Nvidia and Freesync... never?

[Rifter]

I was just trying to point out that, 1) FreeSync and G-sync does work, 2) no one talking about what it does is being a fanboy, and 3) no one else was saying they fix everything. That seemed to be his own misconception.

Yeah the fanboy talk came out of left field, not sure what thats all about.

 

[nathanddrews]

Seems a bit late in the game for definitions, but it still seems required:

VESA Adaptive-Sync - open standard for DisplayPort from VESA organization

AMD FreeSync - AMD-specific implementation of VESA Adaptive-Sync that requires no special hardware, royalties, or licensing costs to display manufacturers

AMD FreeSync Over HDMI - custom, display vendor-specific implementation of programmable HDMI features (not related to VESA Adaptive-Sync). HDMI is not royalty-free, but the implementation of AMD FreeSync Over HDMI is royalty-free.

G-Sync - proprietary, closed method of implementing variable refresh rates only with NVIDIA hardware and with special G-Sync ASIC module within display.

Mobile G-Sync - NVIDIA-specific implementation of VESA Adaptive-Sync over eDP, no special display hardware required

Game Mode VRR - HDMI 2.1-specific feature for use with PCs, consoles, and displays of any vendor. (AMD FreeSync will utilize)

 

[Madpacket]

People can sugar coat GSYNC as much as they want, but the reality is you're paying an extra $200 - $300 (sometimes much more) for a proprietary FPGA module that gives you a very similar performance of an equivalent Freesync monitor. Even worse, some Freesync panels exist such as the Samsung CF791 where there simply is no GSYNC equivalent. This panel offers superior image quality to any 3440x1440 UWS Gsync panel and can be found for well under $1000.00 (paid $900 CAD for mine brand new). I picked one of these monitors up recently to replace an MG279Q and was blown away by how good the image quality is in comparison. And no, there is no flicker with Freesync enabled.

The only reason GSYNC exists is that Nvidia can get away with it due to current market share. I don't blame them for charging what they do, or not adopting Freesync with the dominating position they're in as they are a business after all, but let's not pretend it's not a large tax for little to no gain. If you have the money sure go ahead and buy a GSYNC panel but don't pretend it's not a waste of money or try justifying it by amortizing it over X number of years. I find it humorous the arguments such as the "terrible power consumption of VEGA" as a major selling point for Geforce cards because "much cheaper power over time will save money" yet these same people hold an opposite view when it comes to GSYNC "only X more dollars over time". Both of these arguments are silly for anyone who can actually afford these luxury items.

One of the main driving factors for implementing technologies such as Freesync or Gsync was to mitigate the needing of extremely powerful graphics cards in the first place by offering even frame delivery across a wide range of refresh rates, so the argument of needing a monitor to match the prowess of the Geforce 1080 Ti for a good experience (or vice versa) doesn't hold much weight. The only real technical advantage Gsync has over Freesync is the ability to auto adjust pixel offset over a wide refresh range (to help mitigate positive or negative image trailing) but the degree of this is something that's monitor dependant (some are better than others) and is being added to Freesync version 2 AFAIK anyway.

tldr; I don't blame anyone for buying a Gsync monitor but don't pretend it's not a waste of money compared to Freesync.

 

[DooKey]

snip

tldr; I don't blame anyone for buying a Gsync monitor but don't pretend it's not a waste of money compared to Freesync.

If Nvidia cards supported VESA a-sync on the desktop this would be a true statement. However, if a person owns an NV card the only way to get that is to buy a G-sync monitor. Therefore, it's not a waste of money, rather a must pay price for going with NV.

 

[Madpacket]

If Nvidia cards supported VESA a-sync on the desktop this would be a true statement. However, if a person owns an NV card the only way to get that is to buy a G-sync monitor. Therefore, it's not a waste of money, rather a must pay price for going with NV.

If a person buys a Geforce card they likely already know about the lack of Freesync support. The fact that they made the choice to buy the Geforce card doesn't invalidate the statement that a GSYNC monitor is a ripoff compared to a Freesync monitor. If I buy an Apple iPhone, I know full well I'm going to pay a larger premium for the same type of accessories for an Android phone.

 

[DooKey]

If a person buys a Geforce card they likely already know about the lack of Freesync support. The fact that they made the choice to buy the Geforce card doesn't invalidate the statement that a GSYNC monitor is a ripoff compared to a Freesync monitor. If I buy an Apple iPhone, I know full well I'm going to pay a larger premium for the same type of accessories for an Android phone.

Everyone has an opinion it seems. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[amenx]

AMD FreeSync - AMD-specific implementation of VESA Adaptive-Sync that requires no special hardware, royalties, or licensing costs to display manufacturers

AMD FreeSync Over HDMI - custom, display vendor-specific implementation of programmable HDMI features (not related to VESA Adaptive-Sync). HDMI is not royalty-free, but the implementation of AMD FreeSync Over HDMI is royalty-free.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[nathanddrews]

Thanks for clearing that up.

No problem, it's not hard to track down these things, but there are a lot of caveats. FreeSync's primary advantage is that it is designed to work with ANY DisplayPort or HDMI display, but it requires the manufacturer of that display to tune/tweak for the best performance for that display. AMD and display partners have stated repeatedly that they partner together to ensure that the display works as expected, but the limiting factor is always going to be the display SOC and panel quality.

Since NVIDIA's G-Sync requires the use of a module/license that costs money, I think most manufacturers attempt to use it with their best displays and most feature-rich SOC. If the product inherently costs more, then it behooves manufacturers and NVIDIA to make each display the best it can be for that premium experience. This is the advantage of G-Sync, but it costs more for these reasons.

I think the only thing standing in G-Sync's complete and total world domination is HDR. While there are some HDR-enabled G-Sync monitors on the way, what we are seeing is the pending mainstreaming of HDR gaming on consoles. HDR consoles using AMD hardware. HDR consoles connected to TVs using HDMI only. HDMI that only supports AMD FreeSync and FreeSync2. The entire goal of HDMI 2.1 is to finally address the problem of latency with a more robust "Game Mode" that also happens to include variable refresh rates, HDR, HFR, and more. It's the very definition of disruptive technology. The competitive line between monitors and TVs is about* to be obliterated.

*Q418

 

[Madpacket]

Everyone has an opinion it seems. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Rifter]

tldr; I don't blame anyone for buying a Gsync monitor but don't pretend it's not a waste of money compared to Freesync.

Its only a waste of money if you are buying a low end or midrange GPU. If you are going top tier GPU to push 4k or high framerate/refresh rate 1440p its not a waste of money its the only available option.

 

[tential]

tldr; I don't blame anyone for buying a Gsync monitor but don't pretend it's not a waste of money compared to Freesync.

Uh
Gsync is better, has access to faster GPUs sooner, as well as other benefits. It's NOT equivalent to Freesync at all. Especially when both standards off different levels of GPU performance.
When AMD leaves the whole top end of GPU performance uncontestested, the standards are NOT the same.

I personally found out the hardway being a Freesync owner, realizing that I won't get enough GPU power to drive my screen, I now have a $500 paperweight when it comes to gaming. It would definitely be worth it to just have paid the stupid Gsync premium.

I don't care which standard someone picks, but they CLEARLY aren't equivalent, and its a complete lie to say they are.
I used to spread the same sentiment you did, and I now know just how bad/poor of a thing that is to spread.

 

[caswow]

Uh
Gsync is better, has access to faster GPUs sooner, as well as other benefits. It's NOT equivalent to Freesync at all. Especially when both standards off different levels of GPU performance.
When AMD leaves the whole top end of GPU performance uncontestested, the standards are NOT the same.

I personally found out the hardway being a Freesync owner, realizing that I won't get enough GPU power to drive my screen, I now have a $500 paperweight when it comes to gaming. It would definitely be worth it to just have paid the stupid Gsync premium.

I don't care which standard someone picks, but they CLEARLY aren't equivalent, and its a complete lie to say they are.
I used to spread the same sentiment you did, and I now know just how bad/poor of a thing that is to spread.

your whole rant could have been avoided if nvidia would just support vrr.

 

[bystander36]

your whole rant could have been avoided if nvidia would just support vrr.

I assume you meant Adaptive-Sync. Variable refresh rate is supported with G-sync.

 

[Madpacket]

Uh
Gsync is better, has access to faster GPUs sooner, as well as other benefits. It's NOT equivalent to Freesync at all. Especially when both standards off different levels of GPU performance.
When AMD leaves the whole top end of GPU performance uncontestested, the standards are NOT the same.

I personally found out the hardway being a Freesync owner, realizing that I won't get enough GPU power to drive my screen, I now have a $500 paperweight when it comes to gaming. It would definitely be worth it to just have paid the stupid Gsync premium.

I don't care which standard someone picks, but they CLEARLY aren't equivalent, and its a complete lie to say they are.
I used to spread the same sentiment you did, and I now know just how bad/poor of a thing that is to spread.

I think you may have misread my post. I never stated Gsync is equivalent to Freesync. I stated the panels themselves are equivalent (theres a ton of 1440P IPS panels by the same supplier (AUO) resold by Acer, Asus, ViewSonic etc). Yes Gsync is slightly better no doubt, but is it $250 - $300 better than an equivalent Freesync display? No way, that's why it's a ripoff.

What Freesync display do you have where a Radeon card can't properly power it?

You realize Nvidia has only one consumer card on the market faster than AMD right? Yes sure Volta is coming but there's no reliable dates yet, just rumours. It could be 6 months or even another year as Nvidia is top dog with the 1080 Ti, no need to rush out a card.

Adaptive sync is to help mitigate uneven frames and to allow for less powerful cards to provide a smoother experience. Where it really helps is between 45 to 90 FPS. Below 45 things like input latency becomes an issue which can ruin the experience, but after around 90 FPS diminishing returns start to kick in, so this is why I'm puzzled over all the people thinking they need a 1080 Ti to take proper advantage of adaptive sync.

Competitive gamers disable "all the things" including adaptive sync, so there's no benefit paying for Gsync with these ultra high refresh rate TN displays.

4K 60Hz screens are unfortunately 60Hz, so I guess the tiny range (45 to 60 FPS) where adaptive sync matters could be a corner case for needing that extra Ti performance if you can't back off the AA a tad. But you're still at 60Hz which is a pretty crappy experience in comparison to screen with even 75Hz let alone 100Hz+.

What advantages other than perhaps negative or positive trailing does that Gsync tax provide you?

Where can you buy a Gsync monitor that'll give you a better overall gaming experience that a Samsung CF791 provides?

I'm not against Gsync. If it wasn't for Gsync we probably wouldn't have Freesync, I'm just pointing out how terrible the value is comparison to Freesync.

 

[tential]

I think you may have misread my post. I never stated Gsync is equivalent to Freesync. I stated the panels themselves are equivalent (theres a ton of 1440P IPS panels by the same supplier (AUO) resold by Acer, Asus, ViewSonic etc). Yes Gsync is slightly better no doubt, but is it $250 - $300 better than an equivalent Freesync display? No way, that's why it's a ripoff.

What Freesync display do you have where a Radeon card can't properly power it?

You realize Nvidia has only one consumer card on the market faster than AMD right? Yes sure Volta is coming but there's no reliable dates yet, just rumours. It could be 6 months or even another year as Nvidia is top dog with the 1080 Ti, no need to rush out a card.

Adaptive sync is to help mitigate uneven frames and to allow for less powerful cards to provide a smoother experience. Where it really helps is between 45 to 90 FPS. Below 45 things like input latency becomes an issue which can ruin the experience, but after around 90 FPS diminishing returns start to kick in, so this is why I'm puzzled over all the people thinking they need a 1080 Ti to take proper advantage of adaptive sync.

Competitive gamers disable "all the things" including adaptive sync, so there's no benefit paying for Gsync with these ultra high refresh rate TN displays.

4K 60Hz screens are unfortunately 60Hz, so I guess the tiny range (45 to 60 FPS) where adaptive sync matters could be a corner case for needing that extra Ti performance if you can't back off the AA a tad. But you're still at 60Hz which is a pretty crappy experience in comparison to screen with even 75Hz let alone 100Hz+.

What advantages other than perhaps negative or positive trailing does that Gsync tax provide you?

Where can you buy a Gsync monitor that'll give you a better overall gaming experience that a Samsung CF791 provides?

I'm not against Gsync. If it wasn't for Gsync we probably wouldn't have Freesync, I'm just pointing out how terrible the value is comparison to Freesync.

50% of the games tested fall outside of the minimum freesync range. This is AMD own cherry picked benches...

Sometimes you need more performance to stay in the freesync range.

AMD has 35-40% deficit at 4K when you use AIB cards. And I can't even get an AIB Vega 64 card. So ya..... I'm puzzled why you're so adamant on Freesync. Freesync has its uses. But sometimes, if you want the best, you have to pay for it.

Difference between being outside of the Freesync range, and completely playable experience on the Gsync side.

Difference of being at the bottom of the freesync range where in your own words "input latency becomes an issue which can ruin the experience".

Riddle me this, are Triple A games using more and more GPU horse power, or less?

 

[xpea]

What Freesync display do you have where a Radeon card can't properly power it?

You realize Nvidia has only one consumer card on the market faster than AMD right?

I like when people forget that you had to wait 15 months for Vega when you could enjoy 4k with GP102 all this time. How convenient...

 

[tential]

I like when people forget that you had to wait 15 months for Vega when you could enjoy 4k with GP102 all this time. How convenient...

Not me, this is my #1 pet peeve about this whole situation. Last time I brought it up, someone laughed and went "LOL, You're acting like you couldn't have been gaming this whole time!!!!!"

It's just the way people who aren't neutral spin it

Just like how AMD was supposed to "lower" prices, when in fact AMD simply just matched Nvidia's higher prices each time currently. People just want to paint their favorite GPU company in a good light rather than live in reality.

I recommend Nvidia for high end consumers with lots of disposable income and people who love to be on the cutting edge. I recommend AMD to everyone else. You don't need to be all about 1 brand.

Also doesn't Gsync at 4K drop down to 30 FPS? That's an infinitely better solution than the current freesync implementations, combined with superior GPU horsepower. Trying to make an equivalency claim is hilarious.

 

[Madpacket]

I like when people forget that you had to wait 15 months for Vega when you could enjoy 4k with GP102 all this time. How convenient...

4K gaming is such a joy. You must really enjoy gaming at 60Hz and having to dial back settings (yes even with a 1080 Ti) to get a smooth framerate. Fury X has been on the market for what, 27 months? and can handle 1440P just fine as long as you're capable of adjusting a few sliders that have little to no impact on visual quality.

 

[Madpacket]

Not me, this is my #1 pet peeve about this whole situation. Last time I brought it up, someone laughed and went "LOL, You're acting like you couldn't have been gaming this whole time!!!!!"

It's just the way people who aren't neutral spin it

Just like how AMD was supposed to "lower" prices, when in fact AMD simply just matched Nvidia's higher prices each time currently. People just want to paint their favorite GPU company in a good light rather than live in reality.

I recommend Nvidia for high end consumers with lots of disposable income and people who love to be on the cutting edge. I recommend AMD to everyone else. You don't need to be all about 1 brand.

Also doesn't Gsync at 4K drop down to 30 FPS? That's an infinitely better solution than the current freesync implementations, combined with superior GPU horsepower. Trying to make an equivalency claim is hilarious.

No one really enjoys gaming at 30 FPS aside console gamers. I own cards from both camps I have preferences based on value. Gsync doesn't offer enough value of Freesync to warrant the price premium.

 

[Madpacket]

50% of the games tested fall outside of the minimum freesync range. This is AMD own cherry picked benches...

Sometimes you need more performance to stay in the freesync range.

AMD has 35-40% deficit at 4K when you use AIB cards. And I can't even get an AIB Vega 64 card. So ya..... I'm puzzled why you're so adamant on Freesync. Freesync has its uses. But sometimes, if you want the best, you have to pay for it.

Difference between being outside of the Freesync range, and completely playable experience on the Gsync side.

Difference of being at the bottom of the freesync range where in your own words "input latency becomes an issue which can ruin the experience".

Riddle me this, are Triple A games using more and more GPU horse power, or less?

You don't have to cherry pick a few games to try and prove a point. Try adding in BF One instead of WatchDogs 2 for example. Right if you can't adjust a few sliders that absolutely kill FPS, that 30% advantage the 1080 Ti offers a better experience. Of course, you'll have to play more for the GPU and plenty more for the monitor so you should get a better experience.

 

[Rifter]

Of course, you'll have to play more for the GPU and plenty more for the monitor so you should get a better experience.

I cant believe you just said this when this is the whole point you are missing.

The point me and tential are trying to make is on the high end with G-sync you can do that, pay more for a faster GPU and better Gsync display and get better results. With freesync THIS IS NOT AN OPTION.

Like tential i used to think freesync was better and nvidia was just ripping people off with gsync. But then it became apparent to me after the vega launch that nvidia isnt ripping people off they are just offering a gaming experience that you cant get from anyone else, so they are just charging a premium for a premium experience, this is not the same as ripping people off .

I used to think that saving $200 on a display going freesync was better, because you could spend that extra $200 on a faster GPU pushing you up a class in GPU's, well guess what that doesnt work when AMD is releasing a card over a year after nvidia that isnt faster, uses more power, tanks when you apply MSAA, and doesnt match the fastest nvidia card. Hard to step up a tier in performance over a 1080 on the AMD side to get to 1080Ti perf with your saved $200 when the flop that is vega is the best AMD can offer. I bought a rx480 last year to tie me over and wait out vega, planning on going 4k and vega/freesync around this time, or perhaps fast 1440p, havent decided on monitor res yet. Guess what, thats not really an option now with how vega worked out. I could have purchased a 1080 a year ago got a gysnc display and been enjoying 4k gaming for the past year.

Im not making the mistake of waiting for AMD any longer, its close enough to volta now that im just going to get a 2070/2080 when released and grab a gsync panel and not worry about gaming performance for the next several years and know that i went with the company thats going to continue to offer a full range of products from bottom end to cutting edge so when it is time to upgrade GPU's ill have a whole range of GPU to choose from, not be limited to mid range or lower.

Perhaps Navi will change this situation and get AMD back into the top tier of GPU's, but i feel like Navi is going to be Vega all over again. Volta is going to launch in 6 months, then a year or longer after that Navi will launch and at best compete directly with volta. Same as vega and pascal.

 

[Elfear]

I think the point of this whole thread is that Nvidia should throw consumers a bone and just support A-Sync. Then we can buy whatever GPU or monitor we want without being locked into one GPU manufacturer.

 

[Despoiler]

Lol!!! Nvidia isn't charging for a premium experience. They are charging because they use parts with expensive prices even in bulk. Their design is overly complicated because it breaks the standard interfacing between a GPU and a monitor. They also needed a way to keep non-Nvidia GPUs from working. They've had more than enough time to tape out an ASIC, they have more than enough money, but they haven't done that because they know people will make up whatever stories they need to in order to justify their purchase.

 

[Rifter]

I think the point of this whole thread is that Nvidia should throw consumers a bone and just support A-Sync. Then we can buy whatever GPU or monitor we want without being locked into one GPU manufacturer.

Im hoping the new HDMI spec will force them into this, then i can get volta and a freesync display, best of both worlds!

 

[Rifter]

Lol!!! Nvidia isn't charging for a premium experience. They are charging because they use parts with expensive prices even in bulk. Their design is overly complicated because it breaks the standard interfacing between a GPU and a monitor. They also needed a way to keep non-Nvidia GPUs from working. They've had more than enough time to tape out an ASIC, they have more than enough money, but they haven't done that because they know people will make up whatever stories they need to in order to justify their purchase.

They havent done it because they like making money, and can get away with it because they know they are offering something no one else is able to. The fact that they have 80% of the GPU market says that the vast majority of consumers agree with them.

As much as me you and alot of other enthusiast want them to support a open standard until the new HDMI spec came out they had no reason to do so. Its not like not supporting it is hurting there sales.