AMD FreeSync vs Nvidia G-Sync, Ultimate Verdict.

[Sammael]

My point is that both technology won't be on all monitors. Also, I don't want to pay more for the monitor that my parents will use. They don't game.

 

The only possibility to make what you suggest a reality, is that DisplayPort makes it part of the requirement for its specs.

 

 

Those crappy cheap monitors for your parents who don't and won't care about vrr probably won't be buying a monitor with a displayport in the first place, that is a natural barrier.  If they need more they would probably just use an hdmi 2.0 connection if they are using some 4k display.  Again, they won't be paying more for displayport 1.2a by default.

 

As for displayport 1.2a, I'd like to see the cost delta of including vrr on freesync vs gsync capable displays.  While it might not be free, a hundred dollar gap is substantial, money that could be better put to use by spending more on actual gpu hardware to improve performance across the board.  That seems like a better trade off to me.

[Sammael]

I don't understand why people care about the experience when it gets to 25 FPS, when every PC gamer will do everything in their power to not play at 25 FPS ever.

 

The pcper guys wanted to highlight the one potential area that their favored nvidia had a better solution to prop up gsync, they had nothing on the actual vrr within the monitors window.

 

 

A bigger issue to me is the panel makers choices so far.  The only freesync capable panel I've seen so far worth a damn is that unreleased Asus panel, 2560x1440 ips with displayport 1.2a.  No idea what the minimum refresh rate is though.  I wonder if any of the panels can get to 30fps without flickering issues, if they can make one of those with ips and 2560x1440 and a glossy screen, that will be the go to freesync panel. (glossy screen is totally subjective)

[Sharp_3yE]

I think, NVIDIA should license the technology to monitor manufacturers so that the manufacturer can have all of their tech in the monitor plus variable refresh rate instead of selling their module.

Also, adaptive sync is an open standard and it would be cool if nvidia supported both. Of course the problem would be that their years of development would basically be useless. So idk, I think licensing the tech is a good idea.

[Takata]

So... I guess you go for the freesync monitor with the lower minimum refresh rate, since freesync kinda falls over if you go below that.

[GoodBytes]

@GoodBytes 

Yup, my point exactly. It is not free. It is cheaper then G-Sync currently, but not free.

[Opcode]

Yup, my point exactly. It is not free. It is cheaper then G-Sync currently, but not free.

Do you have proof? Because AMD themselves have stated that FreeSync is royalty-free.

 

AMD has undertaken efforts to encourage broad adoption for AMD FreeSync™ technology, including:

• Royalty-free licensing for monitor vendors;

 

Tie that in with the fact that no additional hardware is needed and you have nothing to inflate the cost other than the fact itself that it supports FreeSync. Also I think you missed the point of Lynx post. One of them displays is a standard display (no G-Sync or FreeSync) and the other is an upgraded version of it with FreeSync for $50 cheaper.

[GoodBytes]

Yes and no.

DisplayPort 1.2a requirements states that DRR (which Freesync needs) is optional. Implement this costs money (additional R&D time for the monitor (implementation + testing + additional hardware design, support (train tech support staff about it, and update all documentation in all languages to allow trouble shooting, and so on).

 

The reason why it is propriety is as mentioned, AMD is not giving out the driver source code for the system. It is exclusive to them only.

[cesrai]

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.

Now lets see, G-sync is proprietary and free-sync which is a driver for adaptive-sync which is part of vesa 1.2a standard, now anyone can make a driver for adaptive-sync and call it whatever they want. 

[VanayadGaming]

Yes and no.

DisplayPort 1.2a requirements states that DRR (which Freesync needs) is optional. Implement this costs money (additional R&D time for the monitor (implementation + testing + additional hardware design, support (train tech support staff about it, and update all documentation in all languages to allow trouble shooting, and so on).

 

The reason why it is propriety is as mentioned, AMD is not giving out the driver source code for the system. It is exclusive to them only.

They did state that every manufacturer / gpu vendor is allowed to implement the standard. Nvidia said they won't do it because they have Gsync. (And then there was found a laptop where they did do it )

[GoodBytes]

Yes. Anyone can make the driver, is it easy to do? Guess not, if not Nvidia would probably already have implemented support, but the rumors G-Sync mobile is probably just that. Seeing how it is not out yet, I guess is isn't a 5min job.

[GoodBytes]

So now you're associating a DP 1.2a feature to Freesync? You crossed a fine line there.

It is a package. You need Monitor + DisplayPort + DRR/adaptive-sync + FreeSync drivers + compatible graphics cards (so far AMD only).

 

Wouldn't that feature be required for adaptive sync to work as well?

Correct.

 

And if there was a cost associated to this one feature, how much is it exactly? Compared to the Gsync module that manufacturers have to pay directly to Nvidia.

I don't know how much. Apparently, on this thread, it was pointed to be about 50$. Hence my point: It isn't free. And that is all I am saying, never said anything else.

 

AMD doesn't charge or get paid anything at all in order for there to be a monitor that will work with Freesync.

That is correct. AMD doesn't get any money. The money you pay does to the manufacture for the R&D on their side + support cost to implement the needed components (and testing) to the monitor.

 

In the end none of this matters as Freesync monitors cost substantially less, and none of that money went to AMD at all.

Yea.. at least for now. Nvidia can cut drastically the price of G-Sync. I am sure the entire module actually costs ~10-20$ to manufacture. I think Nvidia pricing model was pay R&D the quickest as possible from the few early adopters. That is my guess. If they are able to (or want to) do this, it would probabl rcost mroe or less the same for a Freesync ready monitor, from a consumer perspective.

[Opcode]

Yes and no.

DisplayPort 1.2a requirements states that DRR (which Freesync needs) is optional. Implement this costs money.

Do you have a source that suggests it costs money to implement? AMD pushed VESA into adding VRR to the display port 1.2a standard. Once it's standard all manufactures can make use of it under their current licensing royalties. Which means using VRR doesn't cost a display manufacture any more than it costs them to use display ports on G-Sync displays. The only argument left is whether the scaler itself in fact costs more than your typical scaler. Which boils down to cost of manufacture and not that of FreeSync. So technically FreeSync is completely free for the consumer. The displays made for it may cost a bit more (probably a few dollars) than they normally would but that's really minuscule. No one in their right mind is ever going to complain about a $400+ monitor costing $2 more than they originally expected. Tho that $2 is not spent on FreeSync but hardware that supports Adaptive-Sync.

[mr moose]

I am beginning to think they are much of a muchness, for every link posted shown one is more expensive another posts showing the opposite and some even the same.   This tells me that the price difference has more to do with retail outlet margins and less to do with the product itself.

 

I am preparing to upgrade toward the end of this year, my current GPU supports neither sync options so I'll simply get the best one I can afford.

[Guest Kloaked]

TIL the word "free" is subjective.

[Takata]

The ultimate verdict is that the day one implementation of Freesync does about the same thing as Nvidia's more matured solution. At a much lower cost to the end consumer.

I'm not really convinced it's -that- good. Nvidia's solution looks like it will handle very low framerates (below the minimum refresh rate of the monitor) better, while the description for freesync suggests that it completely falls over if you go below the minimum refresh rate of the monitor.

[Scionyde]

PCPer also seemed to notice some ghosting issues on their FreeSync monitors that they didn't see on their G-Sync ones. However, they've said it's too early to conclude that FreeSync is the root cause. http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Displays/AMD-FreeSync-First-Impressions-and-Technical-Discussion/Gaming-Experience-FreeSync-

 

G-Sync's superior handling of the lower than minimum refresh rate is appealing, leading me to just barely prefer their solution. But is it worth the extra $50-$100? Ehhh. I guess it's a good thing that I'm a couple years away from upgrading my monitors, because it sounds like both FreeSync and G-Sync have some potential improvements they need to make,

[boboman342]

Yup, my point exactly. It is not free. It is cheaper then G-Sync currently, but not free.

The regular monitor has an msrp of $499, the freesync version has an msrp of $449....It's better than free, IT'S CHEAPER!

 

The "R&D" time investment isn't really there...Almost all these big name monitor makers also make laptop screens....which already have all the requirements necessary for freesync...Just copy/paste the circuit boards from laptop screens and bam.

[Ren]

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.

It's a TERAFLOP/WCCFTech post.

I'm just gonna say that this is routine procedure, and you will never get more than that. Sucks but that's why you don't read into these types of posts.

[ivan134]

I'm not really convinced it's -that- good. Nvidia's solution looks like it will handle very low framerates (below the minimum refresh rate of the monitor) better, while the description for freesync suggests that it completely falls over if you go below the minimum refresh rate of the monitor.

Who the hell plays games at those framerates?

[Doobeedoo]

Even price aside, I've heard complaints from some G-sync users about flickering, and what I've read Vsync still can't be turned off and it causes mouse lag. Freesync seems more appealing on what's been shown over many articles.

But I won't buy any for quite some time. First I want them both to be finalized in more perfected way. Second, then I somehow need to test them both myself in gaming. And I want to see 4K 144Hz.

[Commander Llama]

Even price aside, I've heard complaints from some G-sync users about flickering, and what I've read Vsync still can't be turned off and it causes mouse lag. Freesync seems more appealing on what's been shown over many articles.

But I won't buy any for quite some time. First I want them both to be finalized in more perfected way. Second, then I somehow need to test them both myself in gaming. And I want to see 4K 144Hz.

 

I have read plenty of comments about defective ROG Swift units, though defective units are defective units no matter what electronic device you use.  My Swift runs flawlessly, there's no flicker, when V-Sync is turned off in games G-Sync takes over and the experience is great.

 

The initial results of Freesync look good too though.  Ultimate verdict though?  Hah!  War, war never changes.  The takeaway I'm getting is both technologies are good and if you're upgrading/building a new rig you should take advantage of either of them.

 

As for 4K 144Hz, good god.  I wouldn't even be able to max out the Swift with high end SLI, and that's only 1440p 144Hz.  What will we be pushing to get 4K 144Hz?  Quad SLI Titan X or in a while, quad 390X?  You know, I don't even think those would make it.

[Doobeedoo]

I have read plenty of comments about defective ROG Swift units, though defective units are defective units no matter what electronic device you use. My Swift runs flawlessly, there's no flicker, when V-Sync is turned off in games G-Sync takes over and the experience is great.

The initial results of Freesync look good too though. Ultimate verdict though? Hah! War, war never changes. The takeaway I'm getting is both technologies are good and if you're upgrading/building a new rig you should take advantage of either of them.

As for 4K 144Hz, good god. I wouldn't even be able to max out the Swift with high end SLI, and that's only 1440p 144Hz. What will we be pushing to get 4K 144Hz? Quad SLI Titan X or in a while, quad 390X? You know, I don't even think those would make it.

Well, I wouldn't use 4K res to achieve those frames. I wouldn't play everything on 4K. Some games online, and some single player that would run ok. Example, no point running online fps on 4K.

Doesn't mean if I'd want 4K 144Hz that I'd game at 4K and expect high frames like that.

Not sure why everyone thinks that

[Lynx]

Ok, Honestly calling it Ultimate Verdict is.......mmh just isn't right, at least until a proper review has been done, like the review from TFT Central, Blurbuster, and PC Monitor.
 

So far the clear advantage of FreeSync is price, just look at the LG Monitor, infact it's cheaper than the non freesync version.( 29UM67 and 29UM65), But I assume it's just a regular monitor with a new firmware, nothing more. and these could explain the limited 48-75 Hz range, because these monitor didn't built with FreeSync capability in the first place.

 

and this could still evolve, it's still in early adaptation after all.

[Faa]

Perfectly possible with FreeSync all it needs is implementation in the driver model and a display capable of that dynamic range.

 

Tho it's quite pointless to be playing games at 15 FPS. Especially when you've shelled out $400+ just for the display.

Nope, as PCPER stated you need a local frame buffer. AMD would have done it through drivers if it was possible.

 

 

Do you have proof? Because AMD themselves have stated that FreeSync is royalty-free.

Yes Gsync is royalty-free too. They can't charge a license fee of someone else hardware.

[Opcode]

Nope, as PCPER stated you need a local frame buffer. AMD would have done it through drivers if it was possible.

You can use the frame buffer on the GPU to duplicate frames. Which is a far better method considering every frame on all GPU's are stored there prior to being sent to the display.

 

Yes Gsync is royalty-free too. They can't charge a license fee of someone else hardware.

You have a source? As far we know G-Sync has licensing fees.