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?
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
Yes, doing anything is a waste of resources compared to spreading lies.
Why do anything when people are stupid enough to believe the cheap lies AMD/ATi tells them.
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
Why do anything when people are stupid enough to believe the cheap lies AMD/ATi tells them.
You can judge yourself, by looking at the actual information that's been presented. I have in great detail, and the results are very clear. AMD has not been on the level with FreeSync.
You're right that we need more information, because right now all we have are AMD's lies. But there's plenty of information that shows how their demos have been deceptive. That, we do not need more information about.
They are going to publish a paper. Its a sad reality that so far AMDs marketing has done a very poor job with the demo's and statements that they have made, they have built quite a lot of distrust with each lie/half truth they have delivered. But that paper has the potential to fix the problem, to deliver a clear truthful and technically sound message on the technology and how it works so it can be assessed on that basis. At this point I think they have a 60% chance of blundering the white paper as well, but maybe just maybe it will be written by someone competent.
A lot of companies have this problem, they have a marketing team who wont allow anyone in the company to talk to the press or publish papers (normally for good reason) and they themselves never get deep enough to understand a technology and start miss-selling it. AMD happens unfortunately to have a team that seems to be making a lot of wrong moves but the paper has a decent chance of fixing that depending on who writes it and to what level its targeted. They wouldn't be writing it if the message hadn't come under a lot of scrutiny due to the problems with it. If its just a lot of finger waving at Nvidia for making a "propriety" version and the same level as the current reveals its going to get them no where, it might even do more harm than good. They created this mess and they need to fix it.
I want to see this succeed, I don't want to be buying monitors and GPUs from Nvidia and being forced to get a 880 GTX just to keep gsync in the future, I want the option. What I really want is either card working on all monitors that is basically what we all want. AMD's solution has more potential to be that if they get it right based on their approach.
They are going to publish a paper. Its a sad reality that so far AMDs marketing has done a very poor job with the demo's and statements that they have made, they have built quite a lot of distrust with each lie/half truth they have delivered. But that paper has the potential to fix the problem, to deliver a clear truthful and technically sound message on the technology and how it works so it can be assessed on that basis. At this point I think they have a 60% chance of blundering the white paper as well, but maybe just maybe it will be written by someone competent.
A lot of companies have this problem, they have a marketing team who wont allow anyone in the company to talk to the press or publish papers (normally for good reason) and they themselves never get deep enough to understand a technology and start miss-selling it. AMD happens unfortunately to have a team that seems to be making a lot of wrong moves but the paper has a decent chance of fixing that depending on who writes it and to what level its targeted. They wouldn't be writing it if the message hadn't come under a lot of scrutiny due to the problems with it. If its just a lot of finger waving at Nvidia for making a "propriety" version and the same level as the current reveals its going to get them no where, it might even do more harm than good. They created this mess and they need to fix it.
I want to see this succeed, I don't want to be buying monitors and GPUs from Nvidia and being forced to get a 880 GTX just to keep gsync in the future, I want the option. What I really want is either card working on all monitors that is basically what we all want. AMD's solution has more potential to be that if they get it right based on their approach.
Yes, doing anything is a waste of resources compared to spreading lies.
Why do anything when people are stupid enough to believe the cheap lies AMD/ATi tells them.
The best we can hope for is speculative frame sync and/or delayed frame present.
If you aren't using RAM, you aren't going to get a real time G-Sync type result.
I don`t think thats true, the frame will be sent to the screen when it is done. This is according to Dave Baumann on beyond3d forum.
The RAM in the G-sync module is probably for a refresh when the monitor times out. Freesync just sends the frame again, if the monitor needs refresh. But that means you need one more framebuffer in graphics memory... Please correct me if I am mistaken.
I agree with this.This "mess" is only an issue for a very select group of people and it's them who have created and perpetuated it by not listening to anything except their belief that AMD is lying.
That would be the "delayed frame present" that I'm talking about.
Why would there be a delay? The frame is displayed instantly without any pause.
G-sync is rendering into buffers and then scanning out of them.No, there would be a 1 frame delay.
I'm talking with a simulation temporal frame of reference.
G-Sync is displayed the second the monitor receives the beginning of the frame.
No, there would be a 1 frame delay.
I'm talking with a simulation temporal frame of reference.
G-Sync is displayed the second the monitor receives the beginning (not end) of the frame.
The G-Sync monitor is telling the GPU when to send the 144hz microbursted frame.
An implementation without RAM could not do that.
I have been trying, without luck, to find documentation for what you are proposing. Can you please give us links for a source?
The best we can hope for is speculative frame sync and/or delayed frame present.
If you aren't using RAM, you aren't going to get a real time G-Sync type result.