g sync or free sync/adaptive sync

[spartaman64]

What do you see becoming the solution of future? G sync right now is actually out as a product but free sync is getting support from vesa for the future. Mature discussion no fanboyism

[MikeTz]

NO.

[Sauron]

Mature discussion no fanboyism

 

You might be hping for too much here, but let's not be pessimistic...

 

Personally, I think freesync will be "the future" as it will not require expensive and proprietary hardware add-ons to function. Even if the quality of the solution will be slightly lower (we don't know yet) the pros outweigh the cons imo. Just consider the latest asus gsync monitor: it's 800$+. If it had freesync instead it would probably cost south of 450$.

[Andi]

what is there to discuss? free sync is a year+ away. You can buy G-sync now.

 

No one knows if free sync even works as promised. 

[Blecter]

what is there to discuss? free sync is a year+ away. You can buy G-sync now.

 

No one knows if free sync even works as promised. 

 

Bingo.

 

At this present time, G-Sync is the start of the future. It works and it's here. It will be a while before free/adaptive sync hit the market, so aside from what people say it's going to be like, we really won't know how it matures for a while.

[Gauzl]

If you have nvidia, get G-sync, if you have AMD get free sync. It's as simple as that.

[niofalpha]

 as it will not require expensive and proprietary hardware add-ons to function. 

Depending on the way you look at it, it will. AMD said that Free- Sync won't work by default on all monitors that have certain display port features enabled (Forget which ones they are). 

 

Meaning they will have too buy a "Fancy monitor".

 

Which will most likely ending up being similarly priced to Gsync monitors. Yes - I know that it is free to implement. But do companies ever just "Give" you stuff?

 

And it will require proprietary hardware in the sense that Nvidia cards most likely won't function with Free/ Adaptive sync. Thus making it so Free- Sync requires proprietary AMD hardware, while Gsync needs proprietary Nvidia hardware. Currently the " Gsync needs Proprietary hardware" is just marketing slander. The same level as the "FREE Sync" used to stir up unedumacated fanboys. The only logical sense in the "Proprietary Hardware" is if your refering to the AMD APU's/ CPU's. Which most likely will use Free- Sync.

 

Basically it will be up to Intel to decide which one need's "Proprietary hardware". Basically if Intel goes with Gsync (Assuming they implement one in/ don't make there own), AMD will be the one's that "Require Proprietary hardware" (And the opposite if Intel goes for Gsync). This seems more likely because Nvidia and Intel aren't in as close of competition as Intel and AMD. 

 

Dat sentence structure doe... I'm pretty sure you guy's get the point of what I was trying too say. I'm tired, ok D:.

[Sauron]

-

 

I see what you mean, but you say "when do companies ever just give you stuff?", and I have a very good and pertinent answer to that: almost every motherboard on the market supports crossfirex, because it's 100% free to implement. It's the same as usb and displayport: since it's free to implement, almost every monitor will implement it or risk loosing marketshare to the competition. As for it requiring proprietary hardware or not, from what I understood nvidia can choose to support it or not at their discretion; that is not a choice for amd to make and they are not to blame if nvidia decides to stick to their guns to the end. If freesync works as well as gsync or at least very close and the monitors that support it are half as pricey, gsync will just die out and nvidia will be forced to make a choice. Intel would have much more interest in going for freesync, it's free to adopt and most of all, potentially all monitors will have it. Remember, intel doesn't care about the high end gpu market, and only enthusiasts will ever be willing to dish out that much money for a monitor. Also, nothing stops them from supporting both, assuming nvidia lets them. Cpu competition is completely unrelated from gpu competition, intel just plain does not care who is selling better between nvidia and the ati segment of amd. That, and in a sense intel has interest in amd not failing. If amd failed, by law Intel would be forced to sell part of itself to avoid monopoly, and might loose precious resources and technologies with that.

Just to close out- proprietary hardware in the case of gsync would be not only the gpus, but the adapters on the monitors themselves. Freesync will not require any, or at least so they say.

[niofalpha]

-Snip-

I see what you mean in a comparison to USB/ Display port. But in relation to Free/ Gsync (Both are "luxury" items) the display companies will most milk the consumers's money. 

[spartaman64]

I see what you mean in a comparison to USB/ Display port. But in relation to Free/ Gsync (Both are "luxury" items) the display companies will most milk the consumers's money. 

But how do they milk consumers when it comes to free sync unless they refuse to adopt the latest displayports and only put that on their premium monitors

[Najuno]

But how do they milk consumers when it comes to free sync unless they refuse to adopt the latest displayports and only put that on their premium monitors

Interesting how people just because it is named "Free" sync at this point assume it will be free of costs...

 

G-Sync is available right now and nobody knows what the future brings... so in fact there is no other option at this point.

[Sauron]

I see what you mean in a comparison to USB/ Display port. But in relation to Free/ Gsync (Both are "luxury" items) the display companies will most milk the consumers's money. 

 

Makes sense I guess, it's just that I believe that at least a few companies will be willing to NOT scam their customers forcing the others to drop prices. Let's hope that's what happens but still, between the two solutions only freesync has the potential for that to happen, right?