• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

FreeSync or G-Sync or both?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 6693
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 6693

Guest
Hi,

I am on the way to buy a new monitor (2560 x 1440) (under 5ms Gray-to-Gray) and min. 120 Hz.
I have a GTX 970 - so is it better to buy a G-Sync monitor? Or is there a monitor that has both technologies?

I don't know if my next GPU will be an AMD or nVidia - so could it be better to by a neutral monitor with 144 Hz (No FreeSync and no G-Sync)

And how does a monitor with FreeSync behave on nVidia, or G-Sync with an AMD GPU?

Suggestions?
 
You need an Nvidia GPU to work with Gsync.

Or you need an AMD GPU (or any other GPU with the appropriate driver) to run a Freesync monitor.

So you're stuck on one technology or the other at the moment.

Freesync monitors are cheaper- Nvidia take a substantial cut for their proprietry tech whereas AMD are giving Freesync away.
So you aren't really out of pocket if you go for the Freesync option even if you are using a Nvidia GPU. Just it will only work as a regular monitor.

I've got a gsynch monitor and the tech does work exactly as advertised. Your 970 would be a great card to match with a gsync monitor IMO.
 
the way g-sync seems to works for me is it enables smoother running at lower fps.. at 1440 your 970 is not going to be banging out high frames rates.. in fact it will struggle..

with a more powerful card just a 144 hrz monitor without dynamic syncing does a good enough job..

beastie has said it about right..

trog
 
I see you have an Acer and an ASUS - the ASUS being slightly more expensive (in Denmark that is) .... trog you say my GPU will struggle,
would it be better to buy a 1920 x 1080 144 Hz G-Sync monitor?

And i assume that there is no such monitor with both FreeSync and G-Sync - Google cant find it.....what a shame
 
VulkanBros said:
And i assume that there is no such monitor with both FreeSync and G-Sync - Google cant find it.....what a shame
Click to expand...

Correct - not going to happen. Nvidia wouldn't want it to happen and despite what AMD folksies say - freesync is just as proprietary in that you need a specific GCN arch card to run it.
 
VulkanBros said:
Hi,

I am on the way to buy a new monitor (2560 x 1440) (under 5ms Gray-to-Gray) and min. 120 Hz.
I have a GTX 970 - so is it better to buy a G-Sync monitor? Or is there a monitor that has both technologies?

I don't know if my next GPU will be an AMD or nVidia - so could it be better to by a neutral monitor with 144 Hz (No FreeSync and no G-Sync)

And how does a monitor with FreeSync behave on nVidia, or G-Sync with an AMD GPU?

Suggestions?
Click to expand...
Currently Nvidia only supports G-Sync and AMD only supports Freesync (also known as Adaptive-Sync).

With the G-sync, its an added card into the monitor that is only workable (And probably will only ever be) on an Nvidia card that supports G-Sync.
With Freesync, it is AMD proprietary as well however the tech uses the monitors Adaptive Sync scaler to handle it. So while the name Freesync and software is AMD, the scaler tech can be implemented by anyone and even (Supposidly) Intel is working to support it and there is more of a chance Nvidia will support it versus AMD supporting G-Sync (Of course I am not saying its a better choice, just saying its more likely than the other way around the way things are).

I have an Acer Freesync monitor and its great, though I have also used Asus Rog Swift which is just as great a tech. In both cases, I find them on equal footing with the base range being better on G-Sync currently than Freesync.

If you want to use G-Sync or Freesync where they shine which is anywhere above 60hz your going to need more GPU power (Though at 1080p 144hz you will probably be ok but your looking at 1440p 144hz). I would say if you want to keep the card for awhile, G-Sync is the way to go since that's what you can run now and just add another GTX 970 in the future and be just fine with performance. Or wait and see what the new cards bring and decide from there. Freesync generally does not add as much to the price as a G-Sync monitor so if you buy one your probably going to want to keep the G-Sync monitor for awhile and stick with Nvidia versus with Freesync its not as expensive an up charge which may benefit you in the long run if you switch sides (Or if things change).
 
Thats the thing - I dont want to be bound to nVidia or AMD GPU´s - I want freedom ;-)
- if my next build would be an AMD GPU and I have purchased a G-Sync monitor - that would be like tossing money out of the window.....
 
Honestly owning Freesync monitor I think it's just "gimmick" The monitor is 144Hz so why would I need Freesync if I'm already doing over 60FPS as it is. It only applies when your frame limited. Set to 144hz in never tears regardless if it's 30FPS or 300...
 
VulkanBros said:
I see you have an Acer and an ASUS - the ASUS being slightly more expensive (in Denmark that is) .... trog you say my GPU will struggle,
would it be better to buy a 1920 x 1080 144 Hz G-Sync monitor?
Click to expand...
Or a better card... for 2560x1440, I would be GTX 980 or 290x and higher on the AMD side. The 970 won't last long at 2560x1440 with IQ settings on high or greater.
 
VulkanBros said:
Thats the thing - I dont want to be bound to nVidia or AMD GPU´s - I want freedom ;-)
- if my next build would be an AMD GPU and I have purchased a G-Sync monitor - that would be like tossing money out of the window.....
Click to expand...
Here is an equivalent (Well at least close from what I saw available currently, maybe better selections out there) set of monitors with one having G-Sync and the other having Freesync.

Freesync (I own this monitor)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009769

G-Sync
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009848

Basically there is a premium for those monitors with G-Sync and not as much on Freesync. If you really don't want to be tide down I would get a Freesync since the price difference for a 1440p 144hz monitor is not as much with or without (Its actually getting a little more difficult to find one without those techs installed now). But if you want to experience it, get the G-Sync monitor and just stick with Nvidia or sell the monitor once you switch.
 
VulkanBros said:
I see you have an Acer and an ASUS - the ASUS being slightly more expensive (in Denmark that is) .... trog you say my GPU will struggle,
would it be better to buy a 1920 x 1080 144 Hz G-Sync monitor?

And i assume that there is no such monitor with both FreeSync and G-Sync - Google cant find it.....what a shame
Click to expand...


i think so and i have a nice none g-sync to spare.. 24 inch 1080 acer predator 144 hrz.. its not very old bought last summer and would suit your 970 card well.. let me know if you are interested.. i can post it to you.. you can have it for £100 plus shipping..

trog
 
If you are going to buy a new monitor, DO NOT compromise it and buy it for the 970 you have now (think smarter, think ahead). Typically a monitor is something you keep for a few years. GPU's come and go, but that monitor will stay.

If you invest in a monitor, get the resolution you want (1440p is a good balance on eye candy, but not needing TOO much power to see it).
 
Cybrnook2002 said:
If you are going to buy a new monitor, DO NOT compromise it and buy it for the 970 you have now (think smarter, think ahead). Typically a monitor is something you keep for a few years. GPU's come and go, but that monitor will stay.

If you invest in a monitor, get the resolution you want (1440p is a good balance on eye candy, but not needing TOO much power to see it).
Click to expand...
OP said they were looking at 1440p monitors.
 
In all honesty I wouldn't worry about buying either. I feel proprietary technologies like this generally fail. Look at PhysxX. It was cool, it was a nice feature, but how many games actually supported it? And now, if I'm not wrong, PhysX is basically dead. Look at AMD's Mantle. Great technology, worked/helped where applicable... but it didn't exactly take the gaming world by storm. I will, however, credit it with somehow contributing/being incorporated into the development of DirectX 12, as I've read.

In short, just buy a monitor and enjoy it. If you must get freesync or g-sync, then get g-sync. Again, I don't like the idea of buying into proprietary tech, but given the choice of one or the other, especially in your situation, I'll take g-sync. You already got a GTX 970, so you can already use it. And, though I don't know what the future holds, I generally prefer Nvidia over AMD. Their cards since the 5xx series, or at least the 6xx series, have been beating AMD in both performance and power consumption, overall, so if I were planning a new GPU purchase I'd probably be looking at Nvidia anyway.
 
G-Sync and FreeSync are the superior in every single way successors to Vsync. Everyone wanted to love Vsync but the input lag it introduces just makes it pointless, so the chances of G-sync and FreeSync going away anytime soon are pretty much nil. Another reason it is not going to go away is exactly why the OP is hesitant... it locks you in. AMD is very smart to make FreeSync free for monitor manufacturers because as Cybernook2002 said... graphics cards come and go but monitors almost always stay. So you buy a FreeSync monitor and guess what your next video card purchase is most likely going to be? Right. But they can get away with it because the tech is freaking amazing. My previous monitor did nothing but screen tear in every single game. I love it, its a great monitor but the screen tearing is super annoying. G-Sync removes that and the 144Hz refresh rate keeps it buttery smooth.

I'm currently driving my 2560x1440 G-Sync monitor with a GTX970 and so far I keep every setting maxed out in games. Now I haven't downloaded Tomb Raider yet so that may change but I'm pretty sure the games I can't max out will still have high quality settings. I do plan on moving this card to my backup machine when the Pascal cards release, but a 970 can drive a 1440 monitor at this current time. I most definitely would not buy a 1080 monitor because monitors are big purchases that last awhile. Don't buy one for your current graphics card but for the future. Obviously you want to make sure your current card can drive it but don't stay with 1080p just because you have a 970.


While you will see pretty much all monitor manufacturers have a FreeSync monitor it looks like Samsung and LG are making the top tier FreeSync monitors. Neither have a G-Sync monitor so if you like those brands you may want to consider FreeSync and AMD. Acer and Asus are making the top tier G-Sync monitors. Dell and BenQ seem to have 1 or 2 models of each so they are probably riding the fence but neither have a standout model. It's good to know who's going to bed with who before you make a decision. Nothing wrong with holding out either. Honestly if I didn't need/want a monitor so badly right now I would have waited to see what 2016 brings. That said I'm quite happy with the Acer XB271HU.

While I'm not happy about being locked in the way I see it is whether you go Nvidia or AMD you are still going to get a great card and the FPS difference is rarely big enough to go crazy over. Out of all the variables in computer parts the one constant is the ever raging battle of Nvidia vs AMD is always close. Lot of people make it sound like its a greater difference than it really is but truth is they trade blows. No card totally dominates at all games.
 
Beastie said:
You need an Nvidia GPU to work with Gsync.
Or you need an AMD GPU (or any other GPU with the appropriate driver) to run a Freesync monitor.
So you're stuck on one technology or the other at the moment.
Freesync monitors are cheaper- Nvidia take a substantial cut for their proprietry tech whereas AMD are giving Freesync away.
So you aren't really out of pocket if you go for the Freesync option even if you are using a Nvidia GPU. Just it will only work as a regular monitor.
I've got a gsynch monitor and the tech does work exactly as advertised. Your 970 would be a great card to match with a gsync monitor IMO.
Click to expand...
Reason Nvidia takes a cut, is inside that monitor is a module Nvidia made and prefected. They also did the leg work testing pretty much Every LCD panel to find out which ones react well to VRR (varible refresh rates) with minimum to no very little ghosting. AMD on other hand their way yes it is free but it is left on to the monitor makers to do all the work to make it work right like it needs to, there are a few things they can't do like frame doubleing which g-sync does in the monitor where freesync will rely on the video card to do that. So with that added cost people love to point out was cause nvidia did the work for monitor companies to have to do almost 0 work cept put it in the monitor. Freesync was bad ghosting wise when you started to push it and when got below the minimum of the monitor it would tear. Though Monitor makers have worked on ghosting which its still not at g-sync level yet but its gotten better then it was.
 
Radeon Technologies Group is pushing AMD FreeSync™ Technology even further in 2016

yeah..:rolleyes: freesync is apart of the adaptive sync ecosystem that was in part developed by amd for free use by anyone in the industry. yes it was meant for nv too but they are picky about using amd tech that doesnt make them a pile of cash.
you can get plenty of real information on all the industry standards that amd works on with microsoft samsung apple jadec etc..
the 970 starts falling off at 1440p in vram limiting situations.
i would sell the 970 and get a nano with a 1440p freesysnc and add another nano down the road for max eye candy.. could even go with 1080p eyefinity or 1440p ultra wide or 4k. crossfire will handle it but 1440p eyefinity is not really for gamers imo.. unless your showing off what you can do on normalish settings or less demanding games.
 
It was developed by VESA (they were behind VGA, DVI, and DisplayPort). FreeSync is AMD's adapation of the standard (which they also extended to HDMI) where G-Sync is entirely proprietary. G-Sync's days are numbered where adapative sync is just starting.

G-sync may be technically better now but the cost is prohibitive and the number of manufacturers for G-sync monitors will fade to nothing over the next several years.


As noted by other posters, adaptive sync only really matters in the 30-60 fps range. You really won't see an advantage if your running something that exceeds that (at least not from adaptive sync).


Having a GTX 970, your only option is G-sync. NVIDIA hardware presently doesn't support the VESA adaptive sync standard. If you're dead set on getting adaptive sync, I'd wait for the 14/16nm AMD cards (coming this year) and a FreeSync monitor.
 
FordGT90Concept said:
It was developed by VESA (they were behind VGA, DVI, and DisplayPort). FreeSync is AMD's adapation of the standard (which they also extended to HDMI) where G-Sync is entirely proprietary. G-Sync's days are numbered where adapative sync is just starting.

G-sync may be technically better now but the cost is prohibitive and the number of manufacturers for G-sync monitors will fade to nothing over the next several years.


As noted by other posters, adaptive sync only really matters in the 30-60 fps range. You really won't see an advantage if your running something that exceeds that (at least not from adaptive sync).


Having a GTX 970, your only option is G-sync. NVIDIA hardware presently doesn't support the VESA adaptive sync standard. If you're dead set on getting adaptive sync, I'd wait for the 14/16nm AMD cards (coming this year) and a FreeSync monitor.
Click to expand...
yeah they have been working with vesa for what 20 years or more.. it doesnt matter if freesync shuts off at higher frame rates on monitors by oem choice and there is logic behind it that keeps price down. like ulmb plus you can use vsync at the same time.
 
Thank you all for shedding some light on this subject - my colleague says he has a spare GTX 970 (MSI) that he might sell me (he got a 980ti)
so i think i will go the SLI way and wait a few month before i decide what monitor to buy......
 
I'll probably just wait this out and see who will reign supreme.
Pretty sure Nvidia will try to milk G-Sync as long as possible and you can't really blame 'em. Right now they have the bigger GPU market share and the superior VRR technology. The outcome of the next GPU generation war will probably play a big role of the outcome of the VRR tech war. But I'd say we won't see a definitive winner until the 2nd iteration of Adaptive Sync.

My guess is we won't see a 2nd iteration of G-Sync. Nvidia is smart when it comes to business and they will adopt Adaptive Sync when the window of opportunity to make some sweet $ with G-Sync is about to close.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Edit: I myself am waiting for better monitor offerings (not happy with the current options) and Pascal + Polaris.

I have high hopes on Samsung's new 144Hz offerings and will also wait for Dell's U3415 successor and LG's new offerings.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top