1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Graphics AMD equivalent for a GTX980

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by Kronos, 29 Oct 2015.

  1. Kronos

    Kronos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    6 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    13,483
    Likes Received:
    603
    I am in the market for a bigger monitor but the seems to be a lack of 32-34" monitors with G-Sync but plenty of Freesync monitors. So if I go the Freesu=ync route it would mean swapping GPU from Nvidia to AMD. So what would be the equivalent.

    Do I actually need one of these in my life? Or do I just buy a 32-34" monitor which suits my budget ETC and forget about these two? Would I am ordinary gamer with glasses actually notice any difference if I had G-Sync or Freesync?
     
  2. Vault-Tec

    Vault-Tec Green Plastic Watering Can

    Joined:
    30 Aug 2015
    Posts:
    10,346
    Likes Received:
    1,365
    TBH if it means getting in this deep I would go without G/freesync.

    Have you decided on a resolution yet?
     
  3. Kronos

    Kronos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    6 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    13,483
    Likes Received:
    603
    Not sure I fully understand your post apart from the resolution question which I think I would like to keep to what I have now 2560 x 1440 or thereabouts.
     
  4. Vault-Tec

    Vault-Tec Green Plastic Watering Can

    Joined:
    30 Aug 2015
    Posts:
    10,346
    Likes Received:
    1,365
    Oh I see you're already on 1440p :) Sorry dude I thought you were on 1080p. What I meant in my post was if you have to change GPU completely just to get Freesync or Gsync then I wouldn't bother. I know I love both of them but all that messing around may not be worth it.
     
  5. thom804

    thom804 Member

    Joined:
    22 Oct 2009
    Posts:
    714
    Likes Received:
    6
    Off-topic, but can anyone explain in layman's terms why Free/G-sync is so special? To my mind, it just sounds like another version of V-sync, but with an outlandish pricetag and vendor exclusivity.

    To put it another way; What exactly would I gain by spending £XXX on a new monitor?

    OT: I have no idea, but it sounds like a big outlay just for one feature.
     
  6. Kronos

    Kronos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    6 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    13,483
    Likes Received:
    603
    I am beginning to come round to that thinking also.
     
  7. Harlequin

    Harlequin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,071
    Likes Received:
    179
    NVidia gsync requires a module (aka hardware) in the monitor whereas AMD freesync doesn't

    freesync uses VESA spec to achieve adaptive refresh rates , gsync uses hardware to do it - some would say gsync is the better solution , but at a price premium.

    afaik intel also are supporting freesync as its an open standard
     
  8. Vault-Tec

    Vault-Tec Green Plastic Watering Can

    Joined:
    30 Aug 2015
    Posts:
    10,346
    Likes Received:
    1,365
    Gsync requires a module that adds at least £150 to the price of a monitor. Freesync? well as long as you have the correct HDMI/DP is free. It supports VESA standard monitor connectors so as long as the port is correct there's no reason it won't work unless AMD don't want it to.

    So for example my Gsync monitor has the correct DP socket to basically work with Freesync. The only thing stopping it is AMD, and I would imagine Nvidia.

    At first OCUK were charging a premium for Freesync monitors and I was quite outspoken and critical about it. Now though? you can get a 23" 1080p monitor with it for about £99, so it's definitely alot free-er than Gsync.

    As HQ has said, Intel are also supporting it now too.
     
  9. Kronos

    Kronos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    6 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    13,483
    Likes Received:
    603
    Decided to stay with the GTX 980 as it really is a cracking card as and rather paying a premium for G-Sync I will just get a 32-34" monitor hopefully IPS.
     
  10. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,625
    Likes Received:
    383
    Both types of variable refresh rate essentially do the same thing.

    Instead of having a fixed refresh rate of say 60hz they allow a monitor to match your fps, they vary the refresh rate of the monitor instead of either having to resort to vsync on or vsync off and the problems associated with each of those.

    While G-Sync does require a module it doesn't cost that much, it adds around £50-60 to the cost of a monitor (afaik), IMO that's money well spent as G-Sync works over a much wider range than Free-Sync, obviously how much value you place on that is down to individual choice.
     
  11. ripmax

    ripmax Active Member

    Joined:
    8 Apr 2010
    Posts:
    370
    Likes Received:
    29
    If you haven't got the 980 yet and want an AMD equivalent the r9 390x fits the bill, and Ebuyer are selling the Sapphire R9 390x for £320 which is £50 cheaper than the cheapest 980 I could find

    From the reviews I can find the 390x seems to be close and even beats the 980 depending on the game then there is also AMD's big performance increase in DX12

    http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_radeon_r9_390x_gaming_8g_oc_review,13.html

    http://www.ebuyer.com/714700-sapphi...kwid=spz9FI51P_dc&pcrid=51482416379&pkw=&pmt=
     
  12. Kronos

    Kronos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    6 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    13,483
    Likes Received:
    603
    As my signature will confirm I do indeed have the 980.
     
  13. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,625
    Likes Received:
    383
    Are you much of a gamer as that's mainly what there for, they both work with videos (afaik) but how noticeable the difference is compared to a fixed refresh rate display IDK.
     
  14. Kronos

    Kronos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    6 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    13,483
    Likes Received:
    603
  15. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,625
    Likes Received:
    383
    Yea i couldn't find a single 32" G-Sync being sold, apparently Asus and Acer are going to release some one day, although i would expect them to be very pricey. :(
     
  16. loftie

    loftie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    14 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    151
    34" ultrawides have roughly the same height as a 16:9 27" screen just so you know.
     
  17. Kronos

    Kronos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    6 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    13,483
    Likes Received:
    603
    Would you like to expand on that as I do not understand the significance of your post?
     
  18. loftie

    loftie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    14 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    151
    In you original post you stated you wanted were after a bigger monitor, I assumed you meant a bigger version of your current Dell U2711 which is a 16:9 monitor.

    The AOC that you linked, is a 21:9 ultrawide monitor with roughly the same vertical height as your Dell U2711 (AOC H-334.8mm vs Dell H-335.66mm), as such it may not 'feel' bigger that your current Dell U2711, just wider.

    Edit: as a side note, you'll also lose performance going to that AOC because it's a higher resolution that your current monitor.
     
  19. Kronos

    Kronos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    6 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    13,483
    Likes Received:
    603
    Not sure why you made the assumption that I was looking for a bigger version of my current Dell. Though looking at a 34" I see that it possibly within reach financially speaking.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dell-U3415W-34-Inch-IPS-Monitor/dp/B00R420VAG and I do like a Dell monitor.

    Can you explain in what way performance will be affected by moving to the AOC and what then should I be looking at?
     
  20. Guest-16

    Guest-16 Guest

    It's one of those things that one you use it, and go back, you'll only be disappointed. (Like me. I dropped a 24" GSync for a 32" 4K SIPS and wish I'd picked up a 27" GSync instead)

    Without VSync you get screen tearing, which is noticeable and shitty. With it you either run at 60FPS or 30FPS - big hops, not a smooth transition.

    G/F Sync basically stops screen tearing AND gives you smooth frame rate cycling between scenes.

    In my experience (since I used to work with LCD dept launching both G and F Sync monitors), G-Sync has been the better solution and first gen F Sync displays were rough around the edges. I expect things have come on a bit since then as 2nd gen parts will be shipping now.

    Generally speaking 1) there's been more extensive validation work on NV, which had an 18 month head start 2) the use of Nvidia's own FPGA scaler means its a highly controlled solution and 3) Nvidia has a tight list of acceptable LCD panels that can pair with their GSync chip, with a focus on the experience quality. That way of working I can respect, but ofc it puts the whole solution firmly in the premium tier which keeps a great technology out of reach. But they care about brand position more - and when it's your name, your tech being scrutinized you want control over it. Not the vendors who will squeeze every $ out of it.

    As good as open standards are for lowering the price, they are also open to some level of engineering interpretation - and the performance of each scaler IC varies. Working is not the same as working well (see all USB thumb drives, JFC!). And each IC interacts with x number of TFT panels in different ways because of different response rates, firmware customizations, colour setups etcetcetc This increases the validation and driver work AMD has to do for each display, each card, which takes time (if it's even done at all for smaller vendors). The other trouble is that as FreeSync becomes ubiquitous manufacturers will try to shave off $ by $ to retain margins but still winning on price, so you'll end up with more likely unsuitable pairings of cheaper LCDs and cheaper 'it works' FSync ICs (and no one tells you what IC is inside). Yet the sticker on the box still says FreeSync, so it should be good as one 50% more expensive, right? Free is not free.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: 30 Oct 2015

Share This Page