Dissecting G-Sync and FreeSync - How the Technologies Differ

[werto165]

 

Didn't really know where to post this but I thought it would be best here as I feel a lot of misinformation is about, hopefully PC per can shed some light on it. I don't have time at the moment to watch it but I thought I might as well post it. 

 

There is an article to go along with it, probably builds on what is said in the video: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Dissecting-G-Sync-and-FreeSync-How-Technologies-Differ

[ivan134]

[Alemagno31]

Great video and analysis. Didn´t know that both Gsync and FreeSync had that "minimum Fps" thing...
After this analysis I wouldn´t hesitate to go for a Gsync monitor, just beacause frame dips are VERY usual in gaming, no matter what rig u have.

I really REALLY wish AMD can fix this difference between technologies through drivers and offer the same experience as Nvidia´s Gsync. 

[dragosudeki]

Summary of video : Going into GSync and FreeSync by experimenting what happens below the lower bound of the variable refresh rate range. GSync's module seems to redraw frames when it is waiting too long to draw the next. As a result, when you get a lower fps, it still feels smooth. FreeSync's implementation did not have this, resulting into the juttery experience.

 

Opinion:

I'm still kinda confused. I mean, AMD just sorta revealed to us about the variable refresh rate. Wouldn't the solution to this be up to the manufacturers to improve their module to deal with it? The real difference between GSync and FreeSync in my opinion is that Nvidia sorta did the solution (for a price of course) for the monitor companies to just put in. FreeSync just sorta seems like that they said here is a way to have variable refresh rate, so monitor companies just do what they want with it (probably why we see all this different possible ranges for refresh rates). Regardless, I still want to see one of these technologies, so I can see how smooth the experience is.

[PopReference]

Cool, I was wondering exactly what they meant by handling the lower end better. Good to have an actually through explanation available. It's to bad that the first monitors available with Adaptive Sync are not well implemented, really hope the next few to release address these problems better.

[iPhoenix]

This is a very interesting comparison.  

 

I think the more important discussion is to figure out where the industry is headed.  Basically I'd love to see where G-Sync 2.0 and FreeSync 2.0 take us.  

 

First generation is never something that you should jump on. 

[Doobeedoo]

Summary of video : Going into GSync and FreeSync by experimenting what happens below the lower bound of the variable refresh rate range. GSync's module seems to redraw frames when it is waiting too long to draw the next. As a result, when you get a lower fps, it still feels smooth. FreeSync's implementation did not have this, resulting into the juttery experience.

 

Opinion:

I'm still kinda confused. I mean, AMD just sorta revealed to us about the variable refresh rate. Wouldn't the solution to this be up to the manufacturers to improve their module to deal with it? The real difference between GSync and FreeSync in my opinion is that Nvidia sorta did the solution (for a price of course) for the monitor companies to just put in. FreeSync just sorta seems like that they said here is a way to have variable refresh rate, so monitor companies just do what they want with it (probably why we see all this different possible ranges for refresh rates). Regardless, I still want to see one of these technologies, so I can see how smooth the experience is.

Yeah, monitor manufacturers are like lazy and whatever...

[euniqe]

GG Freesync. 

 

Imo the two companies should stop this "war" they have against each other and just collaborate to produce an ACTUALLY "FREE" variable refresh technology using the best parts of both the existing technologies. 

 

nVidia has nothing to lose as they have the bigger market share anyway, and AMD has nothing to lose as it means more people who would otherwise buy a g-sync monitor because it's obviously a better technology can now use AMD cards with it. 

 

makes sense to me.

[BobbyG2]

Yeah, gsync handles low frames rates better than freesync right now. Thanks pcper for the thorough explanation.

Hopefully AMD can fix it through drivers.

[ACatWithThumbs]

Yeah, gsync handles low frames rates better than freesync right now. Thanks pcper for the thorough explanation.

Hopefully AMD can fix it through drivers.

I don't think they can fix it that simple as I understand the G-Sync module has its own storage in which it saves the last frame to allow for what they do at low frame rates.

In theory you could do that over your PC but that would mean you have to give up some Vram/Ram and I don't think anyone wants that.

 

[Notional]

I don't think they can fix it that simple as I understand the G-Sync module has its own storage in which it saves the last frame to allow for what they do at low frame rates.

In theory you could do that over your PC but that would mean you have to give up some Vram/Ram and I don't think anyone wants that.

 

Should not be a problem. 1 frame does not take up that much. That is what a buffer is already, so you might not even notice. Now that the secret is out, AMD just needs to get going, because it is a nice way Gsync deals with this.

[Slow N Stupid]

GG Freesync. 

 

Imo the two companies should stop this "war" they have against each other and just collaborate to produce an ACTUALLY "FREE" variable refresh technology using the best parts of both the existing technologies. 

 

nVidia has nothing to lose as they have the bigger market share anyway, and AMD has nothing to lose as it means more people who would otherwise buy a g-sync monitor because it's obviously a better technology can now use AMD cards with it. 

 

makes sense to me.

this would actually be bad for us (consumers)... Lack of competetion will result in lack of innovations/price war/progress in technology

Like how a world war (a real one where ppl dies and stuff?) sling us 10 years forward in term of technology, a competetion will always make things progress faster

[Mattk50]

this would actually be bad for us (consumers)... Lack of competetion will result in lack of innovations/price war/progress in technology

Like how a world war (a real one where ppl dies and stuff?) sling us 10 years forward in term of technology, a competetion will always make things progress faster

Leave it to the internet to make an argument for an open standard being anti consumer.

[ThreePinkApples]

That was a really good video. Nice to see what actually happens.

With the Adaptive-Sync standard going all from 9hz to 240hz I would suspect AMD was hoping for a wider refresh range. Personally I think all Adaptive-Sync screens should work down to 20hz, or at least 24hz. Then the higher end ones could try to reach further (but is it really any point in that?)

 

Hopefully AMD can implement a driver solution for it until the panels get better. But if they make a solution for it, that might cause the panel makers to not strive for better range. Tough choice.

That's a little downside to Freesync that it is up to the manufacturers how good the Freesync part of it is. It could end up hurting AMD if many displays don't go down further than 40 (or 45 as some stops at now), open standards are good, but can be a bit risky for the company.

 

Let's hope we see 20-144hz (IPS) screens soon

[peanutsrevenge]

So the tl;dr for those that didn't already know.... G-Sync's more mature than FreeSync.

[rattacko123]

Great video and analysis. Didn´t know that both Gsync and FreeSync had that "minimum Fps" thing...

After this analysis I wouldn´t hesitate to go for a Gsync monitor, just beacause frame dips are VERY usual in gaming, no matter what rig u have.

I really REALLY wish AMD can fix this difference between technologies through drivers and offer the same experience as Nvidia´s Gsync. 

They (AMD) could just double the framerate once it reaches 1/2 of the monitors max refresh rate, then multiply it by 3-4 once it reaches 1/4 of the framerate and so on. All they need to do to do that is detect the monitors max refresh rate, and that is easy to detect.

[Notional]

They (AMD) could just double the framerate once it reaches 1/2 of the monitors max refresh rate, then multiply it by 3-4 once it reaches 1/4 of the framerate and so on. All they need to do to do that is detect the monitors max refresh rate, and that is easy to detect.

 

Indeed. Actually the Adaptive Sync standard, has a handshake standard, that makes the monitor tell the graphics card, what min/max hz are supported by the monitor. I would love for AMD to make such an implementation in the freesync drivers, as NVidia's solution is quite nice.

[Bensemus]

So the tl;dr for those that didn't already know.... G-Sync's more mature than FreeSync.

It's not more mature it was implemented better. The swift and the monitor that was upgradable are using the original g-sync module and are performing better under the lower limit.

[Sky Daddy]

so gsync handles lower fps better and frame caps you if you go over the limit?

 

meh, I never allow my games to dip below 50 and i can just cap my fps/vsync/increase graphics to stay in freesync range 

 

victory, imo, goes to freesync monitors for value

[spartaman64]

Yeah, gsync handles low frames rates better than freesync right now. Thanks pcper for the thorough explanation.

Hopefully AMD can fix it through drivers.

the redrawing frames is already built into the displayport spec. i think amd just wanted to release free sync as fast as possible and they are probably going to implement it later