The reasons there are so few G-sync monitors compared to FreeSync

[N.tony]

In the last LG monitor review Linus complained, that he'd like to see a G-sync alternative, since nVidia cards are more wide-spread in the price bracket. The reason why there aren't as many options might be beyond "extra costs of the hardware module":

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3129276/components-graphics/why-amd-freesync-is-beating-nvidia-g-sync-on-monitor-selection-and-price.html

 

In summary, the reasons listed by the article author (based on discussions with monitor makers) are the following:

• design costs - extra module, much like the 3.5" jack in an iPhone, would not only be pricey, but would require a lot of extra space, that for some reason is considered a no-no. Clearly, if your FreeSync monitor can be 3mm thinner, a lot of monitor designers wouldn't want to trade it for the opportunity to have a G-sync alternative
• limited flexibility - nVidia G-sync module takes over all color adjustments, which makes it impossible to introduce your own tech for improving the visual quality (I guess HDR tech?)
• too few inputs - G-sync limits the amount of ports and doesn't allow variable refresh rate over HDMI
• nVidia's target audience - nVidia claims they are aiming at the premium end and have no immediate plans of going down to mainstream, charging for the "better experience" as opposed to just the hardware module itself

Quote

For loyal Nvidia customers, the takeaway is clear: If you want G-Sync, be prepared to jump into the deep end of luxury gaming monitors, because the technology isn’t going downmarket anytime soon.

 

[AresKrieger]

He knows that they are less common due to nvidia's practices his point was that AMD doesn't have strong enough cards to drive the screen he was reviewing so using freesync over gsync in that particular case seemed pointless to him

[Mira Yurizaki]

Honestly I'd wish NVIDIA would suck it up and support adaptive sync because then they could have both standards and a leg-up on AMD.

[dragosudeki]

Just now, AresKrieger said:

He knows that they are less common due to nvidia's practices his point was that AMD doesn't have strong enough cards to drive the screen he was reviewing so using freesync over gsync in that particular case seemed pointless to him

To add to that, AMD seems to have focused a lot on the mid-range market, while Nvidia seems to compete with its own cards at the top. Hopefully, we can see more low-end/entry-level FreeSync monitors to go with the mid-range AMD cards.

[alexyy]

Problem with gsync is that it's too locked down and doesn't even allow you to use it with anything other than nvidia hardware. 

[N.tony]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

Honestly I'd wish NVIDIA would suck it up and support adaptive sync because then they could have both standards and a leg-up on AMD.

Well, their reps keep saying "G-sync is a more premium experience", which roughly translates to "we hold the market share, so you have no choice but to pony up"

[Jovidah]

I always thought it was because most men simply couldn't find it...

[Scitesh]

because they are xpensive and you need a physical PCB which is only manufactured bn nVidia while FreeSync is much cheaper to implement

[PlayStation 2]

FreeSync is built into the VESA standard.

G-Sync isn't. It's way easier to implement FreeSync than it is G-Sync under that reason, that and it's way cheaper.

[samcool55]

G-sync, pay more, get less/the same (depending if you care about the color and input thing).

I think that explains it

 

Tbh i'm very happy with freesync, it works great, but not worth 100 bucks.

And the only reason nvidia cards don't support it, is completely up to nvidia.

I understand they want the money back from the r&d or whatever, but at this point there is clearly a winner.

Everyone would benefit if nvidia just goes gg and does what everyone want, but nope...

 

ps: i still believe mobile g-sync is actually freesync but sadly there is so little information known we don't know for sure

[Orcblood]

NVIDIA's a lot like apple. They want you in their closed garden.

There I said it. (Brasses for possible heat).

But honestly come on NVIDIA. Adapt to Adaptive-Sync. 

[Sniperfox47]

The solution? Just buy a dual Titan X build, game at 720p and use fastsync(fast v-sync)! Problem solved! Who needs adaptive sync?

[Mira Yurizaki]

6 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

The solution? Just buy a dual Titan X build, game at 720p and use fastsync(fast v-sync)! Problem solved! Who needs adaptive sync?

Because adaptive sync allows the GPU to control the refresh rate, not the monitor. Even with fast sync, you're limited to the refresh rate and its factors for tear-free video.

 

Fast sync is basically triple buffering v-sync, something that's been around for a while.

[That Norwegian Guy]

8 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

The solution? Just buy a dual Titan X build, game at 720p and use fastsync(fast v-sync)! Problem solved! Who needs adaptive sync?

Input lag

 

I know you were joking, just making sure

[wrath]

And back in the day lots of people said that FreeSync wont survive for long

[Misanthrope]

The answer is actually rather simple: Nvida done fucked up.

[iamdarkyoshi]

Perhaps those with nvidia cards think they can constantly push the max framerates of their displays, eliminating the need for variable refresh rates lol

[Notional]

When companies goes for proprietary technologies to create vendor lock in, all consumers lose.

 

Of nvidia don't want to support adaptive sync, sucks to be their customers. I mean if you want to get a great smooth gaming experience, a 480 + freesync is a lot cheaper than a 1060 + gsync and costs about the same as a 1060 without gsync, but provides a much better experience. And that doesn't even include the inferior colour fidelity of nvidia cards.

 

One point Linus is missing, because he needs to check his reviewer privilege, is that gsync is expensive af, and would easily add an additional 200$ to an already expensive screens.

As for amd's offerings, people don't replace their monitors every other year like he does (for free). Next year amd will have high end cards too, and people buying this monitor will have it by then too. Also it's not a gaming monitor.

[Sniperfox47]

1 hour ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Because adaptive sync allows the GPU to control the refresh rate, not the monitor. Even with fast sync, you're limited to the refresh rate and its factors for tear-free video.

 

Fast sync is basically triple buffering v-sync, something that's been around for a while.

I know. I was being facetious. Fast sync solves the tearing/latency problem iff and only iff your frame rate is substantially higher than the screen's refresh rate. Hence my suggestion for a $4000 PC playing at 720p. I know it doesn't replace g-sync/freesync but rather supplement them (g-/free-sync for when frame rate is low, fastsync for when it's high). Sorry for my poor sense of humor xP

[Sniperfox47]

1 hour ago, That Norwegian Guy said:

Input lag

 

I know you were joking, just making sure

Hence fast-sync and not vsync. It adds a tiny ammount of the input lag that vsync would have as long as the frame rate is substantially higher than the screen's refresh rate. Below the screen's refresh rate it turns off, for use with gsync, or degrades into traditional vsync.

[Bensemus]

6 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

FreeSync is built into the VESA standard.

 

FreeSync is AMD's tech. It's using adaptive sync which is part of the VESA standard. Nvidia needs to support adaptive sync, not FreeSync.

[Praesi]

You Guys should feel Gsync for yourself bevore judge it.

[Notional]

1 hour ago, Praesi said:

You Guys should feel Gsync for yourself bevore judge it.

It's the same with Freesync. They do the exact same thing.

[Samfisher]

11 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

FreeSync is built into the VESA standard.

G-Sync isn't. It's way easier to implement FreeSync than it is G-Sync under that reason, that and it's way cheaper.

FreeSync is built into an OPTIONAL VESA standard.  You do NOT need FreeSync support to be VESA certified.

 

19 minutes ago, Notional said:

It's the same with Freesync. They do the exact same thing.

IIRC FreeSync has a much more limited FPS range where it will work flawlessly whereas G-Sync works to whatever the max refresh rate of the panel is.

[YongKang]

8 hours ago, Notional said:

One point Linus is missing, because he needs to check his reviewer privilege, is that gsync is expensive af, and would easily add an additional 200$ to an already expensive screens.

As for amd's offerings, people don't replace their monitors every other year like he does (for free).

It feels like Linus these days are focusing on the unicorns while giving some average gamer affordable stuff for Luke to review. I actually like Luke reviewing the midrange cards but the scope of linustechtips have moved on since they moved their company.