Xbox One will sport AMD freesync technology

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, Max_Settings said:

No, but there are 60hz monitors with Freesync. I don't believe the One X goes over 60fps ATM. Actually when I saw that Xbox One X was getting Freesync I considered that a bad thing. It is supposed to be 60fps locked so why would you want Freesync? The fact that it is getting it either means we are going to see higher FPS limits down the road, or that the One X is consistently falling below 60fps.

Nothing wrong with giving the One X a good boost in gaming. If the drops can be mitigated without notice, it may push developers to put more effort in bringing frame-rate to the fore-front rather locking it to 30Hz. This may also push the television manufacturers to push better panels rather than sticking to a single frame-rate or framing techniques such as "motionPLUS" (Samsung or Vizio, I believe). 

[f22luke]

22 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

This is dumb. Have you seen how much more cost Freesync adds on top of regular displays? Consoles are also always at piss poor single digit framerates where Freesync wouldn't work. Support for Gsync would make more sense due to the GPU in consoles and far cheaper display implementation.

I smell a troll.

 

Please show me the Gsync display that is cheaper than an equivalent Freesync panel?  I would like to buy it.

[Taf the Ghost]

https://twitter.com/ryanshrout/status/972587261073162243

 

Quote

FreeSync 2 from @Radeon is coming to the @Xbox One X, confirmed on today's Xbox live stream. Very exciting addition to the ecosystem. Nothing new on FreeSync enabled TVs though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeSync#FreeSync_2

 

So, it's not just FreeSync, but FreeSync 2. That makes a lot more sense.

[ARikozuM]

4 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

https://twitter.com/ryanshrout/status/972587261073162243

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeSync#FreeSync_2

 

So, it's not just FreeSync, but FreeSync 2. That makes a lot more sense.

Perhaps Freesync 2 is embedded in the console?

[Bcat00]

I swear Microsoft needs to get their heads out of the gutter. Consoles aren't meant to be bleeding edge, there's no way around it. From designing to production, it takes well over a few years. By the time it hits market, the hardware is practically outdated already. 

 

Focus on games like Nintendo and Playstation does, that's what is a console is for. Maybe a bit of netflix on the side, but that's all its really for. they got no games already aside from PUBG and Fortnite at this point and its only going to get worse when PS5 hits the market now that it's confirmed. 

[Taf the Ghost]

25 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Perhaps Freesync 2 is embedded in the console?

It's in the GPU tech and works off interior specs within the display connections. Though the FreeSync 1 vs 2 is more Monitor, not the GPU. Which should mean the PS4 Pro can also use it, if they push the firmware update to activate it.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, huilun02 said:

Support for Gsync would make more sense due to the GPU in consoles and far cheaper display implementation.

This was the best part .

 

G-sync working with an AMD GPU, lol.

 

1 hour ago, f22luke said:

I smell a troll.

 

Please show me the Gsync display that is cheaper than an equivalent Freesync panel?  I would like to buy it.

Pretty sure that whole post was a joke.

[Notional]

Very interesting. AMD is basically "breaking" the HDMI spec by allowing a freesync signal over HDMI (I guess basically the Adaptive Sync signal). To utilize the feature on monitors is a nice touch, but obviously, this won't benefit most consoles, as they tend to be connected to a TV. However, this does seem like a proactive step to have support for the VRR in HDMI 2.1 coming out next year.

Now that consoles can have varying resolutions, framerates and graphical settings, they are basically cheap gaming PC's at this point. That is good news.

 

4 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Haha, as if AMD's that smart... 

  Reveal hidden contents

Next you'll be asking them to send software designers to help developers out. 

I'd like to see G-Sync and Freesync (Adaptive Sync) become a household thing. Do we even want static refresh rates anymore*? 

 

*As of four years ago.

It kinda already is doing that. Most, if not all non gsync Samsung monitors support freesync. Pretty much all non gsync LG monitors do as well.

3 hours ago, PopReference said:

The real question Is: When will mainstream TVs start supporting Variable refresh?

Next year. Freesync is part of the HDMI 2.1 spec that will finalize this year and be implemented in TV's from next year. CES 2019 should be very interesting in that regard: https://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_2_1/

3 hours ago, SCGazelle said:

FYI, there is a refresh rate range for FreeSync. Depending on the implementation on the monitor the minimum will usually be around 48 to 40hz, some of the LG 75hz and 144hz monitors with FreeSync have minimums of even 55 or 70hz but some of the better ones can get a 30hz minimum. AMD has a helpful resource that shows the range and a couple basic specs for each FreeSync-compatible monitor:

https://www.amd.com/en/products/freesync-monitors

 

GSync doesn't have this limitation.

that's theoretical. Afaik, there isn't a panel that can actually achieve either the 9hz or 240hz limit with FreeSync.

No LCD panel can go below 30hz. But if max framerate is at least twice as high as min framerate; freesync is able to use LFC (low framerate compensation), that is identical to gsync, in that it multiplies the frames. Say your FPS is 29, the GPU will send out the same frame twice, thus running the panel at 58hz.

2 hours ago, huilun02 said:

This is dumb. Have you seen how much more cost Freesync adds on top of regular displays? Consoles are also always at piss poor single digit framerates where Freesync wouldn't work. Support for Gsync would make more sense due to the GPU in consoles and far cheaper display implementation.

Nothing? Freesync is basically free to implement, as the monitor controllers (scalers) include the functionality as standard today on most monitors (at least by Samsung and LG). Consoles don't run single digit FPS, and in fact the general 30ish FPS you do see on consoles will benefit hugely from Freesync.

[Vode]

5 hours ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Is the Xbox One's GPU even capable of refresh rates that take advantage from Freesync?

Even a game running Freesync between 25 an 35 FPS would be much better visual experience than either 30 FPS locked VSYNC with stuttering and added latency or unlocked with screen tearing.

[RagnarokDel]

3 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Perhaps Freesync 2 is embedded in the console?

Laser etched into it.

[Trixanity]

6 hours ago, SCGazelle said:

FYI, there is a refresh rate range for FreeSync. Depending on the implementation on the monitor the minimum will usually be around 48 to 40hz, some of the LG 75hz and 144hz monitors with FreeSync have minimums of even 55 or 70hz but some of the better ones can get a 30hz minimum. AMD has a helpful resource that shows the range and a couple basic specs for each FreeSync-compatible monitor:

https://www.amd.com/en/products/freesync-monitors

 

GSync doesn't have this limitation.

that's theoretical. Afaik, there isn't a panel that can actually achieve either the 9hz or 240hz limit with FreeSync.

The reason gsync doesn't have this "limitation" is the gsync module. You pay the big bucks for a proprietary module that's very powerful and is only implemented in premium if not flagship monitors. FreeSync gets implemented in pretty much any product. It's kinda like comparing an iPhone vs a plethora of Android devices. Some will match the iPhone but a lot of them might be Chinese knockoffs with Mediatek chips.

If monitor vendors implemented better hardware it would be pretty much the same experience. Eventually the bottom tier will get better.

 

7 hours ago, MasterGeekMX said:

Anyways I think this might result well because it will push sync tech into mainstream, and as a fan of open source things (I'm even posting this on Linux, btw) Freesync is a better option than G-Sync for me.

I think Intel finally getting their head out of their ass and implementing it on their graphics products would do more. Their market share and power in the industry would push the PC industry forward. All this will do is give a little push to the TV and home theater/entertainment industry. Variable refresh rate has been adopted in the next HDMI version so AMD's HDMI extension paid off. It's just a matter of TV vendors implementing it. Otherwise you'd have to use a big monitor for your console (which I guess has its advantages). I mean sure TV vendors may show more interest if there is a clear use case and a USP to doing it.

[Murasaki]

8 hours ago, Hiitchy said:

Gaming focused TV’s.. I don’t know how to feel about this.

Ikr.

[DELTAprime]

This would be great, except for the fact both my current monitor and the PG27UQ I'm planning on getting are G-sync. I'm certainly not going to buy a 4K HDR monitor just for the Xbox One X.

[Sfekke]

I have to say that is good news.

Al through for me personally it doesn't matter since I currently use a PlayStation 4/3 as consoles & a PC with an NVIDIA Card.

Funnily enough I do use a freesync panel, used to work with my RX480.. until that thing when to Graphics Card heaven.

[AlTech]

9 hours ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Is the Xbox One's GPU even capable of refresh rates that take advantage from Freesync?

The regular One (and One X) ? yes, kind of depending on the game.

 

Freesync can operate from 40 fps to Up To 165 fps I think.

 

In situations where the fps is beetween 40 and 75, Freesync is still active depending on the monitor or TV.

 

 

[AlTech]

6 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Perhaps Freesync 2 is embedded in the console?

FreeSync  2 is basically a spec for FreeSync monitors to support HDR in a way which doesn't cause huge latency.

[Sniperfox47]

7 hours ago, Notional said:

Next year. Freesync is part of the HDMI 2.1 spec that will finalize this year and be implemented in TV's from next year. CES 2019 should be very interesting in that regard: https://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_2_1/

Just to be clear HDMI 2.1 does *not* support freesync. Freesync is a branded implimentation of VESA's Adaptive Sync and HDMI 2.1 is not using Adaptive Sync, much less AMD's implimentation of it.

 

AMD *may* expand their branding to cover HDMI 2.1 VRR, but as of this moment it specifically refers to AdaptiveSync which is port-agnostic (you can theoretically run over HDMI 1.4 if both devices support it).

[Misanthrope]

Well this is good for Freesync as a standard.

 

That's one step forward for open standards.

 

The bad part is that is all but impossible to use anything above basic entry level, weak GPU performance (in the form of Riven Ridge) from AMD right now anyway so what this is doing, is basically yet another reason to encourage people to just forget PC gaming and move to consoles.

 

And that's two steps backs for open standards.

 

So at best this is bittersweet news.

[Doobeedoo]

Well, it's very much needed for consoles that's for sure. Good though. Will be good to see 120Hz Freesync TVs eventually. I say that both should just be standard really.

Variable refresh rate tech like Freesync is easy and no fuss to implement. Higher refresh rate of like 120Hz is a neat improvement and also for 30/24fps videos. Heck even Apple iPad and Razer phone now have 120Hz which wasn't surprise to me. Just a new standard that should be. 

[Sniperfox47]

2 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

 Heck even Apple iPad and Razer phone now have 120Hz which wasn't surprise to me. Just a new standard that should be. 

What was a surprise to me was not that these devices have 120Hz displays, but rather that they both have 120Hz LCD displays while all the AMOLED screen phones on the market are 60/90Hz despite AMOLED displays theoretically being capable of refresh rates in the thousands of Hz...

[Doobeedoo]

9 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

What was a surprise to me was not that these devices have 120Hz displays, but rather that they both have 120Hz LCD displays while all the AMOLED screen phones on the market are 60/90Hz despite AMOLED displays theoretically being capable of refresh rates in the thousands of Hz...

Yeah, maybe some other issues with OLED at high refresh rate, like ghosting. Who knows. Would like to see high refresh rate OLED monitors that's for sure.

[Drak3]

18 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

What was a surprise to me was not that these devices have 120Hz displays, but rather that they both have 120Hz LCD displays while all the AMOLED screen phones on the market are 60/90Hz despite AMOLED displays theoretically being capable of refresh rates in the thousands of Hz...

Perhaps most OEMs didn't care about wasting time on something that has no realistic benefit outside of extremely small niches.

[sof006]

19 hours ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Is the Xbox One's GPU even capable of refresh rates that take advantage from Freesync?

Yes in certain titles like Forza

[RotoCoreOne]

But are there TVs that support freesync?

[Notional]

8 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Just to be clear HDMI 2.1 does *not* support freesync. Freesync is a branded implimentation of VESA's Adaptive Sync and HDMI 2.1 is not using Adaptive Sync, much less AMD's implimentation of it.

 

AMD *may* expand their branding to cover HDMI 2.1 VRR, but as of this moment it specifically refers to AdaptiveSync which is port-agnostic (you can theoretically run over HDMI 1.4 if both devices support it).

Technically you are correct, however, AMD is responsible for both Vesa's Adaptive Sync and HDMI 2.1's new VRR. So I can guarantee that Freesync will utilize both in any product.