freesync vs FPS?

[Archaea]

Part of that comes back to my point in the FS article that you need trained particpants to have a more critical and correlated/aligned response, especially for subtle perception and preference differences.
Same way you will not get a clear consensus the level and which AA is needed to enjoy the game (higher performance vs utmost AA visual quality).
But once aware people do seem to have an aligned quality preference that shows in audio with context of distortion (and this is in essense a kind of distortion), and I think the same can be said about visual quality where as an example chromatic aberration is mostly an irritation for many.

But then we have different levels of tolerance and thresholds, and it is possibly that *shrug*.
I appreciate you used a diverse range of games but we know Dirt4 and Doom helps to bring AMD closer to 1080ti if more sensitive to say the 80-100Hz range and both with VRR monitors active, although I would had expected Doom to be running over 170fps on a 1080ti with same settings and maybe was hitting the 200fps sometimes with same settings where Doom starts doing quirky things (engine not designed to hit that).
Yeah I appreciate this is not something that can be verified relative to the same setting as used with the FuryX, Dirt 4 a single custom 1080ti manages 107fps at 1080p while a single FuryX hits 69.1 at same settings.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Dirt-4-Spiel-21687/Specials/Benchmark-Test-Review-1230499/

Now something that may be linked and I really should look more into, some game engines actually for some reason make me feel sick and I wonder if that is the lack of VRR or need to test at over 100Hz sustained.
A game like that could be interesting for those who do mess around with both settings and they find one that causes this with them.
Cheers

True

I was also wondering about this: Freesync 2.0 is being introduced because the implementation of Freesync one was all over the map.

It is possible, and likely - some monitors may have implemented freesync better/worse than another. So since it isn't just a hardware chip like NVidia's gsync - the experience may not be universal. Thus while one person sings freesyncs praise, the next says I couldn't tell it was on.

So you've got actual human body vision perception differences as a possibility, user error as a possibility, training/knowledge/perception level, and potentially hardware makers/software driver variance. It's a murky space indeed.

 

[CyberJunk]

freesync is really nice but you have to have frame rates in it's range. like my samsung CF591 has freesync but it's only up to 72hz fine if your frame rate is below 70s but it doesn't really work well with high framerates. so the way i saw it is if i got the vega 56 which is basically like a1070 in performance i may be pushing well above 70s and freesync may not have worked well for me anyways. So i decided to just get a 1080 and call it a day which performs better than even a vega 64

 

[noko]

freesync is really nice but you have to have frame rates in it's range. like my samsung CF591 has freesync but it's only up to 72hz fine if your frame rate is below 70s but it doesn't really work well with high framerates. so the way i saw it is if i got the vega 56 which is basically like a1070 in performance i may be pushing well above 70s and freesync may not have worked well for me anyways. So i decided to just get a 1080 and call it a day which performs better than even a vega 64

Just use the frame limiter in the drivers to keep the FreeSync upper range. Also you can adjust Chill for the whole FreeSync Range (does not work for all games).

 

[CyberJunk]

yeah that's what i did most of the time except in csgo. I don't really notice much of a difference without freesync. Maybe it was a tad smoother I don't know. it's really close to tell.

 

[y0bailey]

Freesync over FPS any day of the week....first hand experience. I literally want to vomit playing without Freesync now.

I recently purchased an Acer XF270HU, 1440p, 144hz freesync monitor. I am a 100% FPS player, and have become burned out as hell with Overwatch as of late. Overwatch runs just beautifully with freesync enabled, usually hovering around 120fps, so freaking smooth.

Since OW burn out, I jumped back into CSGO. CSGO runs 200+ FPS at all times. 200+ FPS is out of the freesync range, so everything felt so choppy. This is on a 144hz monitor never dipping below 200fps. Absolute garbage. Disabled freesync entirely, less garbage, but still lacking the Overwatch smoothness.

My fix was to cap FPS at 142, enable freesync, and now my eyes rejoice again.



Moral of the story, I would rather play at 60FPS + freesync than 200FPS without. Haven't done much testing lower than 60fps, as I don't have any games that push my card super hard.

 

[CyberJunk]

Sure ideally you would want an amd card and use freesync however good luck in finding one

 

[Simmonz]

I'll take FPS over FreeSync just as I would take FPS over Gsync because I don't like to be tied down to one brand.

 

[y0bailey]

I'll take FPS over FreeSync just as I would take FPS over Gsync because I don't like to be tied down to one brand.

Honest question...have you used either tech for more than 5 hours? I'm guessing the answer is no. You don't go back. It's like 144hz back down to 60hz, maybe even better.

 

[THUMPer]

I'm locked into freesync. And I don't really care. It's a great gaming experience even if I'm not getting FU frames. If it stays between 60 and 144 I can't tell a difference, and there is no tearing.

 

[Simmonz]

Honest question...have you used either tech for more than 5 hours? I'm guessing the answer is no. You don't go back. It's like 144hz back down to 60hz, maybe even better.

Except that one may have to go back depending on GPU upgrade paths. If I had a FreeSync monitor right now and I am looking at a new GPU to replace my R9 270 what does AMD have that is easy to get ? I can pick up a GTX 1070 for less than $600 CAD plus tax. Vega 64 is $800-840 CAD right now, and have no options that aren't stock fans or AIO watercoolers and and RX580's are a worse card that are hard to find anyway Now I could wait to see what Vega 56's price is but that could take months to get a Vega 56 that has a good aftermarket fan for a decent price.

 

[Archaea]

Except that one may have to go back depending on GPU upgrade paths. If I had a FreeSync monitor right now and I am looking at a new GPU to replace my R9 270 what does AMD have that is easy to get ? I can pick up a GTX 1070 for less than $600 CAD plus tax. Vega 64 is $800-840 CAD right now, and have no options that aren't stock fans or AIO watercoolers and and RX580's are a worse card that are hard to find anyway Now I could wait to see what Vega 56's price is but that could take months to get a Vega 56 that has a good aftermarket fan for a decent price.

How much are Fury X used for you in CAD? They are like $350 here in the states and perform just shy of a Vega 56 or 1070. Excellent cards -- drivers are pretty much flawless at this point - - in crossfire they are faster than a 1080TI.

 

[Simmonz]

How much are Fury X used for you in CAD? They are like $350 here in the states and perform just shy of a Vega 56 or 1070. Excellent cards -- drivers are pretty much flawless at this point - - in crossfire they are faster than a 1080TI.

At the moment I don't see any new Fury cards on newegg.ca, Amazon.ca or any other retailer. On Ebay they're going for about $540 CAD and up for a used Fury Nano. I'm not going to be in the market until about the end of September but unless things change i'd be in a weird spot if I had to factor in Freesync. I'm a bit wary of the Fury because of the 4GB of VRAM. I can list a bunch of games that will want more than that even maxed out at 1080P. Doom won't even let me put Nightmare settings on because it uses 5GB of VRAM at 1080P.