Waste?

[EchoBlue]

It is a question I'd like to know from those that probably knows the answer...

Why do people choose to get a Nvidia GPU with a Freesync monitor when it requires an AMD GPU for Freesync to work? 

Is it not a waste of money?

 

 

[Mateus Montemor]

It depends, some people buy monitors due to other features like 144Hz or 2k/4k resolution, because unlike Gsync, Freesync monitors are not more expensive because it has this feature.

[Srishunbagasundaran]

no since it's royalty free monitor producers should not be charging extra for it, unike g-sync. So people are paying for other features such as aspect ratio, panel, HDR, etc.
And free sync has 0 -ve impact on hardware performance without amd gpu.

[Gix7Fifty]

12 minutes ago, EchoBlue said:

It is a question I'd like to know from those that probably knows the answer...

Why do people choose to get a Nvidia GPU with a Freesync monitor when it requires an AMD GPU for Freesync to work? 

Is it not a waste of money?

 

 

What are you talking about??? My EVGA GTX 1080 works perfectly with my 32" HP Omen Freesync 1440p  75 Hz monitor! 

[Fasauceome]

Freesync monitors are cheaper, and go on sale a lot. I nearly bought one simply because I could ignore the freesync feature and enjoy the rest of it.

[Shiv78]

23 minutes ago, Gix7Fifty said:

What are you talking about??? My EVGA GTX 1080 works perfectly with my 32" HP Omen Freesync 1440p  75 Hz monitor! 

It works as a regular monitor, yes. But as OP said, 

 

36 minutes ago, EchoBlue said:

Why do people choose to get a Nvidia GPU with a Freesync monitor when it requires an AMD GPU for Freesync to work? 

 

the Freesync won't work, for obvious reasons. 

[Guest]

Freesync is crammed into monitors since you don't have to pay AMD for it.  Not everyone needs adaptive sync. Too many people think it does more than it does. Not a waste since it would NOT be there if it wasn't cheap to implement.

[DarkSmith2]

Its because for most poeple G-Sync isnt worth the Monitors premium price and often the same Monitor exists with Freesync without a premium price.

I have a bunch of friends using G-Sync Monitors and asked them how often they turn it on.

 

And the answers were: "never, or not often / sometimes". It only makes sense using it when framerates are very low in AAA Titles or consistently higher than the monitors refreshrate while using a Monitor below 144hz max. refreshrate.

 

Gsync and Freesync are cool gadgets but not worth more money. If you use a 144hz+ Monitor you wont notice alot of tearing from begin with, why paying a so much higher price for a Monitor with something that you actually rarely or never use.

[asand1]

Because 144hz and even without freesync functioning Nvidia is higher performance.

[Gix7Fifty]

10 hours ago, Shiv78 said:

 

 

 

[EchoBlue]

All of these answers don't really resolve the question... 

Some were very biased and some were simply stupid. 

Freesync doesn't work at all with a Nvidia GPU.

[Shiv78]

29 minutes ago, EchoBlue said:

All of these answers don't really resolve the question... 

Some were very biased and some were simply stupid. 

Freesync doesn't work at all with a Nvidia GPU.

Yes, that has been established.

 

Multiple times.

 

But, because Freesync is FREE, nobody cares if their monitor has it or not if they have an Nvidia GPU. Lots of gaming-oriented monitors have Freesync alongside other features (144hz, etc) which makes people buy them for their Nvidia GPUs anyways.

 

Every other part of the monitor still works as intended, just not the Freesync.

[jones177]

1 hour ago, EchoBlue said:

All of these answers don't really resolve the question... 

Some were very biased and some were simply stupid. 

Freesync doesn't work at all with a Nvidia GPU.

The truth is you don't need G-sync or Freesync. They are features.

I have a 1440 144hz G-sync monitor. I don't use it because I don't need the feature. I would rather play on my 32" 4k monitor. It has Freesync and I don't use that either.

 

Like any feature, it is convenient to have it just in case you do need it.

 

[dizmo]

3 hours ago, EchoBlue said:

All of these answers don't really resolve the question... 

Some were very biased and some were simply stupid. 

Freesync doesn't work at all with a Nvidia GPU.

I'm not sure how you saw any of these as biased, and thinking they were stupid is simply your opinion, not fact. They were all filled with relevant information.

There is no resolution to your question. People will buy what they want.

 

Your question makes no sense. You're asking why people buy monitors with something that is included for free. FreeSync doesn't cost anything to implement in a monitor. Most higher priced monitors, containing features people want (USB hubs, high refresh rate, IPS or high quality VA panels) will include FreeSync because it costs them nothing other than a little extra tweaking. It's a value add. GSync costs significantly more money, so if said person doesn't care about it, then it only makes sense to spend less and get the monitor with FreeSync instead of GSync and save a few hundred dollars in the process. Most companies make a model that is exactly the same, the only difference being one has FreeSync, one has GSync; one costing significantly more than the other.

 

Your post would have made more sense if you asked why people with AMD cards are buying GSync monitors.

 

 

[Mavflight09]

On 12/29/2018 at 8:57 PM, EchoBlue said:

It is a question I'd like to know from those that probably knows the answer...

Why do people choose to get a Nvidia GPU with a Freesync monitor when it requires an AMD GPU for Freesync to work? 

Is it not a waste of money?

 

 

Because, at least in my case, it doesn't matter.

 

My case being high refresh rate gaming, where at 240hz, I can't see screen tears any ways, so why waste money buying a G-Sync monitor if the G-sync doesn't do anything for me. 

 

That's ignoring the fact that frame rate syncing technologies add latency between frames drawn by your graphics card and when they are displayed on your monitor. 

 

My case is a bit niche though.

[EchoBlue]

4 hours ago, dizmo said:

I'm not sure how you saw any of these as biased, and thinking they were stupid is simply your opinion, not fact. They were all filled with relevant information.

There is no resolution to your question. People will buy what they want.

 

Your question makes no sense. You're asking why people buy monitors with something that is included for free. FreeSync doesn't cost anything to implement in a monitor. Most higher priced monitors, containing features people want (USB hubs, high refresh rate, IPS or high quality VA panels) will include FreeSync because it costs them nothing other than a little extra tweaking. It's a value add. GSync costs significantly more money, so if said person doesn't care about it, then it only makes sense to spend less and get the monitor with FreeSync instead of GSync and save a few hundred dollars in the process. Most companies make a model that is exactly the same, the only difference being one has FreeSync, one has GSync; one costing significantly more than the other.

 

Your post would have made more sense if you asked why people with AMD cards are buying GSync monitors.

 

 

Really?! People do this too?! 

Why?

2 hours ago, Mavflight09 said:

Because, at least in my case, it doesn't matter.

 

My case being high refresh rate gaming, where at 240hz, I can't see screen tears any ways, so why waste money buying a G-Sync monitor if the G-sync doesn't do anything for me. 

 

That's ignoring the fact that frame rate syncing technologies add latency between frames drawn by your graphics card and when they are displayed on your monitor. 

 

My case is a bit niche though.

Having a higher refresh rate monitor will prevent you from seeing any tearing?

[Mavflight09]

Just now, EchoBlue said:

Having a higher refresh rate monitor will prevent you from seeing any tearing?

It doesn't prevent them entirely, but at 240hz the difference between each frame is way less than at 60hz, each tear is smaller, and thus less noticeable. 

 

In something like CS:GO where you can average 300+ fps to make full use of the 240hz monitor, I literally have never been bothered by a screen tear. 

[Xplo1t]

The only 32" 4k monitors out right now only support Freesync so it was coming with the monitor regardless.  However, if I hook up my XB1X, I do benefit from Freesync so I guess there's that.

[pstarlord]

One thing that I don't think has been brought up yet is simply because they don't use/need that tech in order to have a good experience.  To my understanding, If you're doing 1080p at 60hz, (as a reasonable example) you can lock your screen at 60, and if you've got a GPU like a GTX 1080 or 10710TI  you would be able to lock it's resolution at 60 and probably never see a problem because those GPU's are strong enough to pretty easily play any game at that resolution and frame rate.  The time that the Sync tech comes in handy is when the GPU is inconsistent in its frame output.  So, if your GPU is strong enough to never dip below 60, then you'd probably be fine.  

 

If someone wanted to game at 1440p and say 120Hz, without G Sync or Free Sync you may start to see some stutters as some games my challenge the GPU to a point where it's FPS output would drop below the 120Hz the monitor is expecting, causing tearing and stuttering. 

 

This is from my limited experience and recent understanding, so as usual, if I am off base here please do correct me.

[EchoBlue]

2 hours ago, pstarlord said:

One thing that I don't think has been brought up yet is simply because they don't use/need that tech in order to have a good experience.  To my understanding, If you're doing 1080p at 60hz, (as a reasonable example) you can lock your screen at 60, and if you've got a GPU like a GTX 1080 or 10710TI  you would be able to lock it's resolution at 60 and probably never see a problem because those GPU's are strong enough to pretty easily play any game at that resolution and frame rate.  The time that the Sync tech comes in handy is when the GPU is inconsistent in its frame output.  So, if your GPU is strong enough to never dip below 60, then you'd probably be fine.  

 

If someone wanted to game at 1440p and say 120Hz, without G Sync or Free Sync you may start to see some stutters as some games my challenge the GPU to a point where it's FPS output would drop below the 120Hz the monitor is expecting, causing tearing and stuttering. 

 

This is from my limited experience and recent understanding, so as usual, if I am off base here please do correct me.

Yea I am planning to get a 32 or 34 inch 4k monitor playing at 1440p at least 120hz but I think the monitor refresh rate would be 144hz or something. 

I would look into getting an AMD GPU then? 

Will be buying in 2019.

 

Thanks

[dizmo]

7 hours ago, EchoBlue said:

Really?! People do this too?! 

Why?

If you had read any of what I said, I told you why.

Perhaps you should read it again.

[pstarlord]

18 hours ago, EchoBlue said:

Yea I am planning to get a 32 or 34 inch 4k monitor playing at 1440p at least 120hz but I think the monitor refresh rate would be 144hz or something. 

I would look into getting an AMD GPU then? 

Will be buying in 2019.

 

Thanks

Might be some good news on the AMD GPU front here soon.  So it might be a good year for AMD.

[EchoBlue]

2 hours ago, pstarlord said:

Might be some good news on the AMD GPU front here soon.  So it might be a good year for AMD.

CES 2019 can't come fast enough... Dying to hear all the awesome news! 

At the end of it all I'll never understand why people go for a Nvidia GPU with a Freesync monitor. 

If G Sync/Freesync is a feature that isn't useful then why the heck is Nvidia and their G Sync being valued as a must for monitors? 

Nobody seems to be buying a G sync monitor or something they consider. 

This whole thing is just confusing

[pstarlord]

1 hour ago, EchoBlue said:

CES 2019 can't come fast enough... Dying to hear all the awesome news! 

At the end of it all I'll never understand why people go for a Nvidia GPU with a Freesync monitor. 

If G Sync/Freesync is a feature that isn't useful then why the heck is Nvidia and their G Sync being valued as a must for monitors? 

Nobody seems to be buying a G sync monitor or something they consider. 

This whole thing is just confusing

Think of it like this, no one NEEDS a Ferrari.  But, some people can afford them, and want to buy one.  If a person is of the mindset, in the need of, or just simply doesn't mind paying for "the best" then you have to go Nvidia.  Like it or not, the 2080TI is the best consumer GPU on the market right now, and even after AMD releases their next generation of GPU's, that fact will still probably remain true.  So, if someone is buying a GPU that can cost upwards of $1200, and buying it responsibly because a $1200 GPU fits the overall build budget...then what's a few extra hundred dollars to add G Sync to your monitor.  It's pretty much the difference between a $3000 system, and $3200 system at that point. 

 

Just going off of the numerous topics that get started here that are similar to "I just bought xxxx GPU, what monitor should I get?" I think there is a pretty good portion of people who end up with Nvidia GPU and a Free Sync monitor because they probably blew their budget, not really thinking about it, or not knowing about the up charge for G Sync.  But then, some people just simply don't NEED it in order to have a good gaming experience.

 

And then sometimes, just the overall budget and timing of a build will work out that paying extra for a G Sync monitor is worth it because of how the GPU models can line up. For example, my GPU, the Sapphire Nitro+ Vega 56, typically sells for about $725.  That's the same price as an Asus Strix 1070TI.  (A stock Vega 56 is more on par with a standard 1070)  The Vega series from AMD is great, but the non founders edition cards do have a pretty bad price to performance ratio, even if you factor in the money you'll save by going Free Sync.  My original budget for that build had about $700 for the GPU and the monitor, so initially I was thinking a 1070 and then overpaying for the G Sync functionality.  The 1070 has more than enough power to handle anything I'd throw at it, so it would be perfect.  But then I found the Nitro+ on sale for $500, so in  this build it made more sense to go AMD, but without that card being on sale, it would have been cheaper to buy a 1070 for around $350 and a G Sync monitor for $350 as well. In the end I got my Vega 56 for $500, and my Monitor for around 200 and it fit nicely in my budget.  After seeing a bunch of Gamers Nexus videos talking about the Vega 56, they kind of sold me on them, so I was really happy to find a good deal on one. 

 

So, there really isn't a universal "this is the right way to do it" kind of thing when it comes to this topic.  It all kind of depends on application, need, and current pricing of what's available at the time that someone is doing their build. 

[Shiv78]

3 hours ago, EchoBlue said:

At the end of it all I'll never understand why people go for a Nvidia GPU with a Freesync monitor. 

 

Seriously? 

 

There's no disadvantage to having a Freesync monitor with a Nvidia GPU. It costs nothing extra over a regular monitor that is otherwise identical.