Whitepaper explaining Freesync in a couple of weeks

[Bergen]

According to an article on a Norwegian Tech site, AMD will release both a whitepaper and a website dedicated to Freesync. And this will happen within a couple of weeks.

http://www.hardware.no/artikler/amd-g-sync-killer-er-rett-rundt-hjornet-her-er-det-i-aksjon/160602

The information comes from Shane Parfit who is AMD`s Technology Manager for Display Technologies.

I am looking forward to getting more information, and hopefully a comparison between G-sync and Freesync.

 

[f1sherman]

Shane Parfitt, AMD's chief technology officer for display technology:

- That people can go out and buy an expensive monitor that can unlock them to Nvidia the next two video-generational is why we go out now and say that FreeSync come.


Pretty much this :biggrin:

 

[Mondozei]

Good, there is a lot of FUD out there that needs to be cleared out.

 

[Bergen]

Pretty much this :biggrin:

At least he is honest

 

[stahlhart]

Just a warning up front that any personal attack directed at another participant in this thread will be infracted as serious, regardless of the offender's history, and will lock the thread.

Please remain focused on technological comparison of the alternatives, and avoid debating with inflammatory rhetoric.

I do not want to censor or otherwise stifle discussion in this forum, but it needs to be kept civil by everyone.

-- stahlhart

 

[Mand]

In this article, there is a quote from the AMD rep saying that they didn't actually have a variable refresh demo at Computex. Thanks to Google Translate:

We have matched content by adding the same GPU load on both machines, so we get exactly the same frame rate for both. These monitors are 60 Hz each, and we draw their content at around 45 FPS now

Which means it was the same fake demo they had at CES. In order to demonstrate variable refresh, you have to have variable FPS output from the GPU. Run a damn benchmark on the thing, that's all it would take, yet AMD seems to refuse to take even the most basic steps to prove the technology, rather instead choosing to lie and deceive so that you don't buy something that will make you not choose AMD products for the next five years. It's slimy, it's deceptive, it's the worst aspects of capitalism.

Which means I'm not inclined to believe anything else AMD ever says on this subject. If they can't be honest, then they don't deserve anyone's support.

 

[24601]

In this article, there is a quote from the AMD rep saying that they didn't actually have a variable refresh demo at Computex. Thanks to Google Translate:




Which means it was the same fake demo they had at CES. In order to demonstrate variable refresh, you have to have variable FPS output from the GPU. Run a damn benchmark on the thing, that's all it would take, yet AMD seems to refuse to take even the most basic steps to prove the technology, rather instead choosing to lie and deceive so that you don't buy something that will make you not choose AMD products for the next five years. It's slimy, it's deceptive, it's the worst aspects of capitalism.

Which means I'm not inclined to believe anything else AMD ever says on this subject. If they can't be honest, then they don't deserve anyone's support.

You'd think a semi-conductor design company (AMD/ATi) would at the very least implement G-Sync in drivers and manufacture an ASIC based on the damned FPGA that Nvidia essentially handed them.

Nvidia releasing the G-Sync FPGA is the closest thing Nvidia could have done to handing G-Sync to AMD/ATi on a silver platter.

But no, why be a competent company when you can be AMD/ATi.

As usual, AMD/ATi have no one to blame but their own utter amazingly dense incompetency.

 

[Leadbox]

There's more than one way to skin a cat

 

[stahlhart]

But no, why be a competent company when you can be AMD/ATi.

As usual, AMD/ATi have no one to blame but their own utter amazingly dense incompetency.

I said, "...and avoid debating with inflammatory rhetoric."
-- stahlhart

 

[24601]

I said, "...and avoid debating with inflammatory rhetoric."
-- stahlhart

If truth is inflammatory, then you are merely denying truth and leading to a discussion on fantasy.

Infraction issued for moderator callout.
-- stahlhart

 

[Despoiler]

In this article, there is a quote from the AMD rep saying that they didn't actually have a variable refresh demo at Computex. Thanks to Google Translate:




Which means it was the same fake demo they had at CES. In order to demonstrate variable refresh, you have to have variable FPS output from the GPU. Run a damn benchmark on the thing, that's all it would take, yet AMD seems to refuse to take even the most basic steps to prove the technology, rather instead choosing to lie and deceive so that you don't buy something that will make you not choose AMD products for the next five years. It's slimy, it's deceptive, it's the worst aspects of capitalism.

Which means I'm not inclined to believe anything else AMD ever says on this subject. If they can't be honest, then they don't deserve anyone's support.

The demo is doing exactly what I've said it's been doing since the first demo and the new one. They have a load that runs @ 45fps. Not a fixed v-sync of 45hz which is what you've said this whole time. They do this so the v-sync monitor shows the tearing and the free-sync monitor doesn't. That doesn't mean it can't do variable frame per frame. As I said, it can, but their demo renders at what it renders at as far as FPS.

 

[bystander36]

I have no doubt that the demo could be fake, but I also have no doubt that AMD will have a working model eventually. The questions are when and how much.

I also would not be surprised if there are slight differences, and I also expect more variations in how it is presented by the monitor companies. Nvidia is clearly making sure all the monitors with the their tech follow certain guide lines, with low response times and UMLB support. I'm guessing AMD's version will have a wider array of configurations, which I'm sure some people here would like, but with less control over it, there could be a lot of subpar versions too.

 

[KingFatty]

In order to demonstrate variable refresh, you have to have variable FPS output from the GPU. Run a damn benchmark on the thing, that's all it would take, yet AMD seems to refuse to take even the most basic steps to prove the technology, rather instead choosing to lie and deceive

Could that still meet the definition though, because 45 does technically vary from a standard 60?

I dunno, maybe AMD was trying to be too clever, but still, you gotta hand it to them for clever marketing?

As an aside, it can ruffle some feathers when a thing doesn't meet one's personal sacred cow definition. However, marketers (and politicians) are employed for this specific purpose. It's a bit of a stretch to call marketing a lie or deceit. Another thing worth mentioning is that it's human nature to fall for the Nirvana fallacy, where a thing is deemed completely worthless if it is not absolutely perfect. But the world is not so binary.

 

[Mand]

Could that still meet the definition though, because 45 does technically vary from a standard 60?

No, it doesn't.

The whole point of variable refresh tech is that you don't know what the GPU is going to be putting out. You don't know in advance how long it will take for the next frame to be ready. Changing from one static refresh rate to another static refresh rate is completely useless - and is also something that monitors have been able to do for over two decades.

It's a bit of a stretch to call marketing a lie or deceit.

When they claim something that is provably false, then it's not a stretch, no.

 

[BrightCandle]

I am looking forward to the whitepaper which I guess based on this interview will arrive before the 22nd June, certainly by the end of June at the latest. Monitors being "imminent" seems like a very different message to 6-12 months away and the 12+ months away I have been hearing from monitor manufacturers. I wonder if its just the translation not being correct or if they told hardware.no little lies, because I do not consider a year away "imminent".

 

[Bergen]

No, it doesn't.

The whole point of variable refresh tech is that you don't know what the GPU is going to be putting out. You don't know in advance how long it will take for the next frame to be ready. Changing from one static refresh rate to another static refresh rate is completely useless - and is also something that monitors have been able to do for over two decades.



When they claim something that is provably false, then it's not a stretch, no.

As I understand it, they are not using static refresh rates, but the demo is running at around 45-46 fps. There is no knowledge of the exact amount of time to render the next frame, though it does not vary by a big amount. The frames are still sent to the screen when they are finished, the same way as G-sync. This is also what Dave Baumann said on Beyond3d a couple of days ago. Please correct me if I am wrong

 

[Bergen]

I am looking forward to the whitepaper which I guess based on this interview will arrive before the 22nd June, certainly by the end of June at the latest. Monitors being "imminent" seems like a very different message to 6-12 months away and the 12+ months away I have been hearing from monitor manufacturers. I wonder if its just the translation not being correct or if they told hardware.no little lies, because I do not consider a year away "imminent".

The article actually says monitor retail availability in 6-12 months, but I am hoping for AMD to send out prototypes to review sites much earlier.

 

[Mand]

As I understand it, they are not using static refresh rates, but the demo is running at around 45-46 fps. There is no knowledge of the exact amount of time to render the next frame, though it does not vary by a big amount. The frames are still sent to the screen when they are finished, the same way as G-sync. This is also what Dave Baumann said on Beyond3d a couple of days ago. Please correct me if I am wrong

Variation around the ~1 FPS range is typical of standard vsync. Run a game, point your view at a blank wall, turn on vsync, and that's what an ingame FPS counter will show.

If they're using a source that doesn't vary, then they can't demonstrate that the monitor is responding to variation. It's that simple. In order to make a demo of variable refresh, there has to be something varying in order for it to respond to.

Could they still be having variable refresh with a fixed FPS source? Sure. But it's impossible to show that you have variable refresh with a fixed FPS source. And given that using truly variable sources is easy, repeatable, and available to anyone by running a standard benchmark routine like Heaven or something similar, there really is no excuse for showing fixed-FPS sources unless you can't actually do variable refresh and are just trying to fool people.

 

[Leadbox]

The whole point of variable refresh tech is that you don't know what the GPU is going to be putting out. You don't know in advance how long it will take for the next frame to be ready. Changing from one static refresh rate to another static refresh rate is completely useless - and is also something that monitors have been able to do for over two decades.

I would have thought the whole point was to remove and or reduce the anomolies and glitches associated with being out of sync without any of the drawbacks that come with v-sync.
The "demo" showed this

 

[Bergen]

Variation around the ~1 FPS range is typical of standard vsync. Run a game, point your view at a blank wall, turn on vsync, and that's what an ingame FPS counter will show.

If they're using a source that doesn't vary, then they can't demonstrate that the monitor is responding to variation. It's that simple. In order to make a demo of variable refresh, there has to be something varying in order for it to respond to.

Could they still be having variable refresh with a fixed FPS source? Sure. But it's impossible to show that you have variable refresh with a fixed FPS source. And given that using truly variable sources is easy, repeatable, and available to anyone by running a standard benchmark routine like Heaven or something similar, there really is no excuse for showing fixed-FPS sources unless you can't actually do variable refresh and are just trying to fool people.

The journalist writing the article says the difference between the two screens, one running with freesync and one without, is staggering. AMD is saying that it is running with freesync, and with variable refresh. The information points toward AMD actually demonstrating what they say that they are. Luckily AMD seem to be close to release documentation on their implementation of adaptive sync. Like you, I would also like to see freesync demonstrated using games.

 

[Bergen]

You'd think a semi-conductor design company (AMD/ATi) would at the very least implement G-Sync in drivers and manufacture an ASIC based on the damned FPGA that Nvidia essentially handed them.

Nvidia releasing the G-Sync FPGA is the closest thing Nvidia could have done to handing G-Sync to AMD/ATi on a silver platter..

Would Nvidia really allow competitors like Intel and AMD to use the technology? That does not sound plausible

Do you have any kind of information pointing in that direction?

 

[Mand]

The journalist writing the article says the difference between the two screens, one running with freesync and one without, is staggering. AMD is saying that it is running with freesync, and with variable refresh. The information points toward AMD actually demonstrating what they say that they are. Luckily AMD seem to be close to release documentation on their implementation of adaptive sync. Like you, I would also like to see freesync demonstrated using games.

Yes, the difference is staggering. Because one is mismatched, and one is matched. Matching makes things look great.

AMD is saying that it is running variable refresh, but it is not SHOWING that it is running variable refresh.

The information points to AMD's history of lies and deceit on this subject, actually.

 

[24601]

Would Nvidia really allow competitors like Intel and AMD to use the technology? That does not sound plausible

Do you have any kind of information pointing in that direction?

FPGAs are laughably easy to reverse engineer.

Nvidia doesn't have a patent on the tech, therefore they have no legal recourse if AMD/ATi reverse engineers its tech.

Capitalism 101.

Most of AMD early life as an Intel Clone was AMD literally reverse engineering Intel's tech at the silicon level.

The sheer fact the Nvidia would publicly release the G-Sync FGPA instead of a G-Sync ASIC should be seen as an olive branch to AMD/ATi from Nvidia.

 

[Bergen]

Yes, the difference is staggering. Because one is mismatched, and one is matched. Matching makes things look great.

AMD is saying that it is running variable refresh, but it is not SHOWING that it is running variable refresh.

The information points to AMD's propensity to lie and deceive, actually.

I do not agree with your interpretation of the situasion, and I will wait for more information before continuing the discussion. My hope for the future is for every screen to have support for adaptive sync, especially big screen tv`s. For that to happen I believe an open standard is needed, but time will tell...

 

[Bergen]

FPGAs are laughably easy to reverse engineer.

Nvidia doesn't have a patent on the tech, therefore they have no legal recourse if AMD/ATi reverse engineers its tech.

Capitalism 101.

Most of AMD early life as an Intel Clone was AMD literally reverse engineering Intel's tech at the silicon level.

The sheer fact the Nvidia would publicly release the G-Sync FGPA instead of a G-Sync ASIC should be seen as an olive branch to AMD/ATi from Nvidia.

That would be an unnessesary drain of resources and very expensive compared to freesync. If adaptive sync can work without expensive memory and other hardware inside every screen, surely that would be the better solution. But I will wait for judgement from more knowledgeable people than myself, like in an Anandtech review