Gsync vs Freesync, driver updates?

[shepardh]

I am interested in a buying a new video card, and my main consideration is Freesync implementation vs Gsync implementation.

Now since Freesync is driver based, it means that it is most likely improve with newer drivers.

How will the Gsync compare?
Is it possible somehow to update the Gsync module? (maybe through firmware update?)
Or will those updates only apply through newer module = You'll have to a buy a new screen.

 

[RaulF]

They are both similar. As in you need some sort of hardware and drivers too. Not just AMD.

At this point and time theres two negatives to Gsync that i know of, a bit more money(i dont think the delta is that bad) and i believe all the monitors that are out only have DisplayPort connetion only.

The negative for AMD is driver support, crossfire does not work with freesync and AMD said drivers would be coming months ago. And some people have reported some ghosting with freesync.



If i was going to choose right now i would say Gsync unless you need a monitor with multiple inputs (i do believe theres 1 or 2 monitors coming out with more inputs for Gsync).

 

[pj-]

Freesync and gsync are equally limited when it comes to updates. If you buy a free sync monitor, its performance will not be improvable with drivers. That would require a firmware update or hardware change, just like gsync.

They are both similar. As in you need some sort of hardware and drivers too. Not just AMD.

At this point and time theres two negatives to Gsync that i know of, a bit more money(i dont think the delta is that bad) and i believe all the monitors that are out only have DisplayPort connetion only.

The negative for AMD is driver support, crossfire does not work with freesync and AMD said drivers would be coming months ago. And some people have reported some ghosting with freesync.



If i was going to choose right now i would say Gsync unless you need a monitor with multiple inputs (i do believe theres 1 or 2 monitors coming out with more inputs for Gsync).

For a 27" 1440p 144hz IPS monitor the price different is pretty big.

Gsync $800:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009742

Freesync $600:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236466

I believe those share they same underlying panel so the price difference is basically the gsync module + nvidia tax.

I was planning on getting that asus free sync monitor and a fury x but after the reviews came out I went with the 980ti. I still may end up getting the free sync monitor because I ain't paying $800 for a monitor and the $600 asus seems to be the cheapest 1440p IPS with >60hz. Then I will pray that nvidia does one un-evil thing and adds support for free sync.

 

[imaheadcase]

Its only $200. It would cost you More if you went with another video card if you already have a 980Ti.

I never understood peoples logic "im going to spend $600+ on a video card, but im not spending a penny more on a monitor than i have to".

Its like people buying $50 office chairs for a PC they sit in 8 hours a day and complain back hurts because they don't want to fork over good money for a good chair.

 

[The Alias]

Its only $200. It would cost you More if you went with another video card if you already have a 980Ti.

I never understood peoples logic "im going to spend $600+ on a video card, but im not spending a penny more on a monitor than i have to".

Its like people buying $50 office chairs for a PC they sit in 8 hours a day and complain back hurts because they don't want to fork over good money for a good chair.

terrible comparison. There is no difference between the two except price. Also, your simile is terrible too, because who there is no upgrade from a 980ti. $200 is a bunch of money. You know how many games that would have gotten you last week?

 

[Stormflux]

I do believe the differences between those two monitors are the effective variable refresh rate.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_mg279q.htm

The GSync Acer is 40-144hz, and for any frames that dip below 40hz, GSync will double up to avoid flickering. This also has additional motion blur reduction modes.

The FreeSync Asus is 35-90hz and will not double up frames. But it has additional inputs.

This is where the user has to decide if $200 and their choice of video cards is worth it.

Edit: It's true that any fixes on the monitors themselves will require a Firmware update, which unfortunately has to be sent back to the manufacturer. Why this is like this today I've no clue. But FreeSync is able to add through drivers, the ability to double up or Crossfire compatibility.

 

[96Firebird]

The GSync Acer is 40-144hz, and for any frames that dip below 40hz, GSync will double up to avoid flickering. This also has additional motion blur reduction modes.

Nice, when did they start doing this?! This was a possible solution in thought when the flickering issue first came about, I'm glad they may have gotten it to work...

 

[Azix]

G-sync is rubbish. I had expected nvidia to start supporting adaptive sync with the 970 and 980 but they didn't (and nobody bashed them like they did with amd lacking hdmi 2.0)

G-sync locks you to nvidia. You pay $200 more and then your monitor can't use a major feature if you want to switch. The only problem with freesync in this regard is nvidias contempt for technology that benefits gamers without a direct path for profit for them (therefore artificially limtied to AMD GPUs for now). So it may be a while before they start supporting it. They will though. That kind of premium is silly and they cannot compete with an open standard. What they are doing right now is milking buyers silly enough to pay the extra money. When the selection of adaptive sync monitors explodes even further they will have no choice.

2 years maybe. Hard to tell because it really doesn't seem like people apply logic to nvidia products. They might get away with not supporting adaptive sync for a while. The future of G-sync is ultimately less certain.

Freesync is not completely driver based, but yeah software can improve it. Same with G-sync I would think. The major crucial difference is just the nature of each. G-sync cannot last. It was a doomed cash grab from the start.

Also it does seem g-sync monitors only have display port. Seems usually just the one.

 

[therealnickdanger]

I'd like to see all GS/FS monitors run at 144Hz and repeat as many frames as possible to keep the refresh up.

144fps-73fps = 144Hz-73Hz native
72fps-49fps = 144Hz-98Hz doubled
48fps-37fps = 144Hz-111Hz tripled
36fps and under quadrupled, etc.

Max refresh would be limited to the panel, obviously, but the goal should be to always refresh the panel at the highest rate possible relative to the frame rate. It should go without saying that I'm not suggesting any sort of motion-interpolation like HDTVs utilize, but that it should redrawn until a new frame is ready.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

It was a doomed cash grab from the start.

Imo, having your own ASIC allows you stay one step ahead of the competition. Right now NV has ULMB and G-Sync separately. I could see an updating ASIC supporting both the use of G-Sync and ULMB at the same time. That's going to be difficult for AMD to do solely through the drivers across many different manufacturer boards.

Another one - monitors handling the display of SFR SLI. Why make GPUs handle this, potentially adding some overhead, when you can just dump the split screen information to the monitor, and let the monitor put it together and display. Now have this, along with G-Sync, and ULMB working at the same time.

I won't disagree that it's a cash grab though. I highly doubt that small piece of hardware is worth anything near $200... but I'm not at all against the idea of having dedicated hardware within the monitor to handle some G-Sync related features.

With that said, NV can't even get G-Sync+SLI+DSR working (pick any 2 of the 3, but cannot run 3/3), so I'm not 100% confident with them right now on the above. :whiste:

 

[decoy11]

g-sync does get updated with drivers. just recently they added windowed mode support to g-sync.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

I am interested in a buying a new video card, and my main consideration is Freesync implementation vs Gsync implementation.

Now since Freesync is driver based, it means that it is most likely improve with newer drivers.

How will the Gsync compare?
Is it possible somehow to update the Gsync module? (maybe through firmware update?)
Or will those updates only apply through newer module = You'll have to a buy a new screen.

Freesync/gsync are both pretty much the same thing, freesync isn't "driver based", it's just driver support for a hardware feature.

Freesync didn't have overdrive at first, now with driver and firmware updates it does.

Now that both work as they should I don't think there's much room for improvement with driver updates.

tftcentral has a piece on it
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/variable_refresh.htm

 

[3DVagabond]

Nice, when did they start doing this?! This was a possible solution in thought when the flickering issue first came about, I'm glad they may have gotten it to work...

According to AT when they did their review of the Swift not that long ago, it still flickered @ 40 Hz/FPS. For my money this is totally a non issue. I'm not buying a 144Hz monitor to run at, or anywhere near, 40Hz. Remember it's not just 40fps. The monitor "clocks down" to the same speed as the VC's output. It will be a blur fest that slow.

 

[3DVagabond]

I had expected nvidia to start supporting adaptive sync with the 970 and 980 but they didn't (and nobody bashed them like they did with amd lacking hdmi 2.0)

Too true. :thumbsup:

 

[3DVagabond]

I'd like to see all GS/FS monitors run at 144Hz and repeat as many frames as possible to keep the refresh up.

144fps-73fps = 144Hz-73Hz native
72fps-49fps = 144Hz-98Hz doubled
48fps-37fps = 144Hz-111Hz tripled
36fps and under quadrupled, etc.

Max refresh would be limited to the panel, obviously, but the goal should be to always refresh the panel at the highest rate possible relative to the frame rate. It should go without saying that I'm not suggesting any sort of motion-interpolation like HDTVs utilize, but that it should redrawn until a new frame is ready.

That would require needing to predict the future frame rate.

 

[alcoholbob]

Neither of these technologies will ever take off because of

1) Vendor lock
2) It's a technology monitor manufacturers have to license and it costs them money to build someone's proprietary technology into their displays
3) The low framerate that these syncing technologies are designed to save us from are mostly CPU limitations that ought to be fixed by DX12 anyway

Most likely in 3-4 years these will go by the wayside like hardware PhysX and most gaming monitors will have adaptive sync natively built in.

 

[3DVagabond]

Neither of these technologies will ever take off because of

1) Vendor lock
2) It's a technology monitor manufacturers have to license and it costs them money to build someone's proprietary technology into their displays
3) The low framerate that these syncing technologies are designed to save us from are mostly CPU limitations that ought to be fixed by DX12 anyway

Most likely in 3-4 years these will go by the wayside like hardware PhysX and most gaming monitors will have adaptive sync natively built in.

Freesync/Adaptive sync is an VESA standard that costs nothing to use and is not vendor locked. It's not just low framerates. A 144Hz monitor running @ 85fps will tear.

 

[Azix]

Lot of people don't realize freesync is just AMDs own way of taking advantage of a standard. Nvidia could do the same with the same standard and call their driver support for it something else. Not being able to use adaptive sync with nvidia is entirely down to nvidia. For the sake of the consumers it would be ideal for them to support it and we can have this beneficial technology pick up even more pace. But nope.

Still I would go with a monitor that does support it for the sake of future proofing. Or you can just buy a new monitor if nvidia finally joins in. With G-sync you are simply stuck

 

[bystander36]

Freesync/Adaptive sync is an VESA standard that costs nothing to use and is not vendor locked. It's not just low framerates. A 144Hz monitor running @ 85fps will tear.

While the standard is not vendor locked, you are still vendor locked if you use it, because only 1 vendor supports it.

 

[Destiny]

Lot of people don't realize freesync is just AMDs own way of taking advantage of a standard. Nvidia could do the same with the same standard and call their driver support for it something else. Not being able to use adaptive sync with nvidia is entirely down to nvidia. For the sake of the consumers it would be ideal for them to support it and we can have this beneficial technology pick up even more pace. But nope.

Still I would go with a monitor that does support it for the sake of future proofing. Or you can just buy a new monitor if nvidia finally joins in. With G-sync you are simply stuck

I think only the Maxwell GPUs or the silicon can support adaptive sync.

1) New gaming laptops with Maxwell GPUs are running Adpative-Sync without the G-sync module.

2) New features that solves old G-Sync issues like performance latency issue and the new Window Mode for G-sync are only for new Maxwell GPUs (Keplar and older do not support these)

 

[3DVagabond]

While the standard is not vendor locked, you are still vendor locked if you use it, because only 1 vendor supports it.

That is not the same thing. That's spin.

 

[Dribble]

That is not the same thing. That's spin.

It's reality - buy freesync and you will have to use AMD gpu's buy gsync and you will have to use Nvidia gpu's. Any other arguing of semantics is pointless.

 

[3DVagabond]

It's reality - buy freesync and you will have to use AMD gpu's buy gsync and you will have to use Nvidia gpu's. Any other arguing of semantics is pointless.

It's not a vendor lock. That's a *lie. nVidia can chose to support it anytime it wants to, or can, whichever the case may be. They are not locked out.


*Lie; An attempt to deceive by changing or omitting the facts.

 

[showb1z]

Intel just needs to get into a-sync, this whole nonsense will be over and we all win.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

It's not a vendor lock. That's a *lie. nVidia can chose to support it anytime it wants to, or can, whichever the case may be. They are not locked out.


*Lie; An attempt to deceive by changing or omitting the facts.

It's not a lie, it's completely true, freesync only works on amd, gsync only on nvidia.

I think this is information is more relevant to the OP than the question whether the vendor lock is artificial or not (it probably is). Maybe nvidia will also support freesync one day, but that's not something I'd count on.