Question Have a Gsync only monitor, worth getting amd gpu and losing gsync

Slayer16

Honorable
Feb 25, 2015
27
1
10,535
0
I have a gsync only monitor and need a gpu upgrade. I’ve been looking at the 2060 but I hear the amd series gpus are better for the price. Does gsync really matter that much to only stick with Nvidia or is it not a big deal to just use a amd gpu.

Side note did amd fix the driver issues for their gpus or is that still and issue lol
 
G-Sync helps at lower fps. I have it on my 1440p G-Sync compatible monitor but using a 2080 Super I have games set to run at 120+ fps. I have G-Sync switched off as I find there is a very slight but noticeable lag with it on and screen tearing does seem to occur or if it does then its not noticeable.
 

Slayer16

Honorable
Feb 25, 2015
27
1
10,535
0
G-Sync helps at lower fps. I have it on my 1440p G-Sync compatible monitor but using a 2080 Super I have games set to run at 120+ fps. I have G-Sync switched off as I find there is a very slight but noticeable lag with it on and screen tearing does seem to occur or if it does then its not noticeable.
Would y say a 2060 or a amd card
 
Given the reported driver issues, power consumption and heat of the AMD option I would pick an NVidia option.
While I would agree that the Nvidia option is fine, there's some misinformation here.

First, the power consumption of an RX 5700 is actually pretty similar to that of an RTX 2060 or 2060 SUPER. And the 5600 XT, which is a close match for the 2060 in most games, draws less power than that card. Unlike the previous generation of cards, AMD's 7nm manufacturing process allows their efficiency to be about the same as Nvidia's current offerings.

Second, the heat output tends to be fine, at least on most models with multi-fan coolers. The stock blower-style cooler was the only option available for some months after the 5700 came out last year, and as is typical for blower-style coolers, they weren't particularly great. Most cards now have typical multi-fan coolers though, which tend to do a much better job of cooling the cards. One exception might be a couple of MSI's cards though, which had poorly designed VRAM cooling that might potentially affect the VRAM's longevity down the line, though those have been reduced to lower price points to compensate.

Of course, if we ignore those MSI cards with the questionable VRAM cooling, I'm not sure the RX 5700 actually offers any better performance-per-dollar than the lowest-priced RTX 2060s, at least going by current US online prices. Looking on PCPartPicker, aside from those two MSI cards at $273 and $310, RX 5700s tend to start at around $340-$350. Meanwhile, there are at least a few multi-fan RTX 2060s available in the $300-$320 range now. So sure, the 5700 is around 10% faster, but you may be paying around 10% more for that added performance, meaning they more or less break even in terms of value right now.

There's also the 5600 XT, which on average performs about the same as a 2060, but those are generally priced in the $280-$300 range, not much less than some 2060s. And of course, the 2060 also offers raytracing acceleration, and while it might not handle raytracing particularly well in terms of performance, it's arguably better than not having the feature available at all.

So if you have a monitor that only support G-Sync, it's probably worth paying the extra $20 or so to have access to adaptive sync and raytracing acceleration. Ideally, I'd like to see the 5600 XT drop closer to $250, and the 5700 drop closer to $300 to be more competitive. Of course, if you are in some other region, pricing might be different for you.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS