FreeSync or G-Sync?

[azrael-]

I've been contemplating getting a new monitor for quite a while now. Considering I'm doing quite a bit of gaming I'm mostly looking at "gaming" monitor (high refresh rate etc.).

Some of the key aspects I'm pretty clear on: 27" screen size, 2560 x 1440 resoIution, IPS or VA panel. One thing I can't really decide between is whether to go for FreeSync or G-Sync. Now, I do currently have a Geforce GPU, so G-Sync should be the obvious choice. However, most of the relevant monitors (ASUS PG279Q, AOC AG271QG, Acer Predator XB271HU) get scathing reviews because of the quality control issues of the panels used.

And then there's the EIZO FORIS FS2735. It "only" has FreeSync, but otherwise it seems to deliver where the others don't.

The big question is: should I limit myself to G-Sync enabled monitors just because of my (current) graphics card? Or would it be a better idea to focus on other aspects? Who know, perhaps nVidia will go FreeSync as well (yeah, sure )...

[EndlessWaves]

Or would it be a better idea to focus on other aspects? Who know, perhaps nVidia will go FreeSync as well (yeah, sure )...

Well it is part of the DisplayPort specification, and they've done the work of actually implementing it for 'G-sync' laptops. It seems likely they will support it on separate monitors as soon as something else becomes the next big thing (HDR?).

[Xlucine]

What fps are you planning to supply the monitor with? If you're outputting enough fps to make a 120Hz monitor worthwhile then I can't see any point in adaptive refresh (so go with whichever monitor is cheapest and has acceptable refresh rate, panel quality etc), whereas if you plan to run games at the lower frame rates where it's useful then get g-sync.

If nvidia does do freesync it's a safe bet they won't support it on old cards, so if you really want to use freesync then you'll have to get a new card anyway (and by the time that happens, we'll probably be seeing mid-range cards holding 60+fps at 4K so it's debatable whether you'll need adaptive refresh)

[azrael-]

Oh sorry, I sooo forgot to reply.

I'm currently using an ASUS GTX 970 and that probably won't change for at least the next year or so. Unless I get a good deal on a new, more powerful, graphics card (Vega, you'd better come through and create some competition!). The 970 won't do 120+ FPS on 2560 x 1440, so I guess I would benefit from G-Sync. I just don't like being boxed in (although that's equally true for FreeSync/DP Adaptive Sync at the moment). But even more like that I'm not keen on shelling out the big bucks on a monitor with a questionable panel.

The EIZO one is the most expensive of the lot, by the way, even if it "only" has FreeSync. I guess that comes, in part, down to aggressive panel selection.

[Dashers]

There is no reason why you can't fix your monitor to run at another refresh rate. If you know for most games you're only going to get 75fps then just set your monitor to be 75Hz and leave it. If you upgrade your graphics card later, then up the refresh rate.

You can also just ignore it. I've never been fussed with tearing, it's only at *really* low fps that things irritate me.

[DanceswithUnix]

There is no reason why you can't fix your monitor to run at another refresh rate. If you know for most games you're only going to get 75fps then just set your monitor to be 75Hz and leave it. If you upgrade your graphics card later, then up the refresh rate.

You can also just ignore it. I've never been fussed with tearing, it's only at *really* low fps that things irritate me.

Just set the monitor rate to 144Hz, the next vsync is at worst 7ms away. I used to run my monitor like that when windowed fullscreen wasn't supported by FreeSync.

Keeping up with the monitor is only critical when the refresh rate is low. If you miss a 60Hz frame time, then waiting for the end of the next frame gives you an effective 30Hz frame rate which would be rather lumpy.

[DanceswithUnix]

The big question is: should I limit myself to G-Sync enabled monitors just because of my (current) graphics card? Or would it be a better idea to focus on other aspects? Who know, perhaps nVidia will go FreeSync as well (yeah, sure )...

There is rumour of Microsoft's next console having freesync, which may or may not be relevant to you.

http://wccftech.com/project-scorpio-freesync-2-hdmi/

[scaryjim]

...should I limit myself to G-Sync enabled monitors just because of my (current) graphics card? Or would it be a better idea to focus on other aspects? Who know, perhaps nVidia will go FreeSync as well ...

Well, your last comment here is actually quite relevant - because nvidia *could* just decide to implement freesync (it's an open standard, after all) but AMD can't just decide to implement G-Sync. So while I think it's highly unlikely that nvidia *will* implement freesync, I think it's WAY more likely than AMD supporting g-sync. And if Intel's rumoured freesync implementation ever makes it to production/drivers, that might change the picture somewhat (since Intel has by far the lion's share of the total graphics market)...

[DanceswithUnix]

Well, your last comment here is actually quite relevant - because nvidia *could* just decide to implement freesync (it's an open standard, after all) but AMD can't just decide to implement G-Sync. So while I think it's highly unlikely that nvidia *will* implement freesync, I think it's WAY more likely than AMD supporting g-sync. And if Intel's rumoured freesync implementation ever makes it to production/drivers, that might change the picture somewhat (since Intel has by far the lion's share of the total graphics market)...

I can see Nvidia implementing it but badly. Then they can show how much better Gsync is by showing the two side by side