Why buy a Nvidia GPU?

[Standtall]

So i get that overall they are better then the AMD version in almost every print publication.    Yet, I still find myself asking the question after building my computer and paying the premium for an 1080TI after looking at monitor prices.    Very few monitors brands have monitors that support Gsync.   It's not even close.    Especially, when I  read about people putting together a "budget PC" and still using a 1060 or 1070????   I would have purchased a AMD chip if I knew my monitor choice would be so seriously affected to a few choices.   I doubt that i would have noticed a difference between the best AMD card (whatever that is) and an Nvidia on a 27 - 30 inch screen.   The argument that it's better for games is reasonable if you also make money by playing said game.    I think I would have been better off going AMD.   I cannot believe that everyone is buying $600 plus monitors after getting an Nvidia card.   So either people are:  1.)Paying the exorbitant price to play or  2. ) Using a monitor that does not support G sync.  If the last point is correct is using an NVida card on a non G-sync monitor still better than using AMD.     I sure hope I am missing something and someone will point why Nvidia is good.  While I continue to search for available G-sync monitors and thinking why did I buy this in the 1st place.         

[Zando_]

G-Sync only matters if you're dropping lower than the refresh rate of your monitor. Doesn't effect most people, they just lower settings to get better fps. It is handy for nuts like me who max every possible setting though. 

[iiNNeX]

There are tons of monitors that have Gsync, what do you mean a few?!

 

Using an nvidia GPU on a Freesync monitor makes no sense to me, but some people might already have the monitor before purchasing a new GPU.

[Fasauceome]

when it comes to performance, the 1080 ti is not matched by AMD yet. Using a powerful GPU with a non g-sync monitor is pretty normal. I got a 1070 before vega 56 was around, so nvidia was ahead of AMD in the high end. AMD has basically 3 good graphics cards right now, RX 570, %X 580, and vega 56. Everything else is too weaksauce for the price or too power hungry to justify using unless you love free sync, or need it for compute tasks of some specific kind.

 

[Fasauceome]

2 minutes ago, iiNNeX said:

There are tons of monitors that have Gsync, what do you mean a few?!

 

Using an nvidia GPU on a Freesync monitor makes no sense to me, but some people might already have the monitor before purchasing a new GPU.

since freezync is cheaper, getting a freesync monitor on sale to just use as a regular monitor is a good strategy. Almost got one myself cause it was 15% off

[Derrk]

Freesync is way cheaper, but thats only if you need it. I don't think anyone actually needs G-sync or freesync. I have a 1080ti, which AMD can't match with their gpus. I can run 4k mid 50s-60fps on pretty much every game i play. I don't need freesync or G-sync because I get consistent frames without screen tearing.

 

AMD makes more sense if you're looking at more budget friendly options

[WereCatf]

NVIDIA's GPUs run somewhat cooler. Also, NVENC is better supported than AMD's equivalent.

[dizmo]

Your monitor choice isn't affected at all, unless you must have adaptive sync of some kind. Otherwise you can pick whatever monitor you want.

Screen size matters not, resolution does.

 

As far as your reasoning behind pricing, it's flawed. Horribly. For example, $600 might seem like a lot to you for a monitor, but for a lot of people it's not; they'll readily pay twice that to get the experience that they want. As for an exorbitant amount for playing? Even if you're paying $4,000 for a gaming system, and you keep it for 4 years, that's only $83 a month. That's not that bad at all, considering other hobbies can cost significantly more. My mountain bike, for example, costs me $800+/year in maintenance.

 

Typically Nvidia has stronger cards than AMD, unless you're shopping in the lower tiers. RX 580 and RX 570 are strong performers in their price bracket, but AMD kind of lacks when it comes to the higher tiers.

 

Welcome to the forum!

 

29 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

G-Sync only matters if you're dropping lower than the refresh rate of your monitor. Doesn't effect most people, they just lower settings to get better fps. It is handy for nuts like me who max every possible setting though. 

I don't think that's a very accurate description of what GSync does. I can't think of a better way to put it now, but I don't think that's correct.

28 minutes ago, iiNNeX said:

There are tons of monitors that have Gsync, what do you mean a few?!

 

Using an nvidia GPU on a Freesync monitor makes no sense to me, but some people might already have the monitor before purchasing a new GPU.

Sometimes people buy the monitor because they like it, and don't want to shell out the few hundred dollar premium for GSync. It's just a feature they don't use.

20 minutes ago, Derrk said:

Freesync is way cheaper, but thats only if you need it. I don't think anyone actually needs G-sync or freesync. I have a 1080ti, which AMD can't match with their gpus. I can run 4k mid 50s-60fps on pretty much every game i play. I don't need freesync or G-sync because I get consistent frames without screen tearing.

 

AMD makes more sense if you're looking at more budget friendly options

At the same time, one could say no one needs anything better than 60hz panels. They're still nice to have

[Derrk]

Just now, dizmo said:

At the same time, one could say no one needs anything better than 60hz panels. They're still nice to have

our eyes can't even see more than 30fps. Just ask sony & microsoft's research teams 

[Zando_]

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

I don't think that's a very accurate description of what GSync does. I can't think of a better way to put it now, but I don't think that's correct.

G-Sync is variable refresh rate tech. I don't know the range of my screen but I seem to get screen tearing if I drop below 80fps or so, so I assume it's 70/80-144Hz. It drops the refresh rate of the screen to match the fps your GPU is pushing out so long as it's less than the max refresh rate of the screen, and within it's range. Thus, it's only actually used if you drop below the refresh rate of your monitor. If you keep games pinned at a full 144fps all the time like my 5GHz 8600K can (144 fps in Destiny 2 with 1 drop to 143, my R7 2700X keeps 120-130 or so), G-Sync will never actually be used. 

[dizmo]

2 minutes ago, Derrk said:

our eyes can't even see more than 30fps. Just ask sony & microsoft's research teams 

That's a fallacy, but ok. You believe what you like

Just now, Zando Bob said:

G-Sync is variable refresh rate tech. I don't know the range of my screen but I seem to get screen tearing if I drop below 80fps or so, so I assume it's 70/80-144Hz. It drops the refresh rate of the screen to match the fps your GPU is pushing out so long as it's less than the max refresh rate of the screen, and within it's range. Thus, it's only actually used if you drop below the refresh rate of your monitor. If you keep games pinned at a full 144fps all the time like my 5GHz 8600K can (144 fps in Destiny 2 with 1 drop to 143, my R7 2700X keeps 120-130 or so), G-Sync will never actually be used. 

True, but how many people are able to keep over 144hz on a lot of triple A titles? Not many. Which is where it comes into play.

[Brooksie359]

41 minutes ago, Standtall said:

So i get that overall they are better then the AMD version in almost every print publication.    Yet, I still find myself asking the question after building my computer and paying the premium for an 1080TI after looking at monitor prices.    Very few monitors brands have monitors that support Gsync.   It's not even close.    Especially, when I  read about people putting together a "budget PC" and still using a 1060 or 1070????   I would have purchased a AMD chip if I knew my monitor choice would be so seriously affected to a few choices.   I doubt that i would have noticed a difference between the best AMD card (whatever that is) and an Nvidia on a 27 - 30 inch screen.   The argument that it's better for games is reasonable if you also make money by playing said game.    I think I would have been better off going AMD.   I cannot believe that everyone is buying $600 plus monitors after getting an Nvidia card.   So either people are:  1.)Paying the exorbitant price to play or  2. ) Using a monitor that does not support G sync.  If the last point is correct is using an NVida card on a non G-sync monitor still better than using AMD.     I sure hope I am missing something and someone will point why Nvidia is good.  While I continue to search for available G-sync monitors and thinking why did I buy this in the 1st place.         

Screen tearing is mostly prevalent at lower fps. At 100+ I can't tell the difference between gsync on vs off. That being said I honestly don't understand why someone would go for nvidia unless they are getting a 1070ti or up. The ability to use freesync is quite nice and if you are buying in the price range where AMD is competitive it is a compelling feature. 

[Zando_]

1 minute ago, dizmo said:

True, but how many people are able to keep over 144hz on a lot of triple A titles? Not many. Which is where it comes into play.

Yep. But again my point is that most people who are running 144Hz just drop settings to keep that, and have the hardware that can handle that fps. If they can't then they don't get a 144Hz monitor, and if they don't have high enough hardware to run 144Hz why would they buy a $500+ monitor in the first place? Basically it's to answer the OP's question of (paraphrasing) "Are Nvidia GPUs still better without G-Sync". Yes, G-Sync doesn't really effect you unless you're regularly dropping below the refresh rate of your monitor and refuse to drop settings to get better fps. 

[Derrk]

3 minutes ago, dizmo said:

That's a fallacy, but ok. You believe what you like

woosh

[dizmo]

12 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

Yep. But again my point is that most people who are running 144Hz just drop settings to keep that, and have the hardware that can handle that fps. If they can't then they don't get a 144Hz monitor, and if they don't have high enough hardware to run 144Hz why would they buy a $500+ monitor in the first place? Basically it's to answer the OP's question of (paraphrasing) "Are Nvidia GPUs still better without G-Sync". Yes, G-Sync doesn't really effect you unless you're regularly dropping below the refresh rate of your monitor and refuse to drop settings to get better fps. 

I think that's a pretty stupid view to have. I'd rather have a 144hz monitor and get 100fps, than be stuck at 60hz. I also wouldn't lower the settings just to get 144fps. A lot of people notice the difference between 60 and 100 a lot more than 100 and 144.

[Zando_]

8 minutes ago, dizmo said:

I think that's a pretty stupid view to have. I'd rather have a 144hz monitor and get 100fps, than be stuck at 60hz. I also wouldn't lower the settings just to get 144fps. A lot of people notice the difference between 60 and 100 a lot more than 100 and 144.

Most of the people I've seen getting 144Hz monitors have the hardware to drive it just fine, haven't seen people with a 1050 Ti or 1060 3GB getting a 144Hz monitor unless they mostly play eSports titles. 

[Standtall]

1 hour ago, iiNNeX said:

There are tons of monitors that have Gsync, what do you mean a few?!

 

Using an nvidia GPU on a Freesync monitor makes no sense to me, but some people might already have the monitor before purchasing a new GPU.

Ok maybe my information is off.   I went to pcpartpickers.com and looked up monitors.    My only requirements was above 27.5 and GSync and it came up with 19 though only 16 had prices.   Compare that if I add Freesync vice Gsync it would be more than double.   Asus, Acer, Dell, AOC, LG, 1 HP Omen are the only brands.   No Viewsonic, Benq, Samsung, MSI etc..  You have to admit that qualifies not that many. 

[Standtall]

48 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

NVIDIA's GPUs run somewhat cooler. Also, NVENC is better supported than AMD's equivalent.

Agreed, but "somewhat cooler" is probably not enough justify the extra cost when you factor a matching Gsync monitor.   Extra fans can take care of that.

[Standtall]

44 minutes ago, dizmo said:

As far as your reasoning behind pricing, it's flawed. Horribly. For example, $600 might seem like a lot to you for a monitor, but for a lot of people it's not; they'll readily pay twice that to get the experience that they want. As for an exorbitant amount for playing? Even if you're paying $4,000 for a gaming system, and you keep it for 4 years, that's only $83 a month. That's not that bad at all, considering other hobbies can cost significantly more. My mountain bike, for example, costs me $800+/year in maintenance.

 

Welcome to the forum!

Thanks Dizmo and i love your analogy.

[Standtall]

37 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

Yep. But again my point is that most people who are running 144Hz just drop settings to keep that, and have the hardware that can handle that fps. If they can't then they don't get a 144Hz monitor, and if they don't have high enough hardware to run 144Hz why would they buy a $500+ monitor in the first place? Basically it's to answer the OP's question of (paraphrasing) "Are Nvidia GPUs still better without G-Sync". Yes, G-Sync doesn't really effect you unless you're regularly dropping below the refresh rate of your monitor and refuse to drop settings to get better fps. 

Zando, I'm a touch confused here.   Are you staying that i could get a 144HZ freesync monitor and play at high settings and i won't notice the difference because i shouldn't drop below settings thus G-Sync will never kick on?

[Zando_]

1 minute ago, Standtall said:

Zando, I'm a touch confused here.   Are you staying that i could get a 144HZ freesync monitor and play at high settings and i won't notice the difference because i shouldn't drop below settings thus G-Sync will never kick on?

So long as your CPU can keep up with the 1080 Ti (my 5GHz 8600K pins D2 at 144fps with a 1080, my 4GHz R7 2700X keeps around 120-130fps) you should keep things maxed at 144fps in pretty much everything on 1080p and 1440p, so yeah, you won't even use G-Sync. Like I said it only actually kicks in if your fps drops below the refresh rate of your monitor, then it drops that refresh rate to match. If you play something like Rise Of The Tomb Raider though, you'll use G-Sync a bunch, even on my 1080 SC it drops to 54fps in some parts with everything maxed, and runs at about 70-90 most of the time, still far below my 144Hz refresh rate.  

[dizmo]

25 minutes ago, Zando Bob said:

Most of the people I've seen getting 144Hz monitors have the hardware to drive it just fine, haven't seen people with a 1050 Ti or 1060 3GB getting a 144Hz monitor unless they mostly play eSports titles. 

I haven't seen many 1070's or 1080's even that'll max a game out at 144hz unless it's an eSports title...

[Zando_]

Just now, dizmo said:

I haven't seen many 1070's or 1080's even that'll max a game out at 144hz unless it's an eSports title...

for 1080p my 1080 runs stuff like D2 on max settings at 144fps with my 8600K, though doesn't do that in games like ROTTR that are super intensive or not as optimized. But even with a 980 Ti (1070 level perf) I kept 120fps+ in ARMA III on max settings. I can put one of my 1080s into my 8600K rig if you'd like me to test more. And with SLI 1080s I can push 120+fps in 4K with no AA in Battlefront 2015, and similarly in Mass Effect Andromeda (the two games that scale the best with SLI, for some reason I can't get it to play nice with D2 and ROTTR which also support SLI). 

[Guest]

A lot of people use neither freesync or g-sync and play modern games on 1080/60hz, so it doesn't even factor into their decision to buy Nvidia cards. People tend to go team green because they have market domination and so they get recommended more and they're put forward by merchants. I'd consider myself as someone who knows a fair bit about hardware (I'm definitely no enthusiast) but I always recommend Nvidia cards because I know them, I research them when I myself need to buy one, and I'm not super interested in the competition because Nvidia and their partners never gave me any reason to really consider the competition, as everything always went fine.

 

It's really hard for AMD to fight their way out of the underdog position because people will stick to what they know, sometimes to a fault. 

[Cigano]

G-sync is the biggest scam ever and people should fight against it. I REFUSE to buy a G-sync monitor. I have a 1440 32' 75hz IPS pannel for $225 on sale ..... that's the power of freesync. G-sync equivalents are at least double that. If you get screen tearing from super high frame rates you can use fast-sync with no input lag and if you dip below the refresh rate of your monitor you can A-lower the settings B- Use v-sync if it's a non-competitive game C- just deal with it it's really NOT that bad, super overblown.