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

[Opcode]

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

It's amusing that PcPer actually did CES coverage on a display that is FreeSync capable the ASUS MG279Q which has a 1440p IPS display with a range of 40-120 Hz.

 

[ACatWithThumbs]

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.

 

You're missing his point.

Those numbers are simply not doable with the VESA standard so yes AMD is lying.

They might support it at the software side but it has nothing to do with the reality of them needing extra R&D as well as hardware on the panel to make it even possible.

Which also makes the whole Freesync name stupid because if you want a better experience you'll need a better panel as well as extra hardware on the controller side which will make the monitor way more expensive.

The reality right now is that Freesync doesn't offer the same experience as G-Sync that's a fact and there is nothing to argue about until we get a Freesync Monitor with the same 30-144hz range at the same or lower price.

[BiG StroOnZ]

 

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.

 

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).

 

So now PCPerspective is a shit source? Saying that won't be good for your image either and proves you really are blind by your own ignorance. PCPerspective is very reliable. The FreeSync Window is not 9-240Hz. There is no monitor planned that will be capable of doing 9-240Hz. There is no current monitor that does 9-240Hz. It does 40-144Hz for a TN Panel or 48-75Hz with an IPS panel. Those are the facts. There are other monitors planned, but they are also in the 40-144Hz range. I bet you didn't even read the article. 

 

 

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

 

Did you even read the article? This is a FreeSync limitation, "Let’s talk about that first: the 48-75 Hz range, with the 75 Hz being the limit of this panel, is rather narrow. That only gives us a 26 Hz window where the variable frame rate capability of FreeSync can actually work and function. When you game runs at 75 FPS or above, and at 48 FPS and below, you are no longer seeing the benefits of tear-free and stutter-free gaming and instead are going to be forced to use the VSync on/off settings that we discussed above. Why is this range so narrow? This is partly due to the implementation of FreeSync on an IPS panel" There are other monitors planned. But they also abide by the same limitations, of 40-144Hz for TN or 48-75Hz for IPS. This is how it is right now, there is nothing else planned.

 

It's amusing that PcPer actually did CES coverage on a display that is FreeSync capable the ASUS MG279Q which has a 1440p IPS display with a range of 40-120 Hz.

 

 

That's not an IPS, but an IPS "type" panel which usually means AHVA-IPS panel, and of course it sports "minimum refresh rate around 40Hz, and maximum of 120Hz"

 

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/asus-mg279q-27-120hz-ips-panel-gets-vrr.html

 

Which means not "9-240Hz"

[spartaman64]

 

 

 

So now PCPerspective is a shit source? Saying that won't be good for your image either and proves you really are blind by your own ignorance. PCPerspective is very reliable. The FreeSync Window is not 9-240Hz. There is no monitor planned that will be capable of doing 9-240Hz. There is no current monitor that does 9-240Hz. It does 40-144Hz for a TN Panel or 48-75Hz with an IPS panel. Those are the facts. There are other monitors planned, but they are also in the 40-144Hz range. I bet you didn't even read the article. 

 

 

 

Did you even read the article? This is a FreeSync limitation, "Let’s talk about that first: the 48-75 Hz range, with the 75 Hz being the limit of this panel, is rather narrow. That only gives us a 26 Hz window where the variable frame rate capability of FreeSync can actually work and function. When you game runs at 75 FPS or above, and at 48 FPS and below, you are no longer seeing the benefits of tear-free and stutter-free gaming and instead are going to be forced to use the VSync on/off settings that we discussed above. Why is this range so narrow? This is partly due to the implementation of FreeSync on an IPS panel" There are other monitors planned. But they also abide by the same limitations, of 40-144Hz for TN or 48-75Hz for IPS. This is how it is right now, there is nothing else planned.

 

amd said 9-240hz and i think amd knows about that better than anyone including some random person writing an article

[BiG StroOnZ]

amd said 9-240hz and i think amd knows about that better than anyone including some random person writing an article

 

Did you even read the article, omg, you are so ignorant, "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.

[PopReference]

You're missing his point.

Those numbers are simply not doable with the VESA standard so yes AMD is lying.

They might support it at the software side but it has nothing to do with the reality of them needing extra R&D as well as hardware on the panel to make it even possible.

Which also makes the whole Freesync name stupid because if you want a better experience you'll need a better panel as well as extra hardware on the controller side which will make the monitor way more expensive.

The reality right now is that Freesync doesn't offer the same experience as G-Sync that's a fact and there is nothing to argue about until we get a Freesync Monitor with the same 30-144hz range at the same or lower price.

So now PCPerspective is a shit source? Saying that won't be good for your image either and proves you really are blind by your own ignorance. PCPerspective is very reliable. The FreeSync Window is not 9-240Hz. There is no monitor planned that will be capable of doing 9-240Hz. There is no current monitor that does 9-240Hz. It does 40-144Hz for a TN Panel or 48-75Hz with an IPS panel. Those are the facts. There are other monitors planned, but they are also in the 40-144Hz range. I bet you didn't even read the article. 

 

 

 

Did you even read the article? This is a FreeSync limitation, "Let’s talk about that first: the 48-75 Hz range, with the 75 Hz being the limit of this panel, is rather narrow. That only gives us a 26 Hz window where the variable frame rate capability of FreeSync can actually work and function. When you game runs at 75 FPS or above, and at 48 FPS and below, you are no longer seeing the benefits of tear-free and stutter-free gaming and instead are going to be forced to use the VSync on/off settings that we discussed above. Why is this range so narrow? This is partly due to the implementation of FreeSync on an IPS panel" There are other monitors planned. But they also abide by the same limitations, of 40-144Hz for TN or 48-75Hz for IPS. This is how it is right now, there is nothing else planned.

 

 

That's not an IPS, but an IPS "type" panel which usually means AHVA-IPS panel, and of course it sports "minimum refresh rate around 40Hz, and maximum of 120Hz"

 

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/asus-mg279q-27-120hz-ips-panel-gets-vrr.html

 

Which means not "9-240Hz"

Tom Peterson seems to disagree with those statements however. This is pull from the op source:

Forbes: Let’s talk about the minimum response times that both G-Sync and Adaptive Sync support.

Tom Petersen: “First of all, the spec ‘Adaptive Sync’ has no minimum. Both have the ability to communicate any range, so there’s nothing about the base specs that are different. What’s interesting though, is the reason there are panel-specific refresh limits. LCD images decay after a refresh, you kinda paint the screen and it slowly fades. That fade is just related to the panel. The reason there’s an Adaptive Sync spec and G-Sync module is because that lower limit is variable depending on the technology inside the panel. But games don’t know about that! So what do you do when a game has a lower FPS than the minimum rate you want to run your panel? Because when they run below that minimum rate things start to flicker, and that’s a horrible experience.”

[BiG StroOnZ]

Tom Peterson seems to disagree with those statements however. This is pull from the op source:

 

He's just talking about the standards set by VESA

[Opcode]

So now PCPerspective is a shit source? Saying that won't be good for your image either and proves you really are blind by your own ignorance. PCPerspective is very reliable. The FreeSync Window is not 9-240Hz. There is no monitor planned that will be capable of doing 9-240Hz. There is no current monitor that does 9-240Hz. It does 40-144Hz for a TN Panel or 48-75Hz with an IPS panel. Those are the facts. There are other monitors planned, but they are also in the 40-144Hz range. I bet you didn't even read the article. 

They've been discredited world wide across the web for that very review (I urge you to look around). You're missing the point blatantly. The FreeSync window is 9-240 Hz meaning any monitor that comes out within that window of adaptive refresh will be supported. If a company launched a 9-240 Hz adaptive refresh display tomorrow it would be supported by AMD's driver. It doesn't necessarily mean that there will be one. I also urge you to look at my post a few posts up because that is an IPS panel with a 40-120 Hz adaptive refresh range that will work with FreeSync. Which is the true beauty of FreeSync as this display has never even correlated with AMD and yet it's still supported.

[spartaman64]

He's just talking about the standards set by VESA

ok make up your mind is amd free sync limiting the displays or is VESA adaptive sync limiting the displays

[Dabombinable]

-snip

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.

-snip-

This actually makes me wonder what panel type my old 15" 1024x768 screen uses, because its got a flat 85Hz refresh rate, and is capable of handling images up to VGA's limit (its effectively designed to mimic a CRT display, except for the fact that the 15" CRT monitor I have is 1024x768 and only goes up to 60Hz).

[BiG StroOnZ]

They've been discredited world wide across the web for that very review (I urge you to look around). You're missing the point blatantly. The FreeSync window is 9-240 Hz meaning any monitor that comes out within that window of adaptive refresh will be supported. If a company launched a 9-240 Hz adaptive refresh display tomorrow it would be supported by AMD's driver. It doesn't necessarily mean that there will be one. I also urge you to look at my post a few posts up because that is an IPS panel with a 40-120 Hz adaptive refresh range that will work with FreeSync. Which is the true beauty of FreeSync as this display has never even correlated with AMD and yet its supported. Seems like we got a die hard Nvidia "enthusiast" here boys.

 

Source required for such a statement. You have a tendency to urge people to look around but you never provide any source of such information. No you're missing the point. AMD Is touting this FreeSync as being able to do 9-240Hz and that is their counter against NVIDIA's G-Sync. That's what they are doing in their advertising. Saying look G-Sync can only do 30-144Hz, while Freesync can do 9-240Hz. Except the problem is there is no monitors planned anytime in the near future with a window of 9-240Hz and there are no monitors that are capable of doing 9-240Hz. Which is entirely misleading. The number 9-240Hz is a VESA standard publicized for AdaptiveSync.

 

It's not a true IPS Panel, it is an "IPS Type" panel: http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/asus-mg279q-27-120hz-ips-panel-gets-vrr.html

 

Which usually means AHVA-IPS, which is why it is capable of 120Hz. But look at the window. It's still 40-120Hz. It's not 9-240Hz. So like I said before, entire misrepresentation of the truth. 

 

If I'm a die hard NVIDIA fan, then you are clearly the world's biggest AMD fan because you can't even admit when AMD is stretching the truth about FreeSync.

[BiG StroOnZ]

ok make up your mind is amd free sync limiting the displays or is VESA adaptive sync limiting the displays

I really hope you are not serious here. VESA published a standard for what the window would be for Variable Refresh Rate technology called AdaptiveSync it was 9-240Hz. AMD is using that standard set, to make it seem like they actually have monitors capable of handling those refresh rates. When in actuality there are no monitors available that can do such refresh rates. What is so hard to understand here? They are using it as a tactic to make it seem like it is far superior than G-Sync when there are no monitors capable of delivering 9-240Hz.

[ErickS89]

Sure G-sync is better, but isn't freesync just a software solution?

[spartaman64]

I really hope you are not serious here. VESA published a standard for what the window would be for Variable Refresh Rate technology called AdaptiveSync it was 9-240Hz. AMD is using that standard set, to make it seem like they actually have monitors capable of handling those refresh rates. When in actuality there are no monitors available that can do such refresh rates. What is so hard to understand here? They are using it as a tactic to make it seem like it is far superior than G-Sync when there are no monitors capable of delivering 9-240Hz.

ok so amd free sync is limiting it thank you thats all i needed now to debunk you ill ask that question in the next partner conference

[BiG StroOnZ]

ok so amd free sync is limiting it thank you thats all i needed now to debunk you ill ask that question in the next partner conference

 

What are you talking about? I never said AMD Free Sync is limiting are you even reading what I'm writing?

[Opcode]

Source required for such a statement. You have a tendency to urge people to look around but you never provide any source of such information. No you're pissing the point. AMD Is touting this FreeSync as being able to do 9-240Hz and that is their counter against NVIDIA's G-Sync. That's what they are doing in their advertising. Say look G-Sync can only do 30-144Hz, while Freesync can do 9-240Hz. Except the problem is there is no monitors planned anytime in the near future with a window of 9-240Hz and there are no monitors that are capable of doing 9-240Hz. Which is entirely misleading. The number 9-240Hz is a VESA standard publicized for AdaptiveSync.

 

It's not a true IPS Panel, it is an "IPS Type" panel: http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/asus-mg279q-27-120hz-ips-panel-gets-vrr.html

 

Which usually means AHVA-IPS, which is why it is capable of 120Hz. But look at the window. It's still 40-120Hz. It's not 9-240Hz. So like I said before, entire misrepresentation of the truth. 

 

If I'm a die hard NVIDIA fan, then you are clearly the world's biggest AMD fan because you can't even admit when AMD is stretching the truth about FreeSync.

You want a source for something that I can't source to? Seems legit. AMD has proposed that 9-240 Hz is the viable refresh rate window. Any display that falls within that window will be supported. I think you're getting your jimmies in a bunch thinking that a 9-240 Hz display exists. This is not what AMD marketed nor what the 9-240 Hz means on their slide. This is why you're getting criticized so much in your own thread by numerous people. To further debunk your theory here's some word from Robert Hallock.

 

Q: What is the supported range of refresh rates with FreeSync and DisplayPort™ Adaptive-Sync?

A: AMD Radeon™ graphics cards will support a wide variety of dynamic refresh ranges with Project FreeSync. Using DisplayPort™ Adaptive-Sync, the graphics card can detect and set an appropriate maximum and minimum refresh rate based on the capabilities reported by the display. Potential ranges include 36-240Hz, 21-144Hz, 17-120Hz and 9-60Hz

 

So their slide stands true with the numbers 9-240 Hz. And come on with that "not a true IPS display" you're at the point of strawmanning to avoid all the criticism.

 

I'm not a fanboy in any way I just enjoy correcting people because fabricated information is always bad information.

[spartaman64]

What are you talking about? I never said AMD Free Sync is limiting are you even reading what I'm writing?

? im super confused what is limiting then the monitor? so you are blaming it on amd that manufacturers dont make 144hz 4k ips monitors

[Toddwjp]

Sure G-sync is better, but isn't freesync just a software solution?

 

free sync is hardware based just the hardware is part of the display port connector and chip 

[Dabombinable]

-snip-
 

[Sunako]

 

 

Q: How are DisplayPort™ Adaptive-Sync and Project FreeSync different?

A: DisplayPort™ Adaptive-Sync is an ingredient DisplayPort™ feature that enables real-time adjustment of monitor refresh rates required by technologies like Project FreeSync. Project FreeSync is a unique AMD hardware/software solution that utilizes DisplayPort™ Adaptive-Sync protocols to enable user-facing benefits: smooth, tearing-free and low-latency gameplay and video.

Q: When can I buy a monitor compatible with Project FreeSync?

A: AMD has undertaken every necessary effort to enable Project FreeSync in the display ecosystem. Monitor vendors are now integrating the DisplayPort™ Adaptive-Sync specification and productizing compatible displays. AMD is working closely with these vendors to bring products to market, and we expect compatible monitors within 6-12 months. 

Q: What is the supported range of refresh rates with FreeSync and DisplayPort™ Adaptive-Sync?

A: AMD Radeon™ graphics cards will support a wide variety of dynamic refresh ranges with Project FreeSync. Using DisplayPort™ Adaptive-Sync, the graphics card can detect and set an appropriate maximum and minimum refresh rate based on the capabilities reported by the display. Potential ranges include 36-240Hz, 21-144Hz, 17-120Hz and 9-60Hz.

 

Even thou this is very old is show that the limit that AMD is quoting is the min and max ranges of input for the adaptive sync range. This is  by nature the result of the panel tech behind it.

 

   Free-sync does what it says it does. Does it do this as well as other implementations NO.   Free-sync still has a long ways to come it is no where near as mature as G-sync  at this point in time.

But AMD knowingly allowed these monitors to have the  branding  Free-sync with  the limitations of the low end refresh rate known. So the bad  exp  with the low  FPS limit on the VRR is warented

the ghosting and other lighting features not working when Free-sync is on can probly be fix easily  with from diver changes for each specific monitor.

[miagisan]

ok make up your mind is amd free sync limiting the displays or is VESA adaptive sync limiting the displays

oh god, the ignorance....it burns!

 

Seriously...i hope you were trolling with that comment.

[BiG StroOnZ]

 

You want a source for something that I can't source to? Seems legit. AMD has proposed that 9-240 Hz is the viable refresh rate window. Any display that falls within that window will be supported. I think you're getting your jimmies in a bunch thinking that a 9-240 Hz display exists. This is not what AMD marketed nor what the 9-240 Hz means on their slide. This is why you're getting criticized so much in your own thread by numerous people. To further debunk your theory here's some word from Robert Hallock.

 

Q: What is the supported range of refresh rates with FreeSync and DisplayPort™ Adaptive-Sync?
A: AMD Radeon™ graphics cards will support a wide variety of dynamic refresh ranges with Project FreeSync. Using DisplayPort™ Adaptive-Sync, the graphics card can detect and set an appropriate maximum and minimum refresh rate based on the capabilities reported by the display. Potential ranges include 36-240Hz, 21-144Hz, 17-120Hz and 9-60Hz

 

So their slide stands true with the numbers 9-240 Hz. And come on with that "not a true IPS display" you're at the point of strawmanning to avoid all the criticism.

 

I'm not a fanboy in any way I just enjoy correcting people because fabricated information is always bad information.

 

You make a baseless claim that PCPerspective is an unreliable source for information, because of that article. I ask you to provide me with a source, as to why, when you claim outright that "They've been discredited world wide across the web for that very review " then you can't even give me a source. Please. How convenient for you. That's not what AMD marketed? Are you sure:

 

 

Looks like it right there they are trying to make it seem like FreeSync is currently capable of delivering 9-240Hz comparing it to G-Syncs' 30-144Hz. 

 

I'm getting criticized in my thread because half of you cannot even read, and you just reply without reading thoroughly like most children do.

 

Robert Hallock is giving speculative numbers, which is clearly why he uses the word "potential" which means a possibility. These numbers he gives is not indicative of the panels that currently exist, which will allow such refresh rates to be achieved.

 

Maybe if you knew a little bit about monitors which clearly you don't you would realize that is not a strawman argument, and you would realize that AHVA panels are not considered true IPS panels. They are a variation of IPS. Which is why they are able to do up to 120Hz which true IPS panels cannot do. 

 

If fabricated information is always bad information, then wheres the information provided that proves "They've been discredited world wide across the web for that very review."

 

 

? im super confused what is limiting then the monitor? so you are blaming it on amd that manufacturers dont make 144hz 4k ips monitors

 

What are you not understanding. AMD says their FreeSync can do 9-240Hz, but there are no planned panels that are capable of delivering such refresh rates or any in existence today. 

[spartaman64]

 

 

 

 

What are you not understanding. AMD says their FreeSync can do 9-240Hz, but there are no planned panels that are capable of delivering such refresh rates or any in existence today. 

 

 

 

so its amd's fault that manufacturers are not making 240hz 4k ips monitors

[spartaman64]

oh god, the ignorance....it burns!

 

Seriously...i hope you were trolling with that comment.

first he says that amd is limiting performance next he says VESA is limiting performance

[BiG StroOnZ]

 

so its amd's fault that manufacturers are not making 240hz 4k ips monitors

 

If you are going to present to the public that your product is better than the competitors because it has superior variable refresh rate coverage, you better be able to back up your claims. This not the case though. From the monitors we see, they are no where near the window AMD publicized and are advertising. 

 

first he says that amd is limiting performance next he says VESA is limiting performance

 

No I didn't you just aren't reading and at this point I'm 100% sure you are a troll.