You cant fix the ghosting issue because it is caused by a deactive overdrive setting. What you see is the real non optimized performance of the panels.
I want to know ghosting can be seen If Freesync is Off?
AMD released New Driver 15.3, anyone Tested With FreeSync Monitor For ghosting?
This Forbes article with Nvidia about G-Sync is interesting: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...-display-tech-is-superior-to-amds-freesync/2/
About Freesync ghosting: "We have anti-ghosting technology so that regardless of framerate, we have very little ghosting. See, variable refresh rates change the way you have to deal with it. Again, we need that module. With AMD, the driver is doing most of the work. Part of the reason they have such bad ghosting is because their driver has to specifically be tuned for each kind of panel. They wont be able to keep up with the panel variations"
If what is said is true, I hope AMD adds user configurable monitor profiles like 3-d game profiles to help the situation.
Is he serious? So it's easier to update the G-sync hardware than updating a driver. Uh no. And wait, how many "panel variations" are there? To me Nvidia is getting desperate to justify G-sync the FUD being tossed around is getting silly.Part of the reason they have such bad ghosting is because their driver has to specifically be tuned for each kind of panel. They wont be able to keep up with the panel variations
What NV is basically saying is that instead of drivers, their module is tuned for each panel they put it on. AMD has to tune their drivers for each panel they support.
So what was once thought to require a module, can be accomplished via drivers instead? That implies AMD just needs to update their drivers to support the panels that they accept into their FS program.
Assuming there's any truth at all to what nVidia says. For me that's a big stretch.
Marketing is just a collection of selected truths and omitted failings.
I would like more information on how G-Sync stops ghosting.
I would like more information on how G-Sync stops ghosting. Does it modify the colors available on the monitor?
If taking Nvidia by their word, this is what the G-Sync module does. The module replaces normal lcd scaler so it can theoretically compare the current frame and each of it's pixel to next frame's pixel also taking into account how long current frame has been shown and update the next frame's pixel with the calculated anti-ghosting pixel color value. I'm assuming all this since Nvidia isn't disclosing the exact G-Sync hardware implementation details.
G-Sync monitors are more premium and this allows the manufactures to have a more aggressive selection in panels and invest more time/money into validation and writing the firmware.
Is this a supposition or a fact? If it is a supposition I would ask that you not spread it as fact without a source, this creates issues on the forums where users who come here for information and are not as technically literate have a hard time distinguishing someones assumption from another persons statement of fact.
I don't believe this to be the case. Another user replied already that the module is choosing pixels of an approximate color that the monitor can change to in one refresh which is essentially similar to what I suspected as the method.
We tune our G-Sync module for each monitor, based on its specs and voltage, which is exactly why you wont see ghosting from us
What the other user (Eymar) said is just as much supposition, seeing as the only detail Nvidia gave was this:
Which basically tells us nothing.
First of all, the spec ‘Adaptive Sync’ has no minimum. Both have the ability to communicate any range, so there’s nothing about the base specs that are different. What’s interesting though, is the reason there are panel-specific refresh limits. LCD images decay after a refresh, you kinda paint the screen and it slowly fades. That fade is just related to the panel. The reason there’s an Adaptive Sync spec and G-Sync module is because that lower limit is variable depending on the technology inside the panel. But games don’t know about that! So what do you do when a game has a lower FPS than the minimum rate you want to run your panel? Because when they run below that minimum rate things start to flicker, and that’s a horrible experience.
Yup, that's what I get from reading that as well. I'm guessing if each panel needs unique settings to be read by drivers, those settings will be stored on monitor side (either on monitor firmware or .inf\reg file). For cheaper monitors, those settings would probably not be provided so hopefully users have some mechanism to do it themselves (like how Seiki 4k monitors can be run as 120hz monitors via inf file changes). Again, assuming AMD drivers can control the required monitor timings.
I would like more information on how G-Sync stops ghosting. Does it modify the colors available on the monitor? Every technology that has done this so far has had drawbacks. I would prefer to have either an IPS panel running at a refresh rate it can keep up with it or a TN panel with decent color reproduction. I have two TNs that I like very much and I would even say I like them more than my IPS panel. My IPS panel has gamma creep in the corners and it can be distracting in very dark screens.. which is like every game. I have gotten used to it but I would not purchase it again.
So I think the lesson is to see every panel in person and judge it based on its performance and not its feature set checkboxes.
Yep. IPS self stimulation is completely overblown. I've seen lots of crappy IPS panels with light bleed and obvious ghosting. Most of the time I'll take a low persistence, low latency, middle of the road color reproduction TN over IPS. Of course, I say that owning 3x IPS, but only because I vetted the particular monitor thoroughly before purchase. I don't see why people need accurate colors for gaming, are you printing screenshots?
Any word on FS monitors that work at lower than 48hz yet?
Yep. IPS self stimulation is completely overblown. I've seen lots of crappy IPS panels with light bleed and obvious ghosting. Most of the time I'll take a low persistence, low latency, middle of the road color reproduction TN over IPS. Of course, I say that owning 3x IPS, but only because I vetted the particular monitor thoroughly before purchase. I don't see why people need accurate colors for gaming, are you printing screenshots?
Accurate colours are not just for print... Aiming for an accurate standard of 2.2 gamma and 6500k temperature would both serve as a tribute to the artists of the game who should be working in managed profiles in their pipeline. Also ensures a standard gamut of colour fidelity and range. Demanding 60FPS+ instead of settling for 20FPS is no different for me than getting accurate and distinct colours instead of a washed out blue casted screen.
You're right, there are poor IPS out there as well. And you're one of the few who does their research and are picky. Most people don't, and I feel gameplay is negatively impacted, as well as the work involved for the artists are diminished because of it.
I think it has more to do with those cheap TN panels having awful color accuracy out of the box and sometimes it was not even fixable with calibration (especially by eye as most don't even own a calibrator)
That's a fair point -- but once you pass mid-range quality of color reproduction (e.g. quality TN) you have to trade off response time and ghosting for better yet color reproduction.
I can see that you'd pick better reproduction over lower timing -- and that's totally reasonable. I think it's important that people make that call though instead of blindly picking IPS because it's the latest buzzword in reviews. They've even started called MVA and PVA panels IPS because it's somehow now evolved into shorthand for "better" despite how ridiculously misleading that is.
Definitely true. Most people who buy those terrible TNs probably do 0 research on the monitor, or are buying on a purely lowest-cost basis though. The real debate in my mind is between quality TN vs. quality IPS, not this terrible TN vs quality IPS strawman commonly seen