Do I benefit from a AMD FreeSync when I have a Nvidia GPU?

[Hip]

Hey guys,

 

I'd like to know if there is any benefit from a AMD FreeSync monitor when I do not use a AMD GPU, but a Nvidia GPU for gaming.

Or is it just like there would not be any AMD FreeSync at all?

 

Thanks in advance!!

[D13H4RD]

Nope

[AKPatriot]

G-sync only works with Nvidia GPUs, Freesync only works with AMD GPUs. I don't recommend crossing them as you'd be paying extra for the sync module in the monitor that you wouldn't be able to use.

[Hip]

6 minutes ago, AKPatriot said:

G-sync only works with Nvidia GPUs, Freesync only works with AMD GPUs. I don't recommend crossing them as you'd be paying extra for the sync module in the monitor that you wouldn't be able to use.

There are no G-Sync monitors with 144Hz and an IPS panel for my budget so I saw a ACER IPS panel with 144Hz and FreeSync for just 350 Euro. I don't know why G-Sync is that expensive....

[DimasRMDO]

It's two different technology (though they achieve the same goal), you can't mix them up.

Radeon GPU supports FreeSync whereas NVIDIA supports G-Sync.

[Hip]

2 minutes ago, WikiForce said:

Because it's Nvidia

That's pretty fucked up, because I would have to pay 300 Euro more to have a G-Sync monitor. I'd maybe get a AMD GPU next and buy this AMD FreeSync monitor. But I'm not decided yet.

[AKPatriot]

22 minutes ago, Hip said:

That's pretty fucked up, because I would have to pay 300 Euro more to have a G-Sync monitor. I'd maybe get a AMD GPU next and buy this AMD FreeSync monitor. But I'm not decided yet.

Although they all seem to do the same thing, each company has developed them separately, so each has spent differing amounts of time and resources into sync.

 

Also, AMD and Nvidia are the ones who develop, manufacture and sell the sync modules to display manufactures. so they get to decide the value of the chips. Nvidia is just more confident that they have the better sync, so they can sell it for more. Whether or not it is better, we keep paying for it because most people have Nvidia cards and there really isn't a good alternative.

[Glenwing]

22 minutes ago, AKPatriot said:

Although they all seem to do the same thing, each company has developed them separately, so each has spent differing amounts of time and resources into sync.

 

Also, AMD and Nvidia are the ones who develop, manufacture and sell the sync modules to display manufactures. so they get to decide the value of the chips. Nvidia is just more confident that they have the better sync, so they can sell it for more. Whether or not it is better, we keep paying for it because most people have Nvidia cards and there really isn't a good alternative.

FreeSync doesn't use a proprietary module, and AMD doesn't decide the price of FreeSync-capable chips. It uses a protocol defined in the DisplayPort standard, and any chip maker can design a chip with that capability if they want. The cost is basically the same as any other controller would be. It's not equivalent to the G-Sync situation at all.

[Hip]

But I still benefit from the 144Hz right? I guess I could live without G-Sync then and just get my 144Hz. Buying a G-Sync monitor for like 300 Euro more is not worth it for my understanding.

[jiyeon]

14 minutes ago, Hip said:

But I still benefit from the 144Hz right? I guess I could live without G-Sync then and just get my 144Hz. Buying a G-Sync monitor for like 300 Euro more is not worth it for my understanding.

You'll get 144Hz regardless, yes.

[Peskanova]

On 25/7/2018 at 5:23 PM, Hip said:

That's pretty fucked up, because I would have to pay 300 Euro more to have a G-Sync monitor. I'd maybe get a AMD GPU next and buy this AMD FreeSync monitor. But I'm not decided yet.

Well it sums up to Gsync + nvidia card vs Freesync + amd card

freesync vs gsync  = freesync wins (near same tech less money)
nvidia card vs amd card = nvidia wins 

So you rather get a cheap monitor with a cheap graphics card that performs well or a mid-expensive card with a expensive monitor that performs better than well.

I've had a rx480 and now a 1070 (with gsync 1440p 165hz 24' tn panel) and gsync + nvidia card is the way to go, Till new amd cards arrive its like 1060/580 performance for amd or go full nvidia for me since vega's are not in my scope.

Answer : more performance than a 1060 go nvidia (1070+) , 1060 like go amd with a 580 + freesync 

[Peskanova]

49 minutes ago, Hip said:

But I still benefit from the 144Hz right? I guess I could live without G-Sync then and just get my 144Hz. Buying a G-Sync monitor for like 300 Euro more is not worth it for my understanding.

Gsync for me now its must , i can notice when its off, it seems useless but is like a good drink/tobacco you dont know the difference untill you switch back.

[Hip]

6 minutes ago, Peskanova said:

Gsync for me now its must , i can notice when its off, it seems useless but is like a good drink/tobacco you dont know the difference untill you switch back.

To be honest, most G-Sync monitors look like shit and are very expensive. If at least Dell would bring out a WQHD IPS G-Sync monitor I'd consider it more to get one. But I don't want a Black/red monitor equipped with LED ambilight and such stuff. >.<

[Hip]

8 minutes ago, Peskanova said:

Well it sums up to Gsync + nvidia card vs Freesync + amd card

freesync vs gsync  = freesync wins (near same tech less money)
nvidia card vs amd card = nvidia wins 

So you rather get a cheap monitor with a cheap graphics card that performs well or a mid-expensive card with a expensive monitor that performs better than well.

I've had a rx480 and now a 1070 (with gsync 1440p 165hz 24' tn panel) and gsync + nvidia card is the way to go, Till new amd cards arrive its like 1060/580 performance for amd or go full nvidia for me since vega's are not in my scope.

Answer : more performance than a 1060 go nvidia (1070+) , 1060 like go amd with a 580 + freesync 

I was considering to get a GTX 1080. :-D

[Peskanova]

Just now, Hip said:

To be honest, most G-Sync monitors look like shit and are very expensive. If at least Dell would bring out a WQHD IPS G-Sync monitor I'd consider it more to get one. But I don't want a Black/red monitor equipped with LED ambilight and such stuff. >.<

Well to be honest most freesync monitors are shit, just see msi amazon reviews or acer, TN is TN but your statement is wrong , most gsync are better than freesync because they need to be expensive they use to put gsync on its high end flagship, just the oposite as freesync

[Peskanova]

3 minutes ago, Hip said:

I was considering to get a GTX 1080. :-D

24 inch 1080p/1440p 165hz  
27 inch 1440p 165hz 

Thats the way to go , never buy a 1080p 27 inch that has the pixel density of a tv

https://www.amazon.com/OMEN-27-HP-Monitor-Aluminum/dp/B0711T4RDF/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1532950117&sr=8-1&keywords=omen+27

https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Gaming-S2716DGR-LED-Lit-Monitor/dp/B0149QBOF0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1532950140&sr=8-1&keywords=dell+s2716

both are good TN panels 27 inches 144 to 165hz oc , gsync 1440p

or 24 inch version (mine)
https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-24-gaming-monitor-s2417dg/apd/210-aizs/monitors-monitor-accessories

those 3 are one of the bests TN panels with gsync

[Hip]

2 minutes ago, Peskanova said:

24 inch 1080p/1440p 165hz  
27 inch 1440p 165hz 

Thats the way to go , never buy a 1080p 27 inch that has the pixel density of a tv

Yeah, I wanted 27". 1080p is like my phones resolution lol

I don't wanna change it in a year again. WQHD is a must then.

[Peskanova]

2 minutes ago, Hip said:

Yeah, I wanted 27". 1080p is like my phones resolution lol

I don't wanna change it in a year again. WQHD is a must then.

I edited with the 3 I recommend to buy, not ips but If you want ips you will spend like 600-700 minimum
see linus video, 4k + 144/240hz is way to long to invest in , when you have a gpu that runs that, probably that monitor will be waaay cheaper.