Aside from fps, is there any difference in quality of raytracing in Nvidia and AMD or is it the same(like they say that DLSS is better than FSR)?
DLSS works on Tensor cores only available to Nvidia. FSR works on anything. This means that DLSS is more specialised and, if implemented in a game properly, will work better.
GSync only works on Nvidia cards and GSync monitors, whilst FreeSync works on FreeSync and GSync monitors with any gpu.
Now ray tracing works on RT cores for Nvidia and I believe AMD have something similar. The key difference with the former technologies is that ray tracing doesn’t have an Nvidia or AMD version, the tech is part of the DirectX 12 Ultimate specification. (I think Vulkan has something similar). Both GPU makers use DX12 so they use the same software to apply ray tracing.
The fact of the matter is that the RT cores of Nvidia are more effective than the ones AMD utilises. AMD usually combats that by just adding more cores.
In the end, it all hangs on implementation. In some games, AMD will be better because the game devs have optimised it for AMD GPUs. In most games, Nvidia will be better. I suggest looking up benchmarks for games you play with and without ray tracing.
GSync only works on Nvidia cards and GSync monitors
I have a Freesync monitor (MSI) with an Nvidia RTX 3060, and Nvidia control panel gives me the option to “enable support for unverified displays” or something. Works just fine for me?
That’s FreeSync, although Nvidia, confusingly, calls it G-Sync, just like their other frame sync tech.
G-Sync required an expensive module in the display, FreeSync doesn’t.
Nvidia lost the G-Sync vs FreeSync battle, but because of their marketing chops, they managed to get away with just slapping their name on it and going with the open solution.
DLSS has been much more successful, but it’d be like if they started using FSR, but rebranded it as DLSS.
Oh that’s really gross… but of course they get away with something like that.
