Nvidia slams AMD FreeSync: "We can't comment on pricing of products that don't exist"

[patrickjp93]

I don't know. that sounds impossible and opposite of what it should do.   The monitor can't know what framerate the game is running at so it can't tell the gpu to stop rendering. At best it might be that the monitor asks the gpu at what refresh rate to run at. It sounds like a programing design problem like should the client tell the seller what to bring it or should the seller ask the client what it wants. If in the end the result is the same

(or in this case similar) it shouldn't matter which approach was taken.

The monitor runs at a certain rate. It tells the GPU not to exceed that rate. It's a lot simpler than knowing the frame rate of the game. G-Sync is the GPU calling the shots.

[patrickjp93]

Actually it's the other way around. G-sync uses a complex 2 way system, where the gfx constantly spams the monitor, if it's ready for a frame. When the monitor says yes, it is sent a frame.  

Adaptive Sync on the other hand, uses plug and play, to tell the gfx upon connection, what the supported min/max hz are for the monitor. The gfx will then send frames within that interval, and the monitor will display it instantly.

Both G-sync and Adaptive sync will give stutter if they go below the supported min hz of the monitor.

So Adaptive Sync is simpler, easier and actually better (remember Adaptive Sync supports 9-240hz in the standard, gsync only 30-144hz).

You're thinking of G-Sync which does that, a technique Nvidia has patented out the wazoo.

[flibberdipper]

I don't care. Happy Green Team gave them a small figurative finger.

[PopReference]

Guys there's a FAQ for this: http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/freesync-faq.aspx, http://support.amd.com/en-us/search/faq/224

 

Stop debating the things from your imagination please.

[Notional]

You're thinking of G-Sync which does that, a technique Nvidia has patented out the wazoo.

Everything in my post is correct. You must be confused. 

[thebennyboy]

The amount of misinformation and bullcrap is making my brain melt. Why are people arguing about this? It was clearly a click-bait title. Nobody slammed anyone, Nvidia simply said they can't comment on a technology that doesn't actually exist yet. How were they meant to comment on the pricing of a product that doesn't even have a price tag yet?

[patrickjp93]

Everything in my post is correct. You must be confused. 

Nope. I've read both RFCs (Request For Comment = protocol documentation) for both FreeSync and G-Sync. FreeSync lacks dynamic refresh rate as shown by the demo being locked at 47-48 fps. It commands the GPU to stop drawing if the monitor is in the middle of a frame. Also, this happens to slow down general-purpose computations on a GPU. It's a far inferior solution, lack of cost or not.

[pixeldensity]

can we just wait until freesync/ adaptive sync samples actually comes out before we either start praising it or start throwing stones at it?

[Notional]

Nope. I've read both RFCs (Request For Comment = protocol documentation) for both FreeSync and G-Sync. FreeSync lacks dynamic refresh rate as shown by the demo being locked at 47-48 fps. It commands the GPU to stop drawing if the monitor is in the middle of a frame. Also, this happens to slow down general-purpose computations on a GPU. It's a far inferior solution, lack of cost or not.

 

Sure you have. VESA disagrees with you http://www.vesa.org/news/vesa-adds-adaptive-sync-to-popular-displayport-video-standard/

Also the 47-48fps from some random german site, is a claim, that has not been proven.

If your point is correct, that the monitor tells the gpu not to draw (which I doubt, since there is no 2 way communication), there is no point in gsync or adaptive sync, if the fps goes above or below the hz interval of the monitor.

[Guest]

source

his ass

[Faa]

so you are saying that both amd and VESA are lying out of their teeth and we should never trust either company ever again

No, the presentation was falsely presented thats all. 

[patrickjp93]

Sure you have. VESA disagrees with you http://www.vesa.org/news/vesa-adds-adaptive-sync-to-popular-displayport-video-standard/

Also the 47-48fps from some random german site, is a claim, that has not been proven.

If your point is correct, that the monitor tells the gpu not to draw (which I doubt, since there is no 2 way communication), there is no point in gsync or adaptive sync, if the fps goes above or below the hz interval of the monitor.

It was proven with a high-speed camera and some basic transformative math. Also, VESA can claim whatever it wants publicly because the RFC covers their ass legally and is accessible to anyone to read. Sorry but your golden goose lays leaden eggs. I'm going to come across as a cocky bastard for saying this, but you really can't beat me when it comes to doing research and knowing the facts. When FreeSync monitors come out and Anandtech and others can give comprehensive side-by-side comparisons, and you're disappointed, just remember you were warned by a real enthusiast. Also, there is 2-way communication in DVI, HDMI, and DP. Look at the RFCs of all three protocols. There's 2-way communication in the RAM bus, in PCIe, in USB, in SATA, and in the graphics output protocols post-VGA.

[LAwLz]

Nope. I've read both RFCs (Request For Comment = protocol documentation) for both FreeSync and G-Sync. FreeSync lacks dynamic refresh rate as shown by the demo being locked at 47-48 fps. It commands the GPU to stop drawing if the monitor is in the middle of a frame. Also, this happens to slow down general-purpose computations on a GPU. It's a far inferior solution, lack of cost or not.

That doesn't sound right. VESA have said that it supports variable refresh rate.

 

Citation from the Adaptive-Sync whitepaper:

Variable refresh rate technologies such as DisplayPort Adaptive-Sync address these issues by providing a mechanism that allows the display refresh rate to change dynamically in response to the rendering frame rate of the game. In the case illustrated in Figure 2, the display will wait until Render Frame B is finished and ready before updating the display.

I don't think VESA has anything to gain from lying.

 

Anyway I am going to take Nvidia's side here. You just can't comment on products that aren't out yet. We will have to wait and see what will happen when products actually hit the market.

[patrickjp93]

That doesn't sound right. VESA have said that it supports variable refresh rate.

 

Citation from the Adaptive-Sync whitepaper:

 

 

Anyway I am going to take Nvidia's side here. You just can't comment on products that aren't out yet. We will have to wait and see what will happen when products actually hit the market.

A WhitePaper is not a legally-binding source. We see white papers on IP, HTTP, and the experimental protocols all the time even today, but do you know how many of them which are provably false result in sanctions either academic or industrial? Pretty much none. Like I said, VESA can say what they want, but the Adaptive-Sync RFC has no way of having the GPU tell the monitor to stop drawing/delay a frame flush.

[LAwLz]

A WhitePaper is not a legally-binding source. We see white papers on IP, HTTP, and the experimental protocols all the time even today, but do you know how many of them which are provably false result in sanctions either academic or industrial? Pretty much none. Like I said, VESA can say what they want, but the Adaptive-Sync RFC has no way of having the GPU tell the monitor to stop drawing/delay a frame flush.

But what would they gain from lying? I mean, it's a non-profit organization.

 

I can't seem to find any RFC for it (probably because RFC is an IETF thing, not VESA). Can you please give me a link?

[patrickjp93]

But what would they gain from lying? I mean, it's a non-profit organization.

 

I can't seem to find any RFC for it (probably because RFC is an IETF thing, not VESA). Can you please give me a link?

AMD stands to gain from it due to the PR and the connection with its 3xx series GPUs all supporting DP 1.2a or later. Don't forget AMD has a pretty big voice at VESA. I just found another article about Free Sync. I'll be back with the RFC in a minute, though I may need to find a way to host the pdf.

[steffen_anywhere]

@dalekphalm

 

Sorry that was meant as a joke in response to the sarcastic reply by that particular poster.

 

Reminds me that sarcasm doesn't work online

[El_indian]

The amount of misinformation and bullcrap is making my brain melt. Why are people arguing about this? It was clearly a click-bait title. Nobody slammed anyone, Nvidia simply said they can't comment on a technology that doesn't actually exist yet. How were they meant to comment on the pricing of a product that doesn't even have a price tag yet?

 

 

can we just wait until freesync/ adaptive sync samples actually comes out before we either start praising it or start throwing stones at it?

[ComradeHX]

Free-Sync was and is an attempt by AMD to steal some of Nvidia's thunder. They don't have anything to show for themselves.

They showed more than enough during the bitcoin gpu mining craze.

[Ashaira]

The monitor runs at a certain rate. It tells the GPU not to exceed that rate. It's a lot simpler than knowing the frame rate of the game. G-Sync is the GPU calling the shots.

That makes no sense. What you are saying basically sounds like v-sync.

[El_indian]

removed. 

[Guest]

This has really devolved into conspiracy theory nonsense, the idea that AMD/Vesa is 'lying' about adaptive sync is completely absurd. And to top it off, this whole ridiculous thread is based on a completely sensationalist headline, obviously nvidia cannot comment on the prices of a product thats not yet released, there wasn't even any "Nvidia slams AMD" in the first place.

[Notional]

Nope. I've read both RFCs (Request For Comment = protocol documentation) for both FreeSync and G-Sync.

It was proven with a high-speed camera and some basic transformative math. Also, VESA can claim whatever it wants publicly because the RFC covers their ass legally and is accessible to anyone to read. Sorry but your golden goose lays leaden eggs. I'm going to come across as a cocky bastard for saying this, but you really can't beat me when it comes to doing research and knowing the facts. When FreeSync monitors come out and Anandtech and others can give comprehensive side-by-side comparisons, and you're disappointed, just remember you were warned by a real enthusiast. Also, there is 2-way communication in DVI, HDMI, and DP. Look at the RFCs of all three protocols. There's 2-way communication in the RAM bus, in PCIe, in USB, in SATA, and in the graphics output protocols post-VGA.

A WhitePaper is not a legally-binding source. We see white papers on IP, HTTP, and the experimental protocols all the time even today, but do you know how many of them which are provably false result in sanctions either academic or industrial? Pretty much none. Like I said, VESA can say what they want, but the Adaptive-Sync RFC has no way of having the GPU tell the monitor to stop drawing/delay a frame flush.

 

You are so full of bullpoo it's beyond comprehension. RFC is part of ietf and is about internetprotocols and other standards concerning the internet. it has NOTHING to do with VESA, displayport, g-sync or anything else. There is nothing on their site containing any information of any of those subjects either.

 

Legally binding to whom? VESA is not responsible for any other than their own members, and whomever they sign contracts with. Those contracts ARE legally binding. Some random internet organization, does not hold special legal rights, nor is any organization or hardware vendor required to have their non internet relevant hardware, approved or documented by this organization. EITF, or should I say ISOC, that owns it, is a non profit org., that is in no way an authority on hardware. As such they have no legal right or authority over any hardware standard, or other organizations, such as VESA.

 

Your anti AMD posts are nearing propaganda, and you obviously have some sort of agenda here. Namedropping random organizations, does not make you credible, nor does it back up your made up arguments.

You are welcome to post links to the "official" RFC's to these techs, but we both know they don't exist. IF they do, for some strange reason, they are no more relevant, and not at all more legally binding than anything else VESA releases about their own standard.

 

 

There is ONE question you ask, that I will give you, and find interesting myself. Whatt happens in Adaptive Sync, when a game produces over the max framerate supported by the monitor. We know asus gsync rog supports a framerate of 30-144hz. We know that if the fps goes under 30, that stutter will be introduced like vsync. We also know that if the fps goes ABOVE 144hz, that latency spikes:

 

http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview2/

 

I don't know yet, if Adaptive Sync, tells the GPU to wait with frames, if it hits max supported hz. I don't see the point in making frames, that cannot be drawn, but some pro players, might disagree here. Either way, we will have to see what happens. Remember variable framerate ONLY works within the supported interval of the monitor. That is the case with Adaptive Sync and Gsync. If you have any official document stating what happens, feel free to link those as well.

[patrickjp93]

You are so full of bullpoo it's beyond comprehension. RFC is part of ietf and is about internetprotocols and other standards concerning the internet. it has NOTHING to do with VESA, displayport, g-sync or anything else. There is nothing on their site containing any information of any of those subjects either.

Legally binding to whom? VESA is not responsible for any other than their own members, and whomever they sign contracts with. Those contracts ARE legally binding. Some random internet organization, does not hold special legal rights, nor is any organization or hardware vendor required to have their non internet relevant hardware, approved or documented by this organization. EITF, or should I say ISOC, that owns it, is a non profit org., that is in no way an authority on hardware. As such they have no legal right or authority over any hardware standard, or other organizations, such as VESA.

Your anti AMD posts are nearing propaganda, and you obviously have some sort of agenda here. Namedropping random organizations, does not make you credible, nor does it back up your made up arguments.

You are welcome to post links to the "official" RFC's to these techs, but we both know they don't exist. IF they do, for some strange reason, they are no more relevant, and not at all more legally binding than anything else VESA releases about their own standard.

There is ONE question you ask, that I will give you, and find interesting myself. Whatt happens in Adaptive Sync, when a game produces over the max framerate supported by the monitor. We know asus gsync rog supports a framerate of 30-144hz. We know that if the fps goes under 30, that stutter will be introduced like vsync. We also know that if the fps goes ABOVE 144hz, that latency spikes:

http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview2/

I don't know yet, if Adaptive Sync, tells the GPU to wait with frames, if it hits max supported hz. I don't see the point in making frames, that cannot be drawn, but some pro players, might disagree here. Either way, we will have to see what happens. Remember variable framerate ONLY works within the supported interval of the monitor. That is the case with Adaptive Sync and Gsync. If you have any official document stating what happens, feel free to link those as well.

RFCs are not unique to IETF. That's a very common misconception. Furthermore, the reason it's bad for the monitor to tell the GPU to stop is it causes jittering (damn autocorrect). If the GPU calls the shots it can edit an intermediate frame to prevent tearing via a simple algorithm. For people who want butter smooth graphics G-Sync is already engineered from the right direction whereas FreeSync isn't. If it turns out that FreeSync is the perfect version out of the box(not likely) then G-Sync will be revised to better handle the edge cases it currently fails at, but in the end FreeSync will jitter in high-performance cases and G-Sync won't.

And before someone on here accuses me of fanboying, I've posted a number of articles on AMD's recent innovations. This just isn't going to be one of them.

[Notional]

RFCs are not unique to IETF. That's a very common misconception. Furthermore, the reason it's bad for the monitor to tell the GPU to stop is it causes jiggering. If the GPU calls the shots it can edit an intermediate frame to prevent tearing via a simple algorithm. For people who want butter smooth graphics G-Sync is already engineered from the right direction whereas FreeSync isn't. If it turns out that FreeSync is the perfect version out of the box(not likely) then G-Sync will be revised to better handle the edge cases it currently fails at, but in the end FreeSync will jitter in high-performance cases and G-Sync won't.

And before someone on here accuses me of fanboying, I've posted a number of articles on AMD's recent innovations. This just isn't going to be one of them.

 

In other words, you have no proof of anything, and no sources to backup the wild claims and BS you posted earlier. You have been caught red handed in lying.

If fps is over 144hz, as a max, I doubt anyone will see any judder or stutter. I just showed you a source, proving that gsync spazzes out, when fps goes over the supported interval. There is heavy buffering going on there. I'm not saying that is bad per se, but we don't know exactly how gsync deals with the problem. What I CAN say, is that you have not yet proved your claim, that Adaptive Sync, dictates a GFX to stop rendering frames, when the supported max hz is passed.

You have nothing to backup your claim about what Nvidia will do (or not do) with Gsync. You don't know. Pure speculation. Neither do you know how Adaptive Sync is going to behave in end products.

 

RFC's are very much a term only used by ISOC or similar for internet standards. It is not a term I've come across in any other industry, dealing with anything else than internetprotocols.

 

I'm still waiting for all those fancy sources you claim to have read. I guess you "forgot" where they are.