It's funny how when it came to the actual motion quality, it was pretty unanimous Gsync was better.
However, it was also blatantly apparent they had system 1 running at a higher detail setting because most kept saying how system 1 had better detailed textures/lighting, etc.. Things that have nothing to do with refresh rate but everything to do with graphics/game settings.
So the comparison was loaded in the first place. And then the loaded question later if the $200 difference was worth it, to take away focus from the qualitative difference in the first place.
Also these are good monitors they tested. Maybe they should have tested on one of those cheaper free sync monitors and then ask if the price difference was worth it. Do they still make 60hz/90hz free sync monitors these days?
I think you are confusing better graphics with smoothness (this is where freesync/gsync matters) The better graphics most likely had nothing to do with G-Sync, but could very well be due to the fact that they where running a water cooled, over clocked 1080ti, where the Vega was air cooled and at stock speeds. Did you remember to take that into account?
Next, you are accusing them of using different settings because you some how believe it is impossible for AMD to look better than Nvidia.. That is bias BULLSHIT! You also obviously missed the one guy that said that the AMD system was grainer, of course it was only 1 person out of all of them that made that comparison, but that contradicts your different settings theory. Also, the comments about "leafs floating" etc. on the Nvidia card, could have something to do with PhysX, because that has always been an effect of PhysX (added debree, paper flying by, etc)
Why would it be fair to use a Cheaper freesync monitor? They tested using 2 comparable monitors. Your suggestion of using a lower quality/cheaper monitor would defiantly stack the deck in Nvidia's favor, which the test had one huge factor that already stacked the deck for Nvidia. (mentioned next)
If it was a loaded test, as you say, why didn't they use a 1080 stock card against the Vega 64 air cooled? If anything, the very fact that they used a overlocked, watercooled 1080ti against a air cooled stock Vega 64, gave Nvidia/Gsync a large advantage from the start. So your "the comparison was loaded in the first place" bias view is wrong. The deck was already stacked in Nvidia's favor just with this fact alone.
When it comes to graphic quality, both vendors are about equal over all. What that means, is there are some games/scenes etc that AMD displays better, and the same goes for Nvidia. Now, when it comes to Gsync vs Freesync2, from the comments made, they are about equal, and the bottom line is that Gsync is not worth the extra $200.
