Freesync and nvidia gpu

[llSpartacusll]

Hi, i've had a freesync monitor for a while now but i have an nvidia GPU, and i know i should have gotten a gsync monitor but its to late for that. All i was wondering was if the freesync option on my monitor is improving anything compared to a non vsync/freesync monitor or if it is just useless?

[Not_Sean]

What do you think its doing  

[LordWaffleGoblin]

Without an AMD gpu freesync is doing nothing, it is just something Nvidia cannot use.

[Jaminahat]

8 minutes ago, llSpartacusll said:

Hi, i've had a freesync monitor for a while now but i have an nvidia GPU, and i know i should have gotten a gsync monitor but its to late for that. All i was wondering was if the freesync option on my monitor is improving anything compared to a non vsync/freesync monitor or if it is just useless?

Unfortunately it will make no difference, i made the same mistake. Just upgrade when you can

 

[Streetguru]

21 minutes ago, llSpartacusll said:

i know i should have gotten a gsync monitor but its to late for that

No, G-sync is never worth it, nvidia should just stop being anti-consumer and support free and open standards.

You can just leave free-sync enabled though, heard of at least one person on the forum claiming it made the monitor nicer even with an nvidia GPU.

[mr moose]

20 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

No, G-sync is never worth it, nvidia should just stop being anti-consumer and support free and open standards.

You can just leave free-sync enabled though, heard of at least one person on the forum claiming it made the monitor nicer even with an nvidia GPU.

That's not anti consumer, anti consumer is when a company removes choice from a consumer causing the cost to go up unnecessarily.  The consumer has a choice in this case.

 

 

[Streetguru]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That's not anti consumer, anti consumer is when a company removes choice from a consumer causing the cost to go up unnecessarily.  The consumer has a choice in this case.

 

 

It is being anti-consumer, because the "mobile G-sync" display are already using adaptive sync/free-sync, they just don't want to bring it to the desktop because it would be good for consumers to get cheaper displays with the same tech, and they would have to call G-sync a failure, which is likely to happen eventually anyways.

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

It is being anti-consumer, because the "mobile G-sync" display are already using adaptive sync/free-sync, they just don't want to bring it to the desktop because it would be good for consumers to get cheaper displays with the same tech, and they would have to call G-sync a failure, which is likely to happen eventually anyways.

 

That's still not anti consumer.  There is no removal of choice from consumers.   You are not forced to buy either brand, The fact that G-sync is still around when it costs more and can be avoided by buying AMD stands testimony to what consumers want, not what they are forced to buy.

[Streetguru]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

That's still not anti consumer.  There is no removal of choice from consumers.   You are not forced to buy either brand, The fact that G-sync is still around when it costs more and can be avoided by buying AMD stands testimony to what consumers want, not what they are forced to buy.

I'm pretty sure g-sync would be dead if nvidia supported adaptive sync/free-sync, because the market would actually have a choice, as nvidia is still likely 70-75% of the gaming GPU market? G-sync continues to exist because it's the only option for nvidia users. which is most everyone.

[linustouchtips]

i spent way too much money on my gpus and still don't have a gsync. It like a wall i simply cannot pass i think about it then i just say nah screw that wait for the monitor sales and buy a cheap 2k. i don't think ill ever jump into gsync at this rate.

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

I'm pretty sure g-sync would be dead if nvidia supported adaptive sync/free-sync, because the market would actually have a choice, as nvidia is still likely 70-75% of the gaming GPU market? G-sync continues to exist because it's the only option for nvidia users. which is most everyone.

You're still missing the point.  Consumers do have a choice.  You don't have to buy either brand, buy your logic those who have AMD GPU's don't have the choice of buying into Gsync.   That's simply not true.   When you next upgrade your GPU you buy the tech you want,  No one was forced to buy a monitor the instant either of these sync technologies came out.  

[Streetguru]

47 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

If you already own an nvidia GPU you aren't going to switch your GPU to use AMD for free-sync, and you don't want to pay a premium just to use G-sync.

They have no simple choice for getting adaptive sync, when it would take nvidia probably a simple software switch to enable "mobile g-sync" for everyone.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Streetguru said:

If you already own an nvidia GPU you aren't going to switch your GPU to use AMD for free-sync, and you don't want to pay a premium just to use G-sync.

They have no simple choice for getting adaptive sync, when it would take nvidia probably a simple software switch to enable "mobile g-sync" for everyone.

 

The reverse is also true.     You are confusing preference with ability.  When Nvidia does something that prevents people from buying AMD or freesync monitors, then you can call it anti consumer behaviour.  Until then it is simply the consumers choice between the two.

[Streetguru]

43 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

The reverse is also true.     You are confusing preference with ability.  When Nvidia does something that prevents people from buying AMD or freesync monitors, then you can call it anti consumer behaviour.  Until then it is simply the consumers choice between the two.

When people actually buy the expensive g-sync display do you think they're going to drop it later on for an AMD card? Or are they going to keep buying nvidia cards? The proprietary tech is going to also dissuade people from buying AMD should they ever have the overall performance advantage.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

When people actually buy the expensive g-sync display do you think they're going to drop it later on for an AMD card? Or are they going to keep buying nvidia cards? The proprietary tech is going to also dissuade people from buying AMD should they ever have the overall performance advantage.

When they buy their "expensive" anything display, are they forced to?  NO, they have an option, they chose either G-sync or freesync.  This is not uncommon in nearly all industries,  if you buy a pressure washer then you have to buy the attachments that go with it, if your pressure washer loses pressure over time and you need a new one but you already have the attachments so it's cheaper to buy that brand again.  This is not anti consumer, this is just the way products work.  No one is being forced to buy a product they don't want in the first place.  Ergo none of this is anti consumer.

[johnukguy]

Gsync isn't worth the price premium and Nvidia have a long and established history of being anti consumer.

[unknownmiscreant]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

When they buy their "expensive" anything display, are they forced to?  NO, they have an option, they chose either G-sync or freesync.  This is not uncommon in nearly all industries,  if you buy a pressure washer then you have to buy the attachments that go with it, if your pressure washer loses pressure over time and you need a new one but you already have the attachments so it's cheaper to buy that brand again.  This is not anti consumer, this is just the way products work.  No one is being forced to buy a product they don't want in the first place.  Ergo none of this is anti consumer.

I think the point @Streetguru is trying to say is it would be much better if all the companies sat down and made a universal standard ableit for pressure washers (or anything). That way as a consumer there is no price incentive to stick with a product lineup even if it turns to $h!t. Whether or not it happens everywhere it is still anti-consumer marketing tactics. How angry would you be if gigabyte and asus motherboards had different power connectors on them so you had to buy a different PSU. I'd be utterly ropeable (same reason I refuse to buy apple products.)

 

As for the g-sync vs free sync thing, I'm stuck in exactly that situation. I have a NV GPU and would like adaptive sync, yet a g-sync monitor costs %30 more than an equivalent freesync one. Given what has happened this year with AMD vs intel and amd vs nvidia, I do not want to be stuck on one particular side based on my choice of monitor. It is a simple software option in NV drivers to enable freesync support (there was a hack that enabled it a while ago) so there is utterly no reason other than devious marketing tactics to leave freesync unsupported.

[Streetguru]

15 minutes ago, unknownmiscreant said:

 

Nvidia may be forced to support it or something close with the next HDMI revision to claim full compatibility

USB is an example of a nice open standard.

But really I'd never suggest anyone pay more for g-sync, like in this thread

4 hours ago, cameronmcleod71 said:

4 hours ago, Streetguru said:

If you notice screen tearing in X game

Actually never have before and I do and i do alot of gaming!

4 hours ago, Streetguru said:

If you can't get over 60fps in X game

This isnt a problem either. thank you for you help I think I decided on not worrying about gsync when buying a new monitor!

 

 

[unknownmiscreant]

37 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

 

I'm not going to. In fact ill probably just wait and eventually get a freesync monitor and then try hack nvidia drivers and probably wind up with an AMD gpu in the longrun. Theres other things I cannot stand about NV gpus atm like encrypted bioses. Tbh, they are one of the most asshole companies I have ever seen.

 

Might just get a 144hz 1080p korean monitor or something. But shipping will likely be horrific.

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, unknownmiscreant said:

I think the point @Streetguru is trying to say is it would be much better if all the companies sat down and made a universal standard ableit for pressure washers (or anything). That way as a consumer there is no price incentive to stick with a product lineup even if it turns to $h!t. Whether or not it happens everywhere it is still anti-consumer marketing tactics. How angry would you be if gigabyte and asus motherboards had different power connectors on them so you had to buy a different PSU. I'd be utterly ropeable (same reason I refuse to buy apple products.)

Personal opinion. However you are literally describing every cordless power tool on the market.  If asus put proprietary plugs on all their motherboards so they only worked with one brand of PSU, then that still would not be anti consumer, the consumer doesn't have to buy asus or their proprietary connectors.

 

 

4 hours ago, unknownmiscreant said:

 

As for the g-sync vs free sync thing, I'm stuck in exactly that situation. I have a NV GPU and would like adaptive sync, yet a g-sync monitor costs %30 more than an equivalent freesync one. Given what has happened this year with AMD vs intel and amd vs nvidia, I do not want to be stuck on one particular side based on my choice of monitor. It is a simple software option in NV drivers to enable freesync support (there was a hack that enabled it a while ago) so there is utterly no reason other than devious marketing tactics to leave freesync unsupported.

 

I currently have an AMD GPU and need a new monitor, it is my choice whether I get a freesync and keep with AMD or buy a gsync and make my next GPU an Nvidia.  Either way it is still my choice therefore not anti consumer. 

[unknownmiscreant]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Personal opinion. However you are literally describing every cordless power tool on the market.  If asus put proprietary plugs on all their motherboards so they only worked with one brand of PSU, then that still would not be anti consumer, the consumer doesn't have to buy asus or their proprietary connectors.

Yes, I have a few different cordless tools. I'd much rather they all took the same battery. Talk to any contractor. However it is anti consumer as once a person has bought brand X, they will buy accessories for it. Something will break first, so there is then a financial incentive to replace it with something from brand X rather than switching to brand Y which may be better and would cost the same if the accessories were all compatible. Yes there is still a choice not to buy it, but atm it leaves you between a rock and a nasty place. Vega is expensive (damn you coin miners ) and NV requires you spend alot extra on g-sync for no tangible gain, it basically goes straight to funding jensen's house or whatever.

Quote

'Anti-consumerism is a sociopolitical ideology that is opposed to consumerism, the continual buying and consuming of material possessions.' - Wikipedia. (excuse the formatting)

This issue might not meet the strict definition of the term 'anti-consumerism' but bottom line is whatever you call it, it is basically a company trying to force you to stick with their products.  Ie once you have bought cordless drill X and a few spare batteries, if the drill dies and the batteries are still good, you are more likely to replace it, rather than switching to brand Y which may be better designed/built.

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I currently have an AMD GPU and need a new monitor, it is my choice whether I get a freesync and keep with AMD or buy a gsync and make my next GPU an Nvidia.  Either way it is still my choice therefore not anti consumer. 

This doesn't help prove your point. Just because you choose not to buy something doesn't mean the company that makes it is not being anti-consumerist. It is still them trying to force you to stick with their product line and require the purchase of more goods if you want to switch manufacturer. There it is anti-consumerist.

 

Anyway, I really cbf bickering with you about this as you refuse to listen to our arguments and keep bringing up other examples of anti consumerism to try justify it.

[mr moose]

20 minutes ago, unknownmiscreant said:

Yes, I have a few different cordless tools. I'd much rather they all took the same battery. Talk to any contractor. However it is anti consumer as once a person has bought brand X, they will buy accessories for it. Something will break first, so there is then a financial incentive to replace it with something from brand X rather than switching to brand Y which may be better and would cost the same if the accessories were all compatible. Yes there is still a choice not to buy it, but atm it leaves you between a rock and a nasty place. Vega is expensive (damn you coin miners ) and NV requires you spend alot extra on g-sync for no tangible gain, it basically goes straight to funding jensen's house or whatever.

It's not anti consumer, it's annoying yes but it's not anti consumer. TO be anti consumer the choice of the consumer has to be removed making them purchase the option left.  None of these examples remove consumer choice.

 

20 minutes ago, unknownmiscreant said:

This issue might not meet the strict definition of the term 'anti-consumerism' but bottom line is whatever you call it, it is basically a company trying to force you to stick with their products.  Ie once you have bought cordless drill X and a few spare batteries, if the drill dies and the batteries are still good, you are more likely to replace it, rather than switching to brand Y which may be better designed/built.

That's because it isn't anti consumer.  The actual definition of anti-consumer is more generic than that , it is "improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers" Note the word Improperly, this is important as proprietary technology is not improperly favoring anything because (as I have already said) consumers have a choice.   What Intel did threatening OEM's with unfilled orders and stupid rebates if they used AMD CPU's was anti consumer, because it improperly (through extortion/antitrust) favored business over consumers. It meant consumers could not buy computers with AMD CPU's.  None of the power tool companies nor AMD or Nvidia are engaging in this practice or practice even remotely like it. 

 

20 minutes ago, unknownmiscreant said:

This doesn't help prove your point. Just because you choose not to buy something doesn't mean the company that makes it is not being anti-consumerist. It is still them trying to force you to stick with their product line and require the purchase of more goods if you want to switch manufacturer. There it is anti-consumerist.

I have the option of whichever monitor I want, this proves the point absolutely,  I can by freesync or I can buy Gsync. The issue is buying a monitor is a long term commitment to a technology (just like battery tools), which is not anti consumer as you do in fact have the option.

 

20 minutes ago, unknownmiscreant said:

 

Anyway, I really cbf bickering with you about this as you refuse to listen to our arguments and keep bringing up other examples of anti consumerism to try justify it.

 

I refuse to listen?  you keep saying the same thing, you even acknowledged this doesn't fit the description of anti-consumer yet you still want me to believe that it is.

 

 

[unknownmiscreant]

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

There's more to anti consumerism than just plain lack of choice, as expressed by the quote I found from the first line of the Wikipedia article on anti consumerism. 

 

Yes plain lack of choice is worst case anti consumerism, but limiting consumers options and forcing the purchase of more goods also fits the Wikipedia definition. 

 

Lastly the first point raised by street guru, nvidia is already using freesync in laptops. It is a simple software switch to enable it for desktop. Therefore as per you original definition of anti consumerism they are artificially limiting consumer choice and driving the price up unnecessarily for nothing but their own gain. 

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, unknownmiscreant said:

 

There's more to anti consumerism than just plain lack of choice, as expressed by the quote I found from the first line of the Wikipedia article on anti consumerism. 

 

Yes plain lack of choice is worst case anti consumerism, but limiting consumers options and forcing the purchase of more goods also fits the Wikipedia definition. 

 

Lastly the first point raised by street guru, nvidia is already using freesync in laptops. It is a simple software switch to enable it for desktop. Therefore as per you original definition of anti consumerism they are artificially limiting consumer choice and driving the price up unnecessarily for nothing but their own gain. 

Which would be a fine argument if the consumers choice was limited.  But again you haven't managed to show where there choice is limited. Not being able to use a freesync monitor with an Nvidia gpu is not your choice being taken away, you chose the freesync monitor and the Nvidia GPU in the first place.   

[geo3]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

It's not anti consumer, it's annoying yes but it's not anti consumer. TO be anti consumer the choice of the consumer has to be removed making them purchase the option left.  None of these examples remove consumer choice.

The choice IS removed by the prohibitive cost of replacing either the GPU or monitor if the consumer wanted to switch the other. 

 

You have an Nvidia card and want to buy a new monitor with adaptive sync technology.  Monitor x with G-sync is $400. Monitor y with Freesync is $250 and new Radeon card is also $250. You only have a budget of $400.  You can't spend $500 you don't have.  You have no choice at this point.