Nvidia Pitches Advantages of G-Sync Over AMD's FreeSync

[KirbyTech]

im confused hes saying that it wont work when its outside the range of the free sync fps but isnt that the same as g sync. also even if g sync is a lot better than free sync i dont want to pay 150 dollars extra maybe 20 dollars extra so they need to cut back on the price

$150 extra is a bit steep yes, but this is the first iteration of it. It will come down in price, how much is anyone's guess. Also think of how often you buy a new monitor, 2 of mine are 5 plus years old and 1 is around 6 months because I wanted touch screen. Personally I would be willing to pay $75-100 for it since I would be keeping that monitor for 5+ years, also it does not need to be all of your screens for most people 1 will do.

[Opcode]

- snip -

 

Looks like it right there they are trying to make it seem like FreeSync is currently capable of delivering 9-240Hz comparing it to G-Syncs' 30-144Hz. 

 

I'm getting criticized in my thread because half of you cannot even read, and you just reply without reading thoroughly like most children do.

 

Robert Hallock is giving speculative numbers, which is clearly why he uses the word "potential" which means a possibility. These numbers he gives is not indicative of the panels that currently exist, which will allow such refresh rates to be achieved.

If you actually read the slide it clearly says Published Refresh Rate Range. Which means the refresh rate window that is supported by the technology as to where the G-Sync window is only 30-144 Hz. You're probably the only one who has read that slide and thought about it in an entirely different context (other than your "reliable" source). Truth be told is that FreeSync is capable of driving a 9-240 Hz display there just needs to be a display capable of that VRR range. Otherwise it will drive whatever falls within that range. It's really not rocket science I promise.

 

We can read, although it seems we have a better understanding of what is implied instead of interpreting it in another context entirely.

 

Of course they are speculative numbers but it's proof that even AMD themselves aren't implying that a 9-240 Hz VRR display will exist on the market.

[spartaman64]

 

 

 

If you are going to present to the public that your product is better than the competitors because it has superior variable refresh rate coverage, you better be able to back up your claims. This not the case though. From the monitors we see, they are no where near the window AMD publicized and are advertising. 

 

 

No I didn't you just aren't reading and at this point I'm 100% sure you are a troll.

 

so amd needs to somehow force manufacturers to produce 240hz ips monitors good luck with that

[Takata]

By all means, feel free to point out that we're likely to get freesync monitors with a wider range than 40-144Hz in the near future (or maybe just go lower than 40Hz).

 

But please stop mentioning the 9-240Hz figure. It's a stupid, pointless figure. Saying freesync supports 9-240Hz is like saying your car's speedometer goes up to 400km/hr, while the one on someone else's car _only_ goes up to 240km/hr. While it is true, it's a pointless figure, and you should feel bad for thinking that it could possibly have any relevance to this debate. (Well... possibly excluding the person who wants to watch movies at exactly 24Hz.)

[spartaman64]

By all means, feel free to point out that we're likely to get freesync monitors with a wider range than 40-144Hz in the near future (or maybe just go lower than 40Hz).

 

But please stop mentioning the 9-240Hz figure. It's a stupid, pointless figure. Saying freesync supports 9-240Hz is like saying your car's speedometer goes up to 400km/hr, while the one on someone else's car _only_ goes up to 240km/hr. While it is true, it's a pointless figure, and you should feel bad for thinking that it could possibly have any relevance to this debate. (Well... possibly excluding the person who wants to watch movies at exactly 24Hz.)

but people stop acting like its amd's fault that monitors cant go at 240hz isp 4k

[Notional]

This is getting kinda sad. I used to have a lot of respect for PCper, as they are known, to really know what they are talking about. I mean they even disassembled a laptop and inspected TCON's and so on, on that Gsync ASUS laptop, so one would think they are competent, and really know what they are talking about.

Unfortunately, they are failing miserably, when it comes to Adaptive Sync and Freesync. They come off as both incompetent and very biased/pro Nvidia. Especially in their latest podcasts. They need to get their shit together, or they will end up becoming a very incompetent/biased source, when it comes to AMD products and technologies.

 

---

 

Here's how it works:

 

Adaptive Sync is the Display Port standard, that needs to be implemented as hardware into the monitor. Upon connection/startup, the monitor will send a signal to the graphics card with supported min/max supported framerates. Adaptive Sync as a standard supports 9-240hz. LCD technology does not support below 30hz, but OLED should. LCD does not support above 144hz, again OLED should.

 

To control the framerate, synced, upon a sent image, the monitor's scaler is now scanning/drawing on the actual panel (at the same time), the graphics card will send a variable vblank start signal, telling the scaler to start it's idle/pause state, and not scan for further images (after the previous has been processed). When a new image has been made by the graphics card, a variable vblank end signal is sent, followed by the image. The vblank end signal, ends the idle/pause state of the scaler, making it scan for the coming image.

 

FreeSync is AMD's driver implementation, that uses the Adaptive Sync standard, and technology implemented into monitors, and will control the monitor. How the graphics card behaves, and what needs to happen outside of the refresh rate interval supported by the monitor, is up to the software implementation. Here it is Freesync, where AMD has given the user the choice, whether to use VSYNC or normal variable fps, resulting in tearing above the max interval. GSYNC forces vsync, which is bad for professionals, as they want the faster response, even if they have to deal with tearing (which is less of an issue at 120/144hz.

 

 

ok make up your mind is amd free sync limiting the displays or is VESA adaptive sync limiting the displays

 

Adaptive Sync has a limiting factor of 9-240hz. Freesync supports that entire interval. LCD technology, however, does not. The limiting factor is LCD technology and the scaler used. AMD has no influence on either.

 

 

free sync is hardware based just the hardware is part of the display port connector and chip 

 

Read above: Adaptive Sync is hardware, Freesync is graphics driver/software, controlling the Adaptive Sync hardware (scaler).

[Takata]

Quoting the OP:

They won’t be able to keep up with the panel variations.

The number of gsync monitors coming out won't keep pace with the number of freesync monitors coming out either. (Plus the ghosting was, supposedly, easily fixed with a monitor setting. >.>)

[spartaman64]

Ok people here do understand that most monitors have a max refresh rate of 60hz and its not amd's fault that most monitors have a max 60hz refresh rate because that's the choice of the manufacturer and amd has no control over that god I can't believe I have to say that

[The Web Doctor]

Only thing I can say its its DRM hell now. So Freesync is still gonna be my go to.

 

Exactly and you can't even pirate GPUs.

[ItsAFeature]

What's the difference other than AMD has to tune drivers while Nvidia has to tune G-sync modules?

 

The module can be tuned for the exact monitor it is inside of. While AMD does this in the drivers, meaning that the drivers would have to take into account every single freesync monitor and successfully pick the driver config that best matches this monitor. I'm not saying that AMD can't do it, but as a software developer I can guarantee that it's a nightmare.

 

That's probably why they do the Freesync certification program. It's a way to tune their drivers for the most popular monitors or the ones with the best FS experience. But as that number grows, so does the drivers.

[sgloux3470]

If the issue is tuning to specific monitor panels, I don't see why that couldn't be updated via drivers or even firmware.

 

 

 

The module can be tuned for the exact monitor it is inside of. While AMD does this in the drivers, meaning that the drivers would have to take into account every single freesync monitor and successfully pick the driver config that best matches this monitor. I'm not saying that AMD can't do it, but as a software developer I can guarantee that it's a nightmare.

 

That's probably why they do the Freesync certification program. It's a way to tune their drivers for the most popular monitors or the ones with the best FS experience. But as that number grows, so does the drivers.

 

Would it really be any worse than doing it via the hardware?  I'm sure Nvidia charges a pretty penny to do it (hence the $200 g sync tax) but still.

 

None of these advantages aren't things that will last for long.  Nvidia is going to have to figure out what gsync offers over freesync 2-3 years down the road. 

[IPCharger]

I'm not going to pay twice the price to get a marginally better experience with some particular monitors.

[ItsAFeature]

 

If the issue is tuning to specific monitor panels, I don't see why that couldn't be updated via drivers or even firmware.

 

 

 

 

Would it really be any worse than doing it via the hardware?  I'm sure Nvidia charges a pretty penny to do it (hence the $200 g sync tax) but still.

 

None of these advantages aren't things that will last for long.  Nvidia is going to have to figure out what gsync offers over freesync 2-3 years down the road. 

 

 

Well, the ghosting issue (if that is what you're referring to) is present whether FS is enabled or not. So that's obviously an issue with the panel and adaptive-sync and not AMD's fault. However, it seems Nvidia hints that the G-Sync module helps them get around this so we'll see if that's something AMD can get rid of in the drivers, whether it's something the monitor / panel manufacturers can take care of in hardware or firmware, or if it's just an inherent issue with the panels in those monitors that have Freesync so far. Basically we don't know exactly why the Freesync monitors do it and the ROG Swift is better at it. It can come down to lots of things, but I think blaming AMD is unfair. I don't think it's caused by FS but is rather something that FS has to also handle.

 

Oh yeah Nvidia definitely charges a pretty penny. There's also no reason that the tuning couldn't be done in the drivers, it's just that tweaking a single module to monitor pairing is a lot simpler than making sure your drivers are compatible with a huge array of monitors. I wouldn't be surprised to see AMD implement downloading drivers paired specifically with your FS monitor. Something like generic drivers for non-FS and all adaptive sync monitors that haven't been certified as FS. And then have a special driver for each certified monitor. Whether they want to deal with this hassle is up to them, but from what I can tell it would make the tuning better (if tuning is required at all that is).

[Agent181]

Isnt there an asus monitor that has gsync that could theoretically work with free sync but it was never confirmed tonot cause problems with nvidia or was that a rumor only?

[kuddlesworth9419]

Actually it's 9-240Hz

Depends on monitor manufacturer how they make it in the end.

I am under the understanding that the wider range of Hz you have on a panel the worse the light output is and the worse the colours are. So you will probably never get a panel that goes from 9Hz to 240Hz but more like 45Hz to 144Hz or something else. 

[Lynx]

Isnt there an asus monitor that has gsync that could theoretically work with free sync but it was never confirmed tonot cause problems with nvidia or was that a rumor only?

it's MG279Q http://techreport.com/news/27614/asus-mg279q-display-melds-ips-panel-variable-refresh

[Agent181]

it's MG279Q http://techreport.com/news/27614/asus-mg279q-display-melds-ips-panel-variable-refresh

thats the one, hope it doesn't destroy like wallets like all the rest

[DeViLzzz]

Exactly and you can't even pirate GPUs.

.. but you can download free ram here at http://www.downloadmoreram.com/

[BiG StroOnZ]

If you actually read the slide it clearly says Published Refresh Rate Range. Which means the refresh rate window that is supported by the technology as to where the G-Sync window is only 30-144 Hz. You're probably the only one who has read that slide and thought about it in an entirely different context (other than your "reliable" source). Truth be told is that FreeSync is capable of driving a 9-240 Hz display there just needs to be a display capable of that VRR range. Otherwise it will drive whatever falls within that range. It's really not rocket science I promise.

 

We can read, although it seems we have a better understanding of what is implied instead of interpreting it in another context entirely.

 

Of course they are speculative numbers but it's proof that even AMD themselves aren't implying that a 9-240 Hz VRR display will exist on the market.

 

But that's the point you aren't getting. The G-Sync standard is actually 1-240Hz but the current G-Sync panels currently only support 30-144Hz. So they are listing G-Sync in the comparison as only 30-144Hz but yet they are listing their "theoretical" limit instead. Rather than listing what monitors are actually capable of. Whereas they are listing what G-Syncs monitors are capable of, not the actual G-Sync standard.

 

so amd needs to somehow force manufacturers to produce 240hz ips monitors good luck with that

 

Read above.

[brownninja97]

so i pay less for a slightly worse product, cant complain about that

[Akiosan]

I'm not going to pay twice the price to get a marginally better experience with some particular monitors.

My thoughts exactly!

[Altecice]

 

 

With AMD, the driver is doing most of the work. Part of the reason they have such bad ghosting is because their driver has to specifically be tuned for each kind of panel. They won’t be able to keep up with the panel variations. We tune our G-Sync module for each monitor, based on its specs and voltage, which is exactly why you won’t see ghosting from us

 

 

SO they just said that its bad that AMD have to tune it for each panel, then go onto say they do the exact same thing only with hardware not software?!?

 

Nvidia you can take your DRM laden POS and shove it, Im not paying twice the amount because the monitor maker has to pay you as well vs Freesync. (would you even notice the ghosting in realtime?)

[Valentyn]

Where are people getting his Double the price of a G-Sync monitor over a Freesync one from?

 

Also the way I see it from Driver tuning vs Module tuning is that the module is always better. It's tuned in the manufacturing for the panel guaranteed to work 100% of the time, the correct way.

 

AMD's drivers on the other hand....

 

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=17&catid=948

 

[Thronar]

with all this freesync vs g-sync crap going on you would have thought somebody would have tested the input latency of freesync but nope

 

zzzzzz

[spartaman64]

But that's the point you aren't getting. The G-Sync standard is actually 1-240Hz but the current G-Sync panels currently only support 30-144Hz. So they are listing G-Sync in the comparison as only 30-144Hz but yet they are listing their "theoretical" limit instead. Rather than listing what monitors are actually capable of. Whereas they are listing what G-Syncs monitors are capable of, not the actual G-Sync standard.

 

 

Read above.

http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview/

"With G-SYNC, you gain the best of both VSYNC ON and VSYNC OFF worlds. You get the higher frame rates of VSYNC OFF (during the G-SYNC range of 30Hz through 144Hz) without the input lag penalty, and no tearing at all."