AMD FreeSync VS Nvidia G-Sync (Tom's Hardware)

[kuddlesworth9419]

While the Acer Predator is a very nice monitor, your "conclusion" is quite biased.

 

There's one very strong reason to consider not getting a G-Sync monitor: Vendor lock-in.

 

You make it sound like being locked into one GPU vendor as a bad thing. It makes no difference you are going to have to make a decision on either going AMD or Nvidia anyway but now the choice has already been made for me. There is virtually no difference in performance between AMD and Nvidia and if anything Nvidia has the most powerful GPU's at this moment in time. I still stand by my decision that the Acer Predator is by far the best monitor at this moment in time.

[Misanthrope]

Is it 1080p 60FPS with very little loss?

 

Quality of Shadow play is not that great either and nobody can stream at that quality anyway since it goes to shit by the time it leaves twitch or youtube and goes to the end user.

 

And really outside of streaming the time it would take on just processor only doesn't really matters.

[Solkia]

Quality of Shadow play is not that great either and nobody can stream at that quality anyway since it goes to shit by the time it leaves twitch or youtube and goes to the end user.

 

And really outside of streaming the time it would take on just processor only doesn't really matters.

I dunno, I've been using shadowplay and I don't think it's too bad, a lot better than freeware I used previously.

If AMD rolled out an official software in catalyst suite then I wouldn't mind switching back to AMD

[dalekphalm]

You make it sound like being locked into one GPU vendor as a bad thing. It makes no difference you are going to have to make a decision on either going AMD or Nvidia anyway but now the choice has already been made for me. There is virtually no difference in performance between AMD and Nvidia and if anything Nvidia has the most powerful GPU's at this moment in time. I still stand by my decision that the Acer Predator is by far the best monitor at this moment in time.

"at this moment in time"

 

Sure.

 

But you're not just deciding about your current monitor and GPU - you're making that decision for potentially the next 3 to 5 GPU's - or more even, depending on how long you tend to keep a monitor for.

 

And yes, GPU vendor is a bad thing. It might be good right now, but it undermines the concept of consumer choice and competition. Once you have a G-Sync monitor, you become heavily biased to NVIDIA GPU's in the future for your next upgrade, because you don't want to waste the investment of that Monitor. You will then completely ignore AMD's offerings, or at best, look at them with significantly reduced value compared to a similar NVIDIA GPU - regardless of how good they actually are.

 

The problem is that if you decide to switch away from NVIDIA, you're either:

1. Keeping your G-Sync monitor, and then having a very expensive feature go to waste, or

2. Replacing it with an Adaptive-Sync monitor, at yet another large expense

 

I'm not saying this to say that "FreeSync" is magically better. I'm just pointing out that your initial statement of "you'd be stupid not to" buy a G-Sync Monitor is quite frankly, ridiculous.

 

I guess if you only ever looked at NVIDIA GPU's, and decided that you'll never want anything but an NVIDIA GPU for the next 5 to 10 years, then sure, it's stupid not to buy G-Sync.

 

But for those of us who don't want to be locked into NVIDIA for the next 10 years - that means we have to think long and hard about whether G-Sync monitors are worth it in the long run. It's not black and white, as you seem to think. Not even close.

[dalekphalm]

I dunno, I've been using shadowplay and I don't think it's too bad, a lot better than freeware I used previously.

-snip-

If AMD rolled out an official software in catalyst suite then I wouldn't mind switching back to AMD

It's an optional install when installing Catalyst, but AMD Gaming Evolved (Formerly Raptr, I believe?) includes Game Streaming/Recording functionality. It auto-records my gameplay right now, up to a set amount of HDD space (user configurable). I haven't compared footage quality, since I don't stream or upload my gameplay footage to YouTube, but it's likely fairly comparable to Shadowplay.

[kuddlesworth9419]

"at this moment in time"

 

Sure.

 

But you're not just deciding about your current monitor and GPU - you're making that decision for potentially the next 3 to 5 GPU's - or more even, depending on how long you tend to keep a monitor for.

 

And yes, GPU vendor is a bad thing. It might be good right now, but it undermines the concept of consumer choice and competition. Once you have a G-Sync monitor, you become heavily biased to NVIDIA GPU's in the future for your next upgrade, because you don't want to waste the investment of that Monitor. You will then completely ignore AMD's offerings, or at best, look at them with significantly reduced value compared to a similar NVIDIA GPU - regardless of how good they actually are.

 

The problem is that if you decide to switch away from NVIDIA, you're either:

1. Keeping your G-Sync monitor, and then having a very expensive feature go to waste, or

2. Replacing it with an Adaptive-Sync monitor, at yet another large expense

 

I'm not saying this to say that "FreeSync" is magically better. I'm just pointing out that your initial statement of "you'd be stupid not to" buy a G-Sync Monitor is quite frankly, ridiculous.

 

I guess if you only ever looked at NVIDIA GPU's, and decided that you'll never want anything but an NVIDIA GPU for the next 5 to 10 years, then sure, it's stupid not to buy G-Sync.

 

But for those of us who don't want to be locked into NVIDIA for the next 10 years - that means we have to think long and hard about whether G-Sync monitors are worth it in the long run. It's not black and white, as you seem to think. Not even close.

Since I have been upgrading my PC every time I wanted a new GPU I had a specific budget and every time the best single GPU I could get was an Nvidia one. Yes it locks me in but to be honest I am probably already locked into using Nvidia anyway. I wasn't going to sell my 680 and buy a freesync monitor just because I didn't want to be locked down I chose G-sync because I already have a 680 which I am planning to upgrade in 2016 to whichever single GPU meets my budget. My budget will be around £500 which was what I spent for my 680. AMD don't tend to price anything at around that amount which maybe explains why. Like I said though if you are only looking at monitors the Predator is the best you can get.

[mr moose]

Since I have been upgrading my PC every time I wanted a new GPU I had a specific budget and every time the best single GPU I could get was an Nvidia one. Yes it locks me in but to be honest I am probably already locked into using Nvidia anyway. I wasn't going to sell my 680 and buy a freesync monitor just because I didn't want to be locked down I chose G-sync because I already have a 680 which I am planning to upgrade in 2016 to whichever single GPU meets my budget. My budget will be around £500 which was what I spent for my 680. AMD don't tend to price anything at around that amount which maybe explains why. Like I said though if you are only looking at monitors the Predator is the best you can get.

 

What if the last time you upgrade GPU's it was AMD that had the best offer, then (by your logic)  you would have to have bought a freesync monitor this time round instead of gsync and been locked to AMD for the next monitor cycle. Now consider if Nvidia choose not support freesync and AMD goes bankrupt.  You have just paid an extra $100 over a standard monitor that may only support obsolete hardware.  No one can predict the future, that is why brand locking is not in the best interests of the consumer.  Especially when we are talking about 100's and 1000's of dollars of hardware.

[Curufinwe_wins]

What if the last time you upgrade GPU's it was AMD that had the best offer, then (by your logic) you would have to have bought a freesync monitor this time round instead of gsync and been locked to AMD for the next monitor cycle. Now consider if Nvidia choose not support freesync and AMD goes bankrupt. You have just paid an extra $100 over a standard monitor that may only support obsolete hardware. No one can predict the future, that is why brand locking is not in the best interests of the consumer. Especially when we are talking about 100's and 1000's of dollars of hardware.

Haha then you thank the stars that free sync monitors are basically the exact same price as monitors with the same specs. (But you can cut small corners for price saving yes...)

I mean as long as the two are nearly leapfrogging back and forth really the average consumer will be ok. Now if magically nvidia fell over dead then we'd all be fucked. (I mean we all lose if either goes down, but those invested in nvidia ecosystem esp. Amd I'd claim doesn't really have an ecosystem.)

[Misanthrope]

I dunno, I've been using shadowplay and I don't think it's too bad, a lot better than freeware I used previously.

If AMD rolled out an official software in catalyst suite then I wouldn't mind switching back to AMD

 

By the same token I've used OBS with VCE and it was a pretty ok quality, not sure what you mean by an official software, the gaming evolved raptr app actually is a recorder/streamer app I just used OBS because I liked the features and everything better there.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

I dunno, I've been using shadowplay and I don't think it's too bad, a lot better than freeware I used previously.

If AMD rolled out an official software in catalyst suite then I wouldn't mind switching back to AMD

 

Isn't shadow play a part of geforce experience? 

[Misanthrope]

Since I have been upgrading my PC every time I wanted a new GPU I had a specific budget and every time the best single GPU I could get was an Nvidia one. Yes it locks me in but to be honest I am probably already locked into using Nvidia anyway. I wasn't going to sell my 680 and buy a freesync monitor just because I didn't want to be locked down I chose G-sync because I already have a 680 which I am planning to upgrade in 2016 to whichever single GPU meets my budget. My budget will be around £500 which was what I spent for my 680. AMD don't tend to price anything at around that amount which maybe explains why. Like I said though if you are only looking at monitors the Predator is the best you can get.

 

Good for you, but some of us want to get the best product available at the time, not just the best Nvidia can offer. Believe it or not Nvidia has had some pretty crap cards and generations, they had hot cards, underperforming cards, massive drivers issues, you name it. Nobody is perfect and nobody should feel compeled to vote in advance so much, if anything because if you have a gsync monitor Nvidia can now get away with worst prices and crappier incremental updates and rebadging and so on simply because they know many users like do would say "Oh well I got this Gsync monitor...."

 

That's why closed standards are not good for any consumer, not even devoted Nvidia ones.

[ivan134]

Did someone seriously just say it's okay for a corporation to make decisions for you? Oi.

[kuddlesworth9419]

Good for you, but some of us want to get the best product available at the time, not just the best Nvidia can offer. Believe it or not Nvidia has had some pretty crap cards and generations, they had hot cards, underperforming cards, massive drivers issues, you name it. Nobody is perfect and nobody should feel compeled to vote in advance so much, if anything because if you have a gsync monitor Nvidia can now get away with worst prices and crappier incremental updates and rebadging and so on simply because they know many users like do would say "Oh well I got this Gsync monitor...."

 

That's why closed standards are not good for any consumer, not even devoted Nvidia ones.

Well Freesync can only be used on AMD cards so whats the difference. It might be open as a standard but it's closed artificially. It still stands that Acer has made a great monitor, even if you own an AMD card you can still take advantage of having an IPS 144Hz panel. I can't think of any monitor that can do that with great latency while still having better colours then an Dell Ultra sharp.

[kuddlesworth9419]

What if the last time you upgrade GPU's it was AMD that had the best offer, then (by your logic)  you would have to have bought a freesync monitor this time round instead of gsync and been locked to AMD for the next monitor cycle. Now consider if Nvidia choose not support freesync and AMD goes bankrupt.  You have just paid an extra $100 over a standard monitor that may only support obsolete hardware.  No one can predict the future, that is why brand locking is not in the best interests of the consumer.  Especially when we are talking about 100's and 1000's of dollars of hardware.

I don't see Nvidia going bankrupt any time soon, AMD is another story though.

[Misanthrope]

Well Freesync can only be used on AMD cards so whats the difference. It might be open as a standard but it's closed artificially. It still stands that Acer has made a great monitor, even if you own an AMD card you can still take advantage of having an IPS 144Hz panel. I can't think of any monitor that can do that with great latency while still having better colours then an Dell Ultra sharp.

 

I'll give you that, it is why on my first post on page one I said we were 1 monitor away from brand irrelevance and that's just getting a panel with both gsync and freesync which should technically be possible and not even that hard to implement.

[Notional]

Is it 1080p 60FPS with very little loss?

 

If you use Plays.tv as streaming site, you can set it to 1080p60 @ 50mbps. With Twitch it's 100% resolution (whatever that means) 60fps @ 3.5mbps. Then you have Steam with 1080p @ 3.5 mbps (fps not stated, but probably 60fps at twitch). Then you have xbox dvr in Windows 10, with high settings (not defined). Plenty of streaming solutions that are equal or better than NVidia proprietary software.

 

You make it sound like being locked into one GPU vendor as a bad thing. It makes no difference you are going to have to make a decision on either going AMD or Nvidia anyway but now the choice has already been made for me. There is virtually no difference in performance between AMD and Nvidia and if anything Nvidia has the most powerful GPU's at this moment in time. I still stand by my decision that the Acer Predator is by far the best monitor at this moment in time.

 

@dalekphalm touches upon this quite well. Vendor lock in will undermine the basics of competitive market functions. This is primarily due to higher switching costs, as you would have to switch more than just the GPU to get the same result. But of course getting all things from one vendor, also creates vendor bias. You can see this in builds where everything are Corsair and Asus for instance.

 

From a consumer perspective, anything that voids basic competitive functions, are very bad in the long run.

[kuddlesworth9419]

If you use Plays.tv as streaming site, you can set it to 1080p60 @ 50mbps. With Twitch it's 100% resolution (whatever that means) 60fps @ 3.5mbps. Then you have Steam with 1080p @ 3.5 mbps (fps not stated, but probably 60fps at twitch). Then you have xbox dvr in Windows 10, with high settings (not defined). Plenty of streaming solutions that are equal or better than NVidia proprietary software.

 

 

@dalekphalm touches upon this quite well. Vendor lock in will undermine the basics of competitive market functions. This is primarily due to higher switching costs, as you would have to switch more than just the GPU to get the same result. But of course getting all things from one vendor, also creates vendor bias. You can see this in builds where everything are Corsair and Asus for instance.

 

From a consumer perspective, anything that voids basic competitive functions, are very bad in the long run.

There is very little competition in the main component hardware anyway. Like why would you ever buy an AMD CPU. I think it's becoming the same in the GPU market also.

[kuddlesworth9419]

I'll give you that, it is why on my first post on page one I said we were 1 monitor away from brand irrelevance and that's just getting a panel with both gsync and freesync which should technically be possible and not even that hard to implement.

It might cost a lot more though and who would buy a monitor that can use both if it costs more when they can just get the one that suits their GPU at that moment in time. I would be very happy using AMD GPU's but although they might be cheaper in some cases they do tend to draw more power and run hotter. Besides I have been using my 680 since it came out, I have only wanted to upgrade as it struggles a little in some games at 2560. Probably goinmg to upgrade to volta, depending on the prices I will either get the 80 or the 70. Never been a fan of the Ti idea as you can tell they plan this crap.

[Notional]

There is very little competition in the main component hardware anyway. Like why would you ever buy an AMD CPU. I think it's becoming the same in the GPU market also.

 

Because you might want to get something for your money? People buying Pentium anniversary edition or i3's are throwing their money away, when they could get a proper CPU/APU from AMD. Going i5 and above I agree, but hopefully that will change next year with ZEN. But you are kind of proving my point here. The consumers are NOT benefiting what so ever from Intels massive market dominance (they got a head start to by illegal anti competitive means).

 

I don't see the same issue at the GPU market what so ever. Price to performance is usually always in AMD's favour, unless you want to OC a lot, which most people actually don't do.

[dalekphalm]

There is very little competition in the main component hardware anyway. Like why would you ever buy an AMD CPU. I think it's becoming the same in the GPU market also.

While AMD has really dropped the ball in the CPU department, there are still plenty of highly competitive AMD CPU's in the low end budget range of Gaming PC's. Getting an Athlon CPU, for example, instead of a Pentium G series, is still not a bad idea. You'd have to weigh specific price vs performance at any given time since the prices can vary over time.

 

For the GPU market, AMD is plenty competitive still. In almost every bracket, they're still competitive - often with hardware that is 3-4 years old. Fiji was a nice step in the right direct, but there's obviously still progress to be made.

 

We'll also see next year whether ZEN brings AMD back into the high end CPU game or not.

[dalekphalm]

It might cost a lot more though and who would buy a monitor that can use both if it costs more when they can just get the one that suits their GPU at that moment in time. I would be very happy using AMD GPU's but although they might be cheaper in some cases they do tend to draw more power and run hotter. Besides I have been using my 680 since it came out, I have only wanted to upgrade as it struggles a little in some games at 2560. Probably goinmg to upgrade to volta, depending on the prices I will either get the 80 or the 70. Never been a fan of the Ti idea as you can tell they plan this crap.

Why buy one that can use both? Simple, because you might not buy the same brand GPU in your next upgrade.

 

People don't upgrade their monitors often. Most gamers buy a monitor once, and that monitor follows them through 3-4 upgrades. They tend to keep it until it dies. I've been using the same monitor for like 7+ years (1680 x 1050). I will eventually upgrade that monitor to a better one, but my point is that I've kept it for that long. In that time span I've owned both AMD and NVIDIA GPU's.

 

If I had bought a G-Sync monitor 7 years ago (hypothetically speaking of course), then I'd be stuck with NVIDIA that entire time. I got my HD 7950 at a way better deal then an NVIDIA 680 or even 670 was. I'd have had to spend more money to get a GPU that arguably either wasn't better at all, or was barely better.

 

You're planning on buying a G-Sync monitor. Which is great right now, for you. What happens if next year AMD comes out with a killer GPU that blows away NVIDIA? You're either gonna completely ignore it and buy NVIDIA anyway, or you'll be pissed that G-Sync (which is awesome) doesn't work on your new killer AMD GPU.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Why buy one that can use both? Simple, because you might not buy the same brand GPU in your next upgrade.

 

People don't upgrade their monitors often. Most gamers buy a monitor once, and that monitor follows them through 3-4 upgrades. They tend to keep it until it dies. I've been using the same monitor for like 7+ years (1680 x 1050). I will eventually upgrade that monitor to a better one, but my point is that I've kept it for that long. In that time span I've owned both AMD and NVIDIA GPU's.

 

If I had bought a G-Sync monitor 7 years ago (hypothetically speaking of course), then I'd be stuck with NVIDIA that entire time. I got my HD 7950 at a way better deal then an NVIDIA 680 or even 670 was. I'd have had to spend more money to get a GPU that arguably either wasn't better at all, or was barely better.

 

You're planning on buying a G-Sync monitor. Which is great right now, for you. What happens if next year AMD comes out with a killer GPU that blows away NVIDIA? You're either gonna completely ignore it and buy NVIDIA anyway, or you'll be pissed that G-Sync (which is awesome) doesn't work on your new killer AMD GPU.

I mean technically speaking all it does it lock you into upgrade windows. Because as long as AMD/Nvidia keep jumping each other, value/dollar and overall performance generally swaps as well (look at the 970 when it came out etc.)

 

And I would posit that it is exceedingly unlikely that AMD could ever for a substantial time (from here on out after they have been squeezed to the borders of technology) stay notably  ahead of nvidia. I also think it is less likely that nvidia would pull away from AMD entirely than it is that they continue to trade blows (although again Nvidia pulling away with its R&D and overall market share is imho many times more likely than AMD pulling away.)

 

So really the only time you are royally fucked is if you buy one and that company either goes under (which I doubt will happen to Nvidia any time soon) or if your gpu suddenly fails at the wrong time and you are off-cycle for the company you are sticking with.

 

(AKA if you bought a g-sync monitor back in say last june, and then your gpu died then instead of after the 900 series came out you would be pretty upset. Although even in that case the old options existed for similar performance but it really wasn't cost effective.)

[TheUzu]

I have 2 4K monitors one is gsync and the other is some cheapo AOC one, I'm waiting for a 4K free sync monitor so that Nvidia can't own my ass for life.

Also my 980 is getting rekt VRAM wise, why can't I play SOM on ultra while watching Linus in his 4K glory? :'( need my 35-40FPS instead of like 10.

I sure as hell would bail from Nvidia if AMD produced magic and somehow fixed some of their drivers and the 490X just destroyed all competition.

[ThE_MarD]

Heyyo,

So... I'm gonna pretty much avoid that whole fanboy debate and ask questions lol.

So the "features" offered

 

1) PhysX for the most part has made games a lot worst due to it and generally does not matter at all in the end, performance wise

2) The shield's selling feature is now widely available with steam anyway as well as a variety of other in home streaming options

3) Streaming and Video encoding GPU based is available on AMD cards as well via VCE

4) The reverse is true: AMD quickly gave up on Mantle and just washed it's hands off it so now the advantages will be there for all whenever it is Vulkan or DX12

 

So really, it does come down to what flavor of fancier VSYNC you prefer right now because we're just 1 monitor away (one that's gsync and freesnyc) from utter and complete irrelevance when it comes to the "features" both companies try to push but are for the most part just fucking marketing bullshit, again on both sides.

 

Don't believe Gameworks this, Mantle that: just go for whatever performs better at the price point you want, that's the only thing that matters in the end.

GameWorks does have some advantages on NVIDIA hardware yeah... but for the most part? PhysX hasn't quite taken off as much as Havok it seems... that or some companies just used in-game physics engines like Bugbear did with their racing games or Cryengine (unless that changed since the original Cryengine lol I dunno).

The Gameworks streaming via Shadowplay? It's been touted as very optimized. Lots of people say that AMD's solution they used to have before they dumped it in favor of that partnership with Raptr was very similar... I forget the name of it though... so sadly AMD's solution is still inferior.

I dunno if you ever heard of Cmoar VR, but they even recommend NVIDIA's solution over other software solutions for streaming.

http://www.cmoar.com/streaming-nvidia-limelight.html

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/706938033/cmoar-virtual-reality-headset-with-integrated-elec/description

That's the one I backed tbh. Cheap but decent VR solution. I didn't feel like going all out on a Oculus headset or anything is why lol.

 

I just got my G-sync monitor two days ago. It's the predator 1440p 144hz IPS G-Sync. It's very nice and G-Sync is definitely worth it. The price is high but there is no reason to upgrade a monitor and to not get G-sync you would be stupid to not get one.

Pretty much my thoughts too... I'd love to jump up to a monitor like that.

 

I hope gsync is better for an additional $150.

Yes and no... Right now? Freesync's weakest link is the scalar that manufacturer's use. It makes you wonder... if they went with a better scalar if it would jack the price up that much? Or would it even out the playing field? Before I was thinking of jumping ship on my upgrade to AMD for a FreeSync QHD IPS 144Hz with AMD's Fury X which on Amazon Canada had a typo of $700 CAD lol... but I was hesitant due to the limited VRR...

Tbh I'd love it if this list of monitors showed the VRR limits per panel:

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/410994-list-of-all-ipsva-gsyncfreesync-monitors/

I'm not so worried about the bottom limit of 40fps since I'd never sacrifice my framerate that much in order to always be 60+ frames per second. That's how I have my current setup too... then again, I'm 1920x1080 60Hz with VSYNC On because screen-tearing gives me headaches lol.

But with the tearing on the higher framerate? Hmm... can anyone explain to me how AMD's freesync would work with VSYNC on please? Would it essentially disable freesync and just act like VSYNC? Or would VSYNC only engage when it went above or below the VRR range of the Freesync monitor?

Also if you turn g sync off, do you lose any performance.

From what I've heard and some stuff I've seen? Enabling G-Sync actually has a minor performance loss... I think it was 1% to 4% so it's really minor anyways.

 

I have 2 4K monitors one is gsync and the other is some cheapo AOC one, I'm waiting for a 4K free sync monitor so that Nvidia can't own my ass for life.

Also my 980 is getting rekt VRAM wise, why can't I play SOM on ultra while watching Linus in his 4K glory? :'( need my 35-40FPS instead of like 10.

I sure as hell would bail from Nvidia if AMD produced magic and somehow fixed some of their drivers and the 490X just destroyed all competition.

So I like your avatar and wanted to say that... but you could just run an AMD card on that 4K Gsync monitor and continue on with life lol, just because of one "feature" you're not stuck with a brand over the other. Look at all the pre-adaptive-sync monitors out there lol. They have been running 120Hz and 144Hz without feeling fucked because they don't have adaptive-sync. Sure it's great technology and all to help eliminate screen tearing without the risk of input lag of VSYNC, but it's not the end of the world.

Besides... if you went with a freesync monitor? Same argument could be said there. In your mind? AMD would "own my ass for life."

You're running 4K UHD SOM with a single GTX 980? 35-40 is pretty low... You could always turn down some settings and stuff and see if that helps. 4GB is a pretty low limit for 4K UHD sure, but I also have a bud who uses GTX 980 SLI setup with a 52" 4K UHD 60Hz tv that obviously doesn't have Gsync or Freesync and I've never heard him complain about screen tearing or input lag. I dunno if he plays VSYNC on or not. My guess is probably no since he probably doesn't get above 60fps that often.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9306/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-ti-review/6

The AMD R9 295x2 is probably right around where a GTX 980 SLI setup would be and technically in DirectX 11 titles the AMD R9 295x2 is 4GB per GPU core for that 8GB total. Much like back in the day the NVIDIA GTX 690 4GB (2x2GB) and AMD's HD 7990 6GB (2x3GB) cards are.

I dunno, 4K UHD sounds and looks amazing... but dat framerate and the cost to get that 60fps with everything turned up is quite unforgiving.

[TheUzu]

Well with gsync it feels more like 60 but it is noticeable in shooters, I play strategy games mostly so it's not much of an issue.

Im aiming for three 4K monitors, one gsync, one free sync and the other can be whatever, I was considering an 980ti but until the 980 fails me it wasn't too far off it with Metro Last Light where it hit like 31, I'll be sticking with it.

I used to upgrade every two gens or architecture change e.g I went from a 670 to this 980, but depending on the improvements I will be upgrading to either 'side' depending on 4K performance.

Next and last monitor upgrade depending on if 8K manages to win me over would be a high refresh rate 4K IPS gsync/freesync.