Have you seen any info showing G-Sync modules getting firmware updates?
Yep. PCPer is a marketing arm of Nvidia at this point, that is not too strong a statement it is a fact.
Have you seen any info showing G-Sync modules getting firmware updates?Not sure that's necessarily true. Depends on what type of fpga and other factors. Without knowing the details, it's likely you could do essentially firmware updates to make changes if needed.
Yep. PCPer is a marketing arm of Nvidia at this point, that is not too strong a statement it is a fact.Surely from the same source as their FCAT gear...
And its suppression resulting in Nvidia not needing to fix the same issues, why bother, they are downplayed at will...
Actualy this had much more to do with viral marketing than anything else, Hawai was just too good to be competed only on a price/perf comparison.
As for the article below that s total bs, look like even the graphs were supplied by Nvidia, if not the complete article, besides where are the oscillloscope measurements of Gsync..?.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Dissecting-G-Sync-and-FreeSync-How-Technologies-Differ
Are we supposed to trust this reviewer at face value, that is, measurement for AMD and plain marketing for Nvidia, hey, they cant lie about the possibilities of their implentations..
Actualy he s measuring nothing, just that the panel is limited to 25ms time frame and the corresponding management by Freesync.
Indeed statements like this one marketing Gsync say it all :
As if there was no possible buffering by the GPU, how does it proceed when refreshing using the existing pic..?.
He s actualy downplaying one of AMD advantage wich is that the driver has full control of the screen while in Nvidia "solution" the screen can be out of control, to summarize any update in Gsync management will require an updated module, with previous monitors definitly lacking eventual future improvements.
Is the article accurate? And I thought we were talking about the article on page 1 of this thread.
Most everything they showed in the article, they had talk to AMD about, and they quoted what AMD said they were doing. If you don't like it, you should be upset with AMD. The reality is, PCPer seems to like Freesync more in the long run, even though G-sync has a couple small advantages. (talking about the article this thread was about).
Assuming a purely software solution is better than a mix of software and hardware is up for debate. Time will tell. Why you think they are biased for not saying that software is superior is showing you are biased. Time will tell which is a better path.
The article in the op is from techreport.com, not pcper.
Then why are they going on about how biased it is?
They're complaining about previous coverage from pcper which painted freesync in a more negative light than this latest article does.
There is a difference. Both showed the same flaws, although the monitor review is a different topic. The monitor review is there to show you the quality of the monitor, which has freesync. Pcper's review was strictly about the differences between the two techs. Both showed the same flaws, though the use of the 144hz panel makes the flaw smaller, as when normal v-sync is applied below 40hz, you get increments of 7ms instead of 13ms applied to frames missing a refresh on the 75hz monitor.
And this is where they are biaised because comparing the two techs would require using comparable hardware, but in this case they used Freesync that had a 25ms minimum frame time compared to a Gsync that has 33ms minimum frame time...
As such they also did review only a monitor but they assumed that the difference was due to the tech rather than to the monitors being of different specs from the start, talk of stretching things to get the expected viral outcome.
Or perhaps the 75hz monitor was the first Freesync monitor that was available. It still details the differences well. One handles FPS below the minimum hz threshold nearly perfect, and the other does not.
Why is it such a problem to know the differences? I'm glad I'm aware of them, but to be honest, as I can apply my own thoughts to what was given to me, this is not a big deal to me. I do not play at FPS that low. I will not play at FPS that low. If I did, this would be important to me, as it is, I don't care that much about the differences.
It doesnt matter in your case given your own requirements but we re talking of a site that pretend to have a say in buyers decisions.
Their comparison is not scientific in its protocols and as such has no technical value when it comes to compare two techs, certainly a marketing value but in now way it can be claimed as being an accurate review.
Techreport was much more on point since they know that using a different monitor would had yielded different results, so they focused on the monitor review rather than extracting hasardous speculations from a single sample.
It doesnt matter in your case given your own requirements but we re talking of a site that pretend to have a say in buyers decisions.
Their comparison is not scientific in its protocols and as such has no technical value when it comes to compare two techs, certainly a marketing value but in now way it can be claimed as being an accurate review.
Techreport was much more on point since they know that using a different monitor would had yielded different results, so they focused on the monitor review rather than extracting hasardous speculations from a single sample.
Funny how you suddenly like Tech Report, just a little while ago you said they were biased against AMD and can't be trusted.
pcper.com = Nvidia Pressworks
We have to be carefull and not consider only they reviews.
There is a big difference between guidance and outright parroting company talking points. PCPer uses language very similar to Nvidia marketing speak, plus if you look at the body language of Ryan Shrout in particular he is very receptive and relaxed when talking to Nvidia reps. Contrast that when he talks about AMD tech and AMD reps, his demeanor is quite different.Sometimes a proper critique of a technology is too difficult for reviewers, with some details being too esoteric, and guidance is needed from companies.
Funny how you suddenly like Tech Report, just a little while ago you said they were biased against AMD and can't be trusted.
Funny how you suddenly like Tech Report, just a little while ago you said they were biased against AMD and can't be trusted.
And i m still of this opinion although they were quite neutral on this article, there s a saying here that state that a swallow doesnt make spring happening...
Very similar to selective hearing, some people only like what they want to read and put the blinders on for everything else.
Reminds me of "scientists" who draw the conclusion before testing, then change the test to get the desired results.
In other words, they can be trusted when they agree with your position, but otherwise they are not trustworthy.
Got it!
In other words, they can be trusted when they agree with your position, but otherwise they are not trustworthy.