nEo717
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2017
- Messages
- 358
Again it's not just about the raw performance difference between the cards. He is also losing VRR entirely by switching to AMD because the monitor is G-Sync only. Modern demanding games like BF 1 are not getting >165FPS minimums at that resolution with a Vega 64 or a 1080Ti, so yes having VRR will provide the smoothest experience.
COD WWII (Vega 64 Liquid) I'm having no problems getting 165FPS - I've spent some time in BF1 CTE now, when I'm running around (most all maps) its in 150's FPS with a rare upper 140's, low 160's while not running. Strangely enough my Titan Xp had lower low FPS, however it also had a bit more (though only for surging moments) peak FPS - with just these 2 games (WWII and BF1 CTE) the Vega 64 Liquid does not seem to swing (FPS) near as much as my Titan Xp (AIO) did, it (Vega 64) stays pretty level in comparison.
The frame dips with the Vega 64 come in-between matches and loading maps in both WWII and BF1 CTE.
You're correct though, with many modern games (at least ones I play), its a challenge yet to stay above 165FPS mark. So far I don't miss Gsync, at least with this monitor the images still look great. Hopefully with the next gen cards from both AMD and Nvidia we will see cards that can push frames over 165FPS most of the time at 2560x1440.
Last edited: