AMD FreeSync Versus Nvidia G-Sync

P

PRIME1

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
3,942
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-freesync-versus-nvidia-g-sync-reader-event,4246.html


AMD is at a disadvantage because it doesn’t have the variable refresh range coverage currently enjoyed by Nvidia. If you spring for the QHD/FreeSync/IPS display we tested with and run a game like Borderlands on a 390X, it’s going to fall outside of 35-90Hz almost exclusively, even if you dial in the most taxing settings possible. Conversely, the QHD/FreeSync/TN screen we could have chosen instead would have likely run into issues with the quality settings we used in The Witcher, which averaged in the 40s, but also dipped lower.

Theoretical similarities between G-Sync and FreeSync aside, we also cannot ignore the fact that a number of our event participants chose the Nvidia solution in games where both FreeSync and G-Sync should have been inside their respective ranges at all times. This happened at a rate of 2:1 in Crysis, and almost 3:1 in Battlefield 4.
Click to expand...

7YrXdmE.png
 
Would have liked to have seen how multi-card setups perceived microstutter is impacted by both technologies, but that would have been another data set entirely, so I'm sure it was beyond the scope.
 
[L]imey;1041781169 said:
Would have liked to have seen how multi-card setups perceived microstutter is impacted by both technologies, but that would have been another data set entirely, so I'm sure it was beyond the scope.
Click to expand...

I don't think free sync or g sync works on multi card setups
 
This was my personal experience as well, I found Gsync to just be more consistent. I had a lot of trouble even getting Freesync to work, but it is quite good when it does.

I'm sticking with Freesync because many of the Gsync panels have no optional inputs, its nice to be able to use onboard graphics or whatever else comes my way since I see a lot of hardware so if I were to use an Nvidia card I can just play at 144hz and ignore Freesync.

Also, I kind of like seeing both sides cooperating to have a thing like this put on. Kind of refreshing honestly.

DigitalGriffin said:
I don't think free sync or g sync works on multi card setups
Click to expand...

Gsync works better with SLI than it does with a single card, and Freesync also supports Crossfire in DX10+ games.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
I don't think free sync or g sync works on multi card setups
Click to expand...

I know g-sync works with SLI. I will poke around with it when my new card shows up next week.

I've not tried freesync, but after my 7970 xfire experience, I doubt I'll go back to red unless something super compelling comes out.

Plus with my predator g sync monitor, I'm locked to green for the forseeable future anyway.
 
LigTasm said:
Gsync works better with SLI than it does with a single card
Click to expand...

Can you please clarify this? Does G-Sync eliminate microstutter? I have been hesitant to go 980Ti SLI because I was worried the opposite was true, and that G-Sync did not play nicely with SLI setups.
 
NukeDukem said:
Can you please clarify this? Does G-Sync eliminate microstutter? I have been hesitant to go 980Ti SLI because I was worried the opposite was true, and that G-Sync did not play nicely with SLI setups.
Click to expand...

Gsync+AFR is an ideal combination, this does not mean that games that have problems will suddenly stop. In fact, sometimes a sync'd frame rate will amplify a microstutter you already had because now you can see it over all of the other crap you were used to seeing before.
 
I'm waiting for at least version 2.0, hopefully after it all collapses down to a single standard.

I'm fairly convinced this tech is going to be on everything eventually.
 
Prime prime prime... you are missing so many good quotes from the article:

We expected Nvidia to secure the majority in our overall tally for a couple of reasons. First, Borderlands, which half of our respondents played, ran outside of the FreeSync-equipped Asus monitor’s variable refresh range. So we need to assess how many surveys cited this title as their reason for choosing G-Sync. Second, we created a side experiment on two computers using Battlefield 4, which allowed FreeSync to remain under 90 FPS (in its variable refresh range) while Nvidia’s hardware pushed higher frame rates through dialed-back quality options. One-quarter of our attendees would have unknowingly participated in this one, and we’ll separately compare their responses to the folks who played at the Ultra preset on both technologies.
Click to expand...

The FreeSync monitors were $200 cheaper, or 25% less so you have to say 4/10 people preferred FreeSync to GSync since they'd rather save $200 and use it towards a better GPU.

Interestingly, nine of those who said they’d spend more on the better experience ended up picking the Radeon R9 390X/Asus MG279Q combination. Twenty-three picked the G-Sync-capable hardware. So, 79% of our respondents who preferred the G-Sync experience would be willing to pay extra for it.
Click to expand...

3 of those who would pay more would pay the $200 difference between the two monitors.

Please, please stop trying to push your Pro Nvidia agendas around here, its getting tiring.
 
Pretend for a moment that I forgot everything I knew about G-sync / FreeSync. Do they actually do anything on a 144 Hz display?
 
jwcalla said:
Pretend for a moment that I forgot everything I knew about G-sync / FreeSync. Do they actually do anything on a 144 Hz display?
Click to expand...

Yes absolutely. It's not just about the non screen tearing, but for me it is all about how much smoother the games run. The first game I ever saw it running on was a version of COD. It just blew me away and I had to get one. The fluidity was something to behold.

I personally think free sync will do better when a higher sync range monitors become available. Some of them now only have a range of between 40-75Hz where AMD adaptive sync works. Where as G sync has a much larger range. I expect this to change and quickly as more manufacturers make more higher hertz panels for free sync.
 
jwcalla said:
Pretend for a moment that I forgot everything I knew about G-sync / FreeSync. Do they actually do anything on a 144 Hz display?
Click to expand...
The fluidity itself has changed the game.

I used to need 290/780 level performance to get 120fps in most games, including the shooters I play that benefit from the high refresh rate.

I was set on buying a second 960 until I tried G-Sync with just the one. Even at 70-80 fps (at which I could notice the slowdown before), it feels as smooth as it did at 100+ without G-Sync.

The performance requirement and buy-in cost for a high fps experience is lowered drastically, which is good news all around: less expensive and power-hungry GPUs, lower heat, low noise. Can't say enough good things, honestly.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Not worth it /ignored.

Edit: His threads still show up though that's not good!
 
Last edited:
PRIME1 said:
Here's a Gsync monitor for $379
http://www.amazon.com/Acer-XB240H-A...?ie=UTF8&qid=1439002901&sr=8-1&keywords=gsync

Is there a $179 freesync monitor out there?

If Freesync worked as well as Gsync they would charge more for it.
Click to expand...

Enjoy your 24" TN 1080P for $379

We'll be enjoying 4K IPS for under $800.

$800 for 42" AH-IPS hdmi 2.0, DP, no PWM, and freesync.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1869589

Oh sorry if you can't see that thread, forgot you are banned in the AMD forums because of your bias.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Quix said:
I'm waiting for at least version 2.0, hopefully after it all collapses down to a single standard.

I'm fairly convinced this tech is going to be on everything eventually.
Click to expand...

It seems that it is going to be on every monitor soon and its pushing up prices :mad:

Iv not used freesync or gysnc so excuse my ignorance but why would you buy a 144hz panel and then be happy its running at 43hz or 61hz or 32hz etc. Are you not better off playing at 144hz and limiting the fps to whatever the minimum is your getting.

I just don't see the point of this tech apart from making monitors more expensive.
 
jwcalla said:
Pretend for a moment that I forgot everything I knew about G-sync / FreeSync. Do they actually do anything on a 144 Hz display?
Click to expand...

The closer you get to 144fps the less you will notice the effects of sync tech.
 
GSYNC works much better and it costs more which is no surprise.

Freesync has low standards. I've seen monitors that have a 50-60Hz frequency range and that's a freesync monitor for a VERY specific person and game type.

I'd rather pay more for GSYNC for the best possible experience. I do appreciate what AMD is doing though. Hopefully as its get more mature it will help drive down prices for GSYNC.
 
Gsync doesn't offer enough panels. They have nothing like the monitor in my sig + under $1k
 
how much of a difference does gsync really makes? im in the market for a new monitor, but there isnt a single gsync compatible monitor out there that fits what im looking for. ips/144/1440
 
another-user said:
how much of a difference does gsync really makes? im in the market for a new monitor, but there isnt a single gsync compatible monitor out there that fits what im looking for. ips/144/1440
Click to expand...

It made a huge difference for me. I ended up simply playing my games much more often without even worrying about overclocking or changing settings. Once you experience it you really don't want to go back despite how immature the tech is.
 
Right now gsync is "better" because of the wider range but it comes at a cost like toms article said, but I dont think it will take long for freesync scalers to catch up and offer the the same wide DRR's. When that happens gsync will just be the expensive nvidia only option. I really hope this battle ends soon and the industry agrees on one standard. Thats just my opinion.
 
Technically yes but it doesnt seem like it. Freesync only works with AMD gpu's and gsync only works with nvidia right now. Im talking about getting to a point where an adaptive sync tech works with more than 1 gpu maker. Honestly I hope intel jumps on freesync and gsync eventually dies.
 
no one else has implemented async yet.

Its just a matter of time. I assume nvidia will get their heads out of their butts eventually. They will lose sales if they dont.

Beside, who other than intel and nvidia needs it?
 
its a gsync limitation.

Youd think someone would figure out how to work around that.
 
The Mac said:
its a gsync limitation.

Youd think someone would figure out how to work around that.
Click to expand...

The BenQ XL2420G has two scalars, one for other inputs and one for Gsync. It adds a lot of cost though.

Speaking on the subject, this is one thing I dislike about Freesync; it is so damn hit or miss. I literally just got my new XL2730Z a few minutes ago, plug it in and everything is great... except no Freesync options anywhere. It isn't in the OSD and CCC decided not to give me the check box either, so now I have to google search for a while or maybe re-install drivers or other stupid bullshit instead of it just working out of the box like Gsync does.
 
The Mac said:
its a gsync limitation.
Click to expand...

Jeez that's kind of a sucky limitation. I have to plug multiple computers into my displays and while DVI-based KVM switches are pretty common, I'd bet a DP one costs a pretty penny (if they even exist).
 
LigTasm said:
The BenQ XL2420G has two scalars, one for other inputs and one for Gsync. It adds a lot of cost though.

Speaking on the subject, this is one thing I dislike about Freesync; it is so damn hit or miss. I literally just got my new XL2730Z a few minutes ago, plug it in and everything is great... except no Freesync options anywhere. It isn't in the OSD and CCC decided not to give me the check box either, so now I have to google search for a while or maybe re-install drivers or other stupid bullshit instead of it just working out of the box like Gsync does.
Click to expand...

not exactly a great solution, the gsync module itself is already expensive.

your freesync issue is probobly driver related.

some people noticed its not showing up on certain driver versions in 10. make sure you are using 15.7.1
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top