|
It sucks, but there's no way I'm paying an additional $200 for a comparable monitor with Gsync
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
Enos Cabell posted:Put the money into your display if you can, it makes way more sense long term. I'd shoot for a 1440p @ 144 g-sync display now, and cut what corners you need to on the video card. It feels like the pricing will not budge on this tier of monitor. Ideally I would go for a 1440p @ 144 Hz IPS G-Sync, but they all cost in excess of $700. Feels like they have sat at that price for years now, or maybe I am just misremembering. Why has TN panel technology come down so much, yet IPS remains expensive?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Hooplah posted:It sucks, but there's no way I'm paying an additional $200 for a comparable monitor with Gsync You should though. G-sync is to monitors like SSDs are to HDDs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
intel 8700k is out in 2 weeks and nvidia gtx2080 is out really really soon now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:You should though. G-sync is to monitors like SSDs are to HDDs. I mean, you should get *sync if at all possible, but that's a bit of a stretch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:You should though. G-sync is to monitors like SSDs are to HDDs. G-sync is nice but I don't think it even comes close to the difference between a mechanical drive and a solid state one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Michael Jackson posted:nvidia gtx2080 is out really really soon now. The rumors dont seem to point to 2080/1180 that soon. 4+ months seems to be the current guess, but it is just a guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Truga posted:I mean, you should get *sync if at all possible, but that's a bit of a stretch. Truga posted:I mean, you should get *sync if at all possible, but that's a bit of a stretch. I disagree.To each their own on this one I guess. I know I couldn't go back to a non-gsync monitor for gaming, much the same way I wouldn't go back to HDDs as the os/boot drive 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Cygni posted:The rumors dont seem to point to 2080/1180 that soon. 4+ months seems to be the current guess, but it is just a guess. Didn't they straight up say that it wouldn't be this calendar year?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Cygni posted:The rumors dont seem to point to 2080/1180 that soon. 4+ months seems to be the current guess, but it is just a guess. i quoted some guy that keep trying to convince my friend to not buy 1080ti and kaby lake because nvidia is bad (they dont support dx12 much) and amd is good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
nvidia is eeeeviiiiiillll
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:30
|
|
Siets posted:It feels like the pricing will not budge on this tier of monitor. Ideally I would go for a 1440p @ 144 Hz IPS G-Sync, but they all cost in excess of $700. Feels like they have sat at that price for years now, or maybe I am just misremembering. Why has TN panel technology come down so much, yet IPS remains expensive? Both TN and IPS have come down in price over time, TN is just much cheaper to manufacture so it will always be cheaper overall. IMO, getting a monitor with adaptive sync is a really good idea because monitors tend to remain relevant a lot longer than video cards, if I stretch I'll get 4 years out of a video card, a lot of people replace them every two years since GPU tech advances so quickly, monitors advance very slowly in comparison, a high end monitor you buy today will still be pretty high end five years later and still very nice eight years later, assuming the monitor does not die on you in that time just due to capacitors failing and so on. Adaptive sync also goes a long way to compensate for a lower end video card, so if you skimp on the video card that does not hurt you nearly as much as it would with a monitor without that technology and when you do replace the GPU you still get a better experience than you would with the cheaper monitor and an older high end card.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Hooplah posted:This is also good to know, thanks. I wasn't sure which to prioritize between refresh rate and resolution. Yes in most shooters you can get over 100 fps as long as you can dial down a setting or two at 1440p 144hz. Like for instance Prey I am pushing well over 100 FPS with everything maxed except AA. When overclocked a 980 ti is basically at the level of a 1070 except $100 cheaper. To reach the next performance tier you would have to jump to a 1080.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:I disagree.To each their own on this one I guess. I know I couldn't go back to a non-gsync monitor for gaming, much the same way I wouldn't go back to HDDs as the os/boot drive The problem is that *sync's benefits are when you're slumming down below maximum frames, and for the $150-200 premium you're paying on GSync you could jump up a tier on your graphics card and not be slumming below maximum frames. And with every successive graphics card upgrade you should be less likely to be slumming otherwise it's not an upgrade. If money is no object then sure, bling it out all you want, but when you're on a budget I think there's better ways to spend your dollars.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
isndl posted:The problem is that *sync's benefits are when you're slumming down below maximum frames, and for the $150-200 premium you're paying on GSync you could jump up a tier on your graphics card and not be slumming below maximum frames. And with every successive graphics card upgrade you should be less likely to be slumming otherwise it's not an upgrade. Like I said to each their own. I'm running @ 4k so Gsync is of incredible benefit to me. I'd still recommend it for 1440p gaming on a 1060/1070 card. You can crank everything to ultra and still get very fluid gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
I played some Battlefield 1 with DX 12 on and noticed that even with gsync the huge fps dips still feel like garbage and stuttery. Gsync doesnt fix poorly optimized games or bad DX 12 implementation. Its nice to have but if youre locked over 100 fps consistently with a strong gpu. Gsync isnt that noticable. Edit: To the poster above. In your use case gsync is real valuable because 1) youre running 4k which is really difficult to drive 2) youre running at 60 hz not 144 hz. Green Gloves fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Sep 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:I disagree.To each their own on this one I guess. I know I couldn't go back to a non-gsync monitor for gaming, much the same way I wouldn't go back to HDDs as the os/boot drive I think a better analogy would be to dual-core CPUs. Remember the first time you played a demanding game on a dual core, and something started happening in the background, and your game ***didn't*** hitch for a second like it normally would have on a single core? It almost certainly didn't actually run any better at peak since most games didn't really use additional cores for quite a few more years, but it was just a smoother experience. To me that's G-Sync (and presumably Freesync). They don't change the world, but they make things smoother. SSDs are a total night and day, utter technical morons can tell the difference, resurrects ancient computers sort of thing. I will never go back to single core (hell at this point I'm generally avoiding anything less than quad) just like I'll never go back to loading OS/apps off of spinning rust, but they're on entirely different levels of how much of a difference they make.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 19:25
|
|
isndl posted:The problem is that *sync's benefits are when you're slumming down below maximum frames, and for the $150-200 premium you're paying on GSync you could jump up a tier on your graphics card and not be slumming below maximum frames. And with every successive graphics card upgrade you should be less likely to be slumming otherwise it's not an upgrade. Except new games come out, new games that require better and better GPUs, if you spend extra now on *sync you don't need to spend an extra $200 every two years to have the best of the best GPU to drive new games at the max refresh because dropping below max refresh does not really hurt you too much.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Except new games come out, new games that require better and better GPUs, if you spend extra now on *sync you don't need to spend an extra $200 every two years to have the best of the best GPU to drive new games at the max refresh because dropping below max refresh does not really hurt you too much. It doesnt hurt as much but I dont think you want to play 60 fps on 144hz for a long time even though *sync does help. 60 is still 60 just a little smoother. *Sync doesnt magically turn 60 fps into 100. If you know the latest twitch shooter isnt going to run at the fps you want youre still going to want to upgrade anyway. Green Gloves fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Sep 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Yes, but "twitch shooter" is not the only game type out there? Most of them are optimized beyond belief or intentionally run at low settings. The point is you can get a card that runs twitch shooter at the desired FPS but not giant open-world RPG with the huge vistas. Gsync would be far preferable than not if you're running through towns in Witcher, which always will dip below just running in the field.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Counterpoint: The Gsync-tax I paid for my monitor (not really, because I got it on a 200€ discount in the first place) helped to skip the 10x0 generation of cards. I'm still on a 970GTX at 3440x1440 and I don't mind it at all. I was - and am still - blown away by how smooth games run at this resolution. Gsync (well, any *sync) will prolong the life of your GPU by at least one generation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Many people describe the impact of GSync as more or less equivalent to the difference of bumping up one level of GPU. That is, swapping a 1070 for a 1080, or 1080 for a 1080Ti. It of course isn't going to change 60Hz into 144Hz, but it'll make 60 FPS and 75 FPS look pretty similar. To that end, your $200 "investment" now means you can ride the x70 train instead of the x80 train and save $150-$200 off each generation, which can add up to notable savings if you're the type of person who upgrades with every cycle. On the other hand, if you're the type of person who upgrades once every 4-5 years, you might be better off going for the better GPU now on the grounds that when you're ready to upgrade again in 2023 there'll almost certainly be much better monitor tech available for cheap(ish), as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
The economics of GSync are fairly ugly at 1080p but if you're dropping $400 on a high-end IPS monitor anyway the extra $150 for GSync is worth it. I would expect it once you hit the $1000+ tier. FreeSync is fine on paper but most of the cheaper monitors have really lovely implementations that don't cover the sync ranges that you actually need. And that's even true of some of the really expensive ones too, tbh. Good hardware and quality engineering cost money, but with GSync you do get exactly what it says on the tin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Some freesync monitors like the XF270Hu and the Nixeus have pretty stellar implementation of freesync and I will work well with midrange AMD cards like the RX 580. If you just want to pay midrange prices AMD is fine in that area. Its just the high end area theyre awful. If you want *sync, stay in mid range and save some $ you can go that route as well. The bubble is popping atm too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Except new games come out, new games that require better and better GPUs, if you spend extra now on *sync you don't need to spend an extra $200 every two years to have the best of the best GPU to drive new games at the max refresh because dropping below max refresh does not really hurt you too much. Newer games generally don't scale so quickly that a top end card from last generation is insufficient, there's often very minimal loss of fidelity dropping from Ultra to High yet significant framerate improvement, and the difference between 144fps and 100fps is a lot harder to notice than 90fps and 45fps. Newer games that actually push the envelope of PC graphics are also fairly rare, given the typical publisher demands of multi-platform releases. I'm also reminded of the anecdote from a goon who raved about the improvement GSync was until he noticed he never enabled it. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
isndl posted:Newer games generally don't scale so quickly that a top end card from last generation is insufficient, there's often very minimal loss of fidelity dropping from Ultra to High yet significant framerate improvement, and the difference between 144fps and 100fps is a lot harder to notice than 90fps and 45fps. Newer games that actually push the envelope of PC graphics are also fairly rare, given the typical publisher demands of multi-platform releases. Thats why I dont mind staying one generation behind. With every new generation release the top end card from the previous gen start getting these fire sales on the used market since everyone has to have the new thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Give me adaptive sync or give me death. It's really the loving best never having to deal with tearing ever again and it's so drat smooth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
I'm like one of those crazy AMD people who refuses to get good things out of moral obligation. I don't like the business practices of Gsync so I don't get a Gsync monitor. I think if Nvidia supported Freesync so everyone got a chance to play I'd probably buy a Gsync monitor for the better experience anyways, but because of them freezing out everyone who doesn't want to spend that much I don't want any part of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
AMD GPUs are in such a poor spot in the market I bet Nvidia could open up Gsync to work with anything and hardly lose any sales but buy a lot of good will. I dont know if its really that simple though, and I doubt it ranks high on any list of priorities for them to even think about
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
I don't think that's what he meant. When most people  GSYNC usually what they want is for Nvidia cards to support Freesync, not AMD cards to support Gsync. As annoying as it is to pay extra for Gsync, it's not like it's a technology that suffers depreciation over time, so if AMD does release some god card that you want to buy you can always swap your Gsync monitor for a Freesync monitor of relative value that will be bigger/better/whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I don't think that's what he meant. When most people Woops yeah I was thinking about that wrong. That would indeed be cool of them
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
yeah i want freesync for my nvidia gpu. There are a lot of really nice freesync monitors out there without a gsync alternative. Like that 49" ultra ultra widescreen from samsung and soon philips Fauxtool fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Sep 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Did you get the curved or the flat? I've been thinking of doing the same sort of thing, but I'm not sure what geometry I want. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3372494&pagenumber=576#post476443339
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
1gnoirents posted:Woops yeah I was thinking about that wrong. That would indeed be cool of them It'd be "cool" but it's never going to happen. I tire of the YouTubers going on about Nvidia rear end-loving them because they won't support Insert Open Source AMD Tech Here. There's really only two players here, so if one of them simply refuses to adopt things and makes their own in-house variant there's not much benefit to open sourcing in the first place. If it weren't for the fact that AMD is so bad at software, I'd suggest they should just stop doing that and join Nvidia in eroding the PC's open platform by increasing reliance on one GPU brand or another.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
I feel like it could happen if TVs and consoles started supporting Freesync as Nvidia have virtually no marketshare there and due to the already massive install base it would greatly expand the market for Freesync capable displays.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
brand lovers will find excuses to love their brands, even if it makes no logical sense. people also gravitate towards 'underdogs', even if those underdogs are lovely or incompetent. they also tend to be the types that think buying one brand of useless luxury consumer good over the other will make the world a better place somehow, despite incredible evidence that its not the case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Fauxtool posted:yeah i want freesync for my nvidia gpu. There are a lot of really nice freesync monitors out there without a gsync alternative. Yeah I bought a $200 lg ultra wide for a friend rated at 2560x1080@75hz. What the specifications didn't say was that it was 75hz only on freesync and he has a Nvidia GPU.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
SlayVus posted:Yeah I bought a $200 lg ultra wide for a friend rated at 2560x1080@75hz. What the specifications didn't say was that it was 75hz only on freesync and he has a Nvidia GPU. IIRC that's also how the $1500 LG 38" works. It's hard for me to see freesync as anything other than something that either constrains you to lovely monitors or lovely graphics card.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
For anyone who was looking for something 980 Ti/1070 class, right now Newegg's ebay storefront has 1070s for $370 and eBay is running an 8% cashback promo. Best price I've seen in a long time by a very substantial margin. This GPU bubble is finally popping for real. Used GPUs aren't flooding the market, people are still mining on what they have, but right now a 1070 is only making about $1.17 per day, so I can't imagine that there's a whole lot of rigs getting built with a >300 day ROI. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Sep 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
you honestly think that depth of planning goes into it? A lot of people view that $1 as free money with no strings attached. The mining farm operators are still doing fine with the rx580s. There are also a lot of miners who hold the coins for speculation so the current value is irrelevant because they are sure its going to be 100x in just a few years But yeah at the very least nobody should be buying any new equipment for mining at least until 3rd party vega 56 comes Fauxtool fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Sep 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 06:53
|
|