FreeSync or G-Sync?

[The_Stealthy_Shadow]

I have my own G-Sync monitor in my setup (see signature for setup), but it's just that, would it save money to get FreeSync? Answer the poll. I would appreciate it.

[Duskie]

Having used both, I can honestly tell you there isn't a noticable difference.

 

Nvidia refuses to support freesync (oh no, an open standard monopoly competitor!??!?!!?!!!!!? we can't have people using that.) which is the reason I didn't buy a 1070.

 

So you're stuck with G-Sync really.

[Godlygamer23]

1 minute ago, Flitter said:

Nvidia refuses to support freesync (oh no, an open standard monopoly competitor!??!?!!?!!!!!? we can't have people using that.) which is the reason I didn't buy a 1070.

They don't need to support FreeSync. They can easily just utilize Adaptive Sync, which is what FreeSync uses.

[Duskie]

Just now, Godlygamer23 said:

They don't need to support FreeSync. They can easily just utilize Adaptive Sync, which is what FreeSync uses.

That's essentially what I mean, but they still refuse to support even that, even though they already use it in their 'G-Sync' laptops.

[Sakkura]

Question 2 makes no sense, you cannot use Freesync with a GTX 1080.

[The_Stealthy_Shadow]

1 minute ago, Sakkura said:

Question 2 makes no sense, you cannot use Freesync with a GTX 1080.

What doesn't make sense is why people said FreeSync on Question 2. (Yes, I already knew that)

[Godlygamer23]

Just now, Flitter said:

That's essentially what I mean, but they still refuse to support even that, even though they already use it in their 'G-Sync' laptops.

Even though some people may not like the proprietary nature of NVIDIA's technology, it can allow for a more tightly integrated experience, versus something that's open, which could be all over the place. But of course that comes at a cost, with NVIDIA's G-Sync module bringing the cost of the display up a fair bit. Really, the module is just NVIDIA's way of making money. 

 

I'm not sure if NVIDIA will ever abandon the module if it brings in money. They might improve on it constantly, but ultimately keep it as a requirement. 

[The_Stealthy_Shadow]

4 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

It depends on what you want to achieve.

If the best AMD card can't give you the performance you want, then you'll have an Nvidia card and the question answers itself.

 

On a cost saving perspective, Freesync equivalent displays cost like $200 less, which means more money for a better card.

$200 can get you like, a whole new RX 480. Nothing to scoff at.

There is this one 1440p G-Sync display (the Dell S2417DG) that's like $470 now. It has a 165Hz refresh rate. should I have spent my money on that one instead?

 

Edit: And 1ms response time

[The_Stealthy_Shadow]

1 minute ago, huilun02 said:

You want to shrink your 27" display to a 24" version just to gain +21Hz over 144Hz?

Where's the logic in that?

You are indeed correct.

[The_Stealthy_Shadow]

10 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

You want to shrink your 27" display to a 24" version just to gain +21Hz over 144Hz?

Where's the logic in that?

But won't the S2417DG have a higher PPI due to a smaller size? And if the PPI is higher, wouldn't gaming look better?

[Duskie]

3 hours ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Even though some people may not like the proprietary nature of NVIDIA's technology, it can allow for a more tightly integrated experience, versus something that's open, which could be all over the place. But of course that comes at a cost, with NVIDIA's G-Sync module bringing the cost of the display up a fair bit. Really, the module is just NVIDIA's way of making money. 

 

I'm not sure if NVIDIA will ever abandon the module if it brings in money. They might improve on it constantly, but ultimately keep it as a requirement. 

They could have G-SYNC and Adaptive sync, but the fact is that Nvidia claims G-SYNC supports 'more' than variable refresh rates, but they're yet to prove any of it, which seems to be common practice for them nowadays.

[Glenwing]

1 hour ago, Flitter said:

They could have G-SYNC and Adaptive sync, but the fact is that Nvidia claims G-SYNC supports 'more' than variable refresh rates, but they're yet to prove any of it, which seems to be common practice for them nowadays.

G-Sync is a package which completely replaces the monitor's controller board and software, which means all of a G-Sync monitor's features are from NVIDIA. Features like ULMB (strobing) and NVIDIA's advanced RTC implementation are all part of the "G-Sync package".

[othertomperson]

On 08/10/2016 at 3:51 PM, Godlygamer23 said:

Even though some people may not like the proprietary nature of NVIDIA's technology, it can allow for a more tightly integrated experience, versus something that's open, which could be all over the place. But of course that comes at a cost, with NVIDIA's G-Sync module bringing the cost of the display up a fair bit. Really, the module is just NVIDIA's way of making money. 

 

I'm not sure if NVIDIA will ever abandon the module if it brings in money. They might improve on it constantly, but ultimately keep it as a requirement. 

Not to mention that if Nvidia hadn't made a massive song and dance out of their R&D for G-Sync for literally years before it appeared in a consumer product, we wouldn't have FreeSync or Adaptive Sync; certainly not in time for it to compete with G-Sync as immediately as it did.

[Monkey Dust]

It depends very much on your card. If you have a 1080 or Titan X(P) it's worth getting G-Sync. If you have a 1060 not a chance. 1070 possibly, or a 1080 without an adaptive sync display.

 

Being Nvidia you expect a price premium, it's how they roll, but the premium on G-Sync over Freesync monitor is insane. You can only really justify it on high end set-ups where the money couldn't have been more sensibly spent elsewhere.