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

[Sharp_3yE]

What Nvidia NEEDS to do is instead of having their own Module for makers to purchase and design into their monitor, Nvidia needs to do what Arm has done with the processor industry and allow monitor makers make their Nvidia module. They can then design their own technology into the module.

[MorganO]

5 minutes ago, TheCMan said:

What Nvidia NEEDS to do is instead of having their own Module for makers to purchase and design into their monitor, Nvidia needs to do what Arm has done with the processor industry and allow monitor makers make their Nvidia module. They can then design their own technology into the module.

but then nvidia wont make as much money

[Notional]

1 hour ago, Samfisher said:

It's the fault of the standard that AMD is pushing that there are no minimum performance figures that manufacturers have to adhere to.  It's a lousy standard if your experience with different monitors all differ.  Hardly standard is it?

Freesync isn't a standard, Adaptive Sync is. If that is hardly a standard, then DisplayPort is hardly a standard too, as you can have different resolutions and refresh rates. It's a silly statement.

[Samfisher]

4 minutes ago, Notional said:

Freesync isn't a standard, Adaptive Sync is. If that is hardly a standard, then DisplayPort is hardly a standard too, as you can have different resolutions and refresh rates. It's a silly statement.

Except ALL DisplayPorts need to support ALL available resolutions and refresh rates, whereas Freesync each manufacturer can do whatever the hell they like.  Try launching a DisplayPort cable that cannot do 1080p or 1440p.

[Notional]

Just now, Samfisher said:

Except ALL DisplayPorts need to support ALL available resolutions and refresh rates, whereas Freesync each manufacturer can do whatever the hell they like.  Try launching a DisplayPort cable that cannot do 1080p or 1440p.

What do you mean "support"? If a  monitor has a lower resolution, say 1080p, and a 60hz refresh rate, then it cannot utilize anything above that. It's the hardware implementation that sets the limitations, not the standard.

[Samfisher]

3 minutes ago, Notional said:

What do you mean "support"? If a  monitor has a lower resolution, say 1080p, and a 60hz refresh rate, then it cannot utilize anything above that. It's the hardware implementation that sets the limitations, not the standard.

Yes, but Freesync monitors can go above the Freesync range, that's my point.  For G-Sync, if you see a 165Hz monitor, you know it supports 30-165.  There's no ifs or buts.  But for Freesync, hmmm, 144Hz, does it even support past 60Hz.... That's the thought process of the consumer.  You're not hardware capped unlike a set monitor resolution.

[Sharp_3yE]

44 minutes ago, KOMTechAndGaming said:

but then nvidia wont make as much money

Disagree. Right now they aren't making that much money in the first place because their product isn't being used. Also, getting G-Sync in the end is about selling more graphics cards/processors.

[Notional]

2 minutes ago, Samfisher said:

Yes, but Freesync monitors can go above the Freesync range, that's my point.  For G-Sync, if you see a 165Hz monitor, you know it supports 30-165.  There's no ifs or buts.  But for Freesync, hmmm, 144Hz, does it even support past 60Hz.... That's the thought process of the consumer.  You're not hardware capped unlike a set monitor resolution.

The hardware cap is on the monitor controller, and has nothing to do with Freesync or Adaptive Sync, but rather on the scaler chip. I get your point, but when you are dealing with open standards, you always have to look at the implementation in each individual product, not the standard itself. Just because DisplayPort supports 4K, doesn't mean any monitor with a DisplayPort is a 4K monitor.

[Sakkura]

1 hour ago, Samfisher said:

It's the fault of the standard that AMD is pushing that there are no minimum performance figures that manufacturers have to adhere to.  It's a lousy standard if your experience with different monitors all differ.  Hardly standard is it?

It's not lousy, it means you have a variety of offers from budget over midrange to high-end. Gsync is only for the extreme high-end, everyone else gets the middle finger.

[Samfisher]

20 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

It's not lousy, it means you have a variety of offers from budget over midrange to high-end. Gsync is only for the extreme high-end, everyone else gets the middle finger.

There's a lot of mid-range G-Sync monitors yo.  Tons oh high refresh 1080p monitors.

 

25 minutes ago, Notional said:

The hardware cap is on the monitor controller, and has nothing to do with Freesync or Adaptive Sync, but rather on the scaler chip. I get your point, but when you are dealing with open standards, you always have to look at the implementation in each individual product, not the standard itself. Just because DisplayPort supports 4K, doesn't mean any monitor with a DisplayPort is a 4K monitor.

Except you're pointing out the wrong issue here.  A DP cable should always be able to carry X resolution signals, regardless of whether the monitor at the end of the chain supports it.  The socket itself supports it whether it's on a 1080p monitor or 4k monitor.  Freesync ranges are just so random...and manufacturers don't exactly tell you up front what the range is either.

[MorganO]

52 minutes ago, TheCMan said:

Disagree. Right now they aren't making that much money in the first place because their product isn't being used. Also, getting G-Sync in the end is about selling more graphics cards/processors.

I meant they will make less money 

[Sakkura]

30 minutes ago, Samfisher said:

There's a lot of mid-range G-Sync monitors yo.  Tons oh high refresh 1080p monitors.

The two cheapest G-Sync monitors on pcpartpicker are $341 and $408, so high-end for sure. The cheapest Freesync monitors are $120 and $129.

 

Heck, there are 22 Freesync monitors that are cheaper than the cheapest G-Sync monitor. The total number of available G-Sync monitors? 17... and that's including the ones priced at over $1000.

[Samfisher]

Just now, Sakkura said:

The two cheapest G-Sync monitors on pcpartpicker are $341 and $408, so high-end for sure. The cheapest Freesync monitors are $120 and $129.

 

Heck, there are 22 Freesync monitors that are cheaper than the cheapest G-Sync monitor. The total number of available G-Sync monitors? 17... and that's including the ones priced at over $1000.

$300+ monitors are high end?  I paid those prices for barebones Dell Ultrasharps, and not even the high end ones... They are decidedly mid-range.

[Sakkura]

Just now, Samfisher said:

$300+ monitors are high end?  I paid those prices for barebones Dell Ultrasharps, and not even the high end ones... They are decidedly mid-range.

Mid-range is $200-300. Budget is below $200. High-end is above $300.

[Samfisher]

Just now, Sakkura said:

Mid-range is $200-300. Budget is below $200. High-end is above $300.

Your price range is waaaayyy too small.

[Sakkura]

1 minute ago, Samfisher said:

Your price range is waaaayyy too small.

Nah. If you look at what people actually use, it might actually be too high. Most people use cheap monitors.

[Samfisher]

Just now, Sakkura said:

Nah. If you look at what people actually use, it might actually be too high. Most people use cheap monitors.

And people who want to buy gaming monitors don't.  So your point is kinda moot.

[Sakkura]

Just now, Samfisher said:

And people who want to buy gaming monitors don't.  So your point is kinda moot.

High-end gaming monitors, you mean. You can game just fine on a $100 monitor, and lots of people do.

[Samfisher]

Just now, Sakkura said:

High-end gaming monitors, you mean. You can game just fine on a $100 monitor, and lots of people do.

And these people aren't the target market for adaptive sync monitors.

[Sakkura]

Just now, Samfisher said:

And these people aren't the target market for adaptive sync monitors.

Sure they are, when you can get a Freesync monitor for just a little over $100.

[Mr.Meerkat]

12 minutes ago, Samfisher said:

And these people aren't the target market for adaptive sync monitors.

Think about it, you spend $250 on a GPU (RX480/1060), are you going to spend more than $300 on a monitor? Unless there's a specific purpose, no. The whole point of adaptive refresh rate is for no screen tearing so unless you're a die hard FPS fan, a 60Hz IPS (or TN if you don't care about colours) panel with an adaptive refresh rate tech is probably the best. 

 

For example, you can get a $140~ (couldn't find an actual US link but so a UK one will do) monitor with freesync that's 1080p IPS 75hz. It's IPS, has a refresh rate of 75Hz (which from what I can read is supported with HDMI freesync), has freesync and most importantly, it's very cheap.

[spartaman64]

9 hours ago, Samfisher said:

It's the fault of the standard that AMD is pushing that there are no minimum performance figures that manufacturers have to adhere to.  It's a lousy standard if your experience with different monitors all differ.  Hardly standard is it?

amd is not in control of the standard vesa is. and thats like saying hdmi should have a minimum resolution and if a monitor is less than 1080p then it should have hdmi

[Energycore]

On 10/13/2016 at 10:47 AM, dragosudeki said:

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.

http://pcpartpicker.com/product/hqmxFT/aoc-monitor-g2260vwq6

 

I can't find a review, but Freesync + 75Hz at $110 is really good value.

[Energycore]

9 hours ago, KOMTechAndGaming said:

but then nvidia wont make as much money

Yes they will, because as it stands people will just stop buying Gsync monitors.

[Samfisher]

12 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

amd is not in control of the standard vesa is. and thats like saying hdmi should have a minimum resolution and if a monitor is less than 1080p then it should have hdmi

AMD is in control of Freesync which uses the Adaptive Sync standard.  Even before adaptive sync was adopted as a standard, Freesync existed, and yet monitors that came out during that time all had wildly varying supported Freesync capabilities.  A monitor is never classified as a HDMI monitor, or a DIsplayPort monitor, cos that's not the technology that drives it.  That's why comparing those and Freesync capabilities are completely different.