[ H ]: Freesync 2 (HDR) vs Gsync

[zlatan]

Yes, extremely good actullay.

And it can be far better if the pipeline won't do two tone mapping.

hmm, that doesn't sound like a huge IQ difference to begin with. Most problems in the HDR implementation will be the maximum nits reachable by the panel (is it 1000nits or less?) and the color space as well as contrast. Whether it can maintain decent black (OLED, Full Array Backlight, QLED .. etc) or not. So your limitations are mostly hardware, not software.

Making better panels is another problem, but in the software side we can't do anything. We have to wait for some better monitors. But for the tone mapping solutions we can manage to get better latency and better image quality.

Again as I said, GSync and consoles work through the HDR10 standards. They don't do it through extra APIs or libraries.
FreeSync proposes to bypass the HDR10 standard achieving a claimed lower latency. But it needs special coding and attention to achieve that, it's not automatic. To quote Tom's hardware on this:

" The question of why not simply use the HDR10 or Dolby Vision transport spaces is already answered, then—they’d require another tone mapping step. David Glen, senior fellow architect at AMD, said that HDR10 and Dolby Vision were designed for 10 or more years of growth. Therefore, even the best HDR displays available today fall well short of what those transport spaces allow. That’s why the display normally has to tone map again, adding the extra input lag FreeSync 2 looks to squeeze out.

Sounds like a lot of work, right? Every FreeSync 2-compatible monitor needs to be characterized, to start. Then, on the software side, games and video players must be enabled through an API provided by AMD. There’s a lot of coordination that needs to happen between game developers, AMD, and display vendors, so it remains to be seen how enthusiastically AMD’s partners embrace FreeSync 2, particularly because the technology is going to be proprietary for now. "

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-freesync-2-hdr-lfc,33248.html

The HDR specification is doesn't really matter. AMD support both HDR10 and Dolby Vision. But sure it can't be used in FreeSync 2 mode, so the display has to support another HDR specification to bring up a solution for the duplicated tone mapping. On the other hand, a FreeSync 2 display can support HDR10 or Dolby Vision also.
The main problem is, that both HDR10 and Dolby Vision designed for the videos. You don't care about the tone mapping inside the displays in this scenario, because the production pipeline is very standardized, so the end result won't be that bad. In a game this is not the same. The production pipeline is very different from games to games, so there is no real option to get good result on the displays. The idea of FreeSync 2 is to cut out the tone mapping inside the monitors, and in this case the devs can create correct images, and this implementation will also solve the latency problem. It's a proprietary technique for sure, but Xbox One S/X will also support it.

It doesn't really that hard.

 

[Muhammed]

PCWorld reviewed one of the FreeSync 2 HDR monitors, here is what they have to say:

FreeSync 2 also bolsters the performance of HDR games that use the FreeSync 2 API, though we couldn’t feel the difference much in Far Cry 5.

As usual, FreeSync monitors have variable quality problems like limited range and lower nits

increased the FreeSync range to 48-144Hz, with lower refresh rates covered by LFC.

HDR nerds might also scoff at the 600-nits brightness, as “true” HDR10 support demands 1,000 nits. Nvidia’s rival G-Sync HDR monitors hit that, and in demos at trade shows, I had to shield my eyes against the brightness of explosions—something I never experienced with the Samsung CHG70. I’m not sure if that’s a good or bad thing, to be honest.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3269231/displays/samsung-chg70-freesync-2-hdr.html?page=2

 

[richaron]

PCWorld reviewed one of the FreeSync 2 HDR monitors, here is what they have to say:

As usual, FreeSync monitors have variable quality problems like limited range and lower nits

And as usual you try to paint AMD products in a negative light.

Freesync 2 must support LFC so the range is wide enough to do anything useful.

Sure Freesync monitors can be as good as Gsync, but lower quality monitors can also benefit from some Freesync features. Which they can't with Gsync. So Freesync can benefit more monitors across the range, plus can have top of the range features equalling Gsync. Seems Freesync must be superior but you try pretend it's a disadvantage

 

[Dribble]

Freesync 2 hasn't actually fixed freesync 1's biggest problem then - guaranteed quality of implementation for every monitor with the sticker attached. Every freesync 2 monitor should do 30-max fps with variable sync. If all they've done is say it has HDR added and even the HDR implementation isn't of a guaranteed quality then it's a big fail.

What consumers want is a sticker on the box saying it works properly, not a sticker saying it does something but you'll have to go read the small print and do some research to know if it really does what you want. It's this sort of guaranteed quality that makes Nvidia is so successful. Surely AMD must have worked this out by now?

 

[Krteq]

Freesync 2 hasn't actually fixed freesync 1's biggest problem then - guaranteed quality of implementation for every monitor with the sticker attached.

Hmm, FS2 actually fixed it, partially - read AT article again -> AnandTech - AMD Announces FreeSync 2: Easier & Lower Latency HDR Gaming

 

[Muhammed]

Freesync 2 must support LFC so the range is wide enough to do anything useful.

No it isn't. LFC has drawbacks, a range like 30-144Hz with LFC is far better than a 48-144 with LFC.

Sure Freesync monitors can be as good as Gsync, but lower quality monitors can also benefit from some Freesync features. Which they can't with Gsync.

There are no lower quality GSync displays, you basically pay the premium to get a guaranteed quality level. Not settle down with a bunch of middling hacks.

plus can have top of the range features equalling Gsync.

When they do have top of the line features like 1000 nits. wide range and ultra motion blur they can be just as expensive as GSync monitors!

What consumers want is a sticker on the box saying it works properly, not a sticker saying it does something but you'll have to go read the small print and do some research to know if it really does what you want. It's this sort of guaranteed quality that makes Nvidia is so successful. Surely AMD must have worked this out by now?

Exactly my point.

 

[richaron]

What consumers want is a sticker on the box saying it works properly, not a sticker saying it does something but you'll have to go read the small print and do some research to know if it really does what you want. It's this sort of guaranteed quality that makes Nvidia is so successful. Surely AMD must have worked this out by now?

What consumers want is a monitor to work to the best of it's abilities. Not to just ignore all the low and mid range monitors, they want extra functionality no matter what segment they buy in. Sure a sticker is good, which is why Freesync 2 even exists as a strategy. But to pretend stickers are suddenly essential now is absurd, people have been checking out specs for brightness, contrast, response times and much more for decades now.

Freesync can basically do everything Gsync does, and more. But somehow people are trying to say it's inferior because it does more

 

[Muhammed]

Freesync can basically do everything Gsync does, and more. But somehow people are trying to say it's inferior because it does more

No one is saying it can't. It's just absurd when people compare cheap low quality FS monitors to GSync standards and then claim FreeSync is cheaper and better, IT IS NOT. It's cheap because it lacks the features GSync has.

 

[richaron]

No it isn't. LFC has drawbacks, a range like 30-144Hz with LFC is far better than a 48-144 with LFC.

Obviously a wider actual range is better, I suppose we can argue about what "useful" means? And Freesync can do wider range just as well as Gsync. But Freesync can also a narrow range: advantage Freesync.

There are no lower quality GSync displays, you basically pay the premium to get a guaranteed quality level. Not settle down with a bunch of middling hacks.

Yep agreed, Gsync is only certified on top quality panels. The exact same panels which can run Freesync and the user will have the same top of the line experience for much less money. And again... Freesync is versatile enough than it can also run on mid and low-range monitors. Advantage Freesync.

When they do have top of the line features like 1000 nits. wide range and ultra motion blur they can be just as expensive as GSync monitors!

True, there are some top of the line Freesync monitors which cost a lot of money. But usually they cost significantly less. Advantage Freesync.

 

[richaron]

No one is saying it can't. It's just absurd when people compare cheap low quality FS monitors to GSync standards and then claim FreeSync is cheaper and better, IT IS NOT. It's cheap because it lacks the features GSync has.

This is silly thinking. Anyone who believes that is wrong, it's the person that's wrong. It's not a G/Freesync thing.

Obviously it's probably much cheaper because the cheap Freesync monitor lacks features. A Freesync monitor with the same features probably still cost less than the Gsync version though.

But Freesync is cheaper and better, since it's:
1) Cheaper
2) Better (more versatile)

 

[Headfoot]

FreeSync is better in the $200 monitor space because it actually exists in the $200 monitor space

 

[Muhammed]

A Freesync monitor with the same features probably still cost less than the Gsync version though.

No it doesn't. Difference in price isn't more than 50$.

But Freesync is cheaper and better, since it's:
1) Cheaper
2) Better (more versatile)

More versatile just means lacks features and uses lower quality features, that's not better. You are saying a GTX 1050 is better than a 1080Ti because it's cheaper and versatile. It ISN'T.

 

[Dribble]

What consumers want is a monitor to work to the best of it's abilities. Not to just ignore all the low and mid range monitors, they want extra functionality no matter what segment they buy in. Sure a sticker is good, which is why Freesync 2 even exists as a strategy. But to pretend stickers are suddenly essential now is absurd, people have been checking out specs for brightness, contrast, response times and much more for decades now.

Freesync can basically do everything Gsync does, and more. But somehow people are trying to say it's inferior because it does more

But wouldn't it be nice if you didn't have to check every little detail - if you could buy a monitor with the "freesync" sticker on and it just worked properly? That's what we thought Freesync 2 would do - stick Freesync on the the ones that do something, and Freesync 2 on the ones that do it properly.

This is a silly argument tbh - I'm pretty confident you are very pro AMD, what I am saying would make AMD more successful, but you'd prefer to chop off your own leg rather then admit AMD's faults despite the fact that it's only by fixing them AMD can improve.

 

[Headfoot]

No it doesn't. Difference in price isn't more than 50$.

Bzzzzzt Wrong!

 

[IllogicalGlory]

More versatile just means lacks features and uses lower quality features, that's not better. You are saying a GTX 1050 is better than a 1080Ti because it's cheaper and versatile. It ISN'T.

Actually, it's more like every G-sync monitor is a 1080 Ti and they don't even offer lower end options, while there are Freesync offerings from top to bottom and cheaper in every segment, as shown above.

 

[Muhammed]

Bzzzzzt Wrong!

You are doing exactly what I said above, lumping together a bunch of unequal monitors with vastly inferior feature sets and cheap prices, and calling FS a winner! They are NOT, any imbecile with half a brain can compare details and find out which monitor is better.

Actually, it's more like every G-sync monitor is a 1080 Ti and they don't even offer lower end options, while there are Freesync offerings from top to bottom and cheaper in every segment, as shown above.

So? that does make a 1050 better than a 1080Ti, or even a 1080. The 1080Ti will still be the better option and the one that packs the complete feature set. The rest are just cheaper knock offs.

 

[Headfoot]

You are doing exactly what I said above, lumping together a bunch of unequal monitors with vastly inferior feature sets and cheap prices, and calling FS a winner! They are NOT, any imbecile with half a brain can compare details and find out which monitor is better.


So? that does make a 1050 better than a 1080Ti, or even a 1080. The 1080Ti will still be the better option and the one that packs the complete feature set. The rest are just cheaper knock offs.

Second set of images is cheapest 144hz A-sync monitor, specfically because I knew you'd say this. Check the filter.

You're just straight up in the wrong and you don't want to admit it.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

So? that does make a 1050 better than a 1080Ti, or even a 1080. The 1080Ti will still be the better option and the one that packs the complete feature set. The rest are just cheaper knock offs.

What exactly is a feature set? As far as I can tell, there are a few Freesync monitors out that there that tick all the boxes. 30-144Hz range, 1440p, 27", IPS. I guess comparing that to a 30-144Hz refresh range, 27", IPS G-sync monitor is exactly like comparing a 1050 to a 1080 Ti?

https://www.amazon.com/Nixeus-27-Inch-FreeSync-Certified-Range/dp/B071G6PGP7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeSync#List_of_FreeSync_monitors

Sounds like, to you, anything without the "G-sync" name lacks a feature set or is a cheap knockoff. Whatever "cheap knockoff" or "lacking feature set" actually means.

 

[ZGR]

I use Gsync and Freesync every day. They perform the same. Freesync is free. It is better.

 

[Despoiler]

This is so timely!
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1268...aming-lcd-with-displayhdr-1000-dcip3-freesync

 

[Eymar]

I use Gsync and Freesync every day. They perform the same. Freesync is free. It is better.

This, I'm guessing he hasn't tried both. The really nice thing about VRR tech (for me) is that it lowers performance requirement for enjoyable stutter free gaming. I use to buy every high end release and go SLI to keep FPS above refresh so wouldn't see any stutter. Now with VRR I don't feel the need to upgrade videocard due to performance reasons. As long as current videocard can do native res at >40fps mins and >60fps avg with high settings, the gaming experience graphics wise is very enjoyable.

 

[Muhammed]

I use Gsync and Freesync every day. They perform the same. Freesync is free. It is better.

Till you drop our of the freesync range, then they are NOT the same. Or till you enable Ultra Low Motion Blur on the GSync monitor, then they are NOT the same.

 

[Krteq]

ULMB is just an implementation of feature called "Strobing Backlight" or sometime called "Motion Blur Reduction/Blur Reduction" - depends on manufacturer. Lots of available AdaptiveSync/FreeSync monitors are already using this feature, for example LG 24GM79G, BENQ XL2703Z, etc..

In price range of G-Sync monitors, you can always find AdaptiveSync/FreeSync alternative with the similar or better sync range and "features", and they are also cheaper

So yes, AdaptiveSync/FreeSync is definitely better from customer point of view.

 

[richaron]

But wouldn't it be nice if you didn't have to check every little detail - if you could buy a monitor with the "freesync" sticker on and it just worked properly? That's what we thought Freesync 2 would do - stick Freesync on the the ones that do something, and Freesync 2 on the ones that do it properly.

This is a silly argument tbh - I'm pretty confident you are very pro AMD, what I am saying would make AMD more successful, but you'd prefer to chop off your own leg rather then admit AMD's faults despite the fact that it's only by fixing them AMD can improve.

Actually you are correct, I am pro-AMD in this situation. Whether you believe me or not I hold objectivity and the scientific method as my highest ideal. As such I'm willing to change my opinion given new information. And on this site I've often given purchasing advice ignoring my personal bias; since I honestly believe what I write here is for the benefit of others.

And thus I reduce this argument to to a pretty simple situation: Gsync may be considered as top of the line, but with the exact same hardware Freesync will give the same top of the line experience. Plus aspects of Freesync/Adaptive Sync can benefit mid range and lower end monitors as well. So no, from a logical perspective I can not consider Gsync superior.

Gsync monitors are obviously better than low range Freesync monitors, but it's stupid to conclude Gsync must therefore be better overall. Freesync can provide the same top end experience with top end hardware. Plus Freesync can provide a better experience for less then top end hardware as well.

So it seems a no brainer for me to conclude Freesync is better since it's equal or better than Gsync across the board. Being cheaper is just the icing on the cake.