All Samsung's Ultra HD monitors in 2015 to support FreeSync

[bryanW1995]

why would i want to play at ultra hd...when games are made at 900P, i have a (WQHD) screen and i feel that's just 2 much pixels...

What?? 2560x1440 is freakin' awesome. I ran 1680x1050 for quite a while before upgrading, and I don't even want to contemplate going back.

 

[ShintaiDK]

How many monitors support Gsync currently?
How many monitors are planned to support Gsync in 2015?

Not many and not many

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Wow! The entire lineup. Not just one model here and there. That shows they really believe in it.

or the cost is so low that its inconsequential to implement

now the real question is whether or not the implementation is any good

the problem with an open standard like this is that there's bound to be a wide range of performance, whereas with G-Sync you can pretty much expect a standardized performance from it across various brands

that being said, having such wide range support is a huge advantage, it doesn't really even matter if its a thoroughly inferior option to G-Sync, time and again consumers have shown they will choose the cheaper/more-convenient option.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Would be nice if we could give AMD, nVidia and Intel half a brick each and send them into a meeting room. Not getting out until they all agree on a complete spec setting.

Displayport in itself is already a big pile of poop with its weak signals etc.

 

[tential]

Not many and not many

I'm just trying to understand why so many people have so many bad things to say about Freesync in this thread?
From my understanding, Gsync isn't in many monitors at all.

Does FreeSync make Gsync slower?
So far, the only things I've read bad about FreeSync in this thread is wild speculation, I haven't read a single concrete fact that Freesync is bad. Just people guessing that it is.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I'm just trying to understand why so many people have so many bad things to say about Freesync in this thread?
From my understanding, Gsync isn't in many monitors at all.

Does FreeSync make Gsync slower?

I think the main issue is the lack of reviews. While the claims hold no boundary.

It would make everything so much easier if they just came out clean. Then we as a consumer could rightfully choose and raise our voice. But right now AMD is simply giving everyone the reason to doubt the ability of adaptive sync. With or without reason.

And this divide between freesync, nosync and g-sync does hurt everyone.

 

[tential]

I think the main issue is the lack of reviews. While the claims hold no boundary.

It would make everything so much easier if they just came out clean. Then we as a consumer could rightfully choose and raise our voice. But right now AMD is simply giving everyone the reason to doubt the ability of adaptive sync. With or without reason.

And this divide between freesync, nosync and g-sync does hurt everyone.

No reviews for a product that doesn't come out til 2015? There are no reviews for the GTX 980Ti and I don't see people saying that's a failure and it's slated for early 2015 too.

AMD doesn't make freesync monitors. Shouldn't people be asking Samsung, the person promising FreeSync monitors in 2015 for reviews? Samsung announces all UHDTV monitors in 2015 support freesync and people then whine about no review from AMD after a Samsung announcement?

Just seems like a way for people to sling mud for the fun of arguing for their favorite company (Which I still don't understand why anyone cares/loves either company. They're companies, not your friends or football teams and you don't get anything if one company releases a better product than the other).

 

[Phynaz]

So why is Samsung announcing it will only be in their 2015 4K monitors? Why not all of them?

Did they say it would only be in their 4k displays?

I think it's only in the high end displays as a way to bury the early adopter cost.

 

[ShintaiDK]

No reviews for a product that doesn't come out til 2015? There are no reviews for the GTX 980Ti and I don't see people saying that's a failure and it's slated for early 2015 too.

AMD doesn't make freesync monitors. Shouldn't people be asking Samsung, the person promising FreeSync monitors in 2015 for reviews? Samsung announces all UHDTV monitors in 2015 support freesync and people then whine about no review from AMD after a Samsung announcement?

Just seems like a way for people to sling mud for the fun of arguing for their favorite company (Which I still don't understand why anyone cares/loves either company. They're companies, not your friends or football teams and you don't get anything if one company releases a better product than the other).

Why do you defend the company then? Its a little year since we got the freesync part going:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7641/amd-demonstrates-freesync-free-gsync-alternative-at-ces-2014

And we get one PR slide and interview after the other on how great it is and no reviews. I am not asking Samsung for a review, I am asking AMD so we can get it settled.

 

[96Firebird]

AMD doesn't make freesync monitors. Shouldn't people be asking Samsung, the person promising FreeSync monitors in 2015 for reviews? Samsung announces all UHDTV monitors in 2015 support freesync and people then whine about no review from AMD after a Samsung announcement?

AMD has been pimping their Free-sync alternative since the beginning of this year, and has yet to show a viable demo (with actual, frame-by-frame variable refreshes) or allow previews/reviews for the masses. Nvidia announced G-sync in October of 2013, with reviews in December, and product in August 2014. Enough of this "wait and see", I want to see actual reviews/previews with games. That is how we are all going to use this technology, not watching a windmill spin at static refresh rates.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I am not asking Samsung for a review, I am asking AMD so we can get it settled.

Get what settled? Adaptive-Sync has already been adopted and approved, which FreeSync will take advantage of. If you don't want to wait then go out and buy a G-Sync monitor. Simple.

 

[bystander36]

or the cost is so low that its inconsequential to implement

now the real question is whether or not the implementation is any good

the problem with an open standard like this is that there's bound to be a wide range of performance, whereas with G-Sync you can pretty much expect a standardized performance from it across various brands

that being said, having such wide range support is a huge advantage, it doesn't really even matter if its a thoroughly inferior option to G-Sync, time and again consumers have shown they will choose the cheaper/more-convenient option.

As far as A-sync goes, I really don't see how it can vary much at all from monitor to monitor. It either supports it or not. Same with G-sync. Though G-sync has more moving parts, with the ULMB and the dynamic color adjustments based on how much is need to correct for the strobing (and variable refresh rates?).

A-sync won't have the bells and whistles G-sync has (ULMB mode and color correction), but as far as the variable refresh rate goes, isn't that handled on the GPU? I'd expect all monitors to handle it equally.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Get what settled? Adaptive-Sync has already been adopted and approved, which FreeSync will take advantage of. If you don't want to wait then go out and buy a G-Sync monitor. Simple.

But still the only thing you can relate to with it is a windmill demo. You have no idea if its good or bad.

 

[tential]

Why do you defend the company then? Its a little year since we got the freesync part going:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7641/amd-demonstrates-freesync-free-gsync-alternative-at-ces-2014

And we get one PR slide and interview after the other on how great it is and no reviews. I am not asking Samsung for a review, I am asking AMD so we can get it settled.

I'm saying it's utterly stupid to cry about AMD or Samsung not giving you a review.
You're not entitled to one, the products may not even be ready for review yet. They have no set release date other than 2015 so what's the point of saying "There's no review so it must suck."

The monitor could come out December 31st 2015. So there may not even be a product to review for a LONG time. Not to mention

At the event, Samsung specifically announced five Ultra HD (3840 x 2160) monitors that will launch in 2015 and support FreeSync. The UE590 will be available in 23.6 and 28 inch sizes, while the UE850 will come in 23.6, 27 and 31.5 inch models. Further details for these monitors will be announced shortly.

But hey, if you're entitled to reviews of products that don't even have a hard review date, then cry about ALL products and not just one specific one. GTX 980Ti has no reviews, AMD's new graphics cards slated for early 2015 have no reviews yet, the list goes on of products that are not yet released with no reviews....

AMD has been pimping their Free-sync alternative since the beginning of this year, and has yet to show a viable demo (with actual, frame-by-frame variable refreshes) or allow previews/reviews for the masses. Nvidia announced G-sync in October of 2013, with reviews in December, and product in August 2014. Enough of this "wait and see", I want to see actual reviews/previews with games. That is how we are all going to use this technology, not watching a windmill spin at static refresh rates.

So we can conclude that AMD has horrendous marketing unit? I think we all knew that.
Whether the product is good or not we can't tell but well, it's obvious AMD has zero clue how to make an announcement.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Enough of this "wait and see", I want to see actual reviews/previews with games. That is how we are all going to use this technology, not watching a windmill spin at static refresh rates.

Do you own a G-Sync monitor?

 

[96Firebird]

Do you own a G-Sync monitor?

No, I'm waiting to see which provides the better experience. And I'm sick of it.

 

[SoulWager]

I'm just trying to understand why so many people have so many bad things to say about Freesync in this thread?
From my understanding, Gsync isn't in many monitors at all.

Does FreeSync make Gsync slower?
So far, the only things I've read bad about FreeSync in this thread is wild speculation, I haven't read a single concrete fact that Freesync is bad. Just people guessing that it is.

The main issue with freesync is that AMD's PR resulted in a lot of misunderstanding. It's good that Samsung is supporting adaptive-sync, but we still need to see whether it performs well, and what it will actually sell for.

What do I mean by performs well?


AMD's responsibility:
1: It has to completely eliminate tearing, otherwise it's just false advertising.
2: Worst case latency should be identical to double buffered v-sync.
3: If you aren't at the maximum refresh rate of the monitor, latency should be equivalent to v-sync off.
4: If you're dipping below the monitor's minimum refresh rate, you should not lose GPU performance when a frame finishes rendering while a previous frame is being scanned out. (GPU should not sit idle waiting for a repeated frame to finish scanning out)
5: (room to improve a bit on g-sync here) If you're dipping below the monitor's minimum refresh rate, forced refreshes should be pulled forward based on previous render times, so you're less likely to finish a frame while scanning out a repeat.

Display manufacturer's responsibility:
6: display should add negligible input lag.
7: display should have minimum refresh rate set high enough that the panel does not flicker due to the long duration between refreshes.
8: If the panel is fast enough, low persistence (backlight pulsing) should be implemented in a fixed refresh mode.
9: (room to improve vastly on g-sync with enough R&D) Seamlessly blend variable framerate into low persistence.
10: color performance, brightness, contrast, artifacts, etc.

 

[AnandThenMan]

No, I'm waiting to see which provides the better experience. And I'm sick of it.

So I can assume you're willing to buy a new GPU if you like what you see with FreeSync. That's cool I like people that keep their options open, waiting for tech can be frustrating no doubt I've been very frustrated waiting for quality UHD monitors to hit reasonable price points. And now FreeSync throws a wrench into that I don't want to end up with a monitor that doesn't support it assuming A-Sync/FreeSync delivers.

 

[Skurge]

No, I'm waiting to see which provides the better experience. And I'm sick of it.

If you are sick of it, buy a G-Sync monitor. I'm pretty sure it won't be worse than free-sync. I don't mind waiting for something to be released when it's ready. Not rushed out.

 

[96Firebird]

I don't even want a 4K monitor, I'm actually fine with 1080/1200. I know those aren't considered cutting edge enough to warrant new technology like this, but I'm hoping they don't get forgotten about.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

As far as A-sync goes, I really don't see how it can vary much at all from monitor to monitor. It either supports it or not. Same with G-sync. Though G-sync has more moving parts, with the ULMB and the dynamic color adjustments based on how much is need to correct for the strobing (and variable refresh rates?).

A-sync won't have the bells and whistles G-sync has (ULMB mode and color correction), but as far as the variable refresh rate goes, isn't that handled on the GPU? I'd expect all monitors to handle it equally.

"either it supports it or it does not" that's a tautology, here's another tautology that might help you understand what I was trying to say; "either Freesync will perform as good or better than G-Sync or it won't".

It appears that you're making the mistake of assuming that Freesync will at least be as good as G-Sync when we still don't know how AMD's solution is supposed to work, we're just going on their "promises". If it does turn out to be as good or better than G-Sync (ULMB aside), that's a huge win for AMD, if it doesn't that means G-Sync still has a market as a premium solution.

 

[tential]

So I can assume you're willing to buy a new GPU if you like what you see with FreeSync. That's cool I like people that keep their options open, waiting for tech can be frustrating no doubt I've been very frustrated waiting for quality UHD monitors to hit reasonable price points. And now FreeSync throws a wrench into that I don't want to end up with a monitor that doesn't support it assuming A-Sync/FreeSync delivers.

I was waiting for MIMO powerline adapters for a long time. I never felt the need for the companies to prove that these powerline adapters were "faster" months before the release. There wasn't a single review until after the product was out.

I read the reviews then then decided if I wanted to buy the product.

Why consumers feel they are entitled to see a product far before it's released is beyond me. Besides, people here seriously would make a purchasing decision on Freesync based on a review that comes out on it today, when there isn't a product available, a launch date of a product with Freesync announced yet, etc. Freesync could be the worst thing today, months before its launch in a retail product, and be the best thing later. All a review does today is tell you about its performance today. It tells you nothing about the performance of the retail product available to us months down the line....

 

[bystander36]

"either it supports it or it does not" that's a tautology, here's another tautology that might help you understand what I was trying to say; "either Freesync will perform as good or better than G-Sync or it won't".

It appears that you're making the mistake of assuming that Freesync will at least be as good as G-Sync when we still don't know how AMD's solution is supposed to work, we're just going on their "promises". If it does turn out to be as good or better than G-Sync (ULMB aside), that's a huge win for AMD, if it doesn't that means G-Sync still has a market as a premium solution.

I'm making an educated guess based on the how A-sync works. All it has to do is send a message to the monitor when a frame is ready to be displayed, and then the monitor updates the image displayed, just like it has done for decades.

It would be pretty hard to screw up. I'm not saying it can't be messed up, but if it does, it is most likely going to be on the GPU/driver side of things and not the monitor.

 

[jackstar7]

Some people: The glass is half-full.

Some other people: That's not even a glass. That's just a bunch of lies and marketing hype and why did they even say anything about it with over a year needed to get it ready for manufacturers to even put something out and there aren't even reviews or demos of it holding any water and what if you put something other than water in it and no I cannot wait for a significant step in an industry that was basically stagnant for years and is only now starting to add new and interesting features to glasses.



All that aside, at least people can stop calling it vaporware.

 

[Paul98]

I hope this gets quick wide adoption so NVidia and Intel have to support it in the future. It would be a big win for consumers.