[PCPER] NVidia G-sync

[5150Joker]

um unless I am crazy your gpu can only output 8 bit anyway.

Yes that's true and for regular use (until higher gamut is adopted), a high gamut panel like mine is overkill. However, this panel is really 8 bit + FRC though LG deems it "10 bit". Guess I should've been more clear. So regardless a high gamut IPS + 120 hz would be something I'd want.

Oh and I bought this LG because the panel is very high quality. I went through several ViewSonic IPS + Korean imported garbage before settling on this. The bonus is the additional gamut and programmable LUT. This display has to be seen in person to be appreciated, it blew me away when I saw it at Fry's. Here's a really good review on it (in German): http://www.prad.de/new/monitore/test/2013/test-lg-27ea83-d-teil13.html#Bildaufbauzeit

 

[toyota]

Why are you hung up on the GTX 650? There are plenty of people who have faster GPUs than this, so it would be alright for them then?

what are you talking about?

 

[3DVagabond]

It's neither. The hardware and software doesn't exist for the new feature. Nvidia is having both made for their cards.

Now there may be a patent for it, so I don't know how easily it will be for AMD to follow suite.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. You say it's neither, but it looks like you actually don't know?

 

[3DVagabond]

Since not much has been disclosed about the inner workings behind what probably is one of the most interesting concepts in gaming as of late, we can do nothing but speculate about what REALLY is needed for this new way of frame syncing to work.

From what Nvidia said, we know the following is required:

- Kepler uArch, specifically 650 ti and above.
- A supported monitor. By the asus one's specs, we can infer: 120/144hz capability. We still dont know if it's tied to a Panel technology, but right now only TN is discussed as it is the most fit for the task.
- A DP output. This is bolded because I think that, after being modded, losing the other outputs it's not a coincidence and the DP is key in allowing the dynamic vertical refresh to happen.
- The mod in question, that is shaped as a piece of PCB that should replace one of those 2 PCBs that are behind the panel when you mod your monitor. This is currently priced at 170 bucks, but they hope to get it lower.

So, what exactly does this PCB that the one that it replaces can't? Does it add the dynamic refresh rate functionality or just enables it? CRTs really could only work with fixed refresh rates because of the tech behind those monitors.

Now, in the era of LCDs, it isn't really needed because there is now persistence and they can hold an image without the need to refresh at a fixed rate if the image didn't change. So we could have had this technology earlier if it weren't for the need to keep CRT compatibility and the need of a refresh rate they (as in, monitor manufacturers) knew to make into a custom.

My assumption in the end is that monitor manufactures could have this feature incorporated a long ago, but following the motto "dont fix what it isnt broken" they stayed with fixed refresh rates even when it wasn't needed. The PCB to mod targets this point specifically and enables the feature, while the DP output may be the only one capable of dictating the refresh commands the other way around (that is now, from the GPU to the monitor) and thus is the only one up for the task. Last but not least, there might be in fact a requeriment for some kind of hardware frame metering needed, giving validity to the Kepler only requeriment.

I want to know what's different between the signal that's being sent to the monitor by a 650ti Kepler (or higher) that makes it work, and any other card's output signal that doesn't work.

 

[PPB]

I think its just not having dp outputs on lesser cards from nv

 

[bystander36]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. You say it's neither, but it looks like you actually don't know?

The point is, it can't work on AMD cards, because they aren't built to do Gsync. Nvidia is putting in hardware so it can.

What AMD will do to follow up is up to them. It's not them actively locking AMD.

 

[Grooveriding]

The point is, it can't work on AMD cards, because they aren't built to do Gsync. Nvidia is putting in hardware so it can.

What AMD will do to follow up is up to them. It's not them actively locking AMD.

Where are you getting this from ? If you have a source for there being hardware in nvidia cards to make gsync work, please share it.

From everything so far the best guess is that it only takes a display port connection on the video card side to work. No actual hardware. If you watched their presentation, that panel of developers called them on that at one point when asking if they were opening it up to all GPU vendors, as well as alluding to it just needing the software end on the computer to go with the hardware in a gsync monitor.

 

[bystander36]

Where are you getting this from ? If you have a source for there being hardware in nvidia cards to make gsync work, please share it.

From everything so far the best guess is that it only takes a display port connection on the video card side to work. No actual hardware. If you watched their presentation, that panel of developers called them on that at one point when asking if they were opening it up to all GPU vendors, as well as alluding to it just needing the software end on the computer to go with the hardware in a gsync monitor.

They are putting hardware into monitors. It's in every link on the topic.

It takes DP and software to link into the new hardware.

 

[Grooveriding]

They are putting hardware into monitors. It's in every link on the topic.

It takes DP and software to link into the new hardware.

Yes every link mentions hardware in the monitor, not the card.

Your quote:

The point is, it can't work on AMD cards, because they aren't built to do Gsync. Nvidia is putting in hardware so it can.

Gives the impression you feel there is some sort of hardware making nvidia cards uniquely able to use it. So far with what little we know it's pointing to only requiring a video card with a Display Port. The hardware required remaining on the monitor end with software support on the PC.

I think the question is mostly whether or not nvidia will leave a vendor lock on the technology or not. There is a reasonable chance AMD and Intel video options will work with it so long as they support gsync with software support built into the drivers.

 

[bystander36]

Yes every link mentions hardware in the monitor, not the card.

Your quote:



Gives the impression you feel there is some sort of hardware making nvidia cards uniquely able to use it. So far with what little we know it's pointing to only requiring a video card with a Display Port. The hardware required remaining on the monitor end with software support on the PC.

I think the question is mostly whether or not nvidia will leave a vendor lock on the technology or not. There is a reasonable chance AMD and Intel video options will work with it so long as they support gsync with software support built into the drivers.

Until AMD puts in software to interface with it, and dealing with any patent issues, it can't. I do believe it was also noted that Nvidia does want this to be a new standard, so it is possible they'll work with AMD on this.

It is also possible they'll keep it in house until there is a standard, and they are hoping their work will lead to one.

 

[3DVagabond]

The point is, it can't work on AMD cards, because they aren't built to do Gsync. Nvidia is putting in hardware so it can.

What AMD will do to follow up is up to them. It's not them actively locking AMD.

It doesn't seem like it needs special hardware on the video card, except for DP. It's hardware for the monitor only. I'm just wondering what the difference is between what an nVidia DP sends to the monitor and what an AMD DP sends to the monitor. Should be the same thing, you would think. You are saying it's because AMD cards aren't built to do it and that nVidia isn't actively locking them out. What is your source for this? How do you know? On the surface it looks like a vender lock out, pure and simple.

 

[bystander36]

It doesn't seem like it needs special hardware on the video card, except for DP. It's hardware for the monitor only. I'm just wondering what the difference is between what an nVidia DP sends to the monitor and what an AMD DP sends to the monitor. Should be the same thing, you would think. You are saying it's because AMD cards aren't built to do it and that nVidia isn't actively locking them out. What is your source for this? How do you know? On the surface it looks like a vender lock out, pure and simple.

Two points:
1) AMD does need software in their drivers to do this.
2) It is a new tech, I'm sure there are patents involved.

Have you ever seen AMD create new tech and give to Nvidia to use?

I didn't think you were complaining about Nvidia locking AMD out of their hardware chip. That goes without saying, at least without some compensation, which may happen.

 

[HurleyBird]

Have you ever seen AMD create new tech and give to Nvidia to use?

GDDR5? TressFX?

 

[5150Joker]

What kind of stupid fantasy are some of you living in? NVIDIA should give away a technology that cost it millions in R&D to its competitor? Some of the suggestions and faux outrage on this forum are mind blowing. They developed it and they should keep it proprietary so it helps them sell more cards. You know..so they can make MONEY! I'd love to say more but I'm sure I'd get an infraction.

 

[toyota]

What kind of stupid fantasy are some of you living in? NVIDIA should give away a technology that cost it millions in R&D to its competitor? Some of the suggestions and faux outrage on this forum are mind blowing. They developed it and they should keep it proprietary so it helps them sell more cards. You know..so they can make MONEY! I'd love to say more but I'm sure I'd get an infraction.

thats a pretty narrow minded view. have you not thought how much sense it would make to just be able to have it work on AMD cards too if possible? the product is going into monitors after all so more people would buy them if they know they can work with both AMD and Nvidia.

 

[5150Joker]

thats a pretty narrow minded view. have you not thought how much sense it would make to just be able to have it work on AMD cards too if possible? the product is going into monitors after all so more people would buy them if they know they can work with both AMD and Nvidia.

I don't really care about helping AMD users or vice versa. AMD has Mantle and I hope they succeed with it and sell a ton of video cards and make money. Same goes for NVIDIA and G-SYNC. In a fantasy world an industry standard would be nice but we live in reality. I know the entitlement mentality is pervasive in our society but come on.

 

[3DVagabond]

Two points:
1) AMD does need software in their drivers to do this.
2) It is a new tech, I'm sure there are patents involved.

3) Have you ever seen AMD create new tech and give to Nvidia to use?

4) I didn't think you were complaining about Nvidia locking AMD out of their hardware chip. That goes without saying, at least without some compensation, which may happen.

1) You think so, but we don't know that.
2) What does patenting the tech have to do with working on any card that has DP outputs? A patent would protect others from simply copying it and implementing it themselves.
3) There are lots of technologies that are introduced and then, not only are others allowed to use it, it's made an industry standard so everyone will use it.
4) I'm not complaining about anything, YET. If it turns out that the hardware used in the monitors doesn't require anything to make it work except a DP connection and nVidia uses some sort of DRM to switch it off if something other than an nVidia card is detected, then yes, I'll be complaining.

 

[toyota]

I don't really care about helping AMD users or vice versa. AMD has Mantle and I hope they succeed with it and sell a ton of video cards and make money. Same goes for NVIDIA and G-SYNC. In a fantasy world an industry standard would be nice but we live in reality. I know the entitlement mentality is pervasive in our society but come on.

I dont think you get it. MOST people are not going to go out and get an Nvidia card just for this. Nvidia will make much more money by being able to sell way more of the modules to the display makers if they will work with both AMD and Nvidia.

 

[3DVagabond]

What kind of stupid fantasy are some of you living in? NVIDIA should give away a technology that cost it millions in R&D to its competitor? Some of the suggestions and faux outrage on this forum are mind blowing. They developed it and they should keep it proprietary so it helps them sell more cards. You know..so they can make MONEY! I'd love to say more but I'm sure I'd get an infraction.

You need to expand your views a bit, IMO. Especially if you are "outraged" to the point of breaking the forum rules, simply trying to discuss it.

If it simply requires Kepler arch to make it work, then fine. If nVidia has to disable it for other hardware to gain an advantage, not fine. They should be content making the money from the idea and the hardware. The only reason to artificially limit it to their hardware is to not have to compete.

 

[5150Joker]

I dont think you get it. MOST people are not going to go out and get an Nvidia card just for this. Nvidia will make much more money by being able to sell way more of the modules to the display makers.

NVIDIA may eventually license these to display makers, at least they haven't precluded the possibility. The fact that it may initially require NVIDIA hardware isn't a bad thing for them. If they made it universal, it would just help the competition sell more premium video cards. And given the excitement surrounding G-SYNC already, I don't think they will have any trouble selling these by the truckloads. It doesn't require game developers to do anything special after all.

Besides, I'm pretty sure AMD will copy it soon enough and make their own version. Now as a gamer if you asked me if I wanted it universally applicable, of course I would because it would remove a lot of the limits on game developers but for now I live in reality and I know NVIDIA is a business that needs to satisfy it's investors.

You need to expand your views a bit, IMO. Especially if you are "outraged" to the point of breaking the forum rules, simply trying to discuss it.

If it simply requires Kepler arch to make it work, then fine. If nVidia has to disable it for other hardware to gain an advantage, not fine. They should be content making the money from the idea and the hardware. The only reason to artificially limit it to their hardware is to not have to compete.

It is pretty obvious they want to keep it exclusive to their hardware for now so that they can sell more of their video cards and increase their market share. By licensing it, they would just be helping AMD out. Making short term cash from licensing agreements isn't something a smart company would do with such a great feature.

 

[toyota]

NVIDIA will be licensing these to display makers, at least they haven't precluded the possibility. The fact that it may require NVIDIA hardware isn't a bad thing for them. If they made it universal, it would just help the competition sell more premium video cards. And given the excitement surrounding G-SYNC already, I don't think they will have any trouble selling these by the truckloads. It doesn't require game developers to do anything special after all.

Besides, I'm pretty sure AMD will copy it soon enough and make their own version. Now as a gamer if you asked me if I wanted it universally applicable, of course I would because it would remove a lot of the limits on game developers but for now I live in reality and I know NVIDIA is a business that needs to satisfy it's investors.

you are so off base here. having the modules work with both AMD and Nvidia will not make people go buy more competing cards. that does not even make sense. it will help Nvidia make more money as it will be able to again sell more modules because monitors can be used by nearly double the amount of people.

 

[Mastercommander]

What?

It's perfectly fine that someone prefers smoothness/higher FPS over IQ but TN's inferior viewing angles and inability to display accurate colours compared to an IPS panel are a fact.

Slideshow and blurring are the opposite of gaming image quality

Those facts are useless for games. Games are already not photorealistic, and I don't need off angle viewing when gaming

 

[3DVagabond]

I don't really care about helping AMD users or vice versa. AMD has Mantle and I hope they succeed with it and sell a ton of video cards and make money. Same goes for NVIDIA and G-SYNC. In a fantasy world an industry standard would be nice but we live in reality. I know the entitlement mentality is pervasive in our society but come on.

If Mantle runs on nVidia hardware and AMD uses an artificial lockout, I'll be just as concerned.

Entitlement mentality? If you think this applies you don't even understand the concept.

 

[5150Joker]

you are so off base here. having the modules work with both AMD and Nvidia will not make people go buy more competing cards. that does not even make sense. it will help Nvidia make more money as it will be able to again sell more modules because monitors can be used by nearly double the amount of people.

No the one who can't see the obvious is you. If NVIDIA licensed the technology that made it interoperable with AMD cards, they'd be giving consumers more choices. They would be free to pick competing lower priced AMD cards that have G-SYNC support and NVIDIA would stand to lose money on lost premium video card sales. It would be beyond idiotic for them as a business to do this. NVIDIA's goal is likely to take AMD out altogether so they can hold a monopoly, not spend years researching a technology only to license it out to a competitor.

Do you see Intel licensing x86 to anyone else? Why didn't they give NVIDIA a license? Think about it.

 

[5150Joker]

If Mantle runs on nVidia hardware and AMD uses an artificial lockout, I'll be just as concerned.

Entitlement mentality? If you think this applies you don't even understand the concept.

Mantle is built for GCN. Are you going to pretend that it works on NV hardware now?