Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is nVidia's Adaptive V-Sync worth it?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 1, 2013 4:47:35 PM

I'm looking into buying either an AMD 7850 or a nVidia 650 TI, and I read about nVidia's adaptive v-sync feature. The cards are similarly priced

In games, I HATE screen tearing and will always turn it on even if it costs me 30fps. Therefore, I'm inclined to go with nVidia. However, the AMD card comes with free Bioshock Infinite now, so I'm saving $30 and getting similar performance.

Basically, is the adaptive v-sync worth $30 extra for a gamer that hates screen tearing?

More about : nvidia adaptive sync worth

a b Î Nvidia
June 1, 2013 4:52:47 PM

Not even slightly, its the biggest piece of crap of all the Nvidia 'technologies'. All you have to do is use MSI Afterburner and set a global FPS cap of 58FPS, bam, no screen tearing, and no input lag from vsync. In games where it doesn't work, you can add an exemption.

7850 is faster at stock than a 650ti, and overclocks like a BEAST. No reason to pick the 650ti.

Also bear in mind if you are at 1080p you will need the 2GB version.
m
0
l
June 1, 2013 4:55:00 PM

Personally I prefer nVIDIA because of drivers, CUDA, PhsyX, and well the colour scheme...

Adaptive v sync is a very nice feature and I use it on games where I get 60 frames sometimes but not all the times so it minimises torn frames.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b Î Nvidia
a b À AMD
June 1, 2013 5:01:04 PM

The free program called "RadeonPRO" Will allow you to mimic adaptive v-sync on AMD cards.

CUDA is used in a few programs. But programs that support openCL, AMD performs far better.
Physx is essentially completely a gimmick.

Color scheme? Ugh ... That isn't the way to pick a GPU.
m
0
l
June 1, 2013 5:53:58 PM

Funny how you completely ignored my comment about drivers... selective hearing (or reading) I guess, what ever. I'm done with this thread because the ignorance is obvious "Physx is essentially completely a gimmick." Hmm explain how it's a gimmick? Just because you don't like the effects or don't feel it adds anything doesn't mean it doesn't have value to others.
m
0
l
a b Î Nvidia
a b À AMD
June 1, 2013 6:09:46 PM

Never had a problem with AMD drivers. I know I am not the only one.
m
0
l
a c 83 Î Nvidia
a b À AMD
June 1, 2013 7:00:57 PM

Adaptive v-sync may not be what you think it is. It is worth it for many, it may not be worth it for others. Basically, adaptive v-sync turns v-sync on when above your monitors refresh rate, and turns it off when below your monitors refresh rate. This means you get smooth non-tear gaming when performance is great, and you do not get stuttering from v-sync being on when below your refresh rate.

Now there is another option, which may be something you would consider, based on your original post, you can use adaptive v-sync (half refresh rate), which will have v-sync on at above half your refresh rate, and cap your FPS at half your refresh rate, meaning on most monitors, you'll have a solid 30 FPS with v-sync on.

V-sync is a problem when your refresh rate is between 30 and 60, because it causes your frame times to alternate between 33.3ms and 16.7ms. This causes a bit of stutter.
m
0
l
!