G-SYNC vs FreeSync (GTX 1080)

[Brama]

When it comes to a GTX 1080. Considering the money you spend on one these cards. Is getting a G-SYNC monitor over a Free Sync a must? Feel like it's a double lost if you don't. First because you waste the G SYNC capabilities on the GTX 1080 and 2nd if you get a Free Sync monitor you are wasting one of the key features you are paying for on that monitor. Feels like you're wasting at least 100-300 dollars if you do this. Does this sound about right or am I missing something?

[ivan134]

FreeSync monitors don't cost more than regular monitors, so you're not really wasting money. On the other hand, if you can afford a 1080, you can probably afford a GSync monitor.

[Energycore]

I think I don't know what you mean. For Nvidia cards, Freesync and non-Freesync monitors are the same, so if there's a nice monitor you're looking at that has Freesync, don't think about that. Think about the other features and performance.

 

Theoretically the Freesync monitor is a little bit better because you can use it later if you upgrade to an AMD card.

[Brama]

8 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

FreeSync monitors don't cost more than regular monitors, so you're not really wasting money. On the other hand, if you can afford a 1080, you can probably afford a GSync monitor.

Does that really make sense when you really think about it. I mean, buying a more expensive GPU would logically mean less money in a budget for a monitor. But, I know what you mean. Just saying.

 

Not so sure about the "dont cost more thing" FreeSync may be cheaper than G SYNC yes. But FreeSync typically cost more then monitors without FreeSync. But, regardless if it's "Free" or if it doesn't more. It's a key feature being unused and wasted. 

 

I guess the basis of the question is. Is it better and more ideal to opt for a G Sync Monitor and if there is a increase performance/quality of play is the higher price cost of G Sync justified?

[EunSoo]

3 minutes ago, Brama said:

buying a more expensive GPU would logically mean less money in a budget for a monitor

Balance. You always want to have a balanced setup. You don't get a Titan X and a Pentium. Nor do you get a Titan X and a 1080p60hz monitor for gaming. Sure that's an extreme example but when you think about it, you get a PC to power the monitor, not the other way around. So you would think that people would spend more time and attention on their display as it's the primary form of interaction between the you and the computer, but I guess not everyone sees it that way.

 

5 minutes ago, Brama said:

I guess the basis of the question is. Is it better and more ideal to opt for a G Sync Monitor and if there is a increase performance/quality of play is the higher price cost of G Sync justified?

The answer is subjective per situation and isn't always black and white. Variable sync technologies are only useful when you cannot achieve the highest refresh rate of your monitor. If you can then vsync is all you need. However, the games you play will affect whether you can achieve that number and/or you will occasionally dip under that number. Your specs, your monitor choices, use case and more will factor into that decision.

[ivan134]

18 minutes ago, Brama said:

Does that really make sense when you really think about it. I mean, buying a more expensive GPU would logically mean less money in a budget for a monitor. But, I know what you mean. Just saying.

 

Not so sure about the "dont cost more thing" FreeSync may be cheaper than G SYNC yes. But FreeSync typically cost more then monitors without FreeSync. But, regardless if it's "Free" or if it doesn't more. It's a key feature being unused and wasted. 

 

I guess the basis of the question is. Is it better and more ideal to opt for a G Sync Monitor and if there is a increase performance/quality of play is the higher price cost of G Sync justified?

The 1080 is an enthusiast GPU. Enthusiast usually means people with more money than your average person. If you can shell out that much money for a GPU, it usually means money isn't an issue. You could go for a 1070 instead and get a GSync monitor to fit in your budget. All this is Nvidia's fault though.

 

As for FreeSync monitors, I haven't checked the price of the more expensive ones, but for 1080p 144 Hz monitors, FreeSync ones cost the same as non FreeSync and some are even cheaper.

 

As for whether GSync is worth over FreeSync; 1st of all, you don't really have that option at this time. Which one you get if you want to get rid of screen tearing is going to depend on what GPU you buy, so whether FreeSync is cheaper is not really a question right now. Whether you think it's worth it will depend on whether you think getting rid of screen tearing is worth $150+ over regular monitors. The decision was easy for me because it cost me the same as a regular monitor, but I would have been willing to pay a $50 premium. I personally can't justify $150+ for it.

[Brama]

34 minutes ago, Energycore said:

I think I don't know what you mean. For Nvidia cards, Freesync and non-Freesync monitors are the same, so if there's a nice monitor you're looking at that has Freesync, don't think about that. Think about the other features and performance.

 

Theoretically the Freesync monitor is a little bit better because you can use it later if you upgrade to an AMD card.

 

Well the monitor I've been looking at for awhile is the Samsung CFG70. 27inch or 24inch. Not sure if 27 inches is too big considering my desk is only 21 inches wide.

 

Is there a better monitor than this for the price? or a monitor that is better and worth going up to $400-$500 tops for over the Samsung CFG70

 

• What I'm looking for and in order is
• 120+ Hz
• Minimal Response Time
• Good Colors, Blacks and Looks
• Height adjustable
• Ultra-wide and/or Curved is *optional*

[Energycore]

Just now, Brama said:

 

Well the monitor I've been looking at for awhile is the Samsung CFG70. 27inch or 24inch. Not sure if 27 inches is too big considering my desk is only 21 inches wide.

 

Is there a better monitor than this for the price? or a monitor that is better worth going maybe going up to 400-500 tops ober the CFG70.

 

• What I'm looking for and in order is
• 120+ Hz
• Minimal Response Time
• Good Colors, Blacks and Looks
• Height adjustable
• Ultra-wide and/or Curved is *optional*

Heads up, response times below 10ms are indistinguishable from each other. They're like looking at 240fps or looking at 300fps.

 

I would give you the well-reviewed AOC G2460PQU

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/aoc-g2460pqu-144-hz-gaming-monitor,3827.html

 

If you want IPS on high-refresh monitors, you'll have to spend upwards of $500 unfortunately

[Brama]

22 minutes ago, Energycore said:

Heads up, response times below 10ms are indistinguishable from each other. They're like looking at 240fps or looking at 300fps.

 

I would give you the well-reviewed AOC G2460PQU

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/aoc-g2460pqu-144-hz-gaming-monitor,3827.html

 

If you want IPS on high-refresh monitors, you'll have to spend upwards of $500 unfortunately

Why this monitor over the Samsung CFG70?

[Techicolors]

26 minutes ago, Energycore said:

 

If you want IPS on high-refresh monitors, you'll have to spend upwards of $500 unfortunately

there is the Pixio PX277

 

edit: and the MG279Q though the deal on this one is pretty sparse, but i have seen it go under $500 once 

[Glenwing]

3 hours ago, Brama said:

But, regardless if it's "Free" or if it doesn't more. It's a key feature being unused and wasted.

 

The waste is the difference in price, so it does matter if it's free or not. If you have two monitors that are exactly the same, except one has extra capabilities, you probably don't want to pay more for that one if you aren't going to use those capabilities. It would be a waste of however much more expensive it is, if it's $200 vs $250 it would be a waste of $50. But if it is the same price, that is a $0 waste. And in that case it would be sort of a waste not to get it, you get more stuff for the same amount of money, even if you don't plan to use it, if there is no money to be saved then you gain nothing by abandoning it, but you lose future flexibility for no reason at all.

 

FreeSync monitors, from what I've seen, are pretty much the same price as equivalent non-FreeSync monitors. Maybe the first few FreeSync monitors ever had a small premium for a few months, and you might still see some of that here and there, but the vast majority of newer FreeSync monitors don't even have any direct non-FreeSync versions made, because they would either have to charge the same price which would be pointless, or take a lower profit margin, because removing FreeSync doesn't lower the production cost since it doesn't add any cost in the first place.

 

I get that the instinctive feeling of not fully utilizing something you pay for doesn't feel right, but let's put it this way, if you are buying some high-end software, and you see that for some reason the basic version and the premium version are both $50, but you aren't going to use any of the capabilities that the premium version adds, does it really make sense to say that the buying the premium version would be a waste because you would be paying for features you aren't going to use, and go buy the basic version instead?

[suits]

Personally I can't not use a gsync monitor anymore. I just used a free-sync AMD monitor with an AMD card while waiting for my water cooling stuff to come in thinking "people always say there is no difference". 

 

Well... there is a HUGE difference between no g-sync and g-sync. Same with free sync. And there is enough of a difference between freesync and gsync for me to consider it worth the price. 

 

YMMV but I say go with the gsync. You'll be happy you did. 

[suits]

Also freesync doesn't work with nvidia cards. I skimmed through the thread quick and didn't see it mentioned straight out. 

 

You just use it as a regular monitor. 

 

Ive not seen price increases for freesync alone. The monitors always include other features that make it more expensive. IPS vs TN. More accurate color etc. 

[ErickS89]

Take a look at Nvidia's Fast Sync (select fast in the vsync option in the nv control panel) and make sure you have vsync on in games otherwise it doesn't work. 

I tried it last year and had micro stuttering but no tearing   I'm on the fence between the CF791(freesync) and X34 as I'm buying a the Dell u2718q for work anyway later this year but want to wait and see how the asus and acer monitors compare when released and all 3 of them are $2000... so I'm waiting.  But for now just looking for a gaming monitor.

 

Honestly Nvidia SHOULD support freesync it's free, can be added into the driver and doesn't cost them anything AND it gives nvidia the best of both worlds and their users can select any monitor they wish as personally would choose the CF791 over the asus pg348q or even the acer x34a because of how bad they are with backlight bleed and they're a lottery I don't have time for a lottery.   

 

I've never tested Gsync or even Freesync as well... amd cards haven't been that great and Nvidia generally 1 ups them very quickly which they'll do with vega which is pretty much a guarantee(we'll see tho, only god and time can tell)  

[Brama]

18 minutes ago, ErickS89 said:

Take a look at Nvidia's Fast Sync (select fast in the vsync option in the nv control panel) and make sure you have vsync on in games otherwise it doesn't work. 

I tried it last year and had micro stuttering but no tearing   I'm on the fence between the CF791(freesync) and X34 as I'm buying a the Dell u2718q for work anyway later this year but want to wait and see how the asus and acer monitors compare when released and all 3 of them are $2000... so I'm waiting.  But for now just looking for a gaming monitor.

 

Honestly Nvidia SHOULD support freesync it's free, can be added into the driver and doesn't cost them anything AND it gives nvidia the best of both worlds and their users can select any monitor they wish as personally would choose the CF791 over the asus pg348q or even the acer x34a because of how bad they are with backlight bleed and they're a lottery I don't have time for a lottery.   

 

I've never tested Gsync or even Freesync as well... amd cards haven't been that great and Nvidia generally 1 ups them very quickly which they'll do with vega which is pretty much a guarantee(we'll see tho, only god and time can tell)  

Literally everything you said is associated with my dilemma. The Freesync definitely appear to be the best when it comes to Price/Features/Quality.  But, like you said Nvidia pretty much dominates the GPU Market. And they know this which is exactly why they put a premium on their adaptive sync tech and refuse to support free-sync. I hate supporting businesses that utilize methods like this but when you are the best, that's the sort of thing you can do and get away with.

 

I already own a GTX 1080. I just want the best experience/performance I can get at a decent price for the time being. Ideally I want a Ultra-Wide 1440p 144hz+ 1ms Adaptive-Sync Monitor. But I do not have the budget for that yet as those monitors are really expensive. So for now I just want a good fast gaming monitor with good color accuracy. 

 

There are a lot of good monitors but like you said there seems to be a serious lottery problem. I do not have the time or want to deal with that. It's frustrating.