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

[Belgarathian]

I called this about 3 years ago... AMD/RTG's open source projects were going to be its revivial, and now we have Freesync and DX12/Vulkan. 

[Notional]

1 hour ago, Samfisher said:

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.

Depends on the monitor and it's controller alone. You can get 35-144hz Freesync monitors. With Low Framerate Compensation, it can go as low as Gsync.

[Shahnewaz]

Not surprised G-Sync is facing a grim fate. Its design and implementation is fundamentally inferior to any form of Adaptive Sync. There is no denial in that.

[Samfisher]

5 minutes ago, Notional said:

Depends on the monitor and it's controller alone. You can get 35-144hz Freesync monitors. With Low Framerate Compensation, it can go as low as Gsync.

Yeah, but when you add asterisks to their supported FPS ranges, the amount of monitors with the same specs as G-Sync falls as well.

[Notional]

1 minute ago, Samfisher said:

Yeah, but when you add asterisks to their supported FPS ranges, the amount of monitors with the same specs as G-Sync falls as well.

That's a different issue, that has nothing to do with Freesync as tech or standard.

[Samfisher]

Just now, Notional said:

That's a different issue, that has nothing to do with Freesync as tech or standard.

When the experience you get using different monitors with the same technology varying to such a wild degree, it's hardly what I call a standard.

[Notional]

Just now, Samfisher said:

When the experience you get using different monitors with the same technology varying to such a wild degree, it's hardly what I call a standard.

How vendors decide to implement the standard is up to them. If you want a monitor to support a certain interval, you buy the ones that do. And the money you save compared to a similar gsync monitor, can buy you a model higher of GPU.

[Praesi]

2 hours ago, Notional said:

How vendors decide to implement the standard is up to them. If you want a monitor to support a certain interval, you buy the ones that do. And the money you save compared to a similar gsync monitor, can buy you a model higher of GPU.

Gsync is superior,  you pay more. Not what i want, but thats how it works.

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, Praesi said:

Gsync is superior,  you pay more. Not what i want, but thats how it works.

Hardly, its proprietary so it was inferior from the beginning... And as it was mentioned above it cant offer anything that justifies the hefty premium you have to pay for it.

[Praesi]

19 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Hardly, its proprietary so it was inferior from the beginning... And as it was mentioned above it cant offer anything that justifies the hefty premium you have to pay for it.

Like i said before, dont judge things you have not experienced yourself. 

[Stefan1024]

It's very simple:

i don't buy Gsync monitors at all, wait a few years to get freesync widespead into the market and they nvidia will have to support it. But if we keep buying gsync monitors nvida will abuse it's market share and refuse to implement freesync (it's probably not that big of an effort and there are no HW limitations as far as I know).

 

And @LinusTech: you better complain about nvidia not supporting freesync rather than blaiming AMD. At least they have some sence in prieceing.

[Sakkura]

16 hours ago, 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

A Fury X can drive the monitor well enough when Freesync is there to keep FPS drops from feeling too bad. Also, normal people keep their monitors for several years, so the fact that your current AMD card might not drive it to uber-ultra settings in every game isn't that important.

5 hours ago, Samfisher said:

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.

Nah, mostly Freesync can just vary more depending on the implementation - that's the thing with freedom.

[Samfisher]

4 hours ago, Notional said:

How vendors decide to implement the standard is up to them. If you want a monitor to support a certain interval, you buy the ones that do. And the money you save compared to a similar gsync monitor, can buy you a model higher of GPU.

Freedom sure, but with G-Sync you get a guaranteed experience no matter which panel you buy.  And it's not like Freesync monitor makers even regularly tell you the workable Freesync range which leads to the drama about the LG panel a few months/years back.

[raphidy]

I haven't jump in the adaptive sync wagon, I'll just buy powerful gpu to blow fps counts. But yeah, i agree that we should have a standard for both manufacturer. 

[jagdtigger]

2 hours ago, Praesi said:

Like i said before, dont judge things you have not experienced yourself. 

Dont repeat the same thing, its overpriced and proprietary so i dont care. Plus as it was mentioned it limits  the monitors functionality if it is built in...

[Praesi]

27 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Dont repeat the same thing, its overpriced and proprietary so i dont care. Plus as it was mentioned it limits  the monitors functionality if it is built in...

I wouldn't care with a low end AMD Card either.

[Notional]

5 hours ago, Praesi said:

Gsync is superior,  you pay more. Not what i want, but thats how it works.

In what way is gsync superior? What can Gsync do, that Freesync cannot? Being proprietary just means it costs more, and if you read the article, the vendors outright say they cannot implement their own features, so a gsync monitor can do less than a freesync.

3 hours ago, Samfisher said:

Freedom sure, but with G-Sync you get a guaranteed experience no matter which panel you buy.  And it's not like Freesync monitor makers even regularly tell you the workable Freesync range which leads to the drama about the LG panel a few months/years back.

I agree with gsync having a minimum feature set, which is great. But you do pay 100-200$ premium for it. This is always a "problem" with open standards. Vendors can simply do a subpar implementation. That just means it's a bad product, not a bad standard. It's why AMD don't allow every Adaptive Sync monitor to use the Freesync branding. Speaking of AMD, they have a page, that do show the Freesync intervals, so a little googling and it's easy to find. I do agree all vendors should just put it in specs, but the good ones tends to do just that.

As for the LG panel, it's because they went from 8 bit colour to 8+2bit frc colour. FRC works by simulating a colour, by strobing the 2 colours that "sandwich" it. Thus you fake a colour the panel cannot natively produce. That means a pixel takes longer to show it's colour and change to the next. I assume that is why it only goes down to 48hz. But if you notice, you cannot get any Gsync monitor with the newest LG ultrawide panel. At least with Freesync you get a choice.

[jagdtigger]

26 minutes ago, Praesi said:

I wouldn't care with a low end AMD Card either.

So now you picking on my PC, hmmm.... You know not everybody is so full of money like you that they can buy the newest overpriced nvidia card. There is literally nothing that g-sync can offer over freesync(yes there are some differences in the usable fps range between manufacturers and models but that can be looked up while you do the routine snooping before you buy a monitor so i guess this argument is irrelevant).

[CyanideInsanity]

8 minutes ago, Notional said:

In what way is gsync superior? What can Gsync do, that Freesync cannot?

Frequency doubling/tripling is all I can think of. But that really isn't a benefit seeing as when the framerate gets down to about 30fps I'd argue that VRR is the least of your worries.

[Notional]

Just now, CyanideInsanity said:

Hz doubling/tripling is all I can think of. But that really isn't a benefit seeing as when the framerate gets down to about 30fps I'd argue that VRR is the least of your worries.

Freesync's Low Framerate Compensation does that too. At least doubling, idk. about tripling, but if you go under 24fps, I doubt tearing is your problem.

[CyanideInsanity]

Just now, Notional said:

Freesync's Low Framerate Compensation does that too. At least doubling, idk. about tripling, but if you go under 24fps, I doubt tearing is your problem.

Honestly I haven't kept up with freesync so I'm quite out of the loop with it. Had a gtx 760, and now a 1080 so no freesync for me...

[Sniperfox47]

GSync is technically superior to a bad adaptive sync implementation.

GSync us technically inferior to a great adaptive sync implementation.

GSync is on par with a good adaptive sync implementation but costs $100-200 more.

 

I've used both GSync and freesync, and both of them have their pros and cons. Honestly, about the only real major benefit I see in either is that adaptive sync is an open standard.

 

 

[bigneo]

9 hours ago, Samfisher said:

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.

 

"...G-Sync works to whatever the max refresh rate of the panel is."

 

This still depends on the card tho, no?

If so, why are we comparing FreeSync and G-Sync performances if they depend on different hardware? 

[CyanideInsanity]

11 hours ago, Praesi said:

-snip-

Then please feel free to enlighten us on how is gsync superior to freesync. Because all you've said is that people should try it for themselves(even though gsync and freesync accomplish the same thing) and that apparently high price = superior product.

[Shakaza]

11 hours ago, Praesi said:

-snip-

Well, the problem is that you can't seem to find a reason why G-Sync is superior to FreeSync. All you're saying in your defense is that you own a G-Sync display and therefore know all about its benefits over FreeSync, and that others don't know because all they have is Google. Anecdotal evidence isn't proof, and bias and the placebo effect are very much problems when an individual makes claims such as these. If that is your only defense for why you know what you're talking about, please reconsider making stupid arguments. 

 

But, I'll let @Notional hammer it home. He's much more versed in this subject than me. I'm just the logic guy.