Fury+Freesync

[GeorgeZoo]

Hi, i would like to ask if you suggest buying Asus MG279Q freesync, and fury non x, if the benches are better than 980 ti.

 

[GreiverBlade]

wait for the benchmark ... so ... because for the moment no one would know if it's worth

(altho freesync G-sync ... any real practical use beside the fact that they can charge a tad more on the same screen with one or another tech... )

just in case the contender for the 980Ti and the Titan X is the Fury X the non X is aimed at the 980

 

[GeorgeZoo]

wait for the benchmark ... so ... because for the moment no one would know if it's worth

(altho freesync G-sync ... any real practical use beside the fact that they can charge a tad more on the same screen with one or another tech... )

just in case the contender for the 980Ti and the Titan X is the Fury X the non X is aimed at the 980

Either way, it would be a much better choice if you consider performance/price + with help from freesync it would last enough years i guess

 

[xfia]

come on now dont under rate freesync and gsync.. i got half the cash set aside for one myself. they come well suited for gaming in every aspect on top of having smoother frame rates not only for sli and crossfire but single gpu's down to around 40fps on some but some can do lower. gsync is like 35 and freesync is like 9.. around there.

 

[GreiverBlade]

Either way, it would be a much better choice if you consider performance/price + with help from freesync it would last enough years i guess

ohhh if it's like my 290 and my Phillips 273-E3LHSB ... yes ... altho no freesync and still performing well (and cost around 50chf more than a 970 but ... it's a gpu + a monitor * re-joke * )

and you have a 970 ... why even bother its still a good card (and more recent than my 290 to add on it ... even if i wouldn't touch a 970 if they paid me to... *sarcasme and joke mixed* )

come on now dont under rate freesync and gsync.. i got half the cash set aside for one myself. they come well suited for gaming in every aspect on top of having smoother frame rates not only for sli and crossfire but single gpu's down to around 40fps on some but some can do lower. gsync is like 35 and freesync is like 9.. around there.

well ... they have a use ... but ... ahhh sorry i can't find any advantage (and i saw a Gsync + 980 at a friends place ... )
imho Gsync not worth the price to pay and Freesync ... hum not enough data to compute ... (for me )

 

[xfia]

ohhh if it's like my 290 and my Phillips 273-E3LHSB ... yes ... altho no freesync and still performing well (and cost around 50chf more than a 970 but ... it's a gpu + a monitor * re-joke * )

and you have a 970 ... why even bother its still a good card (and more recent than my 290 to add on it ... even if i wouldn't touch a 970 if they paid me to... *sarcasme and joke mixed* )


well ... they have a use ... but ... ahhh sorry i can't find any advantage (and i saw a Gsync + 980 at a friends place ... )
imho Gsync not worth the price to pay and Freesync ... hum not enough data to compute ... (for me )

its just your fps and refresh change together and zero input lag. cant also help you use higher settings while being smooth if you dont mind dropping down in frame rate a little in the most intense parts of a game.

 

[GhostRyder]

Hi, i would like to ask if you suggest buying Asus MG279Q freesync, and fury non x, if the benches are better than 980 ti.

Well either way I think you would end up with a good setup.

From my personal experience, G-Sync and Freesync work the same to my eyes (experienced on the Rog Swift + 780ti and the Acer 1440p 144hz Freesync + R9 290X). If your asking which to get, it will probably come down to price because if the rumors are true the Fury (Not X) will be at least around the performance of the GTX 980ti. Personally I would probably (if performance is at least close) get the R9 Fury and Freesync monitor over the G-Sync + GTX 980ti only because of price but that's just based on what I have seen myself.

For the cards, we will have to wait and see how they really turn out. However as far as G-Sync vs Freesync, you end up with the same experience to me at least.

 

[GeorgeZoo]

ohhh if it's like my 290 and my Phillips 273-E3LHSB ... yes ... altho no freesync and still performing well (and cost around 50chf more than a 970 but ... it's a gpu + a monitor * re-joke * )

and you have a 970 ... why even bother its still a good card (and more recent than my 290 to add on it ... even if i wouldn't touch a 970 if they paid me to... *sarcasme and joke mixed* )

I dont have my 970 anymore i sold it because of the 3.5+0.5GB issue, i dont like being fooled!

 

[GeorgeZoo]

Well either way I think you would end up with a good setup.

From my personal experience, G-Sync and Freesync work the same to my eyes (experienced on the Rog Swift + 780ti and the Acer 1440p 144hz Freesync + R9 290X). If your asking which to get, it will probably come down to price because if the rumors are true the Fury (Not X) will be at least around the performance of the GTX 980ti. Personally I would probably (if performance is at least close) get the R9 Fury and Freesync monitor over the G-Sync + GTX 980ti only because of price but that's just based on what I have seen myself.

For the cards, we will have to wait and see how they really turn out. However as far as G-Sync vs Freesync, you end up with the same experience to me at least.

So you seem to agree with my choices, if the performance is right. Do you know if the Asus MG279Q is the best choice for qhd freesync gaming??

 

[GreiverBlade]

its just your fps and refresh change together and zero input lag. cant also help you use higher settings while being smooth if you dont mind dropping down in frame rate a little in the most intense parts of a game.

yep you confirmed... i don't need it

I dont have my 970 anymore i sold it because of the 3.5+0.5GB issue, i dont like being fooled!

interesting reaction ... me like ...

well let's wait a bit on the review and then you will be fixed (for the screen i don't know since i use a 1080p 1ms 60hz atm )

tho @GhostRyder nailed the solution, pricewise i would go like him

 

[GhostRyder]

So you seem to agree with my choices, if the performance is right. Do you know if the Asus MG279Q is the best choice for qhd freesync gaming??

I have not used it yet but because its an IPS panel with a decent response it probably will be the best experience. My friend had the Acer TN 1440p 144hz Freesync monitor and it looks and works great so I expect the Asus will just look better than that. I would say pick from those two if you are interested.

Personally I am waiting for a good 4K Freesync monitor and to see what it is like.

 

[GeorgeZoo]

I have not used it yet but because its an IPS panel with a decent response it probably will be the best experience. My friend had the Acer TN 1440p 144hz Freesync monitor and it looks and works great so I expect the Asus will just look better than that. I would say pick from those two if you are interested.

Personally I am waiting for a good 4K Freesync monitor and to see what it is like.

But of course its expensive! I would prefer an IPS over a TN. But the acer hasnt yet arrive to my country and the Asus costs about 700e.
Of course you are waiting for 4K, you have 3way cf with 390X! Damn!

 

[Frag_Maniac]

I dont have my 970 anymore i sold it because of the 3.5+0.5GB issue, i dont like being fooled!

It's more of an overblown net nit pick that went viral than an actual "issue". Whether you think you were "fooled' or not, the benches speak louder than the complaints, which show no signs of it being a problem.

I'd be more worried about Nvidia's drivers right now than their hardware.

 

[xfia]

yep you confirmed... i don't need it


interesting reaction ... me like ...

well let's wait a bit on the review and then you will be fixed (for the screen i don't know since i use a 1080p 1ms 60hz atm )

tho @GhostRyder nailed the solution, pricewise i would go like him

well no i suppose you dont need it but if you want the latest and greatest then thats where its at. i mean it is pretty revolutionary in the since that without it your monitor is kinda stupid and your gpu just throws frames at it.

 

[GeorgeZoo]

It's more of an overblown net nit pick that went viral than an actual "issue". Whether you think you were "fooled' or not, the benches speak louder than the complaints, which show no signs of it being a problem.

I'd be more worried about Nvidia's drivers right now than their hardware.

I couldnt play at ultra settings at 1080p Cod:Aw or Far cry 4 due to that issue, the vram usage was pretty high. So i guess it wasnt <<an overblown net nit pick that went viral than an actual "issue">>. I dont care about the benches or numbers only, i care how these numbers will perform in game, and in game i had issues playing at full settings on a G1 variant! Overall it was a good card, but i've learned why nvidia had low price on the 970 from the beginning, of course they knew what they were doing and of course it wasnt a communication error between marketing and engineering teams. So as a person with common sense, i would like to believe that, i wont like being fooled over products that are different than "advertised".

 

[Ebo]

I have the R9 290 Oc from Sapphire and 1 of my friends has the GFX 970 and they are almost the same in preformance, some games go 1 way and others go the other, but its close.

Where ive seen the biggest difference is when we both play on 2560X1440 then my card runs more smoothly than his GFX 970. Like my AMD card can make use of all 4GB ram and has the bigger bus, so its not near as sentitive in higher resolutions as his GFX 970.

Can be a driver issue also, but both cards are great.

As bang for the buck......I think the new Fury(aircooled) can become a game changer, as of price/preformance.

 

[GeorgeZoo]

As bang for the buck......I think the new Fury(aircooled) can become a game changer, as of price/preformance.

Exactly my thoughts!

 

[GreiverBlade]

I have the R9 290 Oc from Sapphire and 1 of my friends has the GFX 970 and they are almost the same in preformance, some games go 1 way and others go the other, but its close.

Where ive seen the biggest difference is when we both play on 2560X1440 then my card runs more smoothly than his GFX 970. Like my AMD card can make use of all 4GB ram and has the bigger bus, so its not near as sentitive in higher resolutions as his GFX 970.

Can be a driver issue also, but both cards are great.

As bang for the buck......I think the new Fury(aircooled) can become a game changer, as of price/preformance.

Exactly my thoughts!

well ... now that i saw the Nano ...

the only cons ... is the size of the card ... i mean c'mon i have a 290 with a custom waterblock in a AIR 540 ... not some random mITX case ... but if the perf are here and the price is right : i don't care

that might even sway me for a freesync monitor, heck in the end even with the rebrand thing AMD did better than nvidia, to me (the 3xx/fury line bring more than the 9xx line imho)

well no i suppose you dont need it but if you want the latest and greatest then thats where its at. i mean it is pretty revolutionary in the since that without it your monitor is kinda stupid and your gpu just throws frames at it.

well with most games with a hardlock 60fps ... and also most of my games i play, i play them with Vsync ... so i average at 59/60fps all the time (except for game where i get a rock stable 100fps and above, for those i deactivate Vsync)

 

[GhostRyder]

well ... now that i saw the Nano ...

the only cons ... is the size of the card ... i mean c'mon i have a 290 with a custom waterblock in a AIR 540 ... not some random mITX case ... but if the perf are here and the price is right : i don't care

that might even sway me for a freesync monitor, heck in the end even with the rebrand thing AMD did better than nvidia, to me (the 3xx/fury line bring more than the 9xx line imho)



well with most games with a hardlock 60fps ... and also most of my games i play, i play them with Vsync ... so i average at 59/60fps all the time (except for game where i get a rock stable 100fps and above, for those i deactivate Vsync)

I was swayed as well, not because Freesync is better than Gsync mind you but because of how Freesync is implemented over Gsync. I would rather invest in it over the two just because its an industry standard and its functionality is the same as Gsync. Plus a little lower on the price helps!

Only thing missing is CFX support of Freesync which (besides the lack of the 4k variant) has stopped me from buying it until it is supported.

 

[xfia]

well ... now that i saw the Nano ...

the only cons ... is the size of the card ... i mean c'mon i have a 290 with a custom waterblock in a AIR 540 ... not some random mITX case ... but if the perf are here and the price is right : i don't care

that might even sway me for a freesync monitor, heck in the end even with the rebrand thing AMD did better than nvidia, to me (the 3xx/fury line bring more than the 9xx line imho)



well with most games with a hardlock 60fps ... and also most of my games i play, i play them with Vsync ... so i average at 59/60fps all the time (except for game where i get a rock stable 100fps and above, for those i deactivate Vsync)

looks like 390's are getting some sort of dynamic frame rate control probably competing on the level of adaptive vsync.. not perfect but better than vsync. hope our 290's get it too. seen someone mention we may be able to bios flash and get it along with the compression and a few other things if they are the same gcn version but there may be a prob if they removed 4gb support.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The size of the Nano is a huge advantage though because an AIB can replace the HSF with just one big heatsink covering the card and move a very large blower fan off the card pushing air across it and out. It can suck air not only from above the card but also below it.

Nano is all win. I'm not sure how they managed to do it (other than HBM) but I'm glad they did.

 

[xfia]

The size of the Nano is a huge advantage though because an AIB can replace the HSF with just one big heatsink covering the card and move a very large blower fan off the card pushing air across it and out. It can suck air not only from above the card but also below it.

Nano is all win. I'm not sure how they managed to do it (other than HBM) but I'm glad they did.

i have seen a few recent slides that show what they call the high density library.. im sure you know increasing transistor density and gaining better performance per watt. 50 percent this time with furry and was 80 percent with kaveri and carrizo should be around the same since im pretty sure it has around the same ipc increase as kaveri did.
i guess the question is how much more can they optimize 28nm and what is the right next step.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I think Fiji is the last of the 28nm surprises from AMD and NVIDIA. They're going to roll out the updated architectures to midrange and then sit on their hands until 16 or 14 nm are available. Spending more money on 28nm is a bad idea for both of them.

 

[GeorgeZoo]

I think Fiji is the last of the 28nm surprises from AMD and NVIDIA. They're going to roll out the updated architectures to midrange and then sit on their hands until 16 or 14 nm are available. Spending more money on 28nm is a bad idea for both of them.

Yeah maybe, but when this is gonna happen? in mid 2016? until then tou can sell them

 

[Frag_Maniac]

I couldnt play at ultra settings at 1080p Cod:Aw or Far cry 4 due to that issue, the vram usage was pretty high. So i guess it wasnt <<an overblown net nit pick that went viral than an actual "issue">>. I dont care about the benches or numbers only, i care how these numbers will perform in game, and in game i had issues playing at full settings on a G1 variant! Overall it was a good card, but i've learned why nvidia had low price on the 970 from the beginning, of course they knew what they were doing and of course it wasnt a communication error between marketing and engineering teams. So as a person with common sense, i would like to believe that, i wont like being fooled over products that are different than "advertised".

It's not just benches, most customer testimonials and video proof say otherwise. Just because you yourself claim Ultra isn't doable in those games on that card, doesn't prove it to be universally true, or the card, or it's VRAM config. There are a myriad of things that affect PC gaming, from every piece of hardware, to game and system file condition to other programs on the sys.


Far Cry 4 on Ultra with 970 and lesser CPU at 1080p60.

Far Cry 4 on Ultra with 970 and same CPU

CoD AW on Ultra with 970 and same CPU at 1080p60

It's like this, it's easy to see that when the vast majority of people say and show otherwise, the few complaining are an anomaly and have yet to prove any claimed performance issues are actually caused by the 3.5+512 VRAM.

You'd be calling credible bench testers like W1zzard a liar to say their benches are misleading. You need to look at what's causing it on your end, IF there really IS such a problem. I've seen a guy on a forum claim certain games were unplayable, and all it was was a bit of connection related lag in MP, which only resulted in barely perceptible hitching as he spawned into the map.