• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Does Gsync/Freesync affect your GPU buying?

Does Adaptive Sync affect your GPU buying choices?

  • Yes, I buy factoring in this feature.

    Votes: 27 84.4%

  • No, I buy without considering Adaptive Sync tech.

    Votes: 5 15.6%
  • Total voters
    32
jackstar7

jackstar7

Lifer
I'm just curious now that this tech has been out for a while if people have chosen to care about this particular feature.

The people who own and enjoy this feature seem enthusiastic and it seems to be featured in more monitors, even at 4K res.

So is it a deal-breaker/maker?

I currently have no monitors that use the feature, but I think I'll lean towards Vega if it actually performs because Freesync is something I will be looking at for a future monitor of 4K+ res, and the additional charges for Gsync haven't proven to me to be worth the expense.

But whichever tech lines up with your desires, does it actually affect the GPU you buy?
 
I have a Freesync monitor because budget-wise, I don't want to spend the premium on a G-Sync model. And I can't go back to a non-Freesync monitor. Like living in the snow belt, once you have AWD on your car, it's hard to go back. I've bought both AMD and Nvidia GPUs over the years, but having two little ones, I prefer to spend the money on my kids over tech these days. Doesn't leave a whole lot of money left so I usually pick Radeon cards these days as they are more the affordable option.
 
Not at all. I don't have a monitor that uses either solution and I don't anticipate upgrading until 4K gaming becomes much more affordable.
 
bought a used 290 to get freesync working on my 29" LG ultrawide.

Might switch back to nvidia when I switch screens agian, or if they start supporting adaptive sync, not planning to upgrade either anytime soon though.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't have bought a new gsync monitor as they are overpriced. I bought my 4k gsync factory refurbished.

On the other hand, many 4k freesync displays are priced quite reasonably.

At the end of the day, the games I play favor NV heavily. I was forced to go green.
 
It matters for me.

If you have a modest budget I think the only way to go is AMD. Not only is the 470/480 a better performance/$ than the 1050/1060, AMD Freesync monitors are much cheaper than GSync. Monitors with GSync carry a premium of about 30%.

Buy a 1080/144 Freesync monitor and enjoy a great, smooth gaming experience. You'll be able to take advantage of older games and run at high refresh and also be able to game with newer games far longer as you can bear FPS in the 40s for periods of time and still have an enjoyable experience. To me, AMD is the no-brainer for 1080 gaming at mid to high settings.
 
nope. i have an extremely nice monitor that doesn't support it and it'd cost me a boatload of money to get one to replace it that does. and even then it looks like none of the comparable sync-enabled screens go over 60 hz anyway.
 
jackstar7 said:
I'm just curious now that this tech has been out for a while if people have chosen to care about this particular feature.

The people who own and enjoy this feature seem enthusiastic and it seems to be featured in more monitors, even at 4K res.

So is it a deal-breaker/maker?

I currently have no monitors that use the feature, but I think I'll lean towards Vega if it actually performs because Freesync is something I will be looking at for a future monitor of 4K+ res, and the additional charges for Gsync haven't proven to me to be worth the expense.

But whichever tech lines up with your desires, does it actually affect the GPU you buy?
Click to expand...

100% agree. I would be day 1 buying the 1080 Ti if it wasn't for the gsync extra cost. Now im inclined to wait and see if Vega is close, because i'd take a small performance loss in raw FPS to gain Freesync. Since seeing it in person, it really dramatically affects the experience. It feels like getting 80% of the benefits of a lot higher FPS without actually needing the grunt. I just cant justify spending even more money than im already spending for gsync
 
Not so far, but I have a nice older Dell 24" that does not support either.

I'm not on a budget so if I had to buy a GPU and monitor today it would probably be a GTX 1080ti and gsync.
 
I bought a 4K 30 inch Freesync monitor.
So it's the only reason I'm still exclusive to AMD. Otherwise, if I hadn't been planning on Freesync, I'd leave AMD already.
I honestly hate it. The only reason I thought I'd like it was Freesync + Vega = Gsync + GTX 1080Ti.
Doubt I could tell the difference.
But waiting for AMD is so behind on features/release dates that I'm growing tired of it.

If I wanted midrange gaming setups though, Freesync would win no contest.
 
I bought Freesync because I don't want to get stuck having to stay with one brand. And Freesync is just as good but cheaper.
 
Another votes for "Freesync". For starters I like supporting open standards, plus I buy a monitor for the long term & there's no way I can see Adaptive Sync disappearing now that it has traction. If nVidia refuses to support the standards then I'm fine just buying AMD.

For the record, wording of the vote is ambiguous. "Adaptive Sync" is the standard, "Freesync" is AMD's implementation of "Adaptive Sync" with extra stuff like LFC. I think the question should be worded with "variable refresh rate technology" which is an umbrella term (unless I completely misunderstood and the question was basically a YES for Freesync).
 
I don't have any experience with freesync so I can't say anything good or bad about it. I do have a 144HZ gsync monitor though, and its great. At first I wasn't impressed with Gsync, but then games started coming out where I was seeing frame rate dips into the 40s and gsync made it seem like that never happened. Gsync does carry a price premium, but in my opinion it is worth it. I tend to go with Nvidia cards anyway.
 
To some extent, because of future proofing my GPU.

But right now there doesn't exist a monitor that I meets my needs (minimum 30", 1600p or 2160p with 120hz, DP 1.3+).
 
Doesn't affect my buying at all. If AMD releases something faster than my current vid card I'd buy one and then buy a new freesync monitor to go with it. I see no reason to limit my choices and performance expectations.
 
I ended up getting a Predator X34 for basically $400 and have zero regrets going G-Sync. I'm sold on variable refresh technology and if AMD wins me back, I know my wife will love getting the X34 as I'd probably get myself something similar with FreeSync.

If you're pigeon holed into a side because of the tech, I can understand. It's just a must nowadays (with high refresh rate too boot - win/win).

I'd have to vote no to the overall question of the poll, as I feel the tech doesn't limit me. I own both a G-Sync and FreeSync monitor and can swap at any given moment (of course I'd most likely upgrade the FreeSync monitor we have for something bigger haha.)
 
The biggest change that happen when I got Gsync(1440p 144hz) and FS(1440p 75hz) is I don't see the need to upgrade as often. I use to upgrade GPUs every year cause new games would feel choppy if mins were below 60fps or see stutter when framerates varied greatly (ex 140 to 80). To me it's choppiness or stutter that gets me out of the game and with adaptive sync I just rarely see it anymore even if game dips to around 45fps. Due to that I haven't been tempted to upgrade yet (Fury X and TitanXm so mid 2015) which is nice to the wallet.
 
Given that I have a 1440p 144hz Gsync monitor, yup. I'll be team green for a long time. If AMD had a decent GPU out earlier this year when I upgraded my entire system I would have bought an AMD GPU and Freesync monitor but unfortunately they're didn't so I'll be on team green until I make the jump to 4k and that's at least three years out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top