Keep preaching the ideals. All that matters is reality.
I need gsync to use adaptive sync with Nvidia.
I pay a premium, but can use that gpu power 1+ year earlier than the competition. I also get access to high end adaptive gpu power the competition simply doesn't currently have and won't have for a foreseeable future and also doesn't consistently deliver.
You can try to frame it anyway you want to make Nvidia look bad.
It's pretty simple. You want access to the fastest gpus first? You pay a premium.
If you're willing to wait? Then you should buy amd. I don't recommend Nvidia to anyone other than those who want to be on the cutting edge.
Nobody's trying to make Nvidia look bad they're doing it on their own. If you want to pay a premium for their stuff then good for you. If you want to cry on the forums about how AMD made you wait a year so you could play your games at the "cutting edge" LOL then so be it. Nobody forced you to wait for AMD you should have bought another card sooner, simple as that.
I myself refuse to pay a premium when I can get AMD gear that fits my needs.
Definitely agree with this post. Definitely glad I didn't wait for AMD. Considering I got G-Sync monitor for less than some FreeSync monitors, I made out like a bandit. So I got zero complaints!
On the general topic, I'd be surprised if NV doesn't support the HDMI 2.1 standard. I'd just see NV doing what they do best, marketing G-Sync as the superior alternative. Either buy into the G-Sync eco system or not, they still get you if you buy an NV Card.
Keep preaching the ideals. All that matters is reality.
I need gsync to use adaptive sync with Nvidia.
I pay a premium, but can use that gpu power 1+ year earlier than the competition. I also get access to high end adaptive gpu power the competition simply doesn't currently have and won't have for a foreseeable future and also doesn't consistently deliver.
You can try to frame it anyway you want to make Nvidia look bad.
It's pretty simple. You want access to the fastest gpus first? You pay a premium.
If you're willing to wait? Then you should buy amd. I don't recommend Nvidia to anyone other than those who want to be on the cutting edge.
What we need is for both GPU companies to adopt Adaptive Sync so we can whatever card we want and whatever monitor we want. If Nvidia really believes G-Sync is worth $200-300 more than Adaptive Sync, they can continue to sell it. Personally I don't think G-Sync is worth that much of a premium over FreeSync which is why Nvidia won't adopt Adaptive Sync.
What we need is for both GPU companies to adopt Adaptive Sync so we can whatever card we want and whatever monitor we want. If Nvidia really believes G-Sync is worth $200-300 more than Adaptive Sync, they can continue to sell it. Personally I don't think G-Sync is worth that much of a premium over FreeSync which is why Nvidia won't adopt Adaptive Sync.
AMD is using VESA Adaptive Sync already. Freesync is just what they call their IP in the GPU which implements adaptive sync. Nothing on the "Freesync" displays use proprietary AMD tech. They are all pure displayport-AdaptiveSync compliant monitors, and the only reason they don't display VRR (variable refresh rate) on intel and NVidia GPUs, is because the GPU drivers don't support that displayport spec. Once they implement it in their drivers, they can call it whatever they want - GSync2.0, GSyncLite etc.
With HDMI 2.1, and its VRR which is almost same as adaptive sync, NVidia will have even fewer options for continuing to ignore the industry standard.
Nobody's trying to make Nvidia look bad they're doing it on their own. If you want to pay a premium for their stuff then good for you. If you want to cry on the forums about how AMD made you wait a year so you could play your games at the "cutting edge" LOL then so be it. Nobody forced you to wait for AMD you should have bought another card sooner, simple as that.
I myself refuse to pay a premium when I can get AMD gear that fits my needs.
That's not entirely true though as the other side of the coin is how many G-Sync monitors are released compared to FreeSync monitors. If I want a larger ultrawide RIGHT NOW, my only options are FreeSync monitors (i.e Samsung CHG90, Acer XR382CQK, or LG 38UC99-W) which means as an Nvidia owner, I'm waiting around.
What we need is for both GPU companies to adopt Adaptive Sync so we can whatever card we want and whatever monitor we want. If Nvidia really believes G-Sync is worth $200-300 more than Adaptive Sync, they can continue to sell it. Personally I don't think G-Sync is worth that much of a premium over FreeSync which is why Nvidia won't adopt Adaptive Sync.
Remember, when NVidia stopped making their own system chipsets for motherboards, and then made SLI non-exclusive to their chipsets? They charged the mobo makers a fee, to "license" SLI for those Intel-chipset boards (with two PCI-E x8/x8 slots or better), that the NVidia SLI driver checked (it was something in the BIOS) for, before actually enabling SLI on that PC.nvidia earn money when the sell GPU's and they earn money when they sell gsync modules, why should the support monitors they earn zero dollars on?
Obviously if AMD at some point gains enough GPU marketshare, then nvidia might change their strategy, but until then it is not going to happen.
Exactly like NV's motherboard chipsets, in fact. At least, that's my feeling, as to what happened with mobo SLI support too.When it comes to FSync/GSync Intel will actually be the decider. Hint it won't be Nvidia that wins. Intel is already working on supporting adaptive sync. AMD's masterful move to get adaptive sync into the HDMI 2.1 spec will also seal it. Gsync will end up a failed experiment like NForce motherboard chipsets.
Remember, when NVidia stopped making their own system chipsets for motherboards, and then made SLI non-exclusive to their chipsets? They charged the mobo makers a fee, to "license" SLI for those Intel-chipset boards (with two PCI-E x8/x8 slots or better), that the NVidia SLI driver checked (it was something in the BIOS) for, before actually enabling SLI on that PC.
Surely, the same thing could be done with FreeSync / G-Free-Sync? Invent some NVidia name ("G-Sync Lite" is a good one), and then require a certain string, either during the HDCP negotiation stuff, or in the EDID data, before the card would configure to utilize VESA Adaptive Sync. Therefore, Nvidia could still make some licensing money off of it, and then vendors would gain a branding value for making their monitors compatible with BOTH AMD and NVidia cards. It would be a win/win. Mostly. The downside, is that some monitor vendors that currently support the more expensive G-Sync architecture, might choose to then cut costs, and only release VESA Adaptive Sync monitors, with the NV license string included.
Easy question. The monitor manufacturers want to use one solution for this problem. If NV will support the VESA A-Sync standard in the desktop segment, than every monitor manufacturer will drop the full G-Sync product line.What dumb excuse or reason could Nvidia have for not using freesync?
Remember, when NVidia stopped making their own system chipsets for motherboards, and then made SLI non-exclusive to their chipsets? They charged the mobo makers a fee, to "license" SLI for those Intel-chipset boards (with two PCI-E x8/x8 slots or better), that the NVidia SLI driver checked (it was something in the BIOS) for, before actually enabling SLI on that PC.
Surely, the same thing could be done with FreeSync / G-Free-Sync? Invent some NVidia name ("G-Sync Lite" is a good one), and then require a certain string, either during the HDCP negotiation stuff, or in the EDID data, before the card would configure to utilize VESA Adaptive Sync. Therefore, Nvidia could still make some licensing money off of it, and then vendors would gain a branding value for making their monitors compatible with BOTH AMD and NVidia cards. It would be a win/win. Mostly. The downside, is that some monitor vendors that currently support the more expensive G-Sync architecture, might choose to then cut costs, and only release VESA Adaptive Sync monitors, with the NV license string included.
That's not entirely true though as the other side of the coin is how many G-Sync monitors are released compared to FreeSync monitors. If I want a larger ultrawide RIGHT NOW, my only options are FreeSync monitors (i.e Samsung CHG90, Acer XR382CQK, or LG 38UC99-W) which means as an Nvidia owner, I'm waiting around.
What we need is for both GPU companies to adopt Adaptive Sync so we can whatever card we want and whatever monitor we want. If Nvidia really believes G-Sync is worth $200-300 more than Adaptive Sync, they can continue to sell it. Personally I don't think G-Sync is worth that much of a premium over FreeSync which is why Nvidia won't adopt Adaptive Sync.
That premium experience makes non-techies buy their kit because they know what they are getting will work properly - something that can't be said for AMD's freesync right now.
Nvidia claims (and I think AMD has even stated) that they need certain GPU tech in place to take advantage of A-sync. This may not be simply a driver issue, but something Nvidia has to add to their GPU's as well.AMD is using VESA Adaptive Sync already. Freesync is just what they call their IP in the GPU which implements adaptive sync. Nothing on the "Freesync" displays use proprietary AMD tech. They are all pure displayport-AdaptiveSync compliant monitors, and the only reason they don't display VRR (variable refresh rate) on intel and NVidia GPUs, is because the GPU drivers don't support that displayport spec. Once they implement it in their drivers, they can call it whatever they want - GSync2.0, GSyncLite etc.
With HDMI 2.1, and its VRR which is almost same as adaptive sync, NVidia will have even fewer options for continuing to ignore the industry standard.
Most of the monitors you mention are the 48-75hz freesync, as was HP Omen amenx wanted. I bet on some the freesync lacks other things (overrdrive with freesync for example). They are all sub standard implementations and beneath the gsync min spec, which Nvidia won't lower because it wants to give the premium experience. That premium experience makes non-techies buy their kit because they know what they are getting will work properly - something that can't be said for AMD's freesync right now.
It is also part of the reason a gsync version of any of those monitors would cost more - the companies would have to spend more money and effort making them work properly, something they don't need to do with freesync.
AMD:
- Doesnt enforce standards, letting the monitor companies release less than ideal freesync displays with really bad ranges, its like the wild west.
Where are you hearing this?Not true, AMD does have one standard before giving a monitor FreeSync certification: The check must clear the bank before any final sign-offs.
Not true, AMD does have one standard before giving a monitor FreeSync certification: The check must clear the bank before any final sign-offs.
Freesync 2 is to do with HDR support from what I can see, range is still the same (48-144hz) on that monitor, see https://www.gamecrate.com/samsung-chg70-32-inch-hdr-gaming-monitor-overview/16348You make a good point about the limited Freesync range of the 38" monitors although I haven't researched it enough to know if the ranges can be extended with some fiddling. The 49" Samsung has Freesync 2 though which vastly improves on the AS range.
Adaptive Sync is the open standard. Freesync is AMD propriety name for their method of using A-sync with their hardware/software.Eh? They are charging for an open standard? How does that work?
So its not Free Sync?Not true, AMD does have one standard before giving a monitor FreeSync certification: The check must clear the bank before any final sign-offs.
What he is saying is that a display cannot put the name "FreeSync" on the monitor without first certifying it with AMD. They can put A-sync/Adaptive-sync on it, but not FreeSync.So its not Free Sync?