Nvidia states Adaptive-Sync rumour support as untrue

[Guest Kloaked]

Second page: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/221199-nvidia-states-adaptive-sync-rumour-support-as-untrue/

[Clyne]

you're late

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/221199-nvidia-states-adaptive-sync-rumour-support-as-untrue/

https://www.google.com/#q=linus+tech+tips+nvidia+freesync+rumor

[Jack.EXE]

I'm sorry, I've been doing massive amounts of homework all night.

[Imabigmac]

Why doesn't AMD want to support g-sync? I know Nivida would have to let them and make them pay but I don't see them begging or really want into the program and doubt Nivida has ever said AMD will never be allowed to license and use G-sync. Why is Nvidia that has to conform to AMD? We have working samples and proof G-sync works we have yet to see free sync again why would Nvida agree to pay for a technology that is similar to what they have already spent tons of money developing when they really know how well the public will receive free sync. 

[Jack.EXE]

Why doesn't AMD want to support g-sync? I know Nivida would have to let them and make them pay but I don't see them begging or really want into the program and doubt Nivida has ever said AMD will never be allowed to license and use G-sync. Why is Nvidia that has to conform to AMD? We have working samples and proof G-sync works we have yet to see free sync again why would Nvida agree to pay for a technology that is similar to what they have already spent tons of money developing when they really know how well the public will receive free sync. 

 

Cause it's frakkin free. IT COSTS THEM NOTHING.

 

Open Standards > Proprietary Standards in ALL situations.

[Imabigmac]

Cause it's frakkin free. IT COSTS THEM NOTHING.

 

Open Standards > Proprietary Standards in ALL situations.

it does though. Its not free. Free of licencing maybe, but no to produce and to develop for their own cards and they will still try to capitalise on it.

[Geekazoid]

NEWS: AMD will not be supporting G-Sync. JK

[patrickjp93]

repost. On phone so I can't dig through the forums, but this is 100% repost.

[niofalpha]

Cause it's frakkin free. IT COSTS THEM NOTHING.

 

Open Standards > Proprietary Standards in ALL situations.

Define open standards... Free- Sync is proprietary to AMD. The other 2 main graphics companies are nVidia, and Intel. Nvidia has it's own version. It does not support the Free- Sync. 

 

Basically it's all up to Intel to decide which is "Proprietary" hardware wise. 

 

Dat sentance structuring doe...

[LancerBG]

How do they not 

 

Define open standards... Free- Sync is proprietary to AMD. The other 2 main graphics companies are nVidia, and Intel. Nvidia has it's own version. It does not support the Free- Sync. 

 

Basically it's all up to Intel to decide which is "Proprietary" hardware wise. 

 

Dat sentance structuring doe...

 

I thought "free sync" was a standard of an input and had nothing to do with amd but that amd just pushed for it? guess I remember that wrong. 

[Lord Pantaloons]

This isn't news, why would they support an alternative to something that they've put time, money and R&D into? Doing so wouldn't make a damn bit of sense and anyone that was hoping or expecting that Nvidia would doesn't have any sense.

[Jack.EXE]

How do they not 

 

 

I thought "free sync" was a standard of an input and had nothing to do with amd but that amd just pushed for it? guess I remember that wrong. 

 

 

I'm talking about Async, I should fix the title...

[Techhog]

Your point, "This, I Find disappointing. It's kinda backwards if you ask me, it's completely free!", is completely flawed.

 

It is free for them to adopt, yes. But it would also impact sales of G-Sync monitors. It isn't backwards at all.

Today I learned that it's not backwards so long as it makes money.

[Mister Snow]

Why doesn't AMD want to support g-sync? I know Nivida would have to let them and make them pay but I don't see them begging or really want into the program and doubt Nivida has ever said AMD will never be allowed to license and use G-sync. Why is Nvidia that has to conform to AMD? We have working samples and proof G-sync works we have yet to see free sync again why would Nvida agree to pay for a technology that is similar to what they have already spent tons of money developing when they really know how well the public will receive free sync. 

It has nothing to do with AMD, it's a display port standard now and Nvidia should support it like any other feature of display port. Nvidia is avoiding Adaptive sync because they are trying to collect money invested in G-sync but to say that AMD should chase after Nvidia and beg them for Gsync licence really makes no sense. AMD would then have to pay Nvidia for something that has already become a standard (adaptive sync) and it's free of any licence fees, their cards would go up in price to cancel out the expenses and consumers would pay at least 100$ more for monitors. I can understand it from Nvidia's point of view but there is absolutely no reason for anyone else to adopt or push Gsync.

[mr moose]

It has nothing to do with AMD, it's a display port standard now and Nvidia should support it like any other feature of display port. Nvidia is avoiding Adaptive sync because they are trying to collect money invested in G-sync but to say that AMD should chase after Nvidia and beg them for Gsync licence really makes no sense. AMD would then have to pay Nvidia for something that has already become a standard (adaptive sync) and it's free of any licence fees, their cards would go up in price to cancel out the expenses and consumers would pay at least 100$ more for monitors. I can understand it from Nvidia's point of view but there is absolutely no reason for anyone else to adopt or push Gsync.

 

It looks like we might already be paying more than $100 for an Async monitor though (the last report said they were likely to be $80-100 cheaper than G-sync, which makes them $200-220 more than they are now), Also there are only a few AMD cards that support Async.  Until we actually get something in the stores to look at and compare prices of the best guess at the moment is that Async is not a great deal cheaper.  It really is going to depend on what card you currently have and what your budget is. 

 

EDIT: supporting article:

 

http://www.pcr-online.biz/news/read/amd-our-freesync-gaming-monitors-will-be-100-cheaper-than-nvidia-g-sync/034635

[Mister Snow]

It looks like we might already be paying more than $100 for an Async monitor though (the last report said they were likely to be $80-100 cheaper than G-sync, which makes them $200-220 more than they are now), Also there are only a few AMD cards that support Async.  Until we actually get something in the stores to look at and compare prices of the best guess at the moment is that Async is not a great deal cheaper.  It really is going to depend on what card you currently have and what your budget is. 

It's still $80-100 less. If you are in a hurry then Gsync is for you probably because it's out and Async will not be until 2015 but 1-2 years from now I really don't see the point of Gsync still existing. Then again, something can drastically change by then so we will see.

[Jerakl]

Never doubt corporate stupidity, especially with a company like Nvidia in a case like this.

*cough cough* Comcast *cough cough*

[mr moose]

It's still $80-100 less. If you are in a hurry then Gsync is for you probably because it's out and Async will not be until 2015 but 1-2 years from now I really don't see the point of Gsync still existing. Then again, something can drastically change by then so we will see.

 

I think it more depends on what GPU we already have,  Last time I looked there were more cards out there that support Gsync than cards that support Freesync, thus for many it will be cheaper to replace just the monitor for an extra $100 than to get anew GPU and monitor. Not only that, but with the premium currently on G-sync monitors, I think the only people taking that up are those who really need to upgrade now as the rest will probably wait until next year.

 

Basically less than a quarter of current discrete GPU's are Free sync capable. Which could have a wide ranging impact from the number of manufactures who decide to incorporate the standard to what price they end up selling for.  

[OlekKing]

G-Sync has it's own processing unit, PCB and 768MB buffer, so i'd say it's not unreasonable to think that it will be much better than a free alternative.

 

[nokturrduk84]

It's not news that Nvidia doesn't support what AMD is offering. They have their strategy & we can't judge them because of it. They're still dominating GPU market without AMD.

[LukaP]

It's not news that Nvidia doesn't support what AMD is offering. They have their strategy & we can't judge them because of it. They're still dominating GPU market without AMD.

72% market share, according to steam ^^

 

hence i dont really see how ASync is to become the standard, unless we incorporate intel. still in that case NV has 51% market share, so ASync will still have problems.

[Samfisher]

I thought this was already flagged as repost lol.

[mr moose]

I thought this was already flagged as repost lol.

 

Yes it was, but the discussion is civil and so far has no fanboy rants.   I am enjoying reading peoples perspectives on the situation without suffering assumptions being labeled as absolutes.

[Kameegaming]

Cause it's frakkin free. IT COSTS THEM NOTHING.

 

Open Standards > Proprietary Standards in ALL situations.

Except if Proprietary is much better than the open , See MS OFFiCE vs Libre/Open Office

[decoy11]

I have a suspicion that Nvidia will probably try to see if they can get G-Sync to succeed in the market before it goes anywhere near the VESA A-Sync standard. My bet is that they will get their proprietary lightboost/ULMB implementation to work with G-Sync. If they do that they basically have the better implementation of motion clarity. You know they are working on it when they renamed their lightboot technology in G-Sync as ULMB.