Freesync or Performance?

[YeshYyyK]

I'm okay with playing on medium settings, should I get an RX 560 w/ a Freesync monitor or just a 1050Ti?

[Frankenburger]

Depends on the monitor. Many cheap FreeSync monitors don't have a very useful FreeSync range.

 

If you wanted something with a guaranteed 30-144Hz range, Gsync is the way to go. With FreeSync, you run the risk of having a 45-90Hz or 48-144Hz range with some of the cheaper models.

[Leonius]

31 minutes ago, YeshYyyK said:

I'm okay with playing on medium settings, should I get an RX 560 w/ a Freesync monitor or just a 1050Ti?

dont get freesync and instead get a better gpu. More frames at the same time reduces screen tear, and the money you safe on the monitor withoug free or gsync you can put into the gpu. I would suggest you safe up for a 1060 though, that is a huge bump from the 1050 performance wise.

[Darkseth]

No, more frames do NOT (noticebly) reduce screen tear.

How big the "tears" are, depends mainly on the Monitors referesh rate, and how fast you're moving ingame.

 

I would say, RX 560.

Freesync / G-Sync is godlike, and makes MUCH more difference, than 20% more fps.

Freesynced 45 fps look much smoother, than 55 fps with V-Sync (stuttering) or without V-Sync (tearing). I've tried it myself (but with G-Sync)

[Leonius]

13 hours ago, Darkseth said:

No, more frames do NOT (noticebly) reduce screen tear.

How big the "tears" are, depends mainly on the Monitors referesh rate, and how fast you're moving ingame.

 

I would say, RX 560.

Freesync / G-Sync is godlike, and makes MUCH more difference, than 20% more fps.

Freesynced 45 fps look much smoother, than 55 fps with V-Sync (stuttering) or without V-Sync (tearing). I've tried it myself (but with G-Sync)

yes they do, the delay between frames is maller (just 1/(framerate) = Frametime) less frametime means the amout of tear between two frames is smaller. Simple math really. if you get double the fps your screen tear is significantly reduced. On low end setups it simply does not make sense to invest in adaprive refresh technology since its just too expencive.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Frankenburger said:

Depends on the monitor. Many cheap FreeSync monitors don't have a very useful FreeSync range.

 

If you wanted something with a guaranteed 30-144Hz range, Gsync is the way to go. With FreeSync, you run the risk of having a 45-90Hz or 48-144Hz range with some of the cheaper models.

@YeshYyyK

Just have to check the manufactorers site for more information.

Most of them have the freesync range in their Specifications section.

[xAcid9]

16 hours ago, YeshYyyK said:

I'm okay with playing on medium settings, should I get an RX 560 w/ a Freesync monitor or just a 1050Ti?

both package at similar price? Get 560+Freesync then.

[Hiya!]

17 hours ago, Darkseth said:

No, more frames do NOT (noticebly) reduce screen tear.

How big the "tears" are, depends mainly on the Monitors referesh rate, and how fast you're moving ingame.

 

I would say, RX 560.

Freesync / G-Sync is godlike, and makes MUCH more difference, than 20% more fps.

Freesynced 45 fps look much smoother, than 55 fps with V-Sync (stuttering) or without V-Sync (tearing). I've tried it myself (but with G-Sync)

Monitor refresh rate has very little to do with tearing and its not how fast you move but how many frames u got.

If u move very fast in game with 60hz monitor then u will notice a terrible tearing but with 144hz monitor the tearing will not be that noticeable anymore.

But if u for example get 144fps average on 60Hz monitor then the tearing will stil be very noticeable its just not as bad as u got 50-70fps and the differences is not that big.

Its just because more frames is sent meaning more frames is displayed and it happened so fast, Yes there's still tearing its just all of that happened so fast and with more frames even though there's a tearing it would be less noticeable.

But of course its not the best solution to deal with Tearing.

V-sync,fast sync or adaptive sync is the way to go.

18 hours ago, Leonius said:

dont get freesync and instead get a better gpu. More frames at the same time reduces screen tear, and the money you safe on the monitor withoug free or gsync you can put into the gpu. I would suggest you safe up for a 1060 though, that is a huge bump from the 1050 performance wise.

I think his best option is to get 1050 ti and use Triple buffering V-sync with D3DOVERRIDER since i am sure the 1050 ti is not fast enough to fill up the back buffer with heavy AAA title so input lag will be minimum.

With easy to render/less demanding games however it might, if thats the case all he need is to use fast sync although i dont really like it and i rarely recommend it.

 

 @YeshYyyK 560 is a weak GPU compared to 1050 ti.

Get the 1050 ti and use V sync Triple buffering if you play AAA title.

If u play Esport games or other games that is not very demanding and u didnt want tearing use Traditional V-sync it will increase the input lag which is not good for competitive games but your gameplay will be tearing free or if u didnt want input lag but still didnt want any tearing use the nvidia fast sync although it will sometimes gives u a weird micro stuttering at high framerates or u could use the Triple buffering V-sync it will increase the input lag but its not as bad as traditional v-sync  or dont use any of those option if u didnt want more input lag or micro stuttering but you will experience tearing, a lot of it.

 

The choice is yours.

But if u asked me i'd go with the 1050 ti.

[xAcid9]

47 minutes ago, Hiya! said:

 @YeshYyyK 560 is a weak GPU compared to 1050 ti.

Weaker, but not significantly weak. Adaptive-Sync is superior to any Vsync or w/o.

[Hiya!]

33 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

Weaker, but not significantly weak. Adaptive-Sync is superior to any Vsync or w/o.

The OP is on a budget.

Most Budget free-sync monitor has free-sync range around 40-75Hz

560 is a weak GPU. Pretty sure it can gives only gives you like 40'ish fps average on modern AAA title with High settings

Even my friend has a 480 gaming x and play Witcher 3 at 1080 with custom ultra settings and got around 50fps average.

But u can always lower the settings to gain more fps and sacrifice the graphics.

 

Adaptive sync is considered to be a high end feature and getting one of those when u have a low end gpu just doesnt make sense as most of the times your gpu wont be able to maintain the fps to keep the free-sync stay active.

 

I agreed that Adaptive sync is superior but that doesnt mean there's no better solution for current OP situation.

Tripple buffering is favored by many its even better than Fast Sync for some reason.

As long your gpu isn't too fast for the games Tripple buffering wont add any noticeable input LAG.

And 560 is the perfect candidate for that.

 

[xAcid9]

1 hour ago, Hiya! said:

Even my friend has a 480 gaming x and play Witcher 3 at 1080 with custom ultra settings and got around 50fps average.

But u can always lower the settings to gain more fps and sacrifice the graphics.

The card is fine on Medium settings. 

19 hours ago, YeshYyyK said:

I'm okay with playing on medium settings, should I get an RX 560 w/ a Freesync monitor or just a 1050Ti?

Like i said before, if the monitor + RX560 cost similar to 1050 Ti, grab the RX560 + monitor because if the 560 gonna have problem maintaining 60fps, the 1050 Ti will most likely do too and with Freesync that is totally acceptable compare to w/o Freesync. If it cost alot higher than 1050 Ti, just grab a 1060/570.

 

You can overclock some low end Freesync monitor to have wider Freesync range with CRU.

[Hiya!]

10 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

Like i said before, if the monitor + RX560 cost similar to 1050 Ti, grab the RX560 + monitor because if the 560 gonna have problem maintaining 60fps, the 1050 Ti will most likely do too and with Freesync that is totally acceptable compare to w/o Freesync. If it cost alot higher than 1050 Ti, just grab a 1060/570.

 

You can overclock some low end Freesync monitor to have wider Freesync range with CRU.

There's no way it would cost similar to 1050 ti.

Maintaning fps for what?

Free-sync? he's on a budget he wont buy g-sync monitor.

Thats why there's V-sync and fast sync for him.

and 1050 ti is still more powerful.

1060 would make more sense if he got the budget though.

 

Sure but there's no 100% guarantee to succeed or at least achieved your desired result and there are a lot of risk on doing it.

 

 

[xAcid9]

4 minutes ago, Hiya! said:

There's no way it would cost similar to 1050 ti.

Maintaning fps for what?

Free-sync? he's on a budget he wont buy g-sync monitor.

Thats why there's V-sync and fast sync for him.

and 1050 ti is still more powerful.

1060 would make more sense if he got the budget though.

 

Sure but there's no 100% guarantee to succeed or at least achieved your desired result and there are a lot of risk on doing it.

That's why i asked, i can get RX560 Pulse with LG 24" 1080p IPS Freesync monitor for $60 extra over some higher end 1050 Ti here but that already closer to RX570/1060 3GB price. He haven't reply about the pricing yet.

 

If you want to use Vsync you need to make sure the card can maintain >60fps all the time, the moment it dropped below 60 you'll get that shitty stuttering we all hate.

[Hiya!]

6 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

That's why i asked, i can get RX560 Pulse with LG 24" 1080p IPS Freesync monitor for $60 extra over some higher end 1050 Ti here but that already closer to RX570/1060 3GB price. He haven't reply about the pricing yet.

 

If you want to use Vsync you need to make sure the card can maintain >60fps all the time, the moment it dropped below 60 you'll get that shitty stuttering we all hate.

Not with triple buffering no

Sadly it only work with OPENGL games but u can force it to work with directX.

 

Fast sync is also an option but the downside is that if your fps is high enough like above 80fps u'll sometimes notice a micro stuttering.

Other than that its input lag and tearing free.

[xAcid9]

22 minutes ago, Hiya! said:

Not with triple buffering no

Sadly it only work with OPENGL games but u can force it to work with directX.

 

Fast sync is also an option but the downside is that if your fps is high enough like above 80fps u'll sometimes notice a micro stuttering.

Other than that its input lag and tearing free.

You will still notice the stutters even with TB enabled though not as bad w/o it everytime the frame drop below your monitor refresh rate. 

 

AMD Enchanced Sync is similar to Fastsync.

[Hiya!]

2 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

You will still notice the stutters even with TB enabled though not as bad w/o it everytime the frame drop below your monitor refresh rate. 

 

AMD Enchanced Sync is similar to Fastsync.

Yes it will if the GPU is fast enough to fill the whole back buffer but pretty sure 560 wont although it depends on the game.

On non demanding like e-sport V-sync is a big no dont use it.

 

Wait they has it now? hm i need to update myself thanks

[Darkseth]

11 hours ago, Hiya! said:

Monitor refresh rate has very little to do with tearing and its not how fast you move but how many frames u got.

If u move very fast in game with 60hz monitor then u will notice a terrible tearing but with 144hz monitor the tearing will not be that noticeable anymore.

But if u for example get 144fps average on 60Hz monitor then the tearing will stil be very noticeable its just not as bad as u got 50-70fps and the differences is not that big.

Its just because more frames is sent meaning more frames is displayed and it happened so fast, Yes there's still tearing its just all of that happened so fast and with more frames even though there's a tearing it would be less noticeable.

But of course its not the best solution to deal with Tearing.

V-sync,fast sync or adaptive sync is the way to go.

I think his best option is to get 1050 ti and use Triple buffering V-sync with D3DOVERRIDER since i am sure the 1050 ti is not fast enough to fill up the back buffer with heavy AAA title so input lag will be minimum.

With easy to render/less demanding games however it might, if thats the case all he need is to use fast sync although i dont really like it and i rarely recommend it.

No, sorry. You are simply wrong.. Refresh rate has ALOT to do with how strong Tearing is. It is the main indicator.

 

On a 60 Hz Monitor, it refreshes every 16,67 ms. Depending on how fast you turn around or something, you will see a tear. Because 2 Screens (that are shown at the same time) are 16,67ms away from each other.

 

Now take a 144 Hz screen. 6,94 ms for a Refresh. 2 teared images on the screen won't be more away from each other than 6,94 ms. 

It's only logical, that you get less tearing (smaller tearings, shorter stutters) the higher your refresh rate is.

 

If your game runs in xx fps or yy fps, THIS has indeed very little to do with how strong the tears will be.

How much fps your GPU gives out has nothing to do with the Monitor refreshing only every zz milliseconds.

 

 

If you had a 1000 Hz screen (1 refresh every single millisecond) or even 2000 Hz, if that were possible, you wouldn't see any tearing, no matter how much fps you have. No tearing visible (because it will be so small/short) at 30 fps, or at 600 fps.

[Hiya!]

3 hours ago, Darkseth said:

No, sorry. You are simply wrong.. Refresh rate has ALOT to do with how strong Tearing is. It is the main indicator.

 

On a 60 Hz Monitor, it refreshes every 16,67 ms. Depending on how fast you turn around or something, you will see a tear. Because 2 Screens (that are shown at the same time) are 16,67ms away from each other.

 

Now take a 144 Hz screen. 6,94 ms for a Refresh. 2 teared images on the screen won't be more away from each other than 6,94 ms. 

It's only logical, that you get less tearing (smaller tearings, shorter stutters) the higher your refresh rate is.

 

If your game runs in xx fps or yy fps, THIS has indeed very little to do with how strong the tears will be.

How much fps your GPU gives out has nothing to do with the Monitor refreshing only every zz milliseconds.

 

 

If you had a 1000 Hz screen (1 refresh every single millisecond) or even 2000 Hz, if that were possible, you wouldn't see any tearing, no matter how much fps you have. No tearing visible (because it will be so small/short) at 30 fps, or at 600 fps.

That is not what i meant.

Frames are sent to your monitor in a row of interval no matter how many hz u have like 1000000hz monitor you will still see tearing as long the display and your gpu is not sync.

 

U must understand what causes screen tearing in the first place that way u'll knew how monitor refresh rate has very little to do with screen tearing.

 

[Darkseth]

Yep, that's right. Tearing happens, when GPU + Monitor are not in Sync. But if the Hz is high enough, the "tear size" is so small (because it refreshes so often), that you will stop noticing the tearing at some point. Everyone can see it, who tried different Hz. You obviously never tried. i did. i have it here in front of my Eyes.

 

Believe me, I do understand perfectly fine what screen tearing is, and how it happens

That's why i KNOW, that Hz is the main difference there.

You are the one, that should read up about that a little more. ^^

 

With a 100000 Hz screen you will not see any Tearing at all. None. Refresh rate is so unimaginable high, that the "tear" will be so small, you will not be able to see it. no matter how much fps.

[Hiya!]

9 hours ago, Darkseth said:

Yep, that's right. Tearing happens, when GPU + Monitor are not in Sync. But if the Hz is high enough, the "tear size" is so small (because it refreshes so often), that you will stop noticing the tearing at some point. Everyone can see it, who tried different Hz. You obviously never tried. i did. i have it here in front of my Eyes.

 

Believe me, I do understand perfectly fine what screen tearing is, and how it happens

That's why i KNOW, that Hz is the main difference there.

You are the one, that should read up about that a little more. ^^

 

With a 100000 Hz screen you will not see any Tearing at all. None. Refresh rate is so unimaginable high, that the "tear" will be so small, you will not be able to see it. no matter how much fps.

You misunderstand me. again.

Now of course Refresh rate has somethin to do with tearing but its not the main factor as u said.

You see tearing happen because when frames in the front buffer is not yet fully scanned but the gpu is already finish on drawing the next frames in the back buffer hence the system ignore the scanning process and push the next frames into the front buffer while the scanning process is continued from where it left off.

In a nutshell its when your monitor display 2 frames in 1 draw.

So no matter how high your monitor refresh rate is as long your monitor and your gpu is not sync there will still be a tearing. always be a tearing.

As for whether u able to notice it or not is a matter perception.

From that we knew that refresh rate has little to do with screen tearing thats why people are working on it like inventing Double buffered and Triple buffered V-Sync or adaptive sync or any other frames syncronizing technology to deal with screen tearing.

If refresh rate is the main factor people will not invent on Vsync or any other syncronizing tech instead they will working on creating more high refresh rate monitor.