See nothing wrong with hooking up a RX480 to a so called $550 monitor. What's the point of a graphics card being hooked up to $10 monitor? The monitor is more important than the gpu. The monitor is where one sees what the gpu puts out. The odds are the gpu will change before the monitor does. Besides using the flip side of that argument, what's the point of hooking a $1,000 card to a $550 monitor? There is no accounting for taste. People will spend their money how they see fit. If it offends you that someone made a "mistake", educate them so a more informed decision can be made the next time. Raise above the name calling. Name calling just drowns out what one is saying.

EDIT: FreeSync was designed to handle dips below 60fps. Why I will repeat 60fps is an outdated metric. It has been rendered moot. Like with all new tech, newer costs more. It just needs to make its way down to mainstream offerings. By that time 60fps will be a long dead topic.

Wait what??????? Who is paying $500 for a $200 card?

you are going to hook a $200 GPU up to a $550 monitor? And you call me an elitist.

And why wouldnt it? It runs perfectly 1440p@60... Why would everyone care about maxing games out. Too many elitists..

you sounded like it is i a big difference of hooking up a $200 card to a 550$ monitor compared to cards of other cost. so i just asked if someone should just pay other prices for not so expensive cards to attach them to a monitor without a strange feeling about it? you see i put my 4000$ motorcycle into a 15000$ carport. and i dont feel that the bike is not worthy of that carport at all.

You can find one under 400.

...why build a PC that can't max out the games you want to run? Like, how is it enjoyable to game at 1440p when you have to turn everything down?

But that is the point of the statement being that it is a 1440 card; hooking it up to an adaptive sync monitor. It does support it. So why not make an advertising point about it. The only way these adaptive sync monitors make it to the masses is if more sell. The statement on AMDs part is more self serving but pushes the fact to get the tech moving.

...why build a PC that can't max out the games you want to run? Like, how is it enjoyable to game at 1440p when you have to turn everything down?

you always have to take into consideration that if we focus on single setting FPS/performance difference: 1440p vs 1080p is a MUCH smaller hit on FPS than 8xMSAA vs 2xMSAA for example. so people start making tradeoffs. for example me. i play AAA games in 1440p with MSAA disabled but mostly TAA/SMAA/FXAA (what the game offers) enabled. that way i have constantly above 60fps easily and can enjoy a very nice image quality (1440p!) but if i go to 1080p and enable MSAAx8 instead i have generally the same image quality but my fps are around 45 and 60fps (approximately, and depending on game) the next advantage is, that a resolution scaling is also a rather perf-level-stable setting without any fluctuation due to difference in scenery. that means if there is a scene with many edges to be smoothened MSAA will draw more FPS so the variability of the FPS is way higher depending on the game scene. with a resolution increase i have a pretty clear performance hit throughout the whole game / throughout all situations of the game. this is what people can do when they dont have the highest end cards.

On that note most of Hilbert's benches are not running max AA to more properly represent real life gaming.

Most of the audience does not have an adaptive sync monitor. Yes, that is exactly my point, that 750Ti is a QHD card as long as it can consistently push frame rates within the sync range.

Yes a 2560x1440 one.

Yeah no way I'm playing under 60Hz on PC. If I want that I will play a console. I get what you are saying but the problem remains that adaptive-sync monitors are out of reach for the low-mid market.

Newegg has a refurb at $399.99 if that is your proof it is moot. The cheapest they have new is $445.

You can buy a Acer XG270HU from microcenter at 399