Why would it cost more if the display controllers that are already being built to VESA specifications are replaced with display controllers that have updated VESA specifications that add adaptive sync?
With Freesync they are using an updated part that all monitors already have. With Gsync they have to add another module entirely. That's where the cost savings come from Adaptive sync, and where the added cost comes from Gsync.
If no other vendor supports it, they cannot easily transition to a competitor.
The one with better quality and thus used by professionals?Gsync is already garbage and will be the beta of video standard in a few years.
If no other vendor supports it then there is no competitor. It's not the same thing. We are talking about the cause not the effect. The "effect" of being locked to a single vendor would not be caused by a vendor lock. It's just purely lack of support.
I can't wait until some clever manufacturer comes out with a scaler that is compatible with both G-Sync and FreeSync. Then we can forget all this vendor lock-in nonsense
I can't wait until some clever manufacturer comes out with a scaler that is compatible with both G-Sync and FreeSync. Then we can forget all this vendor lock-in nonsense
If we go by your definition, then there is no possible way to know if FreeSync is vaporware until it is finally released and we can compare promises to actual product. Which is silly. DNF was vaporware for over a decade because they kept pushing back the release date. Bitboys 'Oy graphics card was vaporware because they kept pushing back the release date. FreeSync is not because it still has not even hit its initial expected release date.people aren't worried about whether or not AMD is going to meet any sort of deadline, they're worried whether or not what AMD is "promising" is worth anything in the first place because we know so little about it. I don't think anyone cares whether or not they have been honest about their development cycle, we're worried about whether or not they've been honest about the actual product
AMD can deliver Freesync on time, but if its not what they "promised", then they never really delivered that product and what they originally "promised" is still effectively vaporware.
In your opinion. As I have posted above, other people agree with me that vaporware means a product that has been delayed numerous times or was never intended to be sold:it doesn't matter whether or not Freesync fits your semantic understanding of what "vaporware" means, the truth behind it is still blatantly obvious to any objective viewer
AMD displayed a pre-production, Beta demo of FreeSync. Honestly, that's the best description that fits. Otherwise, every time a game studio displayed pre-production footage of the title they were working on, people would be screaming "IT'S VAPORWARE!!!" just because they would have to wait until it was finished before they could purchase it. AMD gave us an estimated timeline to completion of retail samples and so far they seem to be sticking to it. If they go over that timeline.... Well, then things might change."Vaporware", sometimes synonymous with "vaportalk" in the 1980s, has no single definition. It is generally used to describe a hardware or software product that has been announced, but that the developer has no intention on releasing anytime soon, if ever.
The 'vapor' in vaporware does not refer to 'hot air'. It refers to a product that cannot be purchased because it has been delayed over and over or has been abandoned completely.most definitions I've seen and brought forth revolve around a marketing strategy with little if any real substance to be seen. Freesync fits that perfectly. That's not to say such products never come into being, many often do, however a lot of it is hot air "vapor" (to talk or act grandiloquently, pompously, or boastfully; bluster) to buy time until an actual product can be scrambled into existence (e.g. those pathetic closed demos on laptops back in January, several months after we first saw G-Sync in action)
cynicism ≠ vaporware. You can be skeptical that an announced product may not live up to the hype. But that doesn't make it vaporware.If nVidia told me they had a new product to be released holiday season 2015 that would provide perfect scaling and eliminate microstutter in SLI solutoins, but failed provide any evidence of such a technology other than promises and closed demos, I would be just as skeptical/cynical as I am with AMD and Freesync, I don't take things on faith.
Hang on there. AMD never said they would "have something soon". In everything I read, they have maintained that Q1 2015 would be its expected retail release date.Again, we first heard about G-Sync last October, and we knew more about that technology and how it would work than we now know about Freesync even though AMD has been "blowing the smoke up our butt" for better part of that same year, assuring us that they have something soon and that its going to be as good if not better. I can't help but believe that Freesync was certainly vaporware when it was first announced in retaliation to G-Sync, and while I believe we're going to see Freesync options available eventually, we still don't have any evidence to boost our confidence that what we might get is actually worthwhile.
Agreed.I certainly hope they have something, because I want G-Sync, but I'm not thrilled at the prospect of paying +$200 for it.
I can't wait until some clever manufacturer comes out with a scaler that is compatible with both G-Sync and FreeSync. Then we can forget all this vendor lock-in nonsense
NVIDIAs latest G-SYNC revolution requires monitor manufacturers to replace their scalar with a G-SYNC, trading in the freedom to scale settings like input frame, color hue, intensity and contrast for pure speed and smoothness of the game. With the best efforts of our R&D champions, weve found a way to keep your options open with the worlds first hybrid engine design. So you are in control of matching your choice of gameplay.
One, this is a rumor, not an announcement. There still isn't an adaptive sync display announced, let alone "ahead of schedule". As for vendor lock, it may not be AMD's fault nobody else is implementing adaptive-sync support, but that doesn't change the fact that you're locked into AMD video cards if you buy an adaptive-sync display.How can an announcement about a product being released next month end up in stupid discussions like this?
About vaporware when a version i going to be released ahead of schedule, or at least at the best time estimate ( I think they said to be released in 6-9 months)
And about vendor lock, when they follow an open standard that nVidia and Intel will be free to adapt at any time.
Why does every discussion end up like this. Do you play a game with score sheets about who closes most threads?
I think we can agree that the best display would be one like the ROG Swift but + freesync
+ GPU independent strobing
- ULMB
Sorry about not reading the links. Agree that they are just a lot of words. But still, everybody, as debated here, thinks that vaporware is a product that is just a lot of talk but don't turn up. And it's a strongly negative word. Lets wait a few months before throwing that around.One, this is a rumor, not an announcement. There still isn't an adaptive sync display announced, let alone "ahead of schedule". As for vendor lock, it may not be AMD's fault nobody else is implementing adaptive-sync support, but that doesn't change the fact that you're locked into AMD video cards if you buy an adaptive-sync display.
Why does every thread end up like this? Because some people take clickbait headlines at face value and ignore the disparity we've seen between PR and actual hardware.
As for vaporware, freesync qualifies until we see a review of an actual product, or evidence of high volume production.
If no other vendor supports it then there is no competitor. It's not the same thing. We are talking about the cause not the effect. The "effect" of being locked to a single vendor would not be caused by a vendor lock. It's just purely lack of support.
Vendor lock-in is a situation in which a customer using a product or service cannot easily transition to a competitor’s product or service. Vendor lock-in is usually the result of proprietary technologies that are incompatible with those of competitors. However, it can also be caused by inefficient processes or contract constraints, among other things.
whatRead the definition, and tell me where cause matters within the description. Because the definition is not saying the reasons for it to be locked in matters, it only states that you cannot transition to another vendor.
And please, don't try to equate an example as the only way it happens, they clearly state there are other ways it happens.
I get that is how you feel it should be, but it is not stated to be as such. Even though others could support it, the customer cannot easily transition to Nvidia if they don't support it.
Can you understand that? This isn't about blame. Just simply reading and comprehension.
EDIT: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, on your reading comprehension, and ask if this is how you are reading it:
If you thinking in terms of the standard be locked from the vendor point of view then you'd be correct and saying it is not. Nvidia is not locked out of the standard.
However, that is not what I have said, or at least, that is not the point of view I mean to be talking about. I'm talking about on the consumer level. The user who wants to use A-sync would be vendor locked to AMD, if Nvidia or Intel doesn't support it (and even if Intel did, if you want discrete performance, you'd be locked to AMD).
Reread from the point of view of the consumer or customer and tell me how the definition does not fit.
what
nv and intel CAN chose async now or the future
what green think tank can come up with a way amd or intel could run gsync. [without gpu hardware changes]
-you know nv is or will be suing everyone that might be using their ip right so tell me how amd or intel can use gsync ????
I think we can agree that the best display would be one like the ROG Swift but + freesync
+ GPU independent strobing
- ULMB
@ $500-$600
But the customer (me or you), cannot choose anything but AMD if they want to use A-sync/Freesync. That is the definition of vendor locked-in. Read the damned definition. It talks about customers, not what the vendor can choose. That can change if Nvidia or Intel picks it up, but until then...well, we can't.
Yes we can because it's a VESA standard. Open to all. It's actually the exact opposite of a vendor lock. Nv and intel and ARM and VIA or whoever are free to pick it up, which they will. Those A-Sync monitors are the ones to get. I doubt manufacturers will create some Frankenstein A-Sync/Gsync hybrid either, it's pointless. If Nv wants to be able to support A-Sync monitors, they'll simply have to the VESA A-Sync standard.
Vendor lock-in is a situation in which a customer using a product or service cannot easily transition to a competitor’s product or service.
You guys keep talking what Nvidia could do.
But the customer, the person who would be locked in, can't do anything with an open standard if only one vendor supports it.
The customer is the person locked in to a vendor. Customer. Can't you understand that? Yes, VESA A-sync is a standard. Yes, any vendor could support it. Yet if only 1 vendor does, the customer who wants to use A-sync is locked-in to AMD.
The definition is quite clear. If the customer cannot easily switch vendors to use such tech, they are vendor locked-in to that 1 vendor that supports it.
So what IF Nvidia could support it, if they do not.
The technology of A-sync is not vendor locked. I agree. The CUSTOMER who wants to use A-sync would be, if no one but AMD supports it.
The definition explicitly mentions the customer as well.
Who gives a crap what the literal definition might be, its clear what is meant by vendor lockin in this context.