• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

GSYNC, FREESYNC, and the Consumer

P

PHeeNIxx

n00b
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
52
I'm not making this post to discuss which is better or to discuss the technology itself - based on all the reading I've done, it seems that as long as you are pushing frames at a rate that exceed the monitors minimum refresh rate, you're going to have a pretty nice experience in both cases. I don't care much about minor differences here and there since at that point it's pretty much diminishing returns.

The unfortunate reality is that you have to commit to one or the other if you are in the market for a new monitor. My question is, what will you commit to, and why?

I've always been a 'best bang for the buck' video card consumer, with no ties to NVIDIA or AMD, so I don't like the idea that my next monitor purchase will essentially tie me to either AMD or NVIDIA for the next 10 years (I don't, and have no desire to, upgrade my monitor frequently since a good monitor is quite expensive and they last quite a while).

I'm wondering if FREESYNC in general is a 'safer bet' since it doesn't require specialized HW on the monitor end. On the one hand, NVIDIA is pushing GSYNC, NVIDIA has a bigger market share, and it is unlikely that GSYNC goes away. And while NVIDIA has stated they won't be supporting FREESYNC (of course they will say now), if feels like it would be in their best interest to support FREESYNC eventually (even if they continue to support GSYNC). Basically, if a consumer buys a FREESYNC monitor today, the likelihood that they buy an NVIDIA card in the future is zero (unless they also buy a new monitor along with it). While they are locking some customers in with GSYNC, they are essentially locking some out as well.

Since my video card recently died, I'll be in the market for both a new card and monitors in the near future, and this stuff has really muddied the waters for me.

What do you guys think about all this?
 
I think that the vast price difference between G-Sync and Freesync monitors will quickly yield a world where most monitors support Freesync (or more accurately VESA adaptive-vsync standard) and only a few premium monitors support G-Sync. So unless someone comes up with a new standard that totally blows Freesync away I suspect that will we what we're all using in 5 years time.

Because my current monitors are still fairly new I'm personally waiting for a clear winner, but right now Freesync looks like it. I'm thinking that I'll end up moving to adaptive-vsync and 4k at the same time, when I put together either a new system or a major upgrade.
 
See if you can wait until next month when the 390X comes out, then make your decision. I know I will. Whatever side that wins then will win the monitor too for me.
 
Just avoid both and don't be locked in to either brand. Even though I've thoroughly enjoyed my Swift since September of last year and typically only buy Nvidia it's not really good to be locked in.

Buy a overclockable Korean monitor or even that new Asus FreeSync monitor and buy whatever you feel is right price for a GPU and have no worries about variable refresh unless you absolutely want to try it. At least with that Asus FreeSync monitor you'll have multiple inputs (something I enjoy a lot on my Dell and miss on my Swift for troubleshooting other PC's) and still 120+ Hz IPS refresh rates.

Unless you are willing to lock yourself into a brand like I have (then again I've probably been locked into Nvidia for years because I haven't had any reason to buy AMD apart from mining ventures long ago) then it's not worth settling. I would like to believe Nvidia will support the optional standard of 1.2a at some point, but I doubt it. Even though it would give them a commanding lead over AMD by supporting a better (currently) solution called GSYNC and having support for a cheaper yet good enough one would only make them more appealing.

But if you want to choose something to try out variable refresh rates, just toss a coin and go with it. At least that is better than listening to biased individuals like myself who adore GSYNC for what it is and how it's changed my PC usage (when I actually play).

The future can go anywhere and both VRR solutions should be good enough. Historically AMD is cheaper but I didn't mind spending a stupid amount to enjoy 1440p 120 Hz+ for a 8 month lead on the competition. Then again that's just the delusional fanboy inside that didn't want to wait and wanted it now, not later.
 
As much as i would like to see it succeed, so far, freesync implementation and its workings have been very poor.
 
Given Freesync's problems and AMD's low marketshare (also a habit for dumping projects), I would not place my chips on Freesync.
 
bigbeard86 said:
As much as i would like to see it succeed, so far, freesync implementation and its workings have been very poor.
Click to expand...

That Asus monitor is supposed to be alright and not suffer the same pitfalls as past FreeSync monitors (I think). Hell I'm thinking of buying one to replace my U2711 if or when it ever dies so I can have IPS with a high refresh rate and multiple inputs still. Even if I don't use FreeSync it would still be a good monitor (from the looks of it) even if you don't buy an AMD GPU for VRR. Just depends if you're willing to wait or not and in my case I wouldn't be effected directly by firmware / software issues because I'd be using it as a static refresh rate.
 
striker444 said:
See if you can wait until next month when the 390X comes out, then make your decision. I know I will. Whatever side that wins then will win the monitor too for me.
Click to expand...

This is my methodology also. Wait and see what everyone has in store for us, and then make a decision. I think my next monitor will be IPS as I'm tired of TN. I like to try different things and switch them up.

FreeSync and GSYNC seem to be on equal footing if you adhere to the operating range of your monitor. So then it boils down to the quality of the monitor.
 
Shogon said:
That Asus monitor is supposed to be alright and not suffer the same pitfalls as past FreeSync monitors (I think). Hell I'm thinking of buying one to replace my U2711 if or when it ever dies so I can have IPS with a high refresh rate and multiple inputs still. Even if I don't use FreeSync it would still be a good monitor (from the looks of it) even if you don't buy an AMD GPU for VRR. Just depends if you're willing to wait or not and in my case I wouldn't be effected directly by firmware / software issues because I'd be using it as a static refresh rate.
Click to expand...

The range of that monitor's freesync capabilities are abysmal, like all others. Don't be fooled and believe that you don't need adaptive sync at high frame rates. I have personally witness the difference between gsync on and off on 144fps on a 144hz monitor. The workings of gsync is evident even then.

AMD's poor implementation of everything is what keeps on itching me to get rid of my watercooled crossfire 290s, but i have to wait until Pascal. It is just no longer worth it to buy anything AMD related.
 
Was gonna post I'll stick with the VESA Adaptive Sync standard...

But... ROFL... Funny thread... :)
 
Im not sure either one are worth it right now if youre going to be vendor locked for the next 5 years or so. While I know most of us upgrade video cards every couple years, I think we tend to keep our monitors twice or 3 times as long especially if we're paying $700+ for them. My current card is AMD, my last card was an Nvidia and the one before that was AMD and I used the same monitor for all 3.

This is why I skipped them both when I was looking for a new monitor and just went with this BenQ 144 Hz screen. After having 144 Hz gaming there will be no going back for me and I can see how Gsync/FreeSync would be great to have but right now theyre just not worth it cost wise or in being stuck with the same brand for that long.
 
bigbeard86 said:
Don't be fooled and believe that you don't need adaptive sync at high frame rates. I have personally witness the difference between gsync on and off on 144fps on a 144hz monitor. The workings of gsync is evident even then.
Click to expand...
False. V-Sync would be on then, with G-Sync on, so the only difference you could see would be the same thing as V-Sync on or off.
 
I think either technology would be just fine for most consumers as long as you stay above the minimum range. The main benefit of GSync is that NV dictates the scalar used and picks a good quality one. AMD has the monitor manufacturers pick and so far they have been choosing lower quality ones which lead to some of the small ranges and poor performance. I think that will be sorted out in a few months time as these first few monitors seem to have crappy panels and low quality scalars. Because they were the first ones out they could charge a bit of a premium and you can't say how low quality they are because there is nothing else to compare it to Freesync-wise.

That said, I do not think I will buy into either until there is a 21:9 monitor with 3440x1440 resolution with IPS and a decent range (curved if possible). Not to mention a single GPU card capable of pushing that with relative ease (probably a few years away).
 
My own personal take on the issue is:

1. FreeSync currently have a smaller workable range than G-Sync
2. Currently neither FS or GS are compatible with video cards from the otherside. FS less of an issue on nVidia, as it would simply act as a normal monitor. GS monitor on AMD is much less certain (I am aware that XB270HU has problems, where as I do not believe Swift has similar issues)

If you are going to have no idea what company's GPU you want to get, I would bet it's much safer to go for a FreeSync monitor. For starters it's cheaper, 2 it will work without issues on either side's GPU, although it works better on AMD. 3. There is a greater chance of nVidia enabling G-Sync on VRR 1.2a monitors than nVidia being willing to let AMD support G-Sync. This is purely my own opinion, as neither company has mentioned anything about supporting the other side's monitor.

However the merging of the techs will most likely happen sooner or later.
 
g-Sync is clearly the best solution. Nvidia has the best products with the best system approach.
 
I was recently looking into a new video card and monitor and trying to decide if I want to replace either or both. I'm a budget oriented gamer (married with 3 young kids) so I don't want to spend a ton and have to continue to spend a ton more to support it.

I came to the conclusion that now doesn't seem like a good time to pickup a new monitor given the premium on Gsync, the quality/availability on freesync and the uncertainty about them in the near future. I decided to hold out for now, but if my monitor died and I had to buy one today it would be a BenQ XL2720Z or something.

Sprayingmango said:
g-Sync is clearly the best solution. Nvidia has the best products with the best system approach.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what that even means? No doubt that right now Nvidia has the best halo video cards. For the rest of the 95% of gamers we consider things like budget though and AMD is perfectly competitive pricewise with their lineup of cards up to and including the 290X. I was recently looking at replacing my 7950 and considering something in the $350 (Canadian) and under range. Choices were some 970's starting from $360 or 290X's starting from $285. Add in taxes and shipping and it was a no brainer to go with the 290X because it was within my budget and also the 970 is not 25%+ faster. Looks like the 970 is marginally faster (<10%) in most games and there's even a couple where the 290X squeaks ahead of the 970.

If AMD can make Freesync the more affordable price/performance option in the world of monitors as well then I think they will be doing just fine. Time will tell.
 
Last edited:
They don't support Freesync because Freesync is bad. Why carry the burden of R&D and then have to troubleshoot for your competitor's poorer solution? Also AMD's market share is dwindling every day. Unless the 390X knocks it out of the ballpark again for them these guys are going bust in the desktop graphics department.
 
dmonkey said:
They don't support Freesync because Freesync is bad. Why carry the burden of R&D and then have to troubleshoot for your competitor's poorer solution? Also AMD's market share is dwindling every day. Unless the 390X knocks it out of the ballpark again for them these guys are going bust in the desktop graphics department.
Click to expand...

forget about the 390x...the continuous lies and lack of adequate support in the past year should say the same thing to all of us here.

It is a shame, because we need the competition, and AMD does make good gpus, they are just very poorly implemented.
 
dmonkey said:
They don't support Freesync because Freesync is bad.
Click to expand...

Explain. And don't tell us about how GSync came out first or how you prefer Nvidia cards because that has nothing to do with Freesync being good or bad.

The fact of the matter is that one company is willing to work with open standards and one company stubbornly refuses in hopes of keeping all profits to themselves.
 
Look at all of the reviews for the Freesync monitors that came out recently. I'm sure you have already. They tried to do it for "free," and it didn't work. Back to the drawing board for these guys. I'm sure they'll get it right a couple of years down the line. Don't listen to the PR and your feels, if AMD could do half the stuff Nvidia could, they would do it. I've bought their stuff for years, but if they can't deliver I'm not buying it. That's business.
 
nope, all the reviews say it works fine.

all this "ghosting" hype is only on the high-contrast windmill demo, and shows ghosting on gsync as well. It is unnoticeable in real-life gaming.

The monitor manufacturers themselves have some issues with their overdrive implementations, but this has nothing to do with freesync.

Adaptive Sync over DP 1.2a will be the dominant standard by the end of the year.
 
bigbeard86 said:
forget about the 390x...the continuous lies and lack of adequate support in the past year should say the same thing to all of us here.

It is a shame, because we need the competition, and AMD does make good gpus, they are just very poorly implemented.
Click to expand...

What were the continuous lies and lack of support in the last year? Honestly I haven't been paying attention because my AMD card worked just fine for the last 3 years. I started looking around the gpu scene again only recently when looking for an upgrade and the only thing I saw remotely scandalous was around 970's only having 3.5gb ram that's useful not 4gb as advertised.

Not trying to sounds like an AMD fanboy either I genuinely only pay attention to hardware when it's time to upgrade, otherwise I'm not around much. So if AMD has been continuously lying and lacking support in the last year I would like to know if that is going to affect my recent Radeon 290X order.
 
The Mac said:
nope, all the reviews say it works fine.

all this "gohsting" hype is only on the high-contrast windmill demo, and it unnoticeable in real-life gaming.

The monitor manufacturers themselves have some issues with their overdrive implementations, but this has nothing to do with freesync.

Adaptive Sync over DP 1.2a will be the dominant standard by the end of the year.
Click to expand...

We'll see. I don't think a technology that can't even do it's own demo properly is something to be championing.
 
its going to come down to how quickly the scaler manufacturers can get their designs to offer a wider window.

I dont see that as a problem in 6 moths time.
 
I'm still waiting for the acer ips gsync to show up in europe, almost half a year and still no signs of it in my country or nearby ones.. doesn't help so many have problems.

I'll wait for 390x and then decide, I'm mostly tired of playing with my blurfest of a monitor (dell u2711)
 
The Mac said:
Your 290x is a fantasic card, and well supported.

Ignore him.
Click to expand...

don't get me started on crossfire profiles.

One of the main reasons i bought AMD was because of mantle and true audio, as well as this new crossfire implementation...we see where that ended up. When it works, it works very well. But more so than not, it does not work, rather than work.

Single gpu also had severe gpu utilization issues in bf4 under direct X. there are people on this very forum that sold they less than 1 year old 290x/290 because they could no longer deal with the issues.

May God help us with witcher 3 and AMD cards.
 
PRIME1 said:
http://www.overclock3d.net/articles/gpu_displays/asus_mg279q_firmware_issues_and_delays/1
Click to expand...
What a bummer if I say so.
bigbeard86 said:
The range of that monitor's freesync capabilities are abysmal, like all others. Don't be fooled and believe that you don't need adaptive sync at high frame rates. I have personally witness the difference between gsync on and off on 144fps on a 144hz monitor. The workings of gsync is evident even then.

AMD's poor implementation of everything is what keeps on itching me to get rid of my watercooled crossfire 290s, but i have to wait until Pascal. It is just no longer worth it to buy anything AMD related.
Click to expand...
The ranges are kind of "meh" but when you figure AMD let other companies do it you have to expect some cutbacks and shortcuts.

Pascal is supposed to be good I figure. I would of waited but I wanted to try out the Titan X and so far I'm pretty happy with it. Pretty cool hitting frequencies 980's can hit only downside is the stock bios has such a low power target.
Yakk said:
Was gonna post I'll stick with the VESA Adaptive Sync standard...

But... ROFL... Funny thread... :)
Click to expand...
Only if FreeSync wasn't an optional portion of the new standard. Optional means "added cost" in everything else in life.
dmonkey said:
Look at all of the reviews for the Freesync monitors that came out recently. I'm sure you have already. They tried to do it for "free," and it didn't work. Back to the drawing board for these guys. I'm sure they'll get it right a couple of years down the line. Don't listen to the PR and your feels, if AMD could do half the stuff Nvidia could, they would do it. I've bought their stuff for years, but if they can't deliver I'm not buying it. That's business.
Click to expand...

Sadly that's what happens when you let other companies handle something other than yourself. You know the saying, "if you want something done right sometimes you have to do it yourself" and that's why Nvidia chose the route they did and not relying on others who so far, haven't done a good job at it for whatever reason. Needing firmware updates isn't something that should be done for your customers, it should already be a working solution. People can cry proprietary all day but they don't seem to mind using Windows, or boards for specific sockets but when it comes to something like this. I only hope the people buying AMD support it for many years and don't mind what comes with it. I feel bad because I told my friend to buy a r9 280 months ago instead of the 960 and now he's experiencing black screen issues that seem present on many 290s/X. Hopefully we can fix it this weekend because I've never had that issue with Nvidia and it's annoying to say the least.
 
Has anyone actually seen Freesync and G-Sync running on optimal setups side-by-side? I'm surprised how many people here are calling Freesync crap. It's unlikely they've done an apples-to-apples comparison.

for the record I've never seen either in-person
 
bigbeard86 said:
don't get me started on crossfire profiles.

One of the main reasons i bought AMD was because of mantle and true audio, as well as this new crossfire implementation...we see where that ended up. When it works, it works very well. But more so than not, it does not work, rather than work.

Single gpu also had severe gpu utilization issues in bf4 under direct X. there are people on this very forum that sold they less than 1 year old 290x/290 because they could no longer deal with the issues.

May God help us with witcher 3 and AMD cards.
Click to expand...

Never had a crossfire or SLI setup. From what I hear some games scale better one way or the other but Nvidia's usually quicker to get their profiles out. Can't say it ever affected me running single GPU of course.

I'm not familiar with the single gpu utilization issues in bf4 under directx. Don't recall having any issues running my 7950 as expected when BF4 released. In the Apples to Apples test Hardocp did the 290X was outperforming the Titan which was like half the price at the time? This was a DirectX test, seems exceptionally high performance for the AMD cards to be honest.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013...deo_card_performance_iq_review/5#.VVJclflViko
 
ELox said:
Never had a crossfire or SLI setup. From what I hear some games scale better one way or the other but Nvidia's usually quicker to get their profiles out. Can't say it ever affected me running single GPU of course.

I'm not familiar with the single gpu utilization issues in bf4 under directx. Don't recall having any issues running my 7950 as expected when BF4 released. In the Apples to Apples test Hardocp did the 290X was outperforming the Titan which was like half the price at the time? This was a DirectX test, seems exceptionally high performance for the AMD cards to be honest.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013...deo_card_performance_iq_review/5#.VVJclflViko
Click to expand...

What you are saying is true. Dx performance in bf4 was great at first. About a month or two before mantle was released, the Dx performance went into the gutter. You can actually search BF4 forums if you really wanted to, and literally find thousands of posts of people complaining.
 
MacLeod said:
Im not sure either one are worth it right now if youre going to be vendor locked for the next 5 years or so. While I know most of us upgrade video cards every couple years, I think we tend to keep our monitors twice or 3 times as long especially if we're paying $700+ for them. My current card is AMD, my last card was an Nvidia and the one before that was AMD and I used the same monitor for all 3.

This is why I skipped them both when I was looking for a new monitor and just went with this BenQ 144 Hz screen. After having 144 Hz gaming there will be no going back for me and I can see how Gsync/FreeSync would be great to have but right now theyre just not worth it cost wise or in being stuck with the same brand for that long.
Click to expand...

Kudos to you for having rational thought. Refreshing to see, no pun intended.
 
Nuby1Canuby said:
HardwareCanucks has a long-term FreeSync review up:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...ews/69379-amds-freesync-long-term-review.html

If your FPS is dropping below 40 you will want to run it with V-Sync turned off, or it can drop down to 20 FPS.
Click to expand...

Something that people don't understand....
FreeSync has the best implementation.
You can run FreeSync with Vsync off, set a frame cap at the max of your FreeSync window and have the best gaming experience to date.
 
TBH if you're coming from a 60hz monitor, a 144hz monitor will do just fine. I couldn't really tell when gsync was enabled or disabled.
 
bigbeard86 said:
What you are saying is true. Dx performance in bf4 was great at first. About a month or two before mantle was released, the Dx performance went into the gutter. You can actually search BF4 forums if you really wanted to, and literally find thousands of posts of people complaining.
Click to expand...

I just read that in the mantle performance review how the DX11 performance decreased, but then it seems like people could just use mantle and have as good or better performance as they enjoyed at launch.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014...card_performance_review_part_1/5#.VVJiP_lVikp

According to the chart in the above link the 290X was able to run even higher playable settings with mantle than the launch DX11 setting. Don't get me wrong it's a strange thing to have the DX11 performance decrease with later drivers, but to my knowledge that hasn't happened with any other games and considering how astounding the launch performance was (290X beating the titan) in addition to how the performance is made as good or better with mantle enabled with the later patch is it really that big of a deal?

Looks like the 290X was still meeting/beating the 780ti at every point.
 
Hanakuso said:
TBH if you're coming from a 60hz monitor, a 144hz monitor will do just fine. I couldn't really tell when gsync was enabled or disabled.
Click to expand...

you are out of your mind if you couldn't tell the difference, max the game out so the fps drop around in the 60fps-80fps range and you will see how god send gsync really is.

or, you are just lying and spreading lies.
 
TroyX said:
you are out of your mind if you couldn't tell the difference, max the game out so the fps drop around in the 60fps-80fps range and you will see how god send gsync really is.

or, you are just lying and spreading lies.
Click to expand...

Actually some people probably cant tell. And technically no one can discern a single frame above 60fps. They can FEEL it but not actually see it. Problem here is it is an individual perception not facts on either side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top