AMD Freesync Review

[steverebo]

I do love all the hearsay but let's be honest none of us actually know what the gsync module does and there have been no real comparisons between freesync, gsync and adaptive sync.

Nvidia already stated that these laptops will support a type of g-sync but not the same technology or performance as a monitor with a gsync module.

I'm not an nvidia fan boy by any stretch of the imagination but I do think making huge assumptions about gsync technology is wrong.

As a company it would be marketing suicide let alone practically illegal to sell a product with a component that actually does nothing but use existing technology and market it as their own.

Wait for the comparisons and then make a judgement because I would find it hilarious if it shows gsync performing much better than the adaptive sync standard

 

[Oh Bother]

I wonder if NVidia haven't actually violated some patents since obviously their gfx drivers will run G-Sync through either their expensive shitty G-Sync scaler module as well as eDP displays, and then call it their own proprietary technology. Something tells me the licensing for VESA eDP/DisplayPort does not allow this type of use?

Unlikely - AMD are branding Adaptive-Sync as FreeSync, so I'm sure that NVIDIA could brand it G-Sync if they wanted to.

But I wonder how many monitor manufacturers that wants to sell monitors with a displayport that does not follow VESA standards? I mean they can't really market these products unless they put in bold on the boxes "Note: This product does not fully support the DisplayPort standard by limiting the functionality of Adaptive Sync to only work with graphics cards manufactured by NVidia". LOL?

Adaptive-Sync is currently an optional part of the DisplayPort spec. Displays are not required to support it, nor is NVIDIA.
You can't just buy any DisplayPort monitor and use Adaptive-Sync - though hopefully that will eventually be the case.

I got thinking.. Since the Asus G751 runs G-Sync through the panel's eDP and not a G-Sync module, should that not also mean that you could run FreeSync with a G-Sync monitor? With a little driver tweaking perhaps?

G-Sync operates differently from Adaptive-Sync. NVIDIA could add support for Adaptive-Sync and support both G-Sync and Adaptive-Sync displays, but NVIDIA are not letting anyone else implement G-Sync support.
That's why it is important that Adaptive-Sync is an open standard, unlike NVIDIA's proprietary tech designed to lock you into their platform.
After all, if you spent £600 on a monitor, you're likely to stick with NVIDIA with your next GPU upgrade rather than sacrifice G-Sync support.

I do love all the hearsay but let's be honest none of us actually know what the gsync module does and there have been no real comparisons between freesync, gsync and adaptive sync.

We know what the G-Sync module does, even if the method to actually use G-Sync is proprietary.

And G-Sync in its current state does have some advantages over Adaptive-Sync. PC Perspective have a good comparison between the two.
It does a better job handling framerates below the minimum refresh rate of the panel, since Adaptive-Sync falls back to standard V-Sync on/off behaviour while G-Sync does not. (it basically has no minimum refresh rate)

And something which may be specific to the first run of FreeSync branded monitors, is that there seem to be some ghosting problems.

What it looks like is that these panels are using overdriving which is optimised for their maximum refresh rates, and when the framerate deviates from that, we're seeing some ghosting appear.

The G-Sync module on the other-hand apparently tunes the overdriving differently based on the refresh rate, to help minimise ghosting.
Hopefully this is something which can be addressed by the display manufacturers rather than an inherent problem with Adaptive-Sync.

Nvidia already stated that these laptops will support a type of g-sync but not the same technology or performance as a monitor with a gsync module.

It's Adaptive-Sync via eDP. Embedded DisplayPort has already had support for variable refresh rates in the spec for a long time now, since it was envisioned as a power saving feature on notebooks.
Rather than always updating the display at 60Hz, you can drop it to a much lower rate if nothing is moving on the display (e.g. you are reading a page) to eke out some power savings.
Adaptive-Sync is basically bringing the eDP variable refresh rate spec over to desktop displays via DisplayPort.

I'm not an nvidia fan boy by any stretch of the imagination but I do think making huge assumptions about gsync technology is wrong.

As a company it would be marketing suicide let alone practically illegal to sell a product with a component that actually does nothing but use existing technology and market it as their own.

To be clear: the G-Sync module is not identical to what Adaptive-Sync is doing. There's a reason that it is separate hardware.
But in that ASUS notebook with "G-Sync" it will be using eDP's variable refresh functionality, which means that NVIDIA essentially have a working implementation of Adaptive-Sync, they just haven't released it.

And they may only ever release it in the form of "G-Sync for Notebooks" rather than also supporting Adaptive-Sync displays hooked up via DisplayPort 1.2a connections.

But this is where everyone loses due to NVIDIA developing proprietary standards. If G-Sync is better - and it does seem to have some advantages over the current Adaptive-Sync displays, while Adaptive-Sync displays seem to have some other advantages over G-Sync - just imagine how things could have been if they had collaborated on an open spec, rather than fighting against it.

Adaptive-Sync is hopefully going to end up everywhere, since it is part of the official DisplayPort spec now.
Sure, it's optional, but I would hope that display manufacturers see it as a low-cost option that eventually becomes standard in any display with a DP connection.

That can never happen with G-Sync due to the proprietary module which is expensive, and because there are many limitations involved with implementing the G-Sync module in a display.

 

[steverebo]

I get what your saying and in a perfect world all these companies would work together and create one tech that benefits the consumer and that goes for many different technologies but that ain't happening ever as it's just not good business and let's be realistic if that did happen do you honestly think it would be cheaper? God no these companies could then charge whatever they want as there would be no alternative no competition. Having multiple technologies for the same purpose creates competition driving prices down which benefits us!

If you can take a technology improve it make it better more efficient and then sell it to customers who use your gpu's then great and if AMD did the same thing great.

My view is kudos to Nvidia for taking the initiative and creating a better product for their customers which although does currently cost more you are getting more which is great business.

Now that freesync and adaptive sync are out gsync prices will drop as well, they had the monopoly for a short while and like any good business made the most of it because if amd or any other company had the same opportunity they would do the same.

Personally I'm happy to stick with nvidia and if I ever decide to swap to amd then I will sell my monitor as well no different to selling my Intel motherboard and Intel processor

 

[Kushiro]

Cant help but agree with the above post, even though I dont view Nvidia very highly at the moment. It would seem even a child could do a better job than their current CEO. At least they would have something going for them.

 

[steverebo]

I'm with you there, nvidia have really let there customers down and I think the whole 970 thing was a disgrace.

What makes me giggle is people are moaning about swapping display if they swap gpu brand but we don't moan when we have to swap our motherboards when we switch cpu brand. It's natural progression with technology and I would rather have a monitor that worked perfectly with nvidia and a monitor that worked perfectly with amd rather than a single monitor that works ok with both.

As a pc enthusiast I crave perfection when it comes to the performance of my pc and I can't imagine any other enthusiast being any different that's why we put so much into our rigs so why treat our monitor any different.

I hope AMD get thier freesync as fine tuned for thier cards as nvidia are getting gsync tuned for their's that way I know if I decide to go red in the future I can grab a monitor fine tuned for the best possible performance

 

[Oh Bother]

I get what your saying and in a perfect world all these companies would work together and create one tech that benefits the consumer and that goes for many different technologies but that ain't happening ever as it's just not good business and let's be realistic if that did happen do you honestly think it would be cheaper?

Well the reason that Adaptive-Sync is cheaper than G-Sync is because it does not require any proprietary hardware.
While it is not "free" because it won't work with just any DisplayPort monitor, the costs should be a fraction of the G-Sync module, and some displays may only need a firmware update to support it.
Eventually I would expect to see it as a standard feature of any monitor with DP, because it will simply be a standard feature of newer display controllers.

But the main issue I have with NVIDIA is not that they did not contribute to the Adaptive-Sync spec or open up G-Sync - though it would have been better for everyone if they did - but that they refuse to support it even though it is now an official VESA spec - not an AMD one.

Now that freesync and adaptive sync are out gsync prices will drop as well, they had the monopoly for a short while and like any good business made the most of it because if amd or any other company had the same opportunity they would do the same.

I believe it was PC Perspective who said that the G-Sync module is apparently costing manufacturers $100 from NVIDIA. That is an absurd cost, and it means that G-Sync displays will never compete with Adaptive-Sync ones on price. They will always be $200+ more expensive than the equivalent display with Adaptive-Sync, because Adaptive-Sync is using standard display controllers.

And G-Sync modules are even more expensive to integrate with a display if you want them to have multiple inputs and the standard options that we expect to see on monitors these days. G-Sync bypasses all of that, while Adaptive-Sync requires pretty much no internal changes to the display, other than a newer revision of the hardware they were already using.

What makes me giggle is people are moaning about swapping display if they swap gpu brand but we don't moan when we have to swap our motherboards when we switch cpu brand.

Not really though.
OK, Intel and AMD are using separate sockets which means that they are not interchangeable.
But they're using standard USB, PCIe, SATA, HDMI, DisplayPort connections etc. for peripheral devices.
They both use standard DDR RAM in a standardised configuration.
They both work with standard ATX power supplies.
They use standardised form-factors for the motherboards so that they fit in a regular case instead of an Intel or an AMD case.

You don't lose access to all your peripherals because you switched from Intel to AMD.
And because they use standardised PCIe connections, there are no problems using an NVIDIA GPU in an AMD system.
They're not doing anything proprietary to block that.

G-Sync is the equivalent of replacing all of those with NVIDIA-specific connections that raise the cost of each component by £100, and making it so that those only work with NVIDIA-certified motherboards.
They are trying to lock people into their "platform" which goes against the openness of the PC platform as a whole.

While you might be happy to, few people are going to spend £600 on a monitor and just swap it out at will.
For most people, spending £600 on a monitor means that they'll be using it for at least 5 years.
And if they can only use all the features of the monitor with an NVIDIA GPU, well they're far more likely to buy an NVIDIA one next, aren't they?

I hope AMD get thier freesync as fine tuned for thier cards as nvidia are getting gsync tuned for their's that way I know if I decide to go red in the future I can grab a monitor fine tuned for the best possible performance

You're missing the point though. This is not AMD vs NVIDIA.
Adaptive-Sync is not "AMD's G-Sync" it's everyone's G-Sync.
Anyone can support Adaptive-Sync, because it's a part of the DisplayPort spec.

G-Sync only works with NVIDIA cards, and only ever will.
Unlike G-Sync, Adaptive-Sync (FreeSync) should work with any GPU that has a DP1.2a connection once they add driver support.

AMD is developing open standards that anyone can use (Adaptive-Sync, OpenCL, Mantle/Vulkan, HSA, HBM, TressFX) while NVIDIA's approach is to lock down features to their own closed-off platform so that once you buy NVIDIA you won't want to switch away. (G-Sync, CUDA, PhysX, TXAA, GameWorks)

You shouldn't support that. And I say this as someone that has only bought Intel/NVIDIA hardware in the last five years.
Locked-down connections for peripheral devices like displays is where I draw the line.

It was different when G-Sync was the only option available, and it would be different if NVIDIA wanted G-Sync to be a competing standard to Adaptive-Sync if they believe that it offers a better experience.

But they are refusing to support open industry standards in favor of their own proprietary locked-down ones, and that's not OK.

What they should have done was support Adaptive-Sync and open up the G-Sync spec so that it could be supported on AMD/Intel GPUs and they still get their $100 or whatever it is on every monitor sold, if people believe that G-Sync offers a superior experience to Adaptive-Sync. But I expect that there won't be many G-Sync displays available a few years from now once everything gets Adaptive-Sync for "free", and NVIDIA will be forced into supporting it.

 

[NeverBackDown]

Well the reason that Adaptive-Sync is cheaper than G-Sync is because it does not require any proprietary hardware.
While it is not "free" because it won't work with just any DisplayPort monitor, the costs should be a fraction of the G-Sync module, and some displays may only need a firmware update to support it.

It is free, doesn't have a licensing fee; therefore, freesync. It wouldn't be an Open Standard if you had to pay someone for it. AMD have even said it was free.. should read the review tom did recently on an Acer freesync monitor.

 

[steverebo]

Well the reason that Adaptive-Sync is cheaper than G-Sync is because it does not require any proprietary hardware.
While it is not "free" because it won't work with just any DisplayPort monitor, the costs should be a fraction of the G-Sync module, and some displays may only need a firmware update to support it.
Eventually I would expect to see it as a standard feature of any monitor with DP, because it will simply be a standard feature of newer display controllers.

But the main issue I have with NVIDIA is not that they did not contribute to the Adaptive-Sync spec or open up G-Sync - though it would have been better for everyone if they did - but that they refuse to support it even though it is now an official VESA spec - not an AMD one.

I believe it was PC Perspective who said that the G-Sync module is apparently costing manufacturers $100 from NVIDIA. That is an absurd cost, and it means that G-Sync displays will never compete with Adaptive-Sync ones on price. They will always be $200+ more expensive than the equivalent display with Adaptive-Sync, because Adaptive-Sync is using standard display controllers.

And G-Sync modules are even more expensive to integrate with a display if you want them to have multiple inputs and the standard options that we expect to see on monitors these days. G-Sync bypasses all of that, while Adaptive-Sync requires pretty much no internal changes to the display, other than a newer revision of the hardware they were already using.

Not really though.
OK, Intel and AMD are using separate sockets which means that they are not interchangeable.
But they're using standard USB, PCIe, SATA, HDMI, DisplayPort connections etc. for peripheral devices.
They both use standard DDR RAM in a standardised configuration.
They both work with standard ATX power supplies.
They use standardised form-factors for the motherboards so that they fit in a regular case instead of an Intel or an AMD case.

You don't lose access to all your peripherals because you switched from Intel to AMD.
And because they use standardised PCIe connections, there are no problems using an NVIDIA GPU in an AMD system.
They're not doing anything proprietary to block that.

G-Sync is the equivalent of replacing all of those with NVIDIA-specific connections that raise the cost of each component by £100, and making it so that those only work with NVIDIA-certified motherboards.
They are trying to lock people into their "platform" which goes against the openness of the PC platform as a whole.

While you might be happy to, few people are going to spend £600 on a monitor and just swap it out at will.
For most people, spending £600 on a monitor means that they'll be using it for at least 5 years.
And if they can only use all the features of the monitor with an NVIDIA GPU, well they're far more likely to buy an NVIDIA one next, aren't they?

You're missing the point though. This is not AMD vs NVIDIA.
Adaptive-Sync is not "AMD's G-Sync" it's everyone's G-Sync.
Anyone can support Adaptive-Sync, because it's a part of the DisplayPort spec.

G-Sync only works with NVIDIA cards, and only ever will.
Unlike G-Sync, Adaptive-Sync (FreeSync) should work with any GPU that has a DP1.2a connection once they add driver support.

AMD is developing open standards that anyone can use (Adaptive-Sync, OpenCL, Mantle/Vulkan, HSA, HBM, TressFX) while NVIDIA's approach is to lock down features to their own closed-off platform so that once you buy NVIDIA you won't want to switch away. (G-Sync, CUDA, PhysX, TXAA, GameWorks)

You shouldn't support that. And I say this as someone that has only bought Intel/NVIDIA hardware in the last five years.
Locked-down connections for peripheral devices like displays is where I draw the line.

It was different when G-Sync was the only option available, and it would be different if NVIDIA wanted G-Sync to be a competing standard to Adaptive-Sync if they believe that it offers a better experience.

But they are refusing to support open industry standards in favor of their own proprietary locked-down ones, and that's not OK.

What they should have done was support Adaptive-Sync and open up the G-Sync spec so that it could be supported on AMD/Intel GPUs and they still get their $100 or whatever it is on every monitor sold, if people believe that G-Sync offers a superior experience to Adaptive-Sync. But I expect that there won't be many G-Sync displays available a few years from now once everything gets Adaptive-Sync for "free", and NVIDIA will be forced into supporting it.

Couldn't disagree more, there is no difference between swapping a monitor and gpu than a cpu and motherboard it's just something we are not used to.

As long as gsync is superior to adaptive sync which it currently is it will not be going anywhere and people will pay because they demand the best.

Why would nvidia ever open the spec of thier own currently superior technology to competitors it's like asking apple to release the source code for ios or Sony to release the specs of thier console to Microsoft it's insane.

These are still companies who need to make a profit and have shareholders.

 

[Oh Bother]

It is free, doesn't have a licensing fee; therefore, freesync. It wouldn't be an Open Standard if you had to pay someone for it. AMD have even said it was free.. should read the review tom did recently on an Acer freesync monitor.

Well there are no licensing fees. Most displays will need newer hardware inside than they were previously shipping with to support Adaptive-Sync, so it could add to the cost of the display in the short-term.
In the long-term, it should be free, because it will just end up integrated in the display controllers and should become a standard feature of any DisplayPort connected display.

Couldn't disagree more, there is no difference between swapping a monitor and gpu than a cpu and motherboard it's just something we are not used to.

It is ridiculous that NVIDIA have taken a universal device - a DisplayPort connected monitor - and essentially turned it into an NVIDIA-only display. That people would defend this behaviour is even worse.

As long as gsync is superior to adaptive sync which it currently is it will not be going anywhere and people will pay because they demand the best.

If it's better (right now it seems to be better in some ways, and worse in others) then people would happily pay the premium for it, without it having to be locked into only working with NVIDIA GPUs.

Why would nvidia ever open the spec of thier own currently superior technology to competitors it's like asking apple to release the source code for ios or Sony to release the specs of thier console to Microsoft it's insane.

Because it's a monitor. They're taking something which should work with any device, replacing the internals, and making it a device which is only useful when connected to an NVIDIA GPU. And worse than that, they are refusing to support the open standard which should work with any GPU.

I'm not saying that NVIDIA should make their GPU hardware open-source, which would be more equivalent to your examples.
If they made the G-Sync protocol open to use; not open-source, and not free, they still make their money off every G-Sync display sold.
And they would have a better chance of selling more G-Sync displays if they were no longer locked to a single platform.

But why would anybody buy a G-Sync display now when there is a universal standard that can work with everything, which reduces the cost of the monitor by at least £100?

This would be like Intel saying that instead of adding support for USB3.1, they would only put Thunderbolt 3 ports on their motherboard instead, and they would not license the Thunderbolt spec to other companies like AMD.

Or imagine if AMD had a line of GPUs that performed better than the Titan X and cost half as much, but they decided that they weren't going to use PCIe any more and it only worked with AMD motherboards.

Replacing open standards with closed ones to leverage your current position in the market, and refusing to support new open standards to lock your customers into buying your own product is very anti-consumer.

 

[steverebo]

gsync is not the same as adaptive sync it's similar but inherently different as it does the same thing better with huge differences once frames go below 60 that's why people will pay the extra £100.

You really don't get how a business operates in order to strive and achieve maximum profits. Nvidia have made a product that benefits THIER customers why in hell would they want to produce a product that also benefits thier major competitor????

It's just good business, they are saying 'buy nvidia and take advantage of our superior gsync technology' it's no different to apple who say 'buy apple and take advantage of a superior iTunes system'.

These businesses are not here to benefit thier customers they are here to make a profit by producing the best product and gaining more customers and keeping them.

What they are doing is great business and by saying 'we will not support the flawed open standard and will only support our superior gsync technology as we strive for the best' just shows how much confidence they have that it is better and until something surpasses it Is can't imagine it going anywhere as people will pay the extra as they want the superior product.

People will keep buying nvidia and g-sync as long as nvidia dominate the performance market which they have done for many years now and will continue to do till AMD produce something that is amazing because remember nvidia are most likely 2 or 3 gpu architectures ahead in r&d of what they are selling to us.

 

[Oh Bother]

gsync is not the same as adaptive sync it's similar but inherently different as it does the same thing better with huge differences once frames go below 60 that's why people will pay the extra £100.

The minimum refresh rate is 48Hz on the IPS panels and 40Hz on the TN panels. Not 60.
G-Sync or no, it sucks to be gaming at low framerates. What's the point of a high-end PC if you can't even hit 60?
G-Sync/Adaptive-Sync are about being able to use high framerates with no lag, stuttering, or tearing. Not being able to run games on an underpowered rig that can't keep it above 60 most of the time. (or more accurately, 40/48 depending on whether it's TN/VA or IPS)

You really don't get how a business operates in order to strive and achieve maximum profits. Nvidia have made a product that benefits THIER customers why in hell would they want to produce a product that also benefits thier major competitor????

It doesn't benefit NVIDIA customers to be locked out from using Adaptive-Sync displays.
That only benefits NVIDIA themselves - at least in the near-term.

Once Adaptive-Sync becomes a standard feature of any non-G-Sync monitor, they will have to support it.
The only reasons for refusing to support it now, are anti-consumer ones. Not "pro-NVIDIA customer" reasons.

It's just good business, they are saying 'buy nvidia and take advantage of our superior gsync technology' it's no different to apple who say 'buy apple and take advantage of a superior iTunes system'.

It would be more equivalent to when Apple decided the iPod could work on Windows, since you seem to keep making comparisons between Apple and NVIDIA.
And what happened? The iPod became the huge success it is today, which effectively saved Apple as a company.

Now NVIDIA are not in a position of needing saved, but it benefits their customers, and means that someone with an AMD card is more likely to buy a G-Sync monitor (which is directly giving money to NVIDIA) if they can use it with any PC.
No matter what GPU you have, if you buy a G-Sync monitor, you're buying an NVIDIA product. It benefits them directly.
And if G-Sync worked on Intel/AMD systems and someone thought it was a really good product, maybe they will switch over to NVIDIA when it is time for them to upgrade.
That's how Apple did it with the iPod/iPhone/iPad. They got people to buy peripheral devices which were good, and that got people curious about switching over. Now everyone I know has a Mac.
Some of them also have a gaming PC, but they all use Macs.

But I care less about G-Sync working on non-NVIDIA GPUs, and more about NVIDIA supporting the VESA Adaptive-Sync standard.
Standards exist for a reason, and refusing to support them in favour of their own proprietary tech is very anti-consumer.

These businesses are not here to benefit thier customers they are here to make a profit by producing the best product and gaining more customers and keeping them.

What they are doing is great business and by saying 'we will not support the flawed open standard and will only support our superior gsync technology as we strive for the best' just shows how much confidence they have that it is better and until something surpasses it Is can't imagine it going anywhere as people will pay the extra as they want the superior product.

People will keep buying nvidia and g-sync as long as nvidia dominate the performance market which they have done for many years now and will continue to do till AMD produce something that is amazing because remember nvidia are most likely 2 or 3 gpu architectures ahead in r&d of what they are selling to us.

That's some twisted fanboy logic.
You were probably happy that NVIDIA lied about the 970 specs too, because if you take their word on it, it would have been a 3GB card instead. :rolleyes1:

And the last AMD hardware I bought was an Athlon 1400/ATi Radeon 8500, I have been buying Intel/NVIDIA ever since then.
So it's not that I am some AMD fanboy.
But I won't support anti-consumer practices like locking their customers into their own closed platform by refusing to support open standards.
This is anti-consumer, not a "competitive advantage".

The fact that people are seeing Adaptive-Sync (or FreeSync) as an "AMD Technology" to compete with G-Sync, when it is not, is worrisome.
And it is even more worrisome that people would blindly defend NVIDIA in this way, as if they were doing a good thing by preventing you from using Adaptive-Sync.

 

[Zoot]

Thanks Tom for the video.

I'm not sure what I'll do ultimately yet. I'd like a G-Sync or Freesync capable monitor but really I'd want it to work with graphics cards from both companies. I think I may hold off to see what Adaptive Sync brings to the table.

2016 could be an expensive year.

 

[Oh Bother]

Thanks Tom for the video.

I'm not sure what I'll do ultimately yet. I'd like a G-Sync or Freesync capable monitor but really I'd want it to work with graphics cards from both companies. I think I may hold off to see what Adaptive Sync brings to the table.

2016 could be an expensive year.

FreeSync is Adaptive-Sync. It is not limited to AMD GPUs.

FreeSync is just an additional certification/branding process that AMD are doing on top of Adaptive-Sync - similar to the way that NVIDIA test & certify each G-Sync display.

Adaptive-Sync (FreeSync) should work with any GPU via a driver update. We just don't know when the drivers from Intel/NVIDIA are coming.

 

[Kaapstad]

FreeSync is Adaptive-Sync. It is not limited to AMD GPUs.

FreeSync is just an additional certification/branding process that AMD are doing on top of Adaptive-Sync - similar to the way that NVIDIA test & certify each G-Sync display.

Adaptive-Sync (FreeSync) should work with any GPU via a driver update. We just don't know when the drivers from Intel/NVIDIA are coming.

If a monitor does not support both Freesync and G-Sync I will not buy it simple.

I also think that the EU should investigate and if needed fine both NVidia and AMD for restrictive practices locking people into their systems.

 

[Kushiro]

I also think that the EU should investigate and if needed fine both NVidia and AMD for restrictive practices locking people into their systems.

How are they going to do that? There is really no point in investigating, as neither company has done anything wrong by doing this.... Should they do this for Nvidias 3dvision too? Rather unreasonable...

 

[barnsley]

I'm not getting a G sync monitor. Its a waste of money in my eyes considering how often I switch out GPUS. I'll get a high refresh IPS monitor when it comes out. If it has free sync then so be it, as chances are that won't add a huge chunk of money to the price.

Nvidia are spoilt brats and won't get my money for a while.

 

[WYP]

If a monitor does not support both Freesync and G-Sync I will not buy it simple.

I also think that the EU should investigate and if needed fine both NVidia and AMD for restrictive practices locking people into their systems.

That is a bit far, also AMD's is an implementation of an open standard. Intel and Nvidia could use it if needed. We must also remember that Nvidia's Notebook G-Sync seems to operate just like Freesync (without Nvidia's Module) so Nvidia could easily do it if they wanted.

 

[Kaapstad]

That is a bit far, also AMD's is an implementation of an open standard. Intel and Nvidia could use it if needed. We must also remember that Nvidia's Notebook G-Sync seems to operate just like Freesync (without Nvidia's Module) so Nvidia could easily do it if they wanted.

I am dead against any closed standards and systems as ultimately they rip off the customer and are bad for the industry.

The EU have been tough on Microsoft in the past and I think they should also take this approach with Apple NVidia AMD or anyone else who try and lock people in.

Lets face it before Microsoft got clobbered it was still easier to change your browser than it is to change your monitor now.

 

[Oh Bother]

If a monitor does not support both Freesync and G-Sync I will not buy it simple.

I also think that the EU should investigate and if needed fine both NVidia and AMD for restrictive practices locking people into their systems.

The G-Sync module replaces all the normal display electronics, so it would be difficult (expensive) to have a display which supports both G-Sync and Adaptive-Sync.
It's the same reason that there are few G-Sync monitors which support multiple inputs - because you're basically cramming the electronics for two displays in there. It's possible, but why add unnecessary cost?

Adaptive-Sync (FreeSync) is part of the VESA DisplayPort 1.2a spec. AMD is not locking anyone into anything.
Intel/NVIDIA can support this with a driver update. AMD doesn't see a penny from them if they add Adaptive-Sync support.

We must also remember that Nvidia's Notebook G-Sync seems to operate just like Freesync (without Nvidia's Module) so Nvidia could easily do it if they wanted.

Adaptive-Sync basically takes eDP variable refresh (notebook "G-Sync") and sends it over a DisplayPort cable.
It would be trivial for them to support Adaptive-Sync if they have it working in notebooks.

 

[WYP]

I am dead against any closed standards and systems as ultimately they rip off the customer and are bad for the industry.

The EU have been tough on Microsoft in the past and I think they should also take this approach with Apple NVidia AMD or anyone else who try and lock people in.

Lets face it before Microsoft got clobbered it was still easier to change your browser than it is to change your monitor now.

Nvidia have done a lot to lock people into their ecosystem lately, from Shield In-Home streaming, G-Sync, 3DVision, Physx, CUDA, the Geforce Experience and even through GameWorks.

TBH right now I don't trust Nvidia's business decisions as they are very anti-competitive. AMD by contrast are very open standards heavy, but a lot of this is due to them being the underdog with less money to pump into R&D.

Nvidia are a company that make fantastic hardware, but I do think they do too much to lock people into their ecosystem. It is both a good thing and a bad thing IMHO, Nvidia offers these things, but they also limit your options to look elsewhere.