Is a GTX 970 for a non-GSync monitor worth it?

Girish Iyer

Reputable
Oct 4, 2015
106
0
4,690
Would buying a GTX 970 be worth it when I have a normal 1080p 60 Hz monitor and not a GSync monitor? I would be playing a few games with heavy graphics; so in that case, its good. But for indie games and other low graphics games, there would probably be screen tearing issues. Would Adaptive VSync fix it completely or would it still not be as good as a GSync?
My question could probably be summed up as should I buy a GSync with 970 (it would probably be out of budget) or a normal 1080p with a GTX 960?

Thanks.
 
Solution
144Hz is an option but a single 970 will have a hard time putting out 100+ FPS in lots of modern games. It will work great at 144Hz for lighter games like CS:GO and Dota 2 though. There is nothing wrong with a simple 1080p 60Hz monitor and a 970 though. A 970 is actually the card I would recommend for that kind of setup since there are several games a 960 can't max out at 60 FPS.

You can force adaptive VSYNC in the Nvidia control panel if a game doesn't support VSYNC in the settings. The problem with leaving that on all the time is that you would want to disable VSYNC in every game's settings.

You mentioned indie games so I will tell you that most of them have it on by default and lots of them don't have graphics settings that allow...
I personally rather have enough horsepower to spare than buying short and trying to make it up later. A single 970 is perfect for 1080p triple A titles (ultra/ max settings), I'd say go for it.
 
Yes it is! A single 970 is the perfect bang for your buck. I have a Gsync monitor it was worth every penny ($400). I would not get a 960 if you want better graphics. vsynce is good but not as good as Gsync. what i would do is get the 970 then save for a gsync for the near future.

But remember the type of 970 you buy is as big choice as well. For example the gigabyte gtx 970 has more video outputs than a asus gtx 970 but the asus gtx 970 is cheaper that the gigabyte so it would make sense to buy the asus version if you don't want a multi monitor setup. Good luck!
 
gsync is unnecessary if your over your refresh rate. in my opinion its only really useful on high refresh monitors. though it can help out a lot on 60hz monitors if you are running 40 or 45 fps. but its not ideal to spend you money on an pricey 60hz gsync monitor when you could have used that extra money to get a higher tier graphics card and not had to have fps dips into the 40s in the first place.

on a 100/120/144hz monitor and you are running constant 90-115fps then gsync helps a lot since even with an sli/cfx flagship graphics card setup you may still not ever sustain 120fps all the time, especially at 1440p and higher. but like i said, if you are always at or above the refresh rate, gsync vs non gsync would be the same.
 


So a 144 Hz GSync or non-GSync 1080p monitor would be perfect with a 970 right (especially for low graphics intensive games which could go to more than 100 FPS)?
I don't want my gaming experience ruined by screen tearing on games with 100+ FPS on my 60 Hz monitor. Would adaptive VSync be a good enough solution for that?
 


Would it fix screen tearing completely though? I have heard opinions which prefer Adaptive VSync over the normal one. Have you tried the other one?
 
144Hz is an option but a single 970 will have a hard time putting out 100+ FPS in lots of modern games. It will work great at 144Hz for lighter games like CS:GO and Dota 2 though. There is nothing wrong with a simple 1080p 60Hz monitor and a 970 though. A 970 is actually the card I would recommend for that kind of setup since there are several games a 960 can't max out at 60 FPS.

You can force adaptive VSYNC in the Nvidia control panel if a game doesn't support VSYNC in the settings. The problem with leaving that on all the time is that you would want to disable VSYNC in every game's settings.

You mentioned indie games so I will tell you that most of them have it on by default and lots of them don't have graphics settings that allow you to disable VSYNC. Fallout 4 is another example of a game where you can't disable VSYNC without editing ini files.

You will have much less hassle if you just allow your games to apply their own VSYNC instead of forcing adaptive VSYNC from the Nvida control panel. I would save that option for games that don't support VSYNC like Witcher 1.
 
Solution


VSYNC fixes screen tearing. That is the exact purpose it is designed for. Adaptive VSYNC is good for games that can't hold 60 FPS.

The reasoning is that regular VSYNC locks your FPS to 60 if you have a 60Hz monitor. The problem with regular VSYNC is that if you are only capable of playing at 50 fps it will cut you down to 30 FPS so it can continue to keep screen tearing from occurring.

Adaptive VSYNC doesn't kick in unless your GPU is able to put out 60 FPS. This means that if you are playing a game where your card is only capable of 50 FPS it will ignore the VSYNC and give you the full 50 FPS. The upside to this is that you are getting 20 FPS more than you would with regular VSYNC. The downside is that you may experience screen tearing.

When you are playing a game that your card is capable of running at 60+ FPS adaptive VSYNC and standard VSYNC are the same thing.
 


So Vsync would definitely fix any possible screen tearing issues right? Any drawbacks on enabling VSync according to you?

 


I am sort of staying away from AMD mostly due to the vast difference in power consumption and heat output compared to Nvidia.
 


Yes. The drawback is that there is slightly more input lag. This is also a drawback of adaptive VSYNC though. That is the reason I mentioned that I don't use VSYNC when I play competive games like CS:GO, Battlefield 4, or Star Wars Battlefront. If I am playing a competitive game I would rather be able to react as quickly as possible even if it means I get some slight screen tearing from time to time. I barely ever see any screen tearing in those games even with VSYNC disabled though.

For everything except for online multiplayer shooters I run VSYNC. The input lag is not noticeable enough to bother me in any single player game I have played and getting rid of all screen tearing is worth it to me.

Not only that but it lets my computer run cooler and quieter because it isn't pushing itself to 100% usage to try and put out 200 FPS. If you have a 60Hz monitor like I do you can't see anything over 60 FPS anyways so I don't mind letting my hardware run at 40% load if that's all it takes.
 


I think you meant to say per day 😛 and if he lives in the US he wouldn't be able to tell any difference in a monthly bill even if he did play 20 hours a day.

And the drawback to using Vsync besides 30 FPS is increased input lag.
 


I would be using my computer for more than 10+ hours daily and would probably game 3-4 hours daily. It might not turn out be too big, but it is something which matters a lot to me. So I am trying to save however much I can in that regard by buying components which don't consume too much power.
 
A 390 is not really better than a 970 at 1080p anyways. They are typically within a few frames of each other and the 970 actually beats the 390 in most games at 1080p.

At higher resolutions the 390 pulls ahead. I always recommend the 970 for 1080p gaming though. The two cards are basically equal in terms of performance and the 970 is 125W lower in TDP. If the cards are that close in performance I'm going to take the one that uses significantly less power.

That doesn't even factor in the quicker driver support or the way Nvidia hijacks every game these days to get their Gameworks features in.