Like what? My understanding is they’re the same thing, except G-sync has a separate hardware module and much tighter standard on supported variable refresh rates and such. That’s what Nvidia is extending to VESA VRR with the new g-sync certified program.
I’d have to dig into the research I did ~6 months ago but from what I remember the G-Sync hardware has better support for overdriving pixels, better (and standardized) LFC implementation, and G-Sync can run at or below 30Hz where as only a few Freesync monitors support freesync at lower than 48Hz.
It’s really that the hardware guarantees a certain standard and makes it easier for monitor implementors to match that standard without tweaking their Freesync implementation manually (if possible).
Wheither that matters to you and is wroth the price is another question.
G-Sync actually keeps a full frame buffer in memory which allows it to do additional things like reduce ghosting. Freesync just allows for variable refresh rates. Which if implemented well is probably all you really need.
I have been hoping this would come to pass and posted about it a few times before but it’s great to finally see it. I just bought my first G-Sync monitor so it’s kinda irritating but I console myself with the knowledge G-Sync is technically better and I buy nvidia anyways. I try not to think about how I would certainly fail a double blind test between the two.
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I said. Getting gsync validated VRR monitors will ensure it meets their standards.
Yeah, these are the reasons I was fine with spending a $200 premium on my primary monitor. I mean, I don’t replace those very often anyway, so $200 is something I can live with.
Once I started looking at upgrading to a 4K display, that’s where I started running into issues. $500 for the Gsync module on top of monitors that are already sitting near the $1000 was just too much.
It would be nice if they made a list of the monitors that failed the test.
Anandtech review of 2060 Founder’s Edition
Looks like that’s going to my 970GTX upgrade for gaming at 1440p
The monitors that failed will still work with VRR, it just won’t be enabled by default in the driver.
Gaming at 1440p without ray-tracing, yeah.
It looks to be a decent value, at least when compared to the dismal values of the rest of the RTX range. And it’ll murder the Vega 56 and particularly 64. It makes the 2070 look like a really bad deal, too. Remember, the 1070ti was really close to a 1080, and thus the 2060 is really close to the 2070. And it’s $150 cheaper.
Yep, the pricing above the 2060 @ $350 looks even worse now.
So here is how I think it should be. :)
2060 @ $350
2070 @ $475
2080 @ $600
2080ti @ $800
Do Nvidia and HP think a lot of people are going to buy those $5000 HDR displays? It looks wonderful, but my god. Are they supposed to replace the TV in a house as well?
Here’s how I think it should be, based on pricing/performance for the 10-series, which was itself much more expensive than the 9-series.
RTX 2060 - $249, ~1070 performance
RTX 2070 - $379, ~1080ti performance
RTX 2080 - $499, ~1080ti +20% performance
RTX 2080ti - $699, ~1080ti +70% performance
This is exactly how the 10-series was priced, and how it performed versus the 9-series. Hopefully that helps illustrate what an audacious moneygrab the 20-series really is, how its rasterizing performance was downright gutted to make space for ray-tracing silicon.
Instead, we have this.
RTX 2060 - $349, ~1070ti performance
RTX 2070 - $499, ~1080 performance
RTX 2080 - $799, ~1080ti performance
RTX 2080ti - $1199, ~1080ti +35% performance
I thought I remembered the 1080’s being $600+? Or was that just retailers bumping up the price due to high demand?
At initial release yes, that and the Founder’s Edition garbage.
Actually it launched at $599 standard, $699 FE. Then they dropped it by $100 when the 1080ti released. Since the 20-series x80ti launched at the same time as the x80, you basically need to choose which pricing to use. If you use the later one the x80ti looks like a lot more reasonable.
The evga 1070 I bought at release was $440.
Edit: and it was worth every penny :)
Yes, they charged over MSRP for pre-overclocked cards and because they were tough to find. GTX1070 launch non-FE MSRP was $379.
There are a lot of rich single dudes who like games in the developed world. I don’t know what their volume projections are, but they could probably sell 5-10k of them. If they’re thinking this is a huge mainstream product, they’re gonna have a bad time, though.
I have a 970 and apparently will still have one for some time.
970 launched at $329, incidentally. Compared to the 1070 at $379 and the 2070 at $499. Shows how Nvidia’s price gouging progressed over the past five years.
A part of me wonders why they couldn’t have gone the route of having a dedicated RTX card, and then properly advanced the GTX line with far better performance numbers.
Sorta like when people were using a 2nd video card just for PhysX.