Hz monitor.

Personally, I don't see anything particularly compelling about a higher resolution. I think the resolution just needs to suit the monitor size.

23-24" - 1080p is just fine.
27+" - here 1080p may look pixelated, so 1440p shines.

The only thing compelling me to upgrade to larger monitors than my 23" is that I'd get a larger field of view in racing sims. Otherwise, I'm perfectly happy with my current size and resolution.
 
Usual_suspect said:
I recently bought an LG 29WK600 and it has Freesync capabilities. I had a GTX 1070, but I opted to spend the extra money and get myself a Vega 56, now both the Vega 56 and 1070 Ti were $10 apart from one another, and I believe the GTX 1080 was roughly $50 more.

My question is: Should I keep the Vega 56 because of Freesync, or should I opt for the 1070ti or possibly 1080 and forego Freesync?

Another question I have is: Does Freesync make a huge difference? I currently play World of Warcraft as my main game at the moment, I noticed even with the GTX 1070 it was able to keep up with the monitors refresh rate roughly 80% of the time, but often times, especially in the main city hubs it dipped into the 50's, and even high 40's.
Click to expand...

Keep what you have and enjoy it. The monitor you have also supports HDR and that is a plus. Being content can be hard but once you learn to be content, you end up enjoying what you have that much more.
 
ManofGod said:
Keep what you have and enjoy it. The monitor you have also supports HDR and that is a plus. Being content can be hard but once you learn to be content, you end up enjoying what you have that much more.
Click to expand...

I don’t have the LG monitors anymore. I have an MSI Optix MAG27C which doesn’t have HDR. It would be nice though! Thank you for your response.
 
First, crank the HBM speed up as high as you can get it. You can make most of that 10% Delta up pretty easily...

Second, I would keep your current LCD since you have 144hz, and just VRR up to 1440P (or higher depending on the game) and enjoy the crisp non jaggies from the SSAA even if the game doesn't support it. I run GTA V maxed out at 1800P with all advanced options and it stays pegged right at 80hz, with the few tiny dipa handled by FS which keeps it butter smooth.

Anyone that claims they cannot notice a difference from a VRR display is either playing an old game that gets 300+FPS or they are lying.
 
ccityinstaller said:
First, crank the HBM speed up as high as you can get it. You can make most of that 10% Delta up pretty easily...

Second, I would keep your current LCD since you Have 144hz, and just VRR up to 1440P (or higher depending on the game) and enjoy the crisp non jaggies from the SSAA even if the game doesn't support it. I run GTA V maxed out at 1800P with all advanced options and it stays pegged right at 80hz, with the few tiny dipa handled by FS which keeps it buttessmooth.

Anyone that claims they cannot notice a difference from a VRR display is either playing an old game that gets 300+FPS or they are lying.
Click to expand...

Well, I was unlucky and got Hynix memory on my Vega so the highest I’ve tried the memory was 900MHz and I undervolted the card with my P6 at 1050 and p7 at 1100 with a 3% OC on the core clock. Thing is, my Vega 56 is on a nano PCB and power regulated so I have to play with it some more.

Last I benched with these settings I was within a 2% margin of the 1070Ti.
 
There is still a decent chance you can reach 1100mHz on the ram ..doesn't hurt to try..try 1650 core, 900mV core voltage, 1100Mhz HBM, 850mV "memory" voltage" 0% PL...see what that does for you.
 
ccityinstaller said:
There is still a decent chance you can reach 1100mHz on the ram ..doesn't hurt to try..try 1650 core, 900mV core voltage, 1100Mhz HBM, 850mV "memory" voltage" 0% PL...see what that does for you.
Click to expand...

I wish! The highest stable clocks I got were 1630 core, 925 memory +50% pl, I did manage to drop the core voltage by 165 (using Afterburner).

Anytime I pushed the core up above 1630 even without touching the memory or power level I got artifacting, anytime I tried pushing the memory above 925 I got artifacting followed by a system crash.

I can’t really complain, granted Inwould have loved getting a Samsung HBM model I can live with a 125Mhz increase on the memory and 40 on the core with slightly lower temps which dropped from 71-73 under full load to roughly 64-67 under full load. My Time Spy score went up roughly 600’ish points so I’m happy.

Although I’m not sure how accurate afterburner or Wattman are at calculating power usage but neither show my card pulling more than 226w max. The undervolt managed to drop the load from 226 constantly to between 210-223 under 100% load.
 
Performance range of 1070 and 1080 is nicely 'answered' by AMD
Vega 64 have the same performance level as 1080 and for Freesync monitor will be much better than getting GeForce (until maybe they will figure out how to use discrete AMD GPU to use with NV card for Freesync)
 
Update: ended up taking the MSI Optic MAG27C back and got a 27” Samsung LC27H711 1440p monitor and pushed the refresh rate to 75hz. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to test it much due to “responsibilities”. From what I have tested it is very nice, definite image quality improvement, but I can also see the difference in refresh rate between 75 and 144, so I’ll see if the IQ boost is worth sacrificing a high refresh rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top