- Joined
- Nov 9, 2010
- Messages
- 5,659 (1.15/day)
System Name | Space Station |
---|---|
Processor | Intel 13700K |
Motherboard | ASRock Z790 PG Riptide |
Cooling | Arctic Liquid Freezer II 420 |
Memory | Corsair Vengeance 6400 2x16GB @ CL34 |
Video Card(s) | PNY RTX 4080 |
Storage | SSDs - Nextorage 4TB, Samsung EVO 970 500GB, Plextor M5Pro 128GB, HDDs - WD Black 6TB, 2x 1TB |
Display(s) | LG C3 OLED 42" |
Case | Corsair 7000D Airflow |
Audio Device(s) | Yamaha RX-V371 |
Power Supply | SeaSonic Vertex 1200w Gold |
Mouse | Razer Basilisk V3 |
Keyboard | Bloody B840-LK |
Software | Windows 11 Pro 23H2 |
So what? It doesn't matter. When you go below 40 Hz you start getting visual artifacts. Does it work below 40 Hz? Yep it does. Will it look good? Nope. But AMD won't tell you that because you won't support their product like you are now.
Until we actually SEE tests of Freesync conducted with displays that can refresh below 40Hz, we won't know that. Variable syncing doesn't work like V-Sync though, so I tend to think anything down to 30Hz would be plausible, esp considering those would likely be only momentary dips, not hovering at that range. If it hovers at that range consistently it's obvious we are talking a gamer who's tried to bite off more tech than they can afford on the GPU end of the spectrum.
Even if you're right though, you still somewhat substantiate my point, because even 40Hz is well below the current 48Hz limited displays that support Freesync. It was suggested in the Anandtech comparison review that for avid gamers buying into this kind of tech, 45-60 FPS would be the sweet spot to shoot for. For the average gamer looking for a new display and not minding the slight extra for a Freesync capable display, I would guess the acceptable range would be more likely 40-60 FPS. There's ALWAYS going to be new high stress games that push your hardware though, so it helps to have a display and sync tech that is flexible.
The point I've made consistently here though, is that reviews like the PC Per one only talk about performance based on tests limited to 48Hz on the Freesync side of the equation, which in itself is too biased and premature to even be comprehensive. Not accounting for lack of proper monitors to test with is quite unprofessional, esp for a site that calls themselves PC "Perspective". If anything it's NOT a perspective viewpoint.
Last edited by a moderator: