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

[Doobeedoo]

No it's not, AMD lied and No. When FreeSync is enabled it is limited to 40-144Hz in a TN panel or 48-75Hz in an IPS panel. Read PCPer:

 

"The published refresh rate is more than a bit misleading. AMD claims that FreeSync is rated at 9-240 Hz while G-Sync is only quoted at 30-144 Hz. There are two issues with this. First, FreeSync doesn’t determine the range of variable refresh rates, AdaptiveSync does. Second, AMD is using the maximum and minimum refresh range published by the standards body, not an actual implementation or even a planned implementation from any monitor or display. The 30-144 Hz rating for G-Sync is actually seen in shipping displays today (like the ASUS PG278Q ROG Swift). The FreeSync monitors we have in our office are either 40-144 Hz (TN, 2560x1440) or 48-75 Hz (IPS, 2560x1080); neither of which is close to the 9-240 Hz seen in this table."

 

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

Is that final or changes will come along to allow for that max and min refresh range it was mentioned? And what about latency on both, can't find anything about it? You can refer to my 1. comment on this topic also.

[freemini]

They didn't lie, there's no freesync monitor that supports 30-144Hz range currently. A direct freesync-Gsync comparison would only be fair if it's the exact same panel (really monitor would be ideal) you're talking about. That specific TN panel only goes from 40-144Hz yes, that doesn't mean all of them will be the same. Nvidia might have some regulations in place (30 minimum refresh rate for example), which freesync obviously doesn't have.

[Enderman]

Clearly you're unable to understand that unless the 2 techs are both using the exact same display panel and attempting to push the exact same frames at the exact same time you're not going to get a reliable result no matter what FPS you attempt to film it at. The OP didn't compare 2 identical displays it compared a bunch of random shit for marketing purposes. You should learn not to trust anything any company says about their product being better because of course they want you to buy it.

The difference is that they are not using the same display driver technology. We don't know about which one has greater input lag. We already know gsync has a greater variable fps range. We already know adaptive sync requires DP 1.2a and gsync requires just DP. We already know gsync is hardware controlled while adaptive sync requires more software intervention.

 

When linus compares the two there are DEFINITELY going to be differences. Saying one is better than the other without evidence is what ignorant biased kids say.

Again, you did not read the part about the person I replied to not even reading. Either way, I wasn't talking to you, but you seen to have proven that you're just as much of a closed minded person.

[BiG StroOnZ]

 

Is that final or changes will come along to allow for that max and min refresh range it was mentioned? And what about latency on both, can't find anything about it? You can refer to my 1. comment on this topic also.

 

There is no implementation or planned implementation for 9-240Hz. What they have now is 40-144Hz for a TN Panel or 48-75Hz with an IPS panel. If there is no planned implementation, or no current implementation. Then that would lead you to believe that is final. 

 

Reviewers just got these monitors, expect in depth reviews in a couple of weeks. Along with latency information.

 

 

They didn't lie, there's no freesync monitor that supports 30-144Hz range currently. A direct freesync-Gsync comparison would only be fair if it's the exact same panel (really monitor would be ideal) you're talking about. That specific TN panel only goes from 40-144Hz yes, that doesn't mean all of them will be the same. Nvidia might have some regulations in place (30 minimum refresh rate for example), which freesync obviously doesn't have.

 

How is that not lying? They claim it can do 9-240Hz but G-Sync can only do 30-144Hz. Yet their available panels with FreeSync can only do 40-144Hz for a TN Panel or 48-75Hz with an IPS panel. That's not even close to 9-240Hz. What are you not understanding, are you not reading the quote from PCPer article, take off your red sunglasses for a moment and read: "There are two issues with this. First, FreeSync doesn’t determine the range of variable refresh rates, AdaptiveSync does. Second, AMD is using the maximum and minimum refresh range published by the standards body, not an actual implementation or even a planned implementation from any monitor or display."

[Lord Baal]

The difference is that they are not using the same display driver technology. We don't know about which one has greater input lag. We already know gsync has a greater variable fps range. We already know adaptive sync requires DP 1.2a and gsync requires just DP. We already know gsync is hardware controlled while adaptive sync requires more software intervention.

 

When linus compares the two there are DEFINITELY going to be differences. Saying one is better than the other without evidence is what ignorant biased kids say.

Again, you did not read the part about the person I replied to not even reading. Either way, I wasn't talking to you, but you seen to have proven that you're just as much of a closed minded person.

Actually I've proven you have no idea what you're actually talking about and are just as closed minded as the person you originally ragged on. Without the OP showing Identical panels running at identical frame rates it's completely useless and wasn't worth reading or watching for that matter. 

You clearly fail to understand even when Linus (your god) has both Gsync and FreeSync unless both use identical panels and are tested with systems pushing identical frames at identical times you're not going to get a reliable result about the 2 techs. Linus I'm sure will understand that and probably wont even bother attempting to say which is better not to mention Nvidia has to prove it's $200 better lol. 

[creativename]

Reason 1.It's not  2.U will buy it because its Nvidia 

1. Hardware solutions will most likely be better than software solutions.

That's all these is to it.

[Tonylu1595]

Well I hope they both continue to develop their technologies.

[Zerokx]

Hey guys, this is what company A has to say about the quality of their competitors products, you should check out this interview from which I picked the parts that support my opinion.

[Enderman]

Actually I've proven you have no idea what you're actually talking about and are just as closed minded as the person you originally ragged on. Without the OP showing Identical panels running at identical frame rates it's completely useless and wasn't worth reading or watching for that matter. 

You clearly fail to understand even when Linus (your god) has both Gsync and FreeSync unless both use identical panels and are tested with systems pushing identical frames at identical times you're not going to get a reliable result about the 2 techs. Linus I'm sure will understand that and probably wont even bother attempting to say which is better not to mention Nvidia has to prove it's $200 better lol. 

Try rereading my post, maybe you will be able to come up with a more accurate response next time. Everything I said is a fact, especially the part about you being closed-minded by claiming one is better than the other without having any concrete evidence.

[Lord Baal]

Try rereading my post, maybe you will be able to come up with a more accurate response next time. Everything I said is a fact, especially the part about you being closed-minded by claiming one is better than the other without having any concrete evidence.

I've never once said one is better then the other try again kid. I said there's no evidence either way and said don't believe Nvidia's marketing ploy nothing more. I pointed out the flaws in any potential test of the 2 head to head that you don't seem to be able to grasp. Even the guy you originally quoted didn't say one was better he said Gsyn is no better and you called him closed minded so if anyone's saying one is in fact better it's you lol.

It's ok ignore things you don't understand and carry on with your school day.

[Yoinkerman]

Id like to see round two of freesync before I make a choice.  And round two of gsync.

 

freesync sounds amazing if they  open up the framerate window.  gsync looks great if it wasn't so bloody expensive.

[EcchiRevenge]

 

 

 their driver has to specifically be tuned for each kind of panel. They won’t be able to keep up with the panel variations. We tune our G-Sync module for each monitor

What's the difference other than AMD has to tune drivers while Nvidia has to tune G-sync modules?

[BrianPena]

 

 

 

 

You are both just saying the same thing over and over again and just saying that the other is not reading each others post. Maybe you guys should try reading your own lol.

[Enderman]

I've never once said one is better then the other try again kid. I said there's no evidence either way and said don't believe Nvidia's marketing ploy nothing more. I pointed out the flaws in any potential test of the 2 head to head that you don't seem to be able to grasp. Even the guy you originally quoted didn't say one was better he said Gsyn is no better and you called him closed minded so if anyone's saying one is in fact better it's you lol.

It's ok ignore things you don't understand and carry on with your school day.

 

Are you blind? Did you even read who I was talking to???

 

Reason 1.It's not

[Lord Baal]

Are you blind? Did you even read who I was talking to???

Is English your second language? He said it's not better and there's no evidence it is. Saying one isn't better doesn't mean that the other is better. You've just been going off on a tangent since ignoring all evidence that points out the flaws in any potential test. 

/facepalm 

[BonSie]

Isn't ghosting related to the panels hardware and software implications, not AMDs driver?

I'm pretty sure the driver just sends the image and the monitor has to display it, and if it's done not fast enough, ghosting appears?

[Texhnlyze]

[Enderman]

Is English your second language? He said it's not better and there's no evidence it is. Saying one isn't better doesn't mean that the other is better. You've just been going off on a tangent since ignoring all evidence that points out the flaws in any potential test. 

/facepalm 

Why are you trying to start arguments? You knows that's against the CoC right?

I made my point clear in my first six replies, I don't see why I need to keep writing it out for you each and every time.

Go waste somebody else's time on 4chan or something.

[bogus]

Wasn't Tom the guy who "didn't know" about the 3,5GB of VRAM of the 970?

If someone who doesn't know internally, in his own company,what is going on with their own products, why is his word any good about this? As a matter of fact, why is his word any good about anything?

 

It's also funny he didn't mention the bellow 30Hz on G-Sync behavior. What happens when FPS drop bellow 30 Tom? What happens when 30hz aren't enough and AMD has as low as 9hz solutions in the pipeline?

Go home Tom, you are drunk...

Anyway, clearly Freesync has tickled hard NVIDIA else they wouldn't even comment on it. Red flag right there.

[Opcode]

No it's not, AMD lied and No. When FreeSync is enabled it is limited to 40-144Hz in a TN panel or 48-75Hz in an IPS panel. Read PCPer:

 

"The published refresh rate is more than a bit misleading. AMD claims that FreeSync is rated at 9-240 Hz while G-Sync is only quoted at 30-144 Hz. There are two issues with this. First, FreeSync doesn’t determine the range of variable refresh rates, AdaptiveSync does. Second, AMD is using the maximum and minimum refresh range published by the standards body, not an actual implementation or even a planned implementation from any monitor or display. The 30-144 Hz rating for G-Sync is actually seen in shipping displays today (like the ASUS PG278Q ROG Swift). The FreeSync monitors we have in our office are either 40-144 Hz (TN, 2560x1440) or 48-75 Hz (IPS, 2560x1080); neither of which is close to the 9-240 Hz seen in this table."

 

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

If you keep basing your posts on that shit source it wont be good for your image. The FreeSync window is 9-240 Hz just like AMD advertised. Implementation display side is up to the manufacture as long as it fits within that window in the displays EDID. ASUS could turn around and make a Swift for FreeSync with a 30-144 Hz window and there's nothing stopping them from doing it. Although I guess manufactures took VSYNC into consideration as anything below 40 FPS falls into VSYNC's 30 FPS double buffer territory. I am sure with people pushing feedback for lower refresh rates that we will see them soon enough.

 

Isn't ghosting related to the panels hardware and software implications, not AMDs driver?

I'm pretty sure the driver just sends the image and the monitor has to display it, and if it's done not fast enough, ghosting appears?

Ghosting actually happens from the exact opposite by not giving enough time for the pixels to decay before drawing another image (basically plastering one image over another).

[Octagoncow]

To be honest, I don't really care if one is better than the other. I'm buying a GPU for the raw performance and not if one variable refresh rate is better than the other. I'm also confident that both Nvidia's and AMD's way of handling variable refresh rate will evolve greatly in the next few years.

[Kamina]

I just take v-sync off in MP so don't really care.

[spartaman64]

No it's not, AMD lied and No. When FreeSync is enabled it is limited to 40-144Hz in a TN panel or 48-75Hz in an IPS panel. Read PCPer:

 

"The published refresh rate is more than a bit misleading. AMD claims that FreeSync is rated at 9-240 Hz while G-Sync is only quoted at 30-144 Hz. There are two issues with this. First, FreeSync doesn’t determine the range of variable refresh rates, AdaptiveSync does. Second, AMD is using the maximum and minimum refresh range published by the standards body, not an actual implementation or even a planned implementation from any monitor or display. The 30-144 Hz rating for G-Sync is actually seen in shipping displays today (like the ASUS PG278Q ROG Swift). The FreeSync monitors we have in our office are either 40-144 Hz (TN, 2560x1440) or 48-75 Hz (IPS, 2560x1080); neither of which is close to the 9-240 Hz seen in this table."

 

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

so 1 tn panel is 40-144 and 1 ips is 48-75. well theres an g sync monitor thats only 60 fps so g sync is limited to 60 fps

[SurvivorNVL]

To be honest, I don't really care if one is better than the other. I'm buying a GPU for the raw performance and not if one variable refresh rate is better than the other. I'm also confident that both Nvidia's and AMD's way of handling variable refresh rate will evolve greatly in the next few years.

I think I'm the only one on the planet who is still hoping that Samsung actually debuts their own mobo's, cpu's, and gpu's for the desktop environment.  There was talk awhile ago of them working on their own desktop GPU on I believe 22nm.  How funny would it be.. Samsung is using Freesync now in all their upcoming monitors, and then one day--bam.  

[spartaman64]

I think I'm the only one on the planet who is still hoping that Samsung actually debuts their own mobo's, cpu's, and gpu's for the desktop environment.  There was talk awhile ago of them working on their own desktop GPU on I believe 22nm.  How funny would it be.. Samsung is using Freesync now in all their upcoming monitors, and then one day--bam.  

they can use adaptive sync for their gpus also