AMD FreeSync vs Nvidia G-Sync, Ultimate Verdict.

[TERAFLOP]

This is a long and juicy one, I'd highly advise you to check it out because I can't do it justice here. The most interesting revelation is around what happens if your FPS dips below the minimum refresh rate of the monitor. G-Sync and FreeSync deal with it VERY differently.

 

 

Obvious pros and cons of both is mentioned in the review. The most obvious one being cost. G-Sync has another con related to the G-Sync module itself which is apparently very poor in terms of display outputs, audio support and color processing. One noticeable pro with G-Sync is that it behaves much better than FreeSync below the minimum refresh rate. At the minimum refresh rate FreeSync won't work but G-Sync employs a clever trick.

The module limits the outputs which a G-Sync monitor can support. G-Sync monitors only support Displaport outputs and do not allow for anything other than the most basic monitor features. And because monitor makers cannot use their own feature-full scalar chips to drive these monitors. They cannot include any of their differentiating features in the monitor. The G-Sync module also only allows for very preliminary color processing and does not support any form of audio output.

Source

[Enderman]

They both do the same thing and they both work...

I don't see how audio output from your monitor is a deciding factor lol, monitor speakers are all crap

[LOLPhilips]

Yarrr,

 

you'd do best to at least quote the entire conclusion of this test.

or maybe also link another test that compares these.

This post just looks like you're giving protest to Nvidia's g-sync option.

[Sunako]

   The source seems to be  very bias. along with omitting the  problems found in the last day with certain functions on the monitors interfering or being disrupted when  free-syn is enbaled. Both  ways do the same thing  right now g-syn has more of the issues  flushed out and i hope to see  free-syn come into its own in time.

[TERAFLOP]

Yarrr,

 

you'd do best to at least quote the entire conclusion of this test.

or maybe also link another test that compares these.

This post just looks like you're giving protest to Nvidia's g-sync option.

Does it ? it's not supposed to.

 

   The source seems to be  very bias. along with omitting the  problems found in the last day with certain functions on the monitors interfering or being disrupted when  free-syn is enbaled. Both  ways do the same thing  right now g-syn has more of the issues  flushed out and i hope to see  free-syn come into its own in time.

Can you at least link to the issues so I can know what you're talking about ? monitor functions also have nothing to do with Freesync itself.

 

 

They both do the same thing and they both work...

I don't see how audio output from your monitor is a deciding factor lol, monitor speakers are all crap

They actually don't. G-Sync behaves very differently from Freesync below the minimum refresh rate. G-Sync handles the situation much better.

[LOLPhilips]

Does it ? it's not supposed to.

 

Well yeah atleast I think it does I might be wrong though. I'm a pirate how smart can I be

But you say something about the g-sync's cons and follow up with quoting directly from the site what you just said yourself.

This is followed up by no other pro or con for both sides. and only then link the article.

 

Personally not really a die hard nvidia fan "preferred brand though".. But I'm sure I know people on this forum who will get ticked off.

[TERAFLOP]

Well yeah atleast I think it does I might be wrong though. I'm a pirate how smart can I be

But you say something about the g-sync's cons and follow up with quoting directly from the site what you just said yourself. and only then link the article.

 

Personally not really a die hard nvidia fan "preferred brand though".. But I'm sure I know people on this forum who will get ticked off.

Well the problem is there aren't actually many pros to G-Sync. I've added the only one to the post. It's just one, but it's a HUGE one.

[LOLPhilips]

Well the problem is there aren't actually many pros to G-Sync. I've added the only one to the post. It's just one, but it's a HUGE one.

 

Hmm oh well I'm terrible sorry then, matey

[qwertywarrior]

This isn't a review ...

Gonna wait for pcper anand or tomshardware to make a review

[TERAFLOP]

This isn't a review ...

Gonna wait for pcper anand or tomshardware to make a review

They're already up.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9097/the-amd-freesync-review

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Displays/AMD-FreeSync-First-Impressions-and-Technical-Discussion

This though encompasses everything that's been revealed in them.

[Misanthrope]

Freesync has been out for a day, must we insists on ultimate verdicts?

[Faa]

They actually don't. G-Sync behaves very differently from Freesync below the minimum refresh rate. G-Sync handles the situation much better.

You'll get tearing/stutter below the min refresh rate with AS and Nvidia's fix is multiplying the frame rates. VRR works at 1 FPS on Gsync even. Atm that's not possible on AS because the monitor needs a local frame buffer. But you get slight flickering, so the choice is flickering vs stutter.

 

 

This isn't a review ...

Gonna wait for pcper anand or tomshardware to make a review

Here you go;

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Displays/AMD-FreeSync-First-Impressions-and-Technical-Discussion/Inside-and-Outside-VRR-Wind

Pretty sure WCFF CP'ed everything from PCPER. According to PCPER they found that AS doesn't bring the experience Gsync does.

[El_indian]

I think it's safe to say that it will definitely improve. 

[ItsAFeature]

Ultimate verdict... WCCF 

[GoodBytes]

Freesync isn't free. It might cost a bit less sure, but it is not free.

I recall seeing  G-Sync Monitors with multiple inputs. Sure only 1 of them (DisplayPort) supports G-Sync, similarly to FreeSync based monitors.

Competition and consumer demand will push manufacture to make G-Sync with more inputs.

 

Also, G-Sync is not responsible for color reproduction. The panel is, and the manufacture calibration of the panel, and other components selected or created by the manufacture in processing the signal received (eg: color processor used or not, Look Up Table used/calibrated, FRC system to emulate more colors that the panel can't natively produce, say the manufacture picks  a 6-bit panel over a true 8-bit per channel panel).

 

Also: wccftech.. sensationalist title, and I don't think I need to continue.

[ivan134]

Freesync isn't free. It might cost a bit less sure, but it is not free.

I recall seeing  G-Sync Monitors with multiple inputs. Sure only 1 of them (DisplayPort) supports G-Sync, similarly to FreeSync based monitors.

Competition and consumer demand will push manufacture to make G-Sync with more inputs.

 

Also, G-Sync is not responsible for color reproduction. The panel is, and the manufacture calibration of the panel, and other components selected or created by the manufacture in processing the signal received (eg: color processor used or not, Look Up Table used/calibrated, FRC system to emulate more colors that the panel can't natively produce, say the manufacture picks  a 6-bit panel over a true 8-bit per channel panel).

 

Also: wccftech.. sensationalist title, and I don't think I need to continue.

Proprietary vs industry standard. Sounds free to me.

[BobbyG2]

I wonder if/when we'll see monitors that support both? I don't want to be locked into one gpu manufacture. Hopefully nVidia will support AS on future cards, so I could just get an AS monitor and be done with it for a while.

[Victorious Secret]

Freesync isn't free. It might cost a bit less sure, but it is not free.

I recall seeing  G-Sync Monitors with multiple inputs. Sure only 1 of them (DisplayPort) supports G-Sync, similarly to FreeSync based monitors.

Competition and consumer demand will push manufacture to make G-Sync with more inputs.

 

Also, G-Sync is not responsible for color reproduction. The panel is, and the manufacture calibration of the panel, and other components selected or created by the manufacture in processing the signal received (eg: color processor used or not, Look Up Table used/calibrated, FRC system to emulate more colors that the panel can't natively produce, say the manufacture picks  a 6-bit panel over a true 8-bit per channel panel).

 

Also: wccftech.. sensationalist title, and I don't think I need to continue.

 

All true. 

 

It is not the fault of Nvidia and G-Sync that monitor makers elect to use dodgy panels and skimp on the inputs. Nothing is stopping these guys from using one DP for G-Sync then having a couple other HDMI/DPs for regular use. Those will all come in due time as the tech matures. 

This is entirely early adopter tech. This isn't for normal consumers. Normal consumers aren't going to spend 500+ on a monitor just for this. I have Nvidia GPUs. Why would I spend 400 on AMD GPUs just so I can spend 500 or more on a monitor just for "FreeSync". Even if I stay with Nvidia, thats 700 or more. 

What money am I saving with FreeSync again? Pray tell everyone...

[ivan134]

All true. 

 

It is not the fault of Nvidia and G-Sync that monitor makers elect to use dodgy panels and skimp on the inputs. Nothing is stopping these guys from using one DP for G-Sync then having a couple other HDMI/DPs for regular use. Those will all come in due time as the tech matures. 

This is entirely early adopter tech. This isn't for normal consumers. Normal consumers aren't going to spend 500+ on a monitor just for this. I have Nvidia GPUs. Why would I spend 400 on AMD GPUs just so I can spend 500 or more on a monitor just for "FreeSync". Even if I stay with Nvidia, thats 700 or more. 

What money am I saving with FreeSync again? Pray tell everyone...

You are correct that it's early adopter tech, and the early adopters don't care about which costs less. In the long run though, there will be monitors that will support both technologies (FreeSync being an industry standard and also having a G-Sync module). That's when it will start to matter since monitor manufacturers will have to pay a licensing fee to have the module. For now though, which is cheaper is a non argument until it becomes more mainstream. My prediction: G-Sync will go the way of Mantle and Nvidia will be forced to support FreeSync, but they can still say they spurred the industry to move forward in the way Mantle did.

[GoodBytes]

Proprietary vs industry standard. Sounds free to me.

They are both proprietary.

[Lewellyn]

Proprietary vs industry standard. Sounds free to me.

 

<Insert competing industry standards xkcd here>

 

edit: This one 

[Briggsy]

interesting. so freesync has a wider potential Hz range, is 100 dollars cheaper (old news), better colors (potentially, if the panel is better), enabled display features that panel makers include with firmware, no performance penalty, "out of vrr window" behaviour can be adjusted with a simple driver update, display doesn't flicker if it goes below the vrr window, can enable or disable v-sync for frames going above or below vrr window.

 

even though its coming from the dreaded wccftech, the writer did a good job of summarizing what each technology does. 

[BuckGup]

Why can't we just have it built in to every monitor and is seen as a needed part by all manufactures. No proprietary expensive junk.

[Sauron]

Let's be honest, why would anyone care about what happens below the minimum refresh rate? At that point the game is already unplayable...

[GoodBytes]

Let's be honest, why would anyone care about what happens below the minimum refresh rate? At that point the game is already unplayable...

FPS spikes. Remember that fps counter in games only check the fps every now and then. And programs like FRAPS averages the fps based on a set of sample. Pooling the live fps is too system resource intensive, causing performance degradation, already fps counter degrade performance as it is.