Just Plain Mean
- May 18, 1997
OK AMD. Release a 40" 4K 120Hz Freesync monitor to pair with this and I may entertain your shenanigans.
Whom ever is the first to release such a monitor, Freesync or G-sync, has my money.
There's something else: from what I've read, GSync is better at lower frame-rates. In this test, everything was at very high frame-rates.
It will be a while before anything like that exists. 120hz 40K is beyond what can be achieved on a single connector right now and using two display connections for a single monitor is never a great situation for gaming.
I saw adaptive sync best described as "it's not magic, you're just getting all the frames you already paid for".
Get all dem frames. Get em.
DOOM is just interesting because it is an ungodly (pun intended) well optimized title for both platforms. Calling it an AMD title is silly.
I would of course look forward to seeing how this card runs other things when not locked to 100 Hz and without things like motion blur, but it is good to know that with a good title it does have chops.
I think it's a great game to showcase the new AMD card. Nothing wrong with picking it. It's an obvious choice since most of your testers / friends have extensive history with Doom / FPS games.
I just recently picked up an Asus gsync 144hz 24" and I am completely blown away by how smooth and fluid game play is. Too bad I cannot use it. 24" is like gaming on a postage stamp to me.
I should point out that of the entire video I really REALLY liked you pointing out the $300 cost difference. I think that's a very key point if not THE point over-all.
Adaptive Framerate monitors are the shit.
Seriously I will never game on something that doesn't have Freesync or Gsync again. It's amazing.
If you can honestly say that you think G-Sync is a waste of money then either you haven't tried it or you're not a gamer. Going back to non-G-Sync is literally painful. I can't speak for Freesync, having never tried it, but it looks like AMD have stepped it up in the Vega.I can $300.00 anyways. I will not waste money on G-Sync. And for FreeSync that's AMD. And I have been a Nvidia person for years!
If you can honestly say that you think G-Sync is a waste of money then either you haven't tried it or you're not a gamer. Going back to non-G-Sync is literally painful. I can't speak for Freesync, having never tried it, but it looks like AMD have stepped it up in the Vega.
Don't assume that every question is an attack, lots of the time they're just questions..
If it's that important and the gameplay experienced is superior with FS/GS, why is it reviewers never actually talk about that in the end. They always show FPS charts and say GPU X or Y is better because of factors like price, thermals, power, etc. No serious reviewer has ever placed an important emphasis on what matters most: the actual gameplay experience and this has to include the monitor since it's the final output.
To give an example, GTX 1060 vs RX 480. Which can deliver the better gaming experience for the money? GPUs alone on regular monitors, they are pretty close. Add FS/GS into the mix and suddenly it's not even a close contest.
The exact same argument can be made for G-Sync, and that argument is STILL in nVidia's favor due to existence of 1070, and AMD has nothing between Vega and RX 580.I thought the whole reason behind Freesync was to be able to game with lesser hardware. Seems like Crossfire would fly in the face of what that's all about.
I would say it's because it blurs the lines of performance (no pun intended). It's more of a subjective thing than something that can be measured like FPS.
On a non adaptive monitor, I can feel when the framerate goes below 60, I mean nearly instantly. Therefore, I need a GPU that can put out above 60 FPS all the time. With Freesync, as long as I'm in the range for the monitor, it is flawlessly smooth. So I don't need a GPU that can run 60+ consistently, and still get a great experience.
But that isn't something that can be measured.
Seriously I get you aren't interested in Vega but is it necessary that you post every so often the exact same negative drivel over and over? Its a GPU that is stronger than other cards in its own stack. It doesn't best Nvidias line. If you need Nvidias performance level then buy Nvidia. If you hate paying for Nvidia, well tough. Pick one.AMD is desperate, they are talking about Freesync. They are trying to defect attention away from the fact that they can't even compete with nVidia's second best card that has been on the market for over a year now. Vega needs to be overclocked and water cooled to beat a GTX 1080. And at that point Vega is consuming over 440w (!). Normally I don't care about power consumption but that is just nuts!
Seriously I get you aren't interested in Vega but is it necessary that you post every so often the exact same negative drivel over and over? Its a GPU that is stronger than other cards in its own stack. It doesn't best Nvidias line. If you need Nvidias performance level then buy Nvidia. If you hate paying for Nvidia, well tough. Pick one.
AMD is desperate, they are talking about Freesync. They are trying to defect attention away from the fact that they can't even compete with nVidia's second best card that has been on the market for over a year now. Vega needs to be overclocked and water cooled to beat a GTX 1080. And at that point Vega is consuming over 440w (!). Normally I don't care about power consumption but that is just nuts!
Great comparison Mr. Bennett. Thank you for your time and effort. Does any of you guys know whats coming out late this summer. Rumor had it that Samsung was going to release some new panels as well as Asus. I'd like to get a 34-35
freesync panel. Preferably 144 Hz. Any suggestions, Looks like the 35 Freesync Acer is selling well.
Kyle feel better. We need this kind of content more often. The PcPer and Nexus or whatever its called are just not Hard core
You're missing the point
If you'd consider one of these $700 cards and don't have freesync or gsync you're leaving a positive experience on the table.
And it'll be a positive experience as long as you are in the synced range! You don't need 90+ fps to feel smooth. The sync tech makes it feel butter smooth all the way to the minimum FPS sync.
The sync tech changes the rules of the game.
It'd be interesting to repeat the test next week with the sync tech turned off! And see if opinions stay the same?
I see by your post logs you love to hate on Zen and Vega. You stopped on Zen cause you were wrong and now your here to pick on Vega. Freesync and G-sync make a huge difference in how a game feels to you, it makes a monitor without it feel like junk. Nothing wrong with AMD or Nvidia pointing that out to their customers. As for when they release tech well it gets released when it's ready not cause you want it right this second. Vega never consumed over 440 watts except in a extreme overclocking of Vega FE and let me tell you something the 1080ti sucks some juice when you turn up the speed as well. Simple fact is if you overclock you cant go on the forums and then bitch about wattage use, you decided to run it out of spec. Also last time I checked it was Kyle running the test not AMD. So no AMD is not trying to deflect anything, it was awesome they let Kyle actually have a crack with it before the NDA lifts.
Problem is its own stack is in competition in the marketplace with nV's products, when you have comparisons being done with freesync and gsync on its the same thing as Polaris with frame rate locks on to show power consumption when in reality Polaris only matches last gen nV products in that metric. This time they are trying to lock down performance with syncing and to try to really give a reason to buy their product because of the price difference. Again shouldn't need to explain why someone has to buy a product in this type of market.
I could have picked any game I wanted to. AMD did not have control over the testing. The overall idea for testing was theirs' and agreed to, but I could have used any game that I wanted to.Kyle was under NDA and his choices were limited, that is how AMD controlled the test.
Cause bar graphs are life? More to life then max performance, frame times are far more important.
The computer gurus would take frametime.Cause bar graphs are life? More to life then max performance, frame times are far more important.
Well DOOM is a game that Vega has enough horse power to hit the max frames required in the blind test, but things could change if we moved onto other more demanding titles like maybe TW3? (I know it's an older game now, but so far every other game that runs worse than TW3 seems to have "unoptimized POS" label attached.Doom was a fine choice as its well optimized on both platforms. Maybe they are putting up a stink cuz it doesn't run like shit on AMD?