Nvidia Pitches Advantages of G-Sync Over AMD's FreeSync

[BiG StroOnZ]

Speculation at best. That is not at all official, nor useful. AMD only said they support the full spec and hz interval of Adaptive Sync. Nothing dishonest about that, just like 8k in VESA, 240 hz in VESA or USB 3.1. spartaman64 is completely right in that regard.

 

But it really is not that interesting. What is interesting, is whether it works properly or not. It does, it's an open standard, and Nvidia chooses not to support it.

 

Speculation at best? Not official, even though coming directly out of NVIDIA's mouths? Please. That's just AMD tinted sunglasses blocking your view of the truth.

 

You do realize that AMD's claim of 9-240Hz is speculation as well, since there are no panels in existence with such a range or any planned panels with such a range either? Or that doesn't matter because AMD said it, so it's okay to use speculation in your advertising?

 

[Opcode]

They can support it, but so can NVIDIA too, but there aren't any 240Hz panels planned anytime in the near future and won't be for probably 3 years minimum. So there's no point in AMD using the spec of 9-240Hz because it is non-existent at the moment. 

Nvidia failed to clarify their support range to the public as they should have (hence 30-144 Hz) until they went into full offensive retard mode. Also there is concrete reasoning for AMD to advertise FreeSync with a 9-240 Hz dynamic range. FreeSync only relies on a VESA standard. Which means FreeSync will coexist in the display ecosystem for many years to come even outside the PC ecosystem. The single most stupid thing that a company can do is launch specification of a technology and then need to revisit it later on going "we can now support 9-240 Hz even tho we already could three years ago". The support for 9-240 Hz is compiled into their driver so there is no arguing that AMD can't support 9-240 Hz. The only valid argument is that display manufactures don't typically provide true 240 Hz PC displays (again AMD is not at fault). The 40-144 Hz frequency range on displays once again is not a limitation of FreeSync. There is 0 implementation display side for FreeSync. Although you seem quick to throw AMD under a bus and claim they could never support 9-240 Hz. Just because you might not be quick to get your hands on a 240 Hz display doesn't mean that FreeSync doesn't already support it. The same goes for every other fabricated accusation you've made.

[spartaman64]

 

 

 

It's not a 240Hz monitor it's a 120Hz monitor with strobing as someone mentioned earlier. There are no 240Hz panels yet. I don't think it's more or less about AMD doing more research I think it's more about them wanting to look better than the competition. 

 

 

Using the word rumor, makes it seem like it's speculative. It's been confirmed by Tom Petersen and people inside of PCPer. So I wouldn't call it a rumor, it's way more than a rumor. NVIDIA has stated that 144Hz isn't a G-Sync Limitation but a Panel Limitation. Tom stated that they can go outside of the monitors zone. Tom also said that both FreeSync and G-Sync have the same base specs meaning both have the ability to communicate at any range. Malventano explained giving actual numbers, which Tom didn't do, but it still correlates exactly with what Tom said. 

 

so basically according to your logic if nvidia makes a gpu with 8TB ram then they are lying when they say they have 8TB ram because nothing uses 8TBs of ram

[BiG StroOnZ]

 

Nvidia failed to clarify their support range to the public as they should have (hence 30-144 Hz) until they went into full offensive retard mode. Also there is concrete reasoning for AMD to advertise FreeSync with a 9-240 Hz dynamic range. FreeSync only relies on a VESA standard. Which means FreeSync will coexist in the display ecosystem for many years to come even outside the PC ecosystem. The single most stupid thing that a company can do is launch specification of a technology and then need to revisit it later on going "we can now support 9-240 Hz even tho we already could three years ago". The support for 9-240 Hz is compiled into their driver so there is no arguing that AMD can't support 9-240 Hz. The only valid argument is that display manufactures don't typically provide true 240 Hz PC displays (again AMD is not at fault). The 40-144 Hz frequency range on displays once again is not a limitation of FreeSync. There is 0 implementation display side for FreeSync. Although you seem quick to throw AMD under a bus and claim they could never support 9-240 Hz. Just because you might not be quick to get your hands on a 240 Hz display doesn't mean that FreeSync doesn't already support it. The same goes for every other fabricated accusation you've made.

 

But my accusations aren't as fabricated as AMD's claim of 9-240Hz. Which is a complete fabrication. And is nothing more than an interface spec.

 

NVIDIA made it more than apparent any time this technology was revealed that they were capable of going above and below the monitors threshold. Except the different between them and AMD is they are realistic in their advertising. Since they are actually putting the specs of the panels available in their support. Where as AMD puts 9-240Hz knowing that there is no such monitor capable of doing that. Then when their FreeSync monitors actually release, surprise, surprise, what can they do 40-144Hz maximum. 

 

I don't see why it's  a bad thing to revise your spec as technology evolves, this happens all the time in this space. So I don't see how that is even a valid point. It's better than bending the truth to make yourself look better. Like what AMD is currently doing.

 

 

so basically according to your logic if nvidia makes a gpu with 8TB ram then they are lying when they say they have 8TB ram because nothing uses 8TBs of ram

 

What are you even talking about, try making some sense once in a while in your posts instead of responding with mindlessness.

[spartaman64]

 

 

 

But my accusations aren't as fabricated as AMD"s claim of 9-240Hz. Which is a complete fabrication. And is nothing more than an interface spec.

 

NVIDIA made it more than apparent any time this technology was revealed that they were capable of going above and below the monitors threshold. Except the different between them and AMD is they are realistic in their advertising. Since they are actually putting the specs of the panels available in their support. Where as AMD puts 9-240Hz knowing that there is no such monitor capable of doing that. Then when their FreeSync monitors actually release, surprise, surprise, what can they do 40-144Hz maximum. 

 

I don't see why it's  a bad thing to revise your spec as technology evolves, this happens all the time in this space. So I don't see how that is even a valid point. It's better than bending the truth to make yourself look better. Like what AMD is currently doing.

 

 

 

What are you even talking about, try making some sense once in a while in your posts instead of responding with mindlessness.

 

what you are saying is that nothing uses it then they are lying. so if i get 32GB of ram and i only use 8GB then i am lying when i say i have 32GB of ram

[ItsAFeature]

AMD claimed the VESA theoretical standard refresh number. Nvidia used the number that corresponds to products in the hands of consumers right now. It's not really a big deal.

 

The problem is that some fanbois attempt to use this as some sort of knock against G-Sync. Once a monitor appears that supports Freesync from 9-240Hz you can trash talk G-Sync's limitations all you want. But until then please calm down and wait. Same way people who say that the G-Sync module has more features built in that Nvidia haven't turned on yet also don't have a leg to stand on. Until it's in the hands of reviewers and consumers it's all hot air.

[BiG StroOnZ]

what you are saying is that nothing uses it then they are lying. so if i get 32GB of ram and i only use 8GB then i am lying when i say i have 32GB of ram

 

That's not the same scenario and you know it. 

[spartaman64]

That's not the same scenario and you know it. 

your argument is if nothing uses it then they are lying so my example is the same thing so if displayport 1.4 comes out and it supports 10k displays vesa is lying because there are no 10k displays

[ivan134]

My record is sterling. Please do try to provide something of substance rather than slander me as only the immature can do.

You claimed in THIS VERY THREAD that there are no freesync monitors with multiple inputs.......

[Notional]

If the proof is so obvious you should be able to present it in an irrefutable manner. I am an academic. I objectively evaluate everything. Produce evidence or stop trolling.

 

Such an "academic", to make up your own sources. Don't be arrogant. One only need to understand basic market strategies to understand his point. One I have made many times: Nvidia is behaving anti consumer and anti competitive. That is by default the result of propriety and locked eco systems. That should not be hard for you to understand "academically".

 

 

 

Speculation at best? Not official, even though coming directly out of NVIDIA's mouths? Please. That's just AMD tinted sunglasses blocking your view of the truth.

 

You do realize that AMD's claim of 9-240Hz is speculation as well, since there are no panels in existence with such a range or any planned panels with such a range either? Or that doesn't matter because AMD said it, so it's okay to use speculation in your advertising?

 

Yes speculation. How you choose to interpret Tom's comment, is purely subjective, and is by no means official, nor fact. Very odd that Nvidia never claimed that before. I don't doubt it's possible to update Gsync down the line, but there is no official statements on this, nor on this widened hertz interval. Like I said, your subjective interpretation, and Tom's vague statement, is useless.

 

VESA is responsible for the 9-240hz interval. Just like they are responsible for 8K support, etc. Freesync just supports the full fat of the Adaptive Sync standard. It is ignorant to criticize AMD, for something VESA is claiming; especially considering Nvidia being a member of VESA.

 

Either way, what is your point? That AMD are liars for claiming something, that you then credit Nvidia for extremely vaguely claiming as well? And you say my glasses are fanboy tainted. Seriously.

[patrickjp93]

I wouldn't be surprised if you owned your own barn with the amount of strawman going on here.

Hilarious coming from you.

[patrickjp93]

@Notional. Oh cut the crap. Anti-competitive? Coming up with your own standard and using it as a marketing tool and real extra functionality is a form of competition. Everything open-standard and open-source save for a precious few examples is a walking disaster after years of horrifically slow development. Nvidia deserves to make money for research and work products it makes, just like any company including AMD. The consumer is not King of everything. Maybe when AMD gets a lick of financial sense and has the money to compete you'll realize just how naive banking on open-source anything is outright foolish. Programmers deserve to and will seek to be paid for their work. The best are hired by the top software companies whose goal is to make money. Closed standards are not anti-consumer. They are simply not giving a free lunch to competitors.

[Notional]

@Notional. Oh cut the crap. Anti-competitive? Coming up with your own standard and using it as a marketing tool and real extra functionality is a form of competition. Everything open-standard and open-source save for a precious few examples is a walking disaster after years of horrifically slow development.

 

Nice straw man. No ones talking about open source, or necessarily open standards, but standards in itself, yes that is a huge positive for consumers, indeed. Closed eco systems are always made to keep competition out, and force customers to buy your product/service, or stay, because the sunk cost of switching to competition is too great.

 

VESA Adopted the proposition from AMD, as a group. In that case it needs to work, not just now, but also in the future. Why did Nvidia not call out these lies? They are seated in the VESA group themselves right?

[patrickjp93]

Nice straw man. No ones talking about open source, or necessarily open standards, but standards in itself, yes that is a huge positive for consumers, indeed. Closed eco systems are always made to keep competition out, and force customers to buy your product/service, or stay, because the sunk cost of switching to competition is too great.

VESA Adopted the proposition from AMD, as a group. In that case it needs to work, not just now, but also in the future. Why did Nvidia not call out these lies? They are seated in the VESA group themselves right?

No need to call out that which is obvious and will reveal itself with time. Also, continue reading the rest of the post. No one gets a free lunch. Not consumers, not companies, not collaborators, not competition.

Also, it's not a straw man. You attacked closed tandards. I claim (and have a metric kiloton of evidence supporting the idea) open standards and everything open is almost always an epic failure of no help to consumers. OpenSSL and Linux are just the prime examples. Locked ecosystems and standards have a place, and that place is distinction. AMD should not profit from Nvidia's original works. Plain and simple.

[Notional]

No need to call out that which is obvious and will reveal itself with time. Also, continue reading the rest of the post. No one gets a free lunch. Not consumers, not companies, not collaborators, not competition.

 

Difficult when you edited that in, after I responded, but ok. You still talk about open source. No one else is? I'm not? Unless you define VESA and Displayport as open source? Either way, that is the best video standard we have right now, n'est-ce pa?

 

Also what do you mean by deserve? In business no one deserves anything. If you spent a billion dollars in R&D on an inferior solution, you don't deserve people buying it. What an odd concept in an open competitive market. 

 

The people paying the bill is king, therefore consumer is King. Well by proxy, since Nvidia only sells to retailers. When the 970 fiasco started, and those retailers started accepting full returns, I can guarantee those retailers became king very fast.

 

No one owes Nvidia anything. They are a company, they do what they do to make money, and does not give a shit about anyone. Neither does AMD, but at least their business ethics are not stained horrible like Nvidia with its locked proprietary eco system, being anti competitive.

[beebskadoo]

Why do some users in this forum feel they need to force their superiority complex onto other people? I mean what is the fucking use of being an absolute cunt to people on the internet, it's the internet for fuck sake!

I don't care where you went to school, or your degree or your supposed experience, everyone on this forum who is a member is equal to everyone else...so play nice children.

[Notional]

No need to call out that which is obvious and will reveal itself with time. Also, continue reading the rest of the post. No one gets a free lunch. Not consumers, not companies, not collaborators, not competition.

Also, it's not a straw man. You attacked closed tandards. I claim (and have a metric kiloton of evidence supporting the idea) open standards and everything open is almost always an epic failure of no help to consumers. OpenSSL and Linux are just the prime examples. Locked ecosystems and standards have a place, and that place is distinction. AMD should not profit from Nvidia's original works. Plain and simple.

 

If you're going to add in things by editing your post, please use "addendum" or make it clear it was added in, post posted.

 

DisplayPort is a closed standard. I have not "attacked" that. Proprietary and closed are not the same thing. I made an entire list of closed proprietary tech, Nvidia invented, that they have chosen to not share with anyone, especially AMD. Why would Nvidia suddenly do it with Gsync? That would be abnormal behaviour from Nvidia.

 

Locked proprietary ecosystem sure have a purpose: To make as much money, at the expensive of the customer. You understand that right?

[patrickjp93]

Difficult when you edited that in, after I responded, but ok. You still talk about open source. No one else is? I'm not? Unless you define VESA and Displayport as open source? Either way, that is the best video standard we have right now, n'est-ce pa?

Also what do you mean by deserve? In business no one deserves anything. If you spent a billion dollars in R&D on an inferior solution, you don't deserve people buying it. What an odd concept in an open competitive market.

The people paying the bill is king, therefore consumer is King. Well by proxy, since Nvidia only sells to retailers. When the 970 fiasco started, and those retailers started accepting full returns, I can guarantee those retailers became king very fast.

No one owes Nvidia anything. They are a company, they do what they do to make money, and does not give a shit about anyone. Neither does AMD, but at least their business ethics are not stained horrible like Nvidia with its locked proprietary eco system, being anti competitive.

There is nothing ethically wrong with closed ecosystems and nothing anti-competitive about it. Capitulating to open standards developed by your competitor is giving a free lunch and limiting the scope of your own innovation. AMD is one of the most foolish businesses in the world and it shows quarter by quarter as investors lose faith. Consumers are not King. Producers are King. If you need something you cannot produce, you are second fiddle to whoever can produce it. There are absolutes in this world. Ignore them to your peril.

[patrickjp93]

If you're going to add in things by editing your post, please use "addendum" or make it clear it was added in, post posted.

DisplayPort is a closed standard. I have not "attacked" that. Proprietary and closed are not the same thing. I made an entire list of closed proprietary tech, Nvidia invented, that they have chosen to not share with anyone, especially AMD. Why would Nvidia suddenly do it with Gsync? That would be abnormal behaviour from Nvidia.

Locked proprietary ecosystem sure have a purpose: To make as much money, at the expensive of the customer. You understand that right?

Everything comes at the expense of the customer. That is the very nature of consumer economics. If you're not entirely self-sufficient, then you are second to producers. Producers are under no obligation to make your purchasing job easy.

[ivan134]

There is nothing ethically wrong with closed ecosystems and nothing anti-competitive about it. Capitulating to open standards developed by your competitor is giving a free lunch and limiting the scope of your own innovation. AMD is one of the most foolish businesses in the world and it shows quarter by quarter as investors lose faith. Consumers are not King. Producers are King. If you need something you cannot produce, you are second fiddle to whoever can produce it. There are absolutes in this world. Ignore them to your peril.

Translation: Monopolies are better than competition.

[patrickjp93]

Translation: Monopolies are better than competition.

Not at all. Competition and consumers are given NO FREE LUNCH! In a free market if the distaste of closed ecosystems outweighs the want of the benefits, the supplying company will, in the end, crumble as populations increase and marketshare is lost and investor confidence is eroded. Markets self-correct most of the time (elastic demand situations, such as graphics cards, but not inelastic such as life-saving medicine). Nvidia is beholden to its shareholders and no one else but authorities of the law. You and I are nothing but numbers on a spreadsheet.

[Notional]

There is nothing ethically wrong with closed ecosystems and nothing anti-competitive about it. Capitulating to open standards developed by your competitor is giving a free lunch and limiting the scope of your own innovation. AMD is one of the most foolish businesses in the world and it shows quarter by quarter as investors lose faith. Consumers are not King. Producers are King. If you need something you cannot produce, you are second fiddle to whoever can produce it. There are absolutes in this world. Ignore them to your peril.

 

You really don't understand what anti competitive is, do you? There is a reason why Microsoft was forced to remove Internet Explorer and Media player from Windows, in all of EU. Making money off of your competition, is a dream come true for any company. No Nvidia is probably scared. They see how both AMD apu's and perhaps Intel's onboard graphics, will slowly eat away at Nvidia's lowend market. They see how AMD holds 100% of the console market, both now AND in the future (next Nintendo is AMD as well).

 

No Nvidia is creating a proprietary locked ecosystem to capture in their end users, and keep them there. Not with superiority, but with propriety. No one is going to choose anything else than Nvidia, once they have bought into it, because of the sunk cost of shifting: New monitor, new streaming box, new shield thing, maybe new software, not exclusive to cuda, etc.

 

If you really don't understand how this is anti competitive, then I'm afraid, you don't understand markets very well. Remember, this is MY field, and MY masters.

 

Manufacturers are only king, when they have a monopoly, and even so, only if their product is essential, as in a necessity for survival (either as an individual or a company).

 

Everything comes at the expense of the customer. That is the very nature of consumer economics. If you're not entirely self-sufficient, then you are second to producers. Producers are under no obligation to make your purchasing job easy.

 

Not if the value proposition matches the price somewhat. When you start paying more for less (like the overpriced Nvidia 960), then it's at the expensive of the customer.

[79wjd]

No Nvidia is probably scared. They see how both AMD apu's and perhaps Intel's onboard graphics, will slowly eat away at Nvidia's lowend market. They see how AMD holds 100% of the console market, both now AND in the future (next Nintendo is AMD as well).

 

No Nvidia is creating a proprietary locked ecosystem to capture in their end users, and keep them there. Not with superiority, but with propriety. No one is going to choose anything else than Nvidia, once they have bought into it, because of the sunk cost of shifting: New monitor, new streaming box, new shield thing, maybe new software, not exclusive to cuda, etc.

 

 

 

Not if the value proposition matches the price somewhat. When you start paying more for less (like the overpriced Nvidia 960), then it's at the expensive of the customer.

The "overpriced 960"...you mean the card which performs between an R9 280 and R9 280x and is priced between an R9 280 and R9 280x? 

Is a 960 always the best choice? No. Is it sometimes the best choice? yes. The issue with the 960 is that it only has 2gb of VRAM, which I see as being an issue going forward, but not everyone does as it's highly dependent on games/settings. Factor in the higher efficiency/lower temps and you make up for the lack of VRAM (it comes down to personal preference which one is more important).

 

And why only call out the 960? The R9 285 is similar in performance (while less efficient), with the same amount of VRAM for the same price. At least try and hide your hatred towards Nvidia; AMD's R9 285 is no better than a 960; or alternatively try and not be so closed-minded...prices are different all over the world and fluctuate independently from product to product. 

 

 

And if it isn't self-evident, companies which offer (superior) closed ecosystems generally do better than their competitors. If what you're saying was really true, then AMD should be doing a lot better than Nvidia in terms of quarter to quarter revenue....unfortunately, they're not. You say that consumers will just get locked into a single ecosystem, that's only going to remain the case if the two companies offer relatively similar performance. If all of a sudden AMD offers drastically better performance than Nvidia, then people who have already bought into the Nvidia ecosystem will jump ship. As has already been said time and time again, economies are self-correcting.

[patrickjp93]

You really don't understand what anti competitive is, do you? There is a reason why Microsoft was forced to remove Internet Explorer and Media player from Windows, in all of EU. Making money off of your competition, is a dream come true for any company. No Nvidia is probably scared. They see how both AMD apu's and perhaps Intel's onboard graphics, will slowly eat away at Nvidia's lowend market. They see how AMD holds 100% of the console market, both now AND in the future (next Nintendo is AMD as well).

No Nvidia is creating a proprietary locked ecosystem to capture in their end users, and keep them there. Not with superiority, but with propriety. No one is going to choose anything else than Nvidia, once they have bought into it, because of the sunk cost of shifting: New monitor, new streaming box, new shield thing, maybe new software, not exclusive to cuda, etc.

If you really don't understand how this is anti competitive, then I'm afraid, you don't understand markets very well. Remember, this is MY field, and MY masters.

Manufacturers are only king, when they have a monopoly, and even so, only if their product is essential, as in a necessity for survival (either as an individual or a company).

Not if the value proposition matches the price somewhat. When you start paying more for less (like the overpriced Nvidia 960), then it's at the expensive of the customer.

EU law is warped beyond reason and there's really no reason for Microsoft to be forced to remove Ie and WMP. They are together a product package. Consumers can install anything else they want. In truth the EU is jut far too controlling and biased against US companies.

CUDA reigns as the top scientific computing language because AMD and Intel cannot match it in performance via OpenCL/OpenACC (we examined this extensively in my heterogeneous computing class in which we used all 3 languages on multiple platforms of the same generation and tier). Scientific computing programmers can reimplement an algorithms library in a week. Nvidia has done practically nothing to lock them into the ecosystem.

If the software was made by a 3rd party as CUDA-exclusive, that's on them (Adobe). Nvidia developed a superior standard for the time and it was adopted. Forcing Nvidia to use the same Adaptive Sync-based solutions limits its capability to expand, and ideas it comes up with should not be given away to the competition through VESA standards. Let AMD compete on merits instead of coattails. Also you completely overblow the cost of switching. People upgrade every 3-5 years anyway.

You've forgotten your fundamental laws of marginal purchasing and demand. The 960 is not overpriced for what it is or it would barely sell. If AMD's FreeSync is equal or superior at a cheaper price, in about 4 years the market will correct when everyone will be buying new cards anyway.

My education on markets may not be as expansive as yours, but I challenge your mastery of the fundamentals.

[Notional]

The "overpriced 960"...you mean the card which performs between an R9 280 and R9 280x and is priced between an R9 280 and R9 280x? 

Is a 960 always the best choice? No. Is it sometimes the best choice? yes. The issue with the 960 is that it only has 2gb of VRAM, which I see as being an issue going forward, but not everyone does as it's highly dependent on games/settings. Factor in the higher efficiency/lower temps and you make up for the lack of VRAM (it comes down to personal preference which one is more important).

 

And why only call out the 960? The R9 285 is similar in performance (while less efficient), with the same amount of VRAM for the same price. At least try and hide your hatred towards Nvidia; AMD's R9 285 is no better than a 960; or alternatively try and not be so closed-minded...prices are different all over the world and fluctuate independently from product to product. 

 

 

And if it isn't self-evident, companies which offer (superior) closed ecosystems generally do better than their competitors. If what you're saying was really true, then AMD should be doing a lot better than Nvidia in terms of quarter to quarter revenue....unfortunately, they're not. You say that consumers will just get locked into a single ecosystem, that's only going to remain the case if the two companies offer relatively similar performance. If all of a sudden AMD offers drastically better performance than Nvidia, then people who have already bought into the Nvidia ecosystem will jump ship. As has already been said time and time again, economies are self-correcting.

 

Easy now, I have not defended the 285 in any way. I agree, it's an odd card, that under performs. That does not make the 960 any less over priced.

 

As for the second part, I'm not sure what your point is. The largest IT company in the world is Apple, known for its closed eco system. You are charged a hefty price premium, and usually receive less for it too. Consumers being dumb/sheepish, does not negate apples behaviour as anti competitive either.

 

Your last point simply is not true. If you bought an Nvidia graphics card, gsync monitor, shield, etc. You're not going to switch to AMD just because the next generation favours AMD. Why? Because of the sunk cost investment into the eco system. You would have to buy a new monitor, new streaming box, etc. as well. So now it's no longer just a case of price/performance, but also an entire replacement of an entire eco system. You're simply too invested into the eco system.

 

So now you are stuck potentially buying a subpar product, or forced to pay high price premiums.