sykozis:

I'm well aware of your posting history. You seem to completely miss my point here though. This thread actually has nothing to do with AMD. This thread concerns monitors from AOC. Yes, those monitors have "FreeSync" as a listed feature. Big deal. If people want a FreeSync monitor, so be it. I own one myself. I've had no issues with it.

The post of mine you had replied to was itself a reply to another member's post claiming that G-Sync is dead. It was a reply to an off-topic post where the member had demonstrated a particular obstinacy that misinforms the reader on these forums. I have thus chosen to correct him on the few points he had asked about regarding what G-Sync could possibly have over FreeSync.

However, in my case, FreeSync is completely useless since every game I play runs well in excess of 200fps resulting in having a framerate limit set to 60fps for most games. That aside, there was no reason for NVidia to be mentioned in this thread as these monitors don't support G-Sync. This thread also has nothing to do with the GPU market seeing as the news article is specifically about 3 new (and vastly overpriced) AOC monitors.

That's only because you are not aware of the latency advantage of FreeSync even when dealing with framerates close (almost equal) to the refresh rate, aside from the occasional stutter many games might experience every once in a while in V-Sync on scenarios. For one, when V-Sync gets engaged, input latency rises considerably. This latency can be reduced via a framerate limiter (in-game / RTSS) that reduces the number of buffered frames. The latency, then, can be reduced even further by making sure you never engage V-Sync - that is by setting a framerate limit ever so slightly below your refresh rate (e.g. 58FPS) and then enabling V-Sync for frametime compensation in the case where a frame is rendered then presented slightly faster than 60Hz (in less than 16.67ms), whereby the framerate limiter is not completely accurate (and it cannot be in a real-time OS). For frames that take slightly longer than 16.67ms, with V-Sync on they would cause a stutter - with FreeSync engaged, they are, for the most part, undetectable, unless they're a major spike (e.g. 50ms). All you have to do to reap the benefits of FreeSync even on a 60Hz display when your games are running well beyond is to cap your framerate slightly below 60Hz (57-58FPS) and enable V-Sync. That's all.

Of course, at no point did I refer to anyone as a "fanboy" nor did I make such an accusation of you but you respond to me with childish insults. I don't know how old you are and quite frankly I don't care. Childish behavior is damaging to a tech forum's reputation and credibility, regardless of the accuracy of the information.

By implication, when you say:

I really don't care to read any more because this thread appears to have turned into another pathetic AMD bashing thread, just like every other thread that mentions anything even remotely related to AMD. From what I've seen over the last few years, this is no longer a hardware enthusiast forum. It's an Intel/NVidia enthusiast forum. Any time AMD is mentioned to any extent, all the Intel or NVidia loyalists pop up and start bashing AMD. It's time you people grow up. You're actually damaging this forum's reputation.

What do you mean to tell me? It's pretty clear that you're claiming I'm an Nvidia fanboy. No need to lie about it, that's exactly what you meant.

You moved from AMD to NVidia. Good for you. I moved from NVidia back to AMD again in my main system.

See? You already know.

Made more sense than sticking with NVidia when I had already planned to switch to RyZen upon it's release.

How is that even related? What does the CPU choice have to do with the GPU choice? If anything, with Ryzen's slightly lower IPC and the need, here and there, for game patches in order to take advantage of the new architecture, an equivalent (performance identical) Nvidia card would arguably deliver a slightly better framerate in CPU-limited scenarios due to less driver overhead in DX11 games, which are still the majority of games in this day and age. That's aside from the obvious benefits of an AMD card: FreeSync support - which you don't utilize anyway, along with a better control panel and arguably a better feature set in some cases and higher VRAM on the 480 / 580 models, along with better / worse performance depending on the title, and the obvious benefits of an Nvidia card: higher efficiency, ShadowPlay, and G-Sync.

I personally have no preference in regards to hardware. I buy what fits my needs at the time. My point still stands though. There was mention in the news post about a feature specific to AMD and the thread turned towards bashing AMD, as usual.

The thread didn't turn into anything but a reply to someone falsely claiming that G-Sync is dead just because they are biased towards AMD and would not listen to a well-made argument in favor of the technology they unreasonably despise.

Support, regardless of how limited, is still support. I could always throw my HD7950 in and test it, but what purpose would that serve aside from irritating me? I don't actually use FreeSync anyway.

As is painfully obvious here, we are talking about G-Sync / FreeSync support for games. FreeSync is supported in windowed mode. However, there is no telling if a graphics card that only supports FreeSync in video playback is able to control the entire desktop in variable refresh rate mode - if that were the case, what then would prevent it from supporting games in windowed mode? With the vast majority of our video watching being in a browser, and browsers do not support exclusive fullscreen. How useful is video playback support, really? That is aside from that enabling G-Sync / FreeSync for windowed mode applications sets the entire display to that refresh rate - good luck moving a mouse cursor at 24 / 30Hz - that is if the display in question supports 24Hz minimum / 30Hz minimum / LFC with a 2.5x range. For a 60Hz monitor, that's 24Hz - 60Hz, pretty much the maximum range you are likely to see on a 60Hz FreeSync display.

yasamoka:

That's only because you are not aware of the latency advantage of FreeSync even when dealing with framerates close (almost equal) to the refresh rate, aside from the occasional stutter many games might experience every once in a while in V-Sync on scenarios.

And there you go assuming again....

yasamoka:

What do you mean to tell me? It's pretty clear that you're claiming I'm an Nvidia fanboy. No need to lie about it, that's exactly what you meant.

You assumed I was referring to you because of the placement of the statement within the response.

yasamoka:

See? You already know.

Yes, I know you switched from AMD to NVidia. You did mention that you have a G-Sync monitor. You also made a self inclusive statement in regards to testing G-Sync. There's also the "EVGA GTX 1080Ti SC" that appears under your avatar.

yasamoka:

How is that even related? What does the CPU choice have to do with the GPU choice? If anything, with Ryzen's slightly lower IPC and the need, here and there, for game patches in order to take advantage of the new architecture, an equivalent (performance identical) Nvidia card would arguably deliver a slightly better framerate in CPU-limited scenarios due to less driver overhead in DX11 games, which are still the majority of games in this day and age. That's aside from the obvious benefits of an AMD card: FreeSync support - which you don't utilize anyway, along with a better control panel and arguably a better feature set in some cases and higher VRAM on the 480 / 580 models, along with better / worse performance depending on the title, and the obvious benefits of an Nvidia card: higher efficiency, ShadowPlay, and G-Sync.

How is it related? I can get chipset and graphics drivers from a single website. It's called simplicity. If NVidia designed x86 CPUs, I'd build a system using CPU and GPU from NVidia. If Intel produced capable dedicated graphics cards (or even had a capable iGPU), I'd be using CPU and GPU from Intel. I don't have much free time so, the fewer websites I have to check for driver updates, the better. In regards to FreeSync. It is enabled in the monitor. It's also enabled in Radeon Settings. I haven't disabled it because I see no need to. I play BF4, TL2 and when my son is here, I play Roblox with him. I've noticed no difference between this monitor at 60fps framerate limit with FreeSync enabled and the 24" display it replaced with the same 60fps framerate limit. Maybe there's a difference, maybe there isn't. It's more likely that I just don't care enough to worry about it though. Much like my feelings in regards to the potential impact of FreeSync, I don't care enough to share everything I know with this or any other forum that I post on. Instead, I allow people to make assumptions in regards to what I know. I have nothing to prove to anyone on this or any other forum that I post on. I don't work in this industry and haven't since 2004 when I quit working as a consultant and system builder. Besides, I find it entertaining when people like you start making assumptions about what I know, just as I found it entertaining when the last company I worked as a consultant for thought they would survive just fine on their automated backup systems after I quit. Had they hired someone to replace me, they might not have lost a multi-million dollar lawsuit in 2005.

yasamoka:

As is painfully obvious here, we are talking about G-Sync / FreeSync support for games. FreeSync is supported in windowed mode. However, there is no telling if a graphics card that only supports FreeSync in video playback is able to control the entire desktop in variable refresh rate mode - if that were the case, what then would prevent it from supporting games in windowed mode? With the vast majority of our video watching being in a browser, and browsers do not support exclusive fullscreen. How useful is video playback support, really? That is aside from that enabling G-Sync / FreeSync for windowed mode applications sets the entire display to that refresh rate - good luck moving a mouse cursor at 24 / 30Hz - that is if the display in question supports 24Hz minimum / 30Hz minimum / LFC with a 2.5x range. For a 60Hz monitor, that's 24Hz - 60Hz, pretty much the maximum range you are likely to see on a 60Hz FreeSync display.

For me, the vast majority of video watching is done through Kodi or the HDHomerun View software. So, it doesn't affect me anyway. However, as I said, limited support is still support.

sykozis:

And there you go assuming again....

Yeah?

However, in my case, FreeSync is completely useless since every game I play runs well in excess of 200fps resulting in having a framerate limit set to 60fps for most games.

You clearly don't know about the latency advantage. Not an assumption. This isn't about your ego; it's fine not to know.

You assumed I was referring to you because of the placement of the statement within the response.

I'm regular enough with my comprehension to assume that when you quote my post then respond with an accusation levelled at a group of people, then I am included. Sheesh.

How is it related? I can get chipset and graphics drivers from a single website. It's called simplicity. If NVidia designed x86 CPUs, I'd build a system using CPU and GPU from NVidia. If Intel produced capable dedicated graphics cards (or even had a capable iGPU), I'd be using CPU and GPU from Intel. I don't have much free time so, the fewer websites I have to check for driver updates, the better.

Dat reason ... The last time I visited a website to update my drivers for my desktop, was, like, never... Windows 10 takes care of that, as well as GeForce Experience (Nvidia), Crimson (AMD). So I really, really, really can't see your point. At all. Zilch. Basing a hardware purchase decision on whether you visit one website or two if ever after you install the hardware ...

In regards to FreeSync. It is enabled in the monitor. It's also enabled in Radeon Settings. I haven't disabled it because I see no need to. I play BF4, TL2 and when my son is here, I play Roblox with him. I've noticed no difference between this monitor at 60fps framerate limit with FreeSync enabled and the 24" display it replaced with the same 60fps framerate limit. Maybe there's a difference, maybe there isn't. It's more likely that I just don't care enough to worry about it though.

Back to point 1, where I lamented that you clearly did not know about the latency advantage of FreeSync that I have explained in detail which proves that you did not even bother to read how such an advantage is taken care of yet still insist that I am "assuming". Alright.

For me, the vast majority of video watching is done through Kodi or the HDHomerun View software. So, it doesn't affect me anyway. However, as I said, limited support is still support.

No, it is not, and don't try to twist this any other way. Video playback support is pretty equivalent to no support, and no amount of arguing semantics will change this. I have never even read talk of someone taking advantage of that video playback support, while on the other hand, I am one of the people who wished I actually had FreeSync support when I was on 7970s, which, by the way, would not even allow me to enable FreeSync for whatever reason after CRU EDID overrides to my Korean monitor - so there goes video playback support... Again, to repeat this for crystal clarity - FreeSync "Video Playback" support is - completely - pointless, especially if one's video watching is done in exclusive fullscreen (which is probably the only mode video playback support works in) at which point any respectable player (e.g. MPC-HC) actually has an automatic refresh rate changer depending on the framerate of the video content you are playing...

You really need to check your overly inflated ego. Not knowing and not caring are 2 completely different things. In this case, I simply don't care. If I cared, I'd have spent more than the 10 seconds it took to find the list of FreeSync supported graphics cards. You appear to have some desperate need to prove you know more than everyone else. Yes, Windows 10 can take care of driver updates. That's great. I prefer to control driver updates myself. Personal preference. As such, I don't expect you to understand it. For you to understand it, you'd have to get past your ego. Also, Windows isn't the only operating system I use....

EDIT

sykozis:

You really need to check your overly inflated ego. Not knowing and not caring are 2 completely different things. In this case, I simply don't care. If I cared, I'd have spent more than the 10 seconds it took to find the list of FreeSync supported graphics cards. You appear to have some desperate need to prove you know more than everyone else.

What is blatantly obvious is that *you* are the one who has some desperate need to argue semantics in a topic they do not understand properly despite not caring about the topic essentially.

Yes, Windows 10 can take care of driver updates. That's great. I prefer to control driver updates myself. Personal preference. As such, I don't expect you to understand it. For you to understand it, you'd have to get past your ego.

You are. Matching hardware brands. Because. You don't want to visit more than one website to. Download drivers. Which is done only a handful of times at most. During a hardware life cycle...

Also, Windows isn't the only operating system I use....

Same issue... You can't be serious, matching brands just so you don't visit more than one website for such a silly thing. You really can't be serious.