JT_NC

The G-sync controller was designed enough years ago that they shouldn't still be paying for the R&D.  That technology doesn't need to be redeveloped for every new monitor design.  All they need to design on the per-monitor basis is the layout of the components and shape of the circuit board (which is more likely dictated by the monitor manufacturer rather than Nvidia anyway), and that shouldn't jack up the price so much considering the process has to be done regardless of whether it's G-sync or Freesync, yet Freesync monitors cost significantly less.  That price disparity is simply Nvidia's version of the "Apple tax".  If people are willing to pay it, they'll happily keep overcharging for it.

I've got a Ryzen 5 1500X w/ 2 480s.  (moved one over when I got my 1080 Ti for my main PC)  Together, 3DMark Time Spy scored just high enough that it fit in the 4K Gaming PC category.  The Ryzen 3 definitely wouldn't get rated that high, and I suspect it would indeed be a bottleneck.
 
As @PCGuy_5960 wrote, that i7-7700K build would give you fantastic gaming performance.  If you don't already have one, I'd recommend an M.2 NVMe boot drive though.

Given that G-sync monitors use a proprietary Nvidia controller, the two techs just can't exist in the same monitor, and having the G-sync controller adds a few hundred $$$ to the monitor price.  We all know that.
 
So why hasn't Nvidia (or one of its licensed monitor manufacturers) built an intermediate solution?  Something that sits between the DisplayPort-out of the video card and the DisplayPort-in on the monitor.
 
It could be an external black box with 2 DisplayPort and power connectors (maybe even USB-powered).
 
Or it could be an internal card, like the good old 3dfx Voodoo (if anyone here is old enough to remember the late 90s).  That was one of the first dedicated 3D graphics cards, and it only worked via pass-through.  You still needed a normal video card too.  When you weren't running a 3dfx-enabled program, the signal from the other graphics card would simply pass right through to the monitor.  The VGA-out of the other video card was connected to a VGA-in on the Voodoo card via a really short cable, and then it used its own VGA-out to connect to the monitor.
 
So why can't we get something like that, in which a G-sync card "thinks" it's talking to a G-sync-enabled monitor, but in reality it's talking to another card (or black box) which converts the output to work with a Freesync monitor?
 
Obviously we'd need Nvidia to build (or license) the hardware.  I'm sure they wouldn't mind the opportunity to make more money.  Freesync monitors are so much cheaper and prolific that they're not gaining market share there.  So why not double-dip?  They don't put Freesync tech into their G-sync cards, so why don't they sell us more cards?
 
Would there be an unacceptable amount of increased latency?  (even so, the bottleneck would be on the computer side rather than the monitor side.  plus, a 144mhz monitor running at 100mhz still beats 60mhz)
Would it require Nvidia and AMD to work together in order to merge their proprietary technologies?  (in which case it'll never happen, but it seems like something Nvidia might be able to do on its own)
Would anyone other than gaming enthusiasts even be interested?  (if not...  marketing!)
 
On the flip side, Nvidia could probably make a card which pretends to be a Freesync-enabled monitor, and then outputs compatible signals to a G-sync monitor controller pretty easily.  There was even a time when Nvidia sold a G-sync mod kit for a particular monitor.  (Linus did a video of that.)
 
Anyway, this whole "G-Sync vs Freesync hardware limitation" bugs me.  We have adapters and converters for almost everything these days, but not this.  I had high hopes for Vega, especially since I got a 4K Freesync monitor last year, but Vega's price and performance fell short of my expectations, so I went with a 1080 Ti instead.
 
Thanks,
JT

Given the number of Freesync monitors out there, Nvidia could sell even more cards if they enabled theirs to work with both types of monitor, now that AMD has a *cough* competitor *cough*, at least once there's not a complete shortage of cards *cough cough*.  I should get that checked out.
 
If it's simply a "software switch", I'm really surprised no one's hacked the drivers.
 
You know the difference between an Amazon Kindle without Ads and an Amazon Kindle with Ads?  You pay more for the version without.  Otherwise they're the same.  It's just software.  Nvidia could come up with some "premium membership" program.  For $X (or $X/yr), members could have access to drivers that enable Freesync.  Maybe toss in a game every month so people without Freesync monitors want to subscribe too.
 
Problem solved.  Win-win for everyone.  (except those who don't participate, who won't be any worse off than they are today)

Given that G-sync monitors use a proprietary Nvidia controller, the two techs just can't exist in the same monitor, and having the G-sync controller adds a few hundred $$$ to the monitor price.  We all know that.
 
So why hasn't Nvidia (or one of its licensed monitor manufacturers) built an intermediate solution?  Something that sits between the DisplayPort-out of the video card and the DisplayPort-in on the monitor.
 
It could be an external black box with 2 DisplayPort and power connectors (maybe even USB-powered).
 
Or it could be an internal card, like the good old 3dfx Voodoo (if anyone here is old enough to remember the late 90s).  That was one of the first dedicated 3D graphics cards, and it only worked via pass-through.  You still needed a normal video card too.  When you weren't running a 3dfx-enabled program, the signal from the other graphics card would simply pass right through to the monitor.  The VGA-out of the other video card was connected to a VGA-in on the Voodoo card via a really short cable, and then it used its own VGA-out to connect to the monitor.
 
So why can't we get something like that, in which a G-sync card "thinks" it's talking to a G-sync-enabled monitor, but in reality it's talking to another card (or black box) which converts the output to work with a Freesync monitor?
 
Obviously we'd need Nvidia to build (or license) the hardware.  I'm sure they wouldn't mind the opportunity to make more money.  Freesync monitors are so much cheaper and prolific that they're not gaining market share there.  So why not double-dip?  They don't put Freesync tech into their G-sync cards, so why don't they sell us more cards?
 
Would there be an unacceptable amount of increased latency?  (even so, the bottleneck would be on the computer side rather than the monitor side.  plus, a 144mhz monitor running at 100mhz still beats 60mhz)
Would it require Nvidia and AMD to work together in order to merge their proprietary technologies?  (in which case it'll never happen, but it seems like something Nvidia might be able to do on its own)
Would anyone other than gaming enthusiasts even be interested?  (if not...  marketing!)
 
On the flip side, Nvidia could probably make a card which pretends to be a Freesync-enabled monitor, and then outputs compatible signals to a G-sync monitor controller pretty easily.  There was even a time when Nvidia sold a G-sync mod kit for a particular monitor.  (Linus did a video of that.)
 
Anyway, this whole "G-Sync vs Freesync hardware limitation" bugs me.  We have adapters and converters for almost everything these days, but not this.  I had high hopes for Vega, especially since I got a 4K Freesync monitor last year, but Vega's price and performance fell short of my expectations, so I went with a 1080 Ti instead.
 
Thanks,
JT