[TechPowerUp article] FreeSync explained in more detail

[Abwx]

How are you estimating this?

From the necessary technical modifications...

There s a difference betwwen AMD and Nvidia , it is that the radeons have built in capability in their display engine to manage the refresh rate and vblank timing , wich is not the case with Nvidia where this functionality is ported partly to the gsync board , as already mentioned i suspect that this
has to do with ATI s patenting the principle back in 2006, Nvidia couldnt
implement the functionality in their GPU display engine without infringing
said patent and it is highly unlikely that they didnt knew that the radeons
had it implemented for quite some time.

 

[bystander36]

From the necessary technical modifications...

There s a difference betwwen AMD and Nvidia , it is that the radeons have built in capability in their display engine to manage the refresh rate and vblank timing , wich is not the case with Nvidia where this functionality is ported partly to the gsync board , as already mentioned i suspect that this
has to do with ATI s patenting the principle back in 2006, Nvidia couldnt
implement the functionality in their GPU display engine without infringing
said patent and it is highly unlikely that they didnt knew that the radeons
had it implemented for quite some time.

Where was it said that Nvidia couldn't do this due to patent infringements? I've not read that anywhere. Your pricing seems to be based on pure guess work too, though I won't argue if it does end up being cheap to do.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Its hard to take anything people say these days at face value, with programs like AMDs influencer and other shill programs out there. I think a wait and see position is best here, I haven't seen anything new on freesync since the initial stories.

 

[videogames101]

i don't understand why you'd want any sort of anything instead of show frames as soon as they come in, i think i've had tearing in one game ever and vsync worked fine to fix that

hell with freesync and gsync

is this a non-issue for anyone else?

 

[bystander36]

i don't understand why you'd want any sort of anything instead of show frames as soon as they come in, i think i've had tearing in one game ever and vsync worked fine to fix that

The problem is that V-sync does not do that. V-sync buffers the frame until the display is ready to show it. This results in latency, and can result in stuttering, because the monitor does not display your frames when they are ready, but on a schedule. For example, a 60hz monitor can only display frames at intervals of 16.67ms. If a frame is not ready in that time frame, that frame will wait another 16.67ms and continue to wait in intervals of 16.67ms until it is ready.

G-sync does as you described. It displays frames when the GPU is ready, as long as those frames occur between 33.33ms and ~7ms. Freesync is looking to do the same. V-sync cannot do this.

 

[Will Robinson]

Its hard to take anything people say these days at face value, with programs like AMDs influencer and other shill programs out there. I think a wait and see position is best here, I haven't seen anything new on freesync since the initial stories.

Huh wut

 

[videogames101]

The problem is that V-sync does not do that. V-sync buffers the frame until the display is ready to show it. This results in latency, and can result in stuttering, because the monitor does not display your frames when they are ready, but on a schedule. For example, a 60hz monitor can only display frames at intervals of 16.67ms. If a frame is not ready in that time frame, that frame will wait another 16.67ms and continue to wait in intervals of 16.67ms until it is ready.

G-sync does as you described. It displays frames when the GPU is ready, as long as those frames occur between 33.33ms and ~7ms. Freesync is looking to do the same. V-sync cannot do this.

i meant don't use vsync unless you get tearing, and i never get tearing

so it's a non-issue

i got tearing once back with guild wars 1, and in that game vsync seemed fine because it wasn't an FPS

 

[omeds]

Everyone gets tearing without vsync.

 

[bystander36]

i meant don't use vsync unless you get tearing, and i never get tearing

so it's a non-issue

i got tearing once back with guild wars 1, and in that game vsync seemed fine because it wasn't an FPS

As Omeds said, everyone gets tearing in every instance V-sync is not on with todays tech. G-sync is the only exception, as it has finally changed this.

 

[videogames101]

As Omeds said, everyone gets tearing in every instance V-sync is not on with todays tech. G-sync is the only exception, as it has finally changed this.

wtf, i play cs:go get 300 fps and have no tearing

 

[bystander36]

wtf, i play cs:go get 300 fps and have no tearing

It may not be hugely noticeable to you, but on a 60hz monitor, 300 FPS will give 5 tears per frame on average. It is most noticeable when you turn.

 

[rgallant]

Of course, another feature of G-sync is to adjust color and gamma settings so color looks the same to us. Apparently variable refresh rates cause the color to appear different at different times.

won't that look normal on a tn panel?

 

[ocre]

Huh wut

i think what he is saying is, how can anyone be arguing freesync at this point. There is no way to compare it to gsync at all. With gsync we have an actual product that does what its advertized to do. You can test it and see it in action.

No one has seen freesync in action. Yet there are so many arguing its validity. How? We really dont know anything about it at all. We cannot see if it solves any of the problems Gsync does. Yet not only are some overly enthusiastic, they are actually claiming Gsync is dead because of the vaporware gsync. Would not a person with reason want to at least compare the two before making such bold claims?

This is how the world works....... Normally anyway. You dont blindly claim victory when you cannot possibly size the two up. In any way, shape or form.

Yet here we are. Multitudes of people hailing support for a product that not only doesnt exist, it is nowhere in sight.

And yet one thing that stands out to me. AMD claims they have no idea what nvidia thinks they are trying to fix. They say this while trying to talk up freesync. Its kinda like, huh? Obviously they are downplaying gsync, just like so so many on this thread. But if you dont even know what gsync attempts to address, then how the heck are you so certain that their competing product "freesync" can ever measure up to it? If there is no point in gsync, why are so many so interested in the supposed alternative?

Anyone with reason will want to see what freesync offers, if it ever comes out at all. There is no indication that it will work anything like gsync. And no reason for anyone to think that it will. Just blind faith. And a heck of a lot of it

 

[bystander36]

won't that look normal on a tn panel?

TN panels do not change color when you are stationary, but stationary or not, variable frame rates cause fluctuation in color. Lightboost does this too, which is why people with G-sync VG248QE upgrades, now claim the color looks the same with or without strobing.

 

[TreVader]

i don't understand why you'd want any sort of anything instead of show frames as soon as they come in, i think i've had tearing in one game ever and vsync worked fine to fix that

hell with freesync and gsync

is this a non-issue for anyone else?

As long as you push 90fps and use a 60hz display (which for the most part 1440 and 1600p monitors are) it is a non issue. You can run Vsync and the dropped frames will be meaningless because the display won't be able to refresh fast enough anyway. It's when you start pushing <60fps that you will start to see minimal tearing.


If people would stop trying to run 1440p on GTX 760/770s and 7870/R280x this wouldn't be problem.


The funny part is for the $200 you spend on a Gsync board you could bump that GTX-770 to a 780 or R290 and problem solved via vsync.

Now if AMD can provide the same feature for free then it will actually add something. Nvidia Gsync is totally pointless when it jacks TN monitors to $800 or forces you to buy sub-standard video cards.

 

[bystander36]

As long as you push 90fps and use a 60hz display (which for the most part 1440 and 1600p monitors are) it is a non issue. You can run Vsync and the dropped frames will be meaningless because the display won't be able to refresh fast enough anyway. It's when you start pushing <60fps that you will start to see minimal tearing.

That's funny, because a ton of forum posters will say the opposite. A lot of people seem to believe you can't get tearing, or see tearing if you are below your refresh rate, and you only notice it when you are above your refresh rate.

I just recognize that it is always there. There are different aspects of tearing that may or may not correlate to each theory.

At below your refresh rate, not every frame will tear. When you are above your refresh rate, every frame tears. At low FPS, when you turn, each frame is more offset than if you have high FPS, but high FPS will have multiple tears per refresh.

 

[3DVagabond]

Nobody's desktop displays support the eDP standard, and there's a lot more that G-Sync is doing than what FreeSync is proposing.

What does that have to do with what I said?

I was only trying to clarify what the AMD rep actually said. He was asked a question and he said he didn't know it might be because nVidia needed extra hardware for support that wasn't in their cards. He didn't say that was the definitive reason. I'm only saying that because if it turns out that's not accurate we'll have people running around saying he's a liar and spreading fud etc... He's actually been misquoted.

As far as actual differences between G-Sync and Free-Sync, I don't really know. I haven't seen anyone who would know any differences that exist say anything. Some reports say that in actual use, they are identical. Others say that G-Sync will perform better. I guess we'll find out when we have actual samples to compare.

Knowing how nVidia likes to have proprietary solutions they can either charge a premium for, or use to differentiate their brand, I'm not ready to simply take their word for it that it's better and requires a $200-$300 premium on the consumers part. I'll wait and see.

 

[3DVagabond]

i think what he is saying is, how can anyone be arguing freesync at this point. There is no way to compare it to gsync at all. With gsync we have an actual product that does what its advertized to do. You can test it and see it in action.

No one has seen freesync in action. Yet there are so many arguing its validity. How? We really dont know anything about it at all. We cannot see if it solves any of the problems Gsync does. Yet not only are some overly enthusiastic, they are actually claiming Gsync is dead because of the vaporware gsync. Would not a person with reason want to at least compare the two before making such bold claims?

This is how the world works....... Normally anyway. You dont blindly claim victory when you cannot possibly size the two up. In any way, shape or form.

Yet here we are. Multitudes of people hailing support for a product that not only doesnt exist, it is nowhere in sight.

And yet one thing that stands out to me. AMD claims they have no idea what nvidia thinks they are trying to fix. They say this while trying to talk up freesync. Its kinda like, huh? Obviously they are downplaying gsync, just like so so many on this thread. But if you dont even know what gsync attempts to address, then how the heck are you so certain that their competing product "freesync" can ever measure up to it? If there is no point in gsync, why are so many so interested in the supposed alternative?

Anyone with reason will want to see what freesync offers, if it ever comes out at all. There is no indication that it will work anything like gsync. And no reason for anyone to think that it will. Just blind faith. And a heck of a lot of it

I think you have a lot of people hopeful that Free-Sync works because they don't like the idea of paying hundreds of dollars for it if it can be easily implemented with the 1.3 DP standard replacing the current VSync solution. At least that's what I'm hoping for. I don't want to pay hundreds of dollars for what is likely a simple monitor feature. I also don't want to be forced to buy the required video card. I want to be able to buy any video card.

 

[ams23]

And yet, to make use of this so-called (and misleadingly named) "free-sync" technology, many people may have to buy a new monitor and/or a new video card.

 

[3DVagabond]

And yet, to make use of this so-called (and misleadingly named) "free-sync" technology, many people may have to buy a new monitor and/or a new video card.

What's in a name? I think there is little doubt AMD did that demo and called it Free-Sync to undermine nVidia's hot new release. They are competitors.

If there is any negative to G-Sync it's nVidia's asking price. That and limited monitor support. They are playing off of it. Both by calling it Free-Sync and by introducing it as part of a standard that would mean that adoption by virtually all vendors across a wide range of monitors is guaranteed (Need the standard to get approved, naturally.).

As far as it not being free because you'll need a new monitor and maybe even a new video card, they never said it was going to be "Magic-Sync" and somehow older gear that doesn't have the proper hardware will be transformed to support it. If it's a new feature that requires hardware support and your current monitor/vcard doesn't support it, then you'll need to upgrade. Same as it's always been.

 

[Imouto]

So much win in these comments. Ever heard about the Free Software Foundation?

Guess what.

 

[3DVagabond]

So much win in these comments. Ever heard about the Free Software Foundation?

Guess what.

Maybe they are talking free as in free speech and we are all assuming free as in free beer?

 

[Abwx]

Where was it said that Nvidia couldn't do this due to patent infringements? I've not read that anywhere. Your pricing seems to be based on pure guess work too, though I won't argue if it does end up being cheap to do.

My pricing is based on said technical modifications , to be clear the silicon modification of the current panel controlers is trivial, it s just a matter of protocol and ability to use the panel controler as a slave device, as already said the fact that the command hardware is included in the GPU will forcibly render the cost about negligible on the panel side, not so much if the GPU has not this capability, then you ll have to add an interface with a complexe micro controler that will manage the GPU output and render it compatible with the panel caracteristics , actualy it cant be done via software in this latter case...

 

[Abwx]

And yet, to make use of this so-called (and misleadingly named) "free-sync" technology, many people may have to buy a new monitor and/or a new video card.

Yes but freesync will not increase the monitor price while radeons just need a driver update, the only ones on trouble are gforce owners..

Being a VESA member ?Nvidia knew that once thoses
features would be added to the DP standard gforce
GPUs would be unable to use said feature.....

 

[dacostafilipe]

Yes but freesync will not increase the monitor pricen while radeons just need a driver update, the only ones on trouble are gforce owners..

To be honest, I don't think Manufacturers will give this feature "for free". At the begining, they will only enable this on special "Gaming Screen" with a premium price.

Just saying ...

PS: Funny thing is that if nVidia want to have G-Sync on Laptops, they will have to write software that mimics G-Sync behavior. Then it's just like FreeSync ...