Looking for some upgrade help

[stylez777]

Hey all,

First and foremost thank you for taking the time to read this and help me out.

My current card is a AMD HD 7950 which is about 4 years old roughly. I think it is time to upgrade but of course I am stuck on going with either the GTX 1060 6GB or the RX 580 8GB. I read the reviews at tons of places and know that the Nvidia is going to use far less power and the performance of both cards is a toss up based on the game. I am going to be upgrading my monitor as well. I am looking at a 144hz 24" monitor. I really am not looking to spend $500+ on a G-sync monitor but I have seen some really nice $300-$350 Freesync monitors.

So how much should my monitor dictate my choice in graphics card? Would going with the RX 580 and a Freesync monitor give overall better performance than a GTX with the same monitor?

If I don't upgrade monitors and keep the same 60hz 1080p and I don't care about power consumption and I also don't care about over-clocking anymore in my "old-just-work-damn-you" age, is the GTX 1060 the better buy?

Thank you for the feedback

 

[s44]

Depends what games you're looking at for 144hz. OW for example is way better on Nvidia, both on performance and because AMD drivers since July have all caused constant crashes. I think PUBG also strongly favors Nvidia, though you aren't likely to see 144fps any time soon.

Single player has more AMD wins, and Freesync may work out for you in some situations, but again it depends on the game.

 

[stylez777]

@s44 Thanks for the reply. Honestly I play so many different games (WoW, GW2, OW, Shadow of Modor / Shadow of War etc). So cherry picking for 1 certain game really not what I am looking to do. I just want an overall performer (I know both cards are good). I just wasn't sure if it made sense to get the AMD card to pair it with freesync or if it really didn't matter to just got with the GTX 1060 as it appeared to be the overall better card according to reviews

 

[nurturedhate]

If you are getting the freesync monitor then get the AMD card. If not then get whatever quality card is cheaper.

 

[Lordhumungus]

I agree with what appears to be the general consensus that if you are targeting a higher refresh monitor, you should go the extra half step to get something with variable refresh (G-Sync or Freesync as it were). Since you aren't willing to pay a premium for G-Sync (and in my opinion probably rightfully so at the price/perf range you are looking at) I'd say go with the AMD setup as it should provide everything you need.

One other consideration I would personally make is what my upgrade path looks like 2-3 years down the road (or whenever you tend to upgrade). Since monitors are something people tend to hang onto, you are potentially locking yourself into an ecosystem, so consider what that will mean for you. As it stands today (and really as far as anyone can tell for the foreseeable future), AMD really can't compete with Nvidia at the high end of the price/perf tiers, but is more or less in the same ball park in the mid and lower tiers where you seem to be targeting. If you think that when you go to upgrade next you are likely to stay in this similar tier, it is likely that AMD and the Freesync ecosystem is a perfectly reasonable choice for you. If, however you think you may decide to move towards the higher end of the price/perf spectrum, I would consider spending the extra $ now to go Nvidia/G-sync. While I think this is an unlikely scenario based on the hardware you are coming from and what you are moving to, I still think it's worth consideration, especially when I look through these boards and see the frustrated posts from AMD users who locked themselves into Freesync and then weren't really given a competitive option at the high end of the performance spectrum. So many people were forced to make the choice of selling off their monitor and completely changing ecosystems, or settling for a performance tier that they are ultimately not happy with.

Edit: To clarify, if you are a gamer, I consider going with no variable refresh at all a non-starter in today's landscape, similar to how I will never again (and haven't for many years) build a system without an SSD. The technology is too ubiquitous, has too low a cost of entry and provides too great a feature set to be ignored.

 

[Headfoot]

Ten times out of ten times I would get Freesync + 580 vs 1060 with no ASync. FreeSync makes a huge difference, these wishy washy answers are a load of crap. If the choice is Sync vs No Sync, absolutely go for the Sync tech one.

I've used ASync and its fantastic.

 

[stylez777]

@Lordhumungus That is very sound logic. I been in the PC game field for roughly 30+ years. There was a time I had to have the best of the best top of the line, overclock balls to the wall etc. As time passed I went more value based since my needs were not as high. My last 2 video card were the AMD HD 7950 and the AMD HD 5850 before that. Before those cards I used to be NVIDIA G-force all the way!

I currently have 2 very nice Asus 25" monitors that really look great and i never really notice tearing in the games i do play but while I got a few bucks and the fact that I am upgrading my card for this cycle I figured why not drop for a new Monitor to sync with a card if it made sense. I appreciate your feedback!

 

[kawi6rr]

I would get the 580 and the Freesync for sure.

 

[Rifter]

Its pretty simple.

If happy with low end to mid range performance go AMD with freesync.

If wanting high end to enthusiast level of performance go Nvidia and Gsync.

Bottom line is for past few years Nvidia can be counted on to offer a full range of products, while AMD can only be counted on for low end and mid range products. So take that into account when locking yourself into one ecosystem or the other.

 

[s44]

I agree with what appears to be the general consensus that if you are targeting a higher refresh monitor, you should go the extra half step to get something with variable refresh

I actually don't agree with this at all. High refresh is significant for one situation: online competitive multiplayer, which isn't about squeezing extra frames in but making sure you're consistently over 144 with no hiccups. You actually want to turn variable refresh off for these games because they may introduce a bit of extra lag.

Variable refresh is about getting a bit more smoothness in single player games you're trying to stay near 60 on. That's more aesthetic than competitive.

The games OP listed are either neutral or significantly in Nvidia's favor. Note that people here generally favor AMD, so of course they're going to suggest the 580, but if you spend a significant amount of time playing OW that could be a major drag.

 

[Lordhumungus]

I actually don't agree with this at all. High refresh is significant for one situation: online competitive multiplayer, which isn't about squeezing extra frames in but making sure you're consistently over 144 with no hiccups. You actually want to turn variable refresh off for these games because they may introduce a bit of extra lag.

Variable refresh is about getting a bit more smoothness in single player games you're trying to stay near 60 on. That's more aesthetic than competitive.

The games OP listed are either neutral or significantly in Nvidia's favor. Note that people here generally favor AMD, so of course they're going to suggest the 580, but if you spend a significant amount of time playing OW that could be a major drag.

A high refresh rate is relevant for anyone that wants the smoothest possible experience, whether it be for a competitive edge or not. Variable Refresh normalizes that experience under unpredictable conditions such that it isn't jarring and immersion removing when performance fluctuations occur. I suppose you could rightly make the argument that it technically (the best kind of correct!) makes performance worse for an absolutely tiny subset of people with the near professional skills, physical reaction times, perfect internet connection, exacting hardware setup et al, but for the 99.99% of the people out there just trying to play and enjoy the games to the best of their ability, I see very little downside to Variable Refresh. Also, as you mentioned, it can be disabled if you so desire.

Does anyone else remember the days when people used to claim that the human eye couldn't see above 60Hz, because Pepperidge Farm sure as $%^# remembers! It seems we have moved from that previous hyperbole to the next of if you don't have infinite refresh rate at all times and all scenarios, games will be nigh unplayable.

As a gamer I personally prefer what I suppose is the middle ground (although it honestly feels like we compromise so little these days) of high image quality, relatively high (let's say over 100Hz) refresh rates, and the benefits of Variable Refresh.

My stance is to go with a Variable Refresh solution regardless of which ecosystem you end up in. For the record I am purely Nvidia bound these days with a 970 and 1080TI and haven't owned an AMD GPU since the 4870.

 

[Headfoot]

There is no perceivable downside to variable refresh (outside of cost) and one massive and easily perceptible improvement. It's a total no brainer.

'It adds latency' sounds like total FUD to me. I've never seen any test which indicates that there is any, much less than it can be perceived.

 

[Rifter]

There is no perceivable downside to variable refresh (outside of cost) and one massive and easily perceptible improvement. It's a total no brainer.

'It adds latency' sounds like total FUD to me. I've never seen any test which indicates that there is any, much less than it can be perceived.

I think most reviews of freesync/gsync do show some latency added, but it is minimal, in the under 5ms range, so really only mattering to twitch FPS gamers who are likely to be running without any type of sync anyways.

EDIT TO ADD:

This article explains it well, i think it generally says g-sync will add one frame of latency, so the amount of this will be highly dependent on your refresh rate, as high refresh rate means less time per frame so less lag.

https://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag/

 

[s44]

so really only mattering to twitch FPS gamers who are likely to be running without any type of sync anyways

Well yes... that's also the only place 144hz matters.

 

[wilds]

The performance difference between the RX 580 and GTX 1060 is essentially nothing. You want Freesync or Gsync.

I cheaped out and bought both of my Gsync displays factory refurbished. Finding these deals are tough, yet new Freesync displays are always available for cheap.

580 is fine for 1080p144hz and can do 1440p60hz as well. It can even do 1440p144hz in older games or even 4k60 for the same old games.

You will not get a solid 144hz in WoW or GW2 for example as they are CPU limited but they will definitely benefit more with Freesync/Gsync.

I would ask yourself what games you play are actually twitch based and can achieve 144hz. You may be better off getting a 4k60hz freesync monitor + fury and a cheap ($200) 144hz monitor for twitch based shooters while selling your other monitors.

 

[Headfoot]

I suppose it would add latency if you count a small sliver of the next frame appearing on the previous frame (i.e. tearing) as being 'lower latency' but I dont really count that as meaningful... Good article tho