[PCPER] NVidia G-sync

[3DVagabond]

So the tech itself is artificial to then. It "had to be added in" also.
You're using "artificial" as a buzzword, when it really is misleading. There isn't anything artificial about a real lockout.

And Mantle? I wonder if Nvidia's hardware is flexible and programmable enough to run it. Think AMD would lend a hand to their chum?

It likely would look less misleading if you took your green glasses off. I explained the use of the term. Reread it a few times if you don't get it.

Unless Mantle is not what it's claimed to be, it naturally won't run on any other hardware besides GCN without any artificial outside influence to stop it. (There you go. I even used it in a sentence for you.)

 

[Keysplayr]

I'll take off my green ones, if you take off your red ones. You shouldn't play the bias card if you are the poster boy for the opposing camp.

And.... you meant "real", right?

 

[3DVagabond]

I simply asked the question if anyone knows if G-sync needs Kepler to run, or if it could run on any GPU.

I know it will be nVidia only. I just want to know if it's possible for the same tech to run on other hardware. Because, let's face it, we don't need the monitor manufacturers having to install 2 different pieces of hardware, or choosing between AMD and nVidia. Then we need to select our monitor to match our card. Wouldn't it be better for us, the consumers, the ones that pay the bills, if it didn't end up that way?

Now, if it just won't run on any other hardware besides Kepler w/DP, that's too bad, but that's the way it is. If it will though and it's just not allowed to, then that sucks. It sucks for us. I don't care if it sucks for AMD or nVidia. I don't care which way one of them can make more profit. It's bad for the people who pay for this whole industry, you and me.

If you'd rather defend some multi-billion dollar organization defending their policies, go ahead. But you really shouldn't knock people who don't have the same passion for corporate greed. You just assume that if someone is against nVidia they are for AMD. That's where your mentality is. Reality is, I don't think that way about it.

 

[Keysplayr]

I simply asked the question if anyone knows if G-sync needs Kepler to run, or if it could run on any GPU.

I know it will be nVidia only. I just want to know if it's possible for the same tech to run on other hardware. Because, let's face it, we don't need the monitor manufacturers having to install 2 different pieces of hardware, or choosing between AMD and nVidia. Then we need to select our monitor to match our card. Wouldn't it be better for us, the consumers, the ones that pay the bills, if it didn't end up that way?

Now, if it just won't run on any other hardware besides Kepler w/DP, that's too bad, but that's the way it is. If it will though and it's just not allowed to, then that sucks. It sucks for us. I don't care if it sucks for AMD or nVidia. I don't care which way one of them can make more profit. It's bad for the people who pay for this whole industry, you and me.

If you'd rather defend some multi-billion dollar organization defending their policies, go ahead. But you really shouldn't knock people who don't have the same passion for corporate greed. You just assume that if someone is against nVidia they are for AMD. That's where your mentality is. Reality is, I don't think that way about it.

" let's face it, we don't need the monitor manufacturers having to install 2 different pieces of hardware"
Why not? It would give you, the consumer, the ones who pay the bills, the option of not paying for something they don't want or need, or cannot use as in this case.

And please don't pretend you are neutral. It is rather insulting for you to try to pass that one off.

 

[3DVagabond]

" let's face it, we don't need the monitor manufacturers having to install 2 different pieces of hardware"
Why not? It would give you, the consumer, the ones who pay the bills, the option of not paying for something they don't want or need, or cannot use as in this case.

And please don't pretend you are neutral. It is rather insulting for you to try to pass that one off.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension, because you didn't understand anything I posted.

I never claimed to be neutral. If you are insulted, that's your problem because I never said anything personally derogatory against you.

 

[Keysplayr]

Green glasses. Never pretend you didn't throw the first stone here.
My reading comprehension is not infallible, but I do alright and you're pretty easy to follow.
So. Explain what I did not grasp. And you have the time.

 

[3DVagabond]

Green glasses. Never pretend you didn't throw the first stone here.
My reading comprehension is not infallible, but I do alright and you're pretty easy to follow.
So. Explain what I did not grasp. And you have the time.

Seriously, I can't be bothered. I really believe it would be a complete waste of time. It's not like I used big words or talked about tech or anything. As you said, pretty easy to follow.

So, anyway, do you know whether or not G-sync would be capable of running on other hardware besides Kepler, or is it simply locked out. That's really all I asked before everyone decided to defend nVidia's right (Which I don't think they have, but that's a further discussion.) to lock it out if they wanted to.

 

[Keysplayr]

I don't believe so, but if it's anything like they've done in the past, it will be locked out.

 

[Paul98]

If it only works on nVidia there will be far fewer G-sync monitors sold, there will be fewer companies that add them to their monitors. Do they really want to lock their own card from being able to sell much more broadly? Just so they can sell a few more graphics cards in the process? Especially since the market it is selling into isn't that big to begin with. It also should work on movies and allows 24fps to be shown correctly on a 60hz monitor, which gives you another plus.

This isn't them giving technology to AMD as the technology doesn't seem to be part of the graphics card, this is them selling far more g-sync cards/monitors.

Sure there is a chance that nVidia will lock out everyone else, but we will have to wait to learn more about how it's implemented.

 

[BrightCandle]

People really need to watch the panel meeting after the main announcement of this technology. John Carmack specifically asks about whether G-sync can be licenced by others and the rep says clearly that they would like that. They simply consider it too early in the process to have done much more than the few companies they have done.

We all want this to succeed (we ought to!) and we all want it on all vendors no doubt about it. We have to look at it from the creators point of view, to prove its worth it they have to release a product. Unfortunately they have to also release special monitors, its hard work to get multiple monitor companies to produce a product based on this spec as well as do this in their own hardware and compatibility testing etc. Putting it into a standardisation process across all the TV manufacturers and AMD and Intel etc would take a lot longer, and it would probably get shot down as not worth it. This is how competition works, one guy does something and everyone realises its better and catches up. This is by definition the way this competition works. The guy that does the R&D gets to licence and benefit from their work for a while.

Nvidia also said its Keplar card supported only. Its unlikely that AMD/Intel graphics can support this. They likely have hardware that fixes the length of the vertical sync blank signal and it can't be lengthened with software. We can't be sure about that but its reasonably likely, Nvidia for example has not enabled it pre Keplar. That also likely means Nvidia has been struggling to get this launched for over a year, this took a lot of work and very nearly ran into the next gen of cards on 20nm. They have been carrying this capability secretly in their cards for all this time in the hope they could finally get things lined up to release it.

So yes I want AMD to have it, and wish it was supported on more cards and more monitors. But the reality is that comes after a successful launch of the product, not before.

 

[Majic 7]

PCPer is having a live stream today with Tom Peterson from NVidia at 2:00 PM Eastern to answer questions about this technology. http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/PCPer-Live-NVIDIA-G-Sync-Discussion-Tom-Petersen-QA

 

[Leadbox]

Nvidia also said its Keplar card supported only. Its unlikely that AMD/Intel graphics can support this. They likely have hardware that fixes the length of the vertical sync blank signal and it can't be lengthened with software. We can't be sure about that but its reasonably likely, Nvidia for example has not enabled it pre Keplar. That also likely means Nvidia has been struggling to get this launched for over a year, this took a lot of work and very nearly ran into the next gen of cards on 20nm. They have been carrying this capability secretly in their cards for all this time in the hope they could finally get things lined up to release it.

.

Is the graphics card going to be doing anything more than communicating to the g-sync enabled monitor when a frame is ready to displayed? I would have thought that the g-sync card in the monitor is what controls the v-sync blanking and whatnot?

 

[bystander36]

Is the graphics card going to be doing anything more than communicating to the g-sync enabled monitor when a frame is ready to displayed? I would have thought that the g-sync card in the monitor is what controls the v-sync blanking and whatnot?

My guess is it has to be Kepler cards due to the inclusion of displayport, but it could also be other things. They did, however, say it requires displayport to work as well.

The chip being put into the monitor cannot be entirely responsible for everything, as it won't know when the GPU is done with frames. It likely is a chip that has a few communication functions in it, so the graphics card can interface in ways they can't now, as well as having control over the refresh rate, which in normal cases, never changes.

 

[Leadbox]

My guess is it has to be Kepler cards due to the inclusion of displayport, but it could also be other things. They did, however, say it requires displayport to work as well.

The chip being put into the monitor cannot be entirely responsible for everything, as it won't know when the GPU is done with frames. It likely is a chip that has a few communication functions in it, so the graphics card and it can interface in ways they can't know, as well as having control over the refresh rate, which in normal cases, never changes.

If Groover was right, only the 650ti and above have displayport
The chip being put in the monitor, I assume is what takes control over screen refreshing
JHH spoke of a firmware/software update to the gpu, this is what communicates when the frame is in the final buffer ready for display enabling the syncing of the refresh and the frame
That's how I understood and believe it to work

 

[Creig]

I mostly agree, but there is an angle that would let them open it up, though I bet it may be after a few months of it being Nvidia only. That benefit to Nvidia, if it were sold to AMD users too, is they can sell more Gsync chips to monitor companies.

No, that wouldn't happen.

Look at hardware PhysX. Nvidia claims it requires an Nvidia video card to be both the primary renderer and the PhysX processor. With hacked drivers, it has been proven that an AMD card works perfectly as the primary renderer with an Nvidia card as the PhysX processor. Heck, Nvidia even slipped up once and released a set of drivers without the lockout in place and hardware PhysX worked just fine with an AMD/Nvidia video card combination.

Yet Nvidia continues to enforce the artificial lockout through the drivers. If that lockout weren't in place, I have no doubt that some AMD owners would purchase Nvidia cards to use as hardware PhysX processors. That would definitely be to Nvidia's benefit. But JHH won't allow it.

So I have extreme doubts that Nvidia will open up G-sync to work with AMD cards, even if it turns out they're completely compatible with it.

 

[bystander36]

No, that wouldn't happen.

Look at hardware PhysX. Nvidia claims it requires an Nvidia video card to be both the primary renderer and the PhysX processor. With hacked drivers, it has been proven that an AMD card works perfectly as the primary renderer with an Nvidia card as the PhysX processor. Heck, Nvidia even slipped up once and released a set of drivers without the lockout in place and hardware PhysX worked just fine with an AMD/Nvidia video card combination.

Yet Nvidia continues to enforce the artificial lockout through the drivers. If that lockout weren't in place, I have no doubt that some AMD owners would purchase Nvidia cards to use as hardware PhysX processors. That would definitely be to Nvidia's benefit. But JHH won't allow it.

So I have extreme doubts that Nvidia will open up G-sync to work with AMD cards, even if it turns out they're completely compatible with it.

That is a little different. First off, there is such a small percent that would do that, it doesn't hardly change anything.

With G-sync, it is something that everyone would be in position to use, and if it became something every monitor came with, that is a lot of money to be made.

 

[Creig]

That is a little different. First off, there is such a small percent that would do that, it doesn't hardly change anything.

With G-sync, it is something that everyone would be in position to use, and if it became something every monitor came with, that is a lot of money to be made.

It's really no different at all. Money is money. From what I've read about the subject, all Nvidia has to do is drop the AMD video card lockout from their hardware PhysX driver for it to work. It might result in more testing being required before each driver release, but given the fact that end users hacked the drivers to work on AMD/Nvidia combo, it shouldn't have been all that difficult for Nvidia's engineers to handle it. The outcome would have been more Nvidia cards purchased and a resulting increase in Nvidia marketshare.

I honestly feel that one of the big reasons hardware PhysX hasn't caught on better than it has is that it has been artificially restricted to Nvidia hardware only. If it would have been released without the software lockout in place, I think we'd see more titles featuring hardware PhysX. But with only an Nvidia/Nvidia combination being supported, it was kept to a small subset of the gaming community.

 

[Keysplayr]

It's really no different at all. Money is money. From what I've read about the subject, all Nvidia has to do is drop the AMD video card lockout from their hardware PhysX driver for it to work. It might result in more testing being required before each driver release, but given the fact that end users hacked the drivers to work on AMD/Nvidia combo, it shouldn't have been all that difficult for Nvidia's engineers to handle it. The outcome would have been more Nvidia cards purchased and a resulting increase in Nvidia marketshare.

I honestly feel that one of the big reasons hardware PhysX hasn't caught on better than it has is that it has been artificially restricted to Nvidia hardware only. If it would have been released without the software lockout in place, I think we'd see more titles featuring hardware PhysX. But with only an Nvidia/Nvidia combination being supported, it was kept to a small subset of the gaming community.

Well.... 65% of the discrete market anyway.

 

[bystander36]

It's really no different at all. Money is money. From what I've read about the subject, all Nvidia has to do is drop the AMD video card lockout from their hardware PhysX driver for it to work. It might result in more testing being required before each driver release, but given the fact that end users hacked the drivers to work on AMD/Nvidia combo, it shouldn't have been all that difficult for Nvidia's engineers to handle it. The outcome would have been more Nvidia cards purchased and a resulting increase in Nvidia marketshare.

I honestly feel that one of the big reasons hardware PhysX hasn't caught on better than it has is that it has been artificially restricted to Nvidia hardware only. If it would have been released without the software lockout in place, I think we'd see more titles featuring hardware PhysX. But with only an Nvidia/Nvidia combination being supported, it was kept to a small subset of the gaming community.

The extra cost in testing may not even be covered by the few that would buy an extra card for the feature. In that way, they are not comparable.

However, it does sound like they do want to license out Gsync. We'll see how it turns out. This feature is more likely to be added than anything else you mentioned.

 

[wand3r3r]

Well.... 65% of the discrete market anyway.

Technically it's kepler and above 650 ti, so just a guess would be it's a fraction of that maybe 20% of the market? (GTX 660+)

 

[BrightCandle]

http://mygaming.co.za/news/hardware...ch-will-boost-gaming-monitor-performance.html

Their claim is there is no patent covering it and its a simple extension to the display port protocol so Intel and AMD can use it without issues. They simply need to update their cards to support it.

 

[Creig]

Well.... 65% of the discrete market anyway.

I didn't realize that 65% of the discrete market was utilizing dual Nvidia cards in their PCs. Are you sure about your facts?

 

[bystander36]

I guess that lays to rest the idea of it being locked.

It does not make it clear if there is specific hardware required within the video card. It kind of sounds like it may, though it may be something that many AMD cards have as well.

 

[bystander36]

I didn't realize that 65% of the discrete market was utilizing dual Nvidia cards in their PCs. Are you sure about your facts?

What are the dual Nvidia cards need for?

 

[Creig]

http://mygaming.co.za/news/hardware...ch-will-boost-gaming-monitor-performance.html

Their claim is there is no patent covering it and its a simple extension to the display port protocol so Intel and AMD can use it without issues. They simply need to update their cards to support it.

A boon to the adoption of GSync is that the translation is all done at the driver level. GSync is merely an extension of the Displayport protocol and does not need approval from a standards body, nor is the method patented, leaving AMD and Intel to work on their own solutions or help the industry to shift to this new display method.

Well, if that is true then I guess we'll have to wait and see if Nvidia adds a hardware lockout to the G-sync module to prevent any card but their own from synchronizing with it.