Where do you stand on Freesync monitors?

[euskalzabe]

I'm eyeing several options to purchase in the next month or so (hopefully Black Friday discounts). 2 of the forerunners are LG ultrawides 29UM58 (no Freesync) and 29UM68 (Freesync). Price difference is as little as $30 to as much as $80, depending on daily fluctuations. I've always been a Nvidia customer but I'm willing to take a detour for my next upgrade cycle (aka 2017-2018) and buy a 29UM68 (Freesync range 40-75hz) and an RX480 just to try it.

I'm not a competitive gamer, I mostly play 3rd person adventures (think Tomb Raider type) and am currently playing on a 7 year old 1080p Samsung TV which I'm sure has horrendous input lag but it doesn't bother me, nor does it bother me that I've played ROTR and such new games at 30-40fps variable on my GTX 770 (and at 900p or 720p at that, as the 770 was dying at 1080p).

Those of you who use Freesync (subjective questions, I know):

1) Does desktop use also get smoother? (this could really sway me as Freesync would always be noticeable then, even while doing work)
2) Does it have a big impact on gaming perceived quality? (remember 30-40fps variable doesn't bother me, unless I don't yet know what I'm missing out on)
3) What's your overall verdict - is it worth spending the extra money?

I'm leaning towards the non-Freesync UM58 right now, but I'm open to be swayed to spend the extra money for Freesync, especially if desktop usage will also benefit.

 

[geok1ng]

you wont need freesync for desktop because at desktop your card will pump out as much frames as the refresh rate.
from your fps numbers, i do believe you are one of those gamers that goes for maximum image quality and usually dips below 60 fps. On this scenario Freesync helps.

looking at current prices, NVIDIA is shooting its own foot: the 1060 loses to the 480 in performance and the 1070 is priced too high to compete with the 480.
So i am 100% behind your decision to buy a 480 and freesync is just sweeting the deal.

But i do not believe 29" 2560x1080 is the best bang for your buck. Effective display area is equivalent of 25" 2560x1440 displays similarly priced and there are 27" 2560x1440 alternatives on market competing in price with the 29UM68. Native 75Hz is good but monitor upgrade cycles should be longer, do not waste $200 now to spend $300 next year. Also keep an eye on the HP Omen prices.

If i was on the market for a monitor next black friday, it would probably be a Samsung UN40KU6300 40-Inch 4K, or a used Seiki 39". The samsung is the cheapest 4k Tv with 4:4:4 support.
The Seiki is only 30Hz 4k, but has 1080p 120Hz and will soon(ish) receive a custom board upgrade for 4k 120hz in the next weeks sold from Cirthix [H]ere.

 

[euskalzabe]

Yeah, I still haven't really opted out of the KU6300. There's like 10 screens in my Amazon wish list (including HP's Pavilion 32 and Omen) and we'll see how discounts go on BF, although I do have another 22" 1080p IPS monitor laying around, so a 29" ultrawide + 22" 16/9 wouldn't be a bad multi-monitor setup as they'd have pretty much the same vertical.

The only reason why I'm drawn to the 29" 2560x1080 is because it's just horizontal resolution enough for what I need to work better (comparative essay grading, I'm a professor) and it'd just give me enough width to have 2/3 different word docs display fully with comments (which 16/9 1080p doesn't let me). 4K would also solve it, but I'd rather spend the least amount of money now, and in a couple years when HDR is all figured out, then buy a good HDR DCI-P3 4K display instead of a half-assed pseudo-HDR panel like the KU6300.

But again, it all comes down to price on BF. Cheapest option that gives me at least 2560 lateral will win, and if nothing really convinces me I'll wait for the new batch of models come January-March.