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

[spartaman64]

8 minutes ago, Samfisher said:

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.

free sync is just the software that makes adaptive sync work. its the adaptive sync side that determines the fps range not the software side

[Samfisher]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

free sync is just the software that makes adaptive sync work. its the adaptive sync side that determines the fps range not the software side

Yes, and G-sync uses it too, it's just not the exact same standard and yet you can safely assume that whatever refresh rate a monitor with G-Sync has, that's what the supported G-Sync range is.  Not so with Freesync.

[spartaman64]

1 minute ago, Samfisher said:

Yes, and G-sync uses it too, it's just not the exact same standard and yet you can safely assume that whatever refresh rate a monitor with G-Sync has, that's what the supported G-Sync range is.  Not so with Freesync.

g sync is both the hardware and the software while free sync doesnt include the hardware vesa is in charge of the hardware

[Samfisher]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

g sync is both the hardware and the software while free sync doesnt include the hardware vesa is in charge of the hardware

Vesa is in charge of an OPTIONAL standard that isn't required to be DisplayPort/HDMI certified.  Freesync existed before it was ever in the spec sheets of a standard.  AMD has full control over Freesnyc.  The fact that there are some Freesync monitors that support the full range of refresh rates and some that don't clearly shows that they can do it if they wanted to.  They just don't, and they rarely even tell you that until you read some reviews or dig deep into spec sheets to find it hidden somewhere that says Freesync range : 45-70.

[spartaman64]

2 minutes ago, Samfisher said:

Vesa is in charge of an OPTIONAL standard that isn't required to be DisplayPort/HDMI certified.  Freesync existed before it was ever in the spec sheets of a standard.  AMD has full control over Freesnyc.  The fact that there are some Freesync monitors that support the full range of refresh rates and some that don't clearly shows that they can do it if they wanted to.  They just don't, and they rarely even tell you that until you read some reviews or dig deep into spec sheets to find it hidden somewhere that says Freesync range : 45-70.

amd is not in charge of the hardware the manufacturers are and the hardware is what determines the range. 

[Samfisher]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

amd is not in charge of the hardware the manufacturers are and the hardware is what determines the range. 

And that's what makes it non-standard.  It's further compounded by the fact that manufacturers never disclose their workable range up front, and frequently it's not at the max refresh rate of the panel.  AMD has more say in it than you think.  It is their tech after all, and they license it out.

[spartaman64]

16 minutes ago, Samfisher said:

And that's what makes it non-standard.  It's further compounded by the fact that manufacturers never disclose their workable range up front, and frequently it's not at the max refresh rate of the panel.  AMD has more say in it than you think.  It is their tech after all, and they license it out.

its like apple vs android or mac vs windows. do you want a locked down ecosystem or a more open ecosystem at the cost of variance. i prefer a more open ecosystem but thats my personal preference you seem to prefer the locked down system and thats fine

[Samfisher]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

its like apple vs android or mac vs windows. do you want a locked down ecosystem or a more open ecosystem at the cost of variance. 

Android has a standard as well.  There are minimum specifications to qualify as an Android product, to access the Google series of apps.  Nobody knows what the minimum spec to earn the Freesync badge is.  And there's a reason why Apple sells their product at such prices, they guarantee your experience.

[spartaman64]

1 minute ago, Samfisher said:

Android has a standard as well.  There are minimum specifications to qualify as an Android product, to access the Google series of apps.  Nobody knows what the minimum spec to earn the Freesync badge is.  And there's a reason why Apple sells their product at such prices, they guarantee your experience.

qualify as an android product? i know there are minimum specs to the OSes as you cant run them if you go below but ive never heard of a minimum spec to be qualified as an android product. well i guess the minimum spec would be the minimum spec of their lightest OS

[Samfisher]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

qualify as an android product? i know there are minimum specs to the OSes as you cant run them if you go below but ive never heard of a minimum spec to be qualified as an android product. well i guess the minimum spec would be the minimum spec of their lightest OS

There are certain hardware specs that have to be met to be officially supported as an Android product.  Just like how Windows Starter Edition had get this, maximum specs you could go before no longer qualifying as a Windows Starter Edition, charging you for the full price of Windows.

[Sakkura]

3 minutes ago, Samfisher said:

Android has a standard as well.  There are minimum specifications to qualify as an Android product, to access the Google series of apps.  Nobody knows what the minimum spec to earn the Freesync badge is.  And there's a reason why Apple sells their product at such prices, they guarantee your experience.

The only thing you need to check to ensure the experience is the same (regarding variable refresh) with a Freesync monitor is the Freesync range on the spec sheet. You can't do that with a phone. 

[spartaman64]

1 minute ago, Samfisher said:

There are certain hardware specs that have to be met to be officially supported as an Android product.  Just like how Windows Starter Edition had get this, maximum specs you could go before no longer qualifying as a Windows Starter Edition, charging you for the full price of Windows.

well yes you need certain hardware specs to run the OS. but this would be like if google says the phone needs to have a certain color accuracy or something to classify as an android device

[Samfisher]

Just now, Sakkura said:

The only thing you need to check to ensure the experience is the same (regarding variable refresh) with a Freesync monitor is the Freesync range on the spec sheet. You can't do that with a phone. 

An iphone 4 will be the same as every iphone 4 in the world etc etc.  That's the reason they are a success.  Freesync is so variable that you have to do much more research into what is supported and what is not.  G-Sync = max refresh rate, it's so simple.

[spartaman64]

3 minutes ago, Samfisher said:

An iphone 4 will be the same as every iphone 4 in the world etc etc.  That's the reason they are a success.  Freesync is so variable that you have to do much more research into what is supported and what is not.  G-Sync = max refresh rate, it's so simple.

but an iphone 4 will not be the same as an iphone 6 and an samsung xv3z or something will not be the same as a LG 778eh or something. but all samsung xv3z will perform pretty much the same as another samsung xv3z

[Sakkura]

4 minutes ago, Samfisher said:

An iphone 4 will be the same as every iphone 4 in the world etc etc.  That's the reason they are a success.  Freesync is so variable that you have to do much more research into what is supported and what is not.  G-Sync = max refresh rate, it's so simple.

But not all Android phones are the same, yet they greatly outsell iphones. Freesync just varies on the Freesync range, which you can easily check on the spec sheet. Phones, including different generations of iphones, differ a lot more and in ways you can't always read on a spec sheet. 

[Samfisher]

7 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

but an iphone 4 will not be the same as an iphone 6 and an samsung xv3z or something will not be the same as a LG 778eh or something

Cos an iphone of different generations aren't a standard.  A G-Sync monitor will always, always work from 30-max refresh.  On the Freesync side, even the top of the line Asus MG279Q 144Hz only works from 35-90Hz, and the Acer XF270HU doesn't even exist on their website anymore, with a ton of unconfirmed forum posts guessing the Freesync range on that with no official sources.  The  LG 34UM67 starts at 48Hz.

[spartaman64]

4 minutes ago, Samfisher said:

Cos an iphone of different generations aren't a standard.  A G-Sync monitor will always, always work from 30-max refresh.  On the Freesync side, even the top of the line Asus MG279Q 144Hz only works from 35-90Hz, and the Acer XF270HU doesn't even exist on their website anymore, with a ton of unconfirmed forum posts guessing the Freesync range on that with no official sources.  The  LG 34UM67 starts at 48Hz.

so what should amd do? disable freesync on the asus monitor and make everyone angry. or talk to asus and be like you shouldnt do that and if asus doesnt listen they storm their factory?

[MoonSpot]

2 hours ago, Energycore said:

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

 

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

21.5".  I almost wish they'd just stop making anything smaller than 24".  Charge people that want/need smaller monitors a premium to account for the pain in the rump low volume products cause within the supply chain and tooling for short production runs.

1 hour ago, Samfisher said:

And that's what makes it non-standard.  It's further compounded by the fact that manufacturers never disclose their workable range up front, and frequently it's not at the max refresh rate of the panel.  AMD has more say in it than you think.  It is their tech after all, and they license it out.

Does anyone even care if g-sync/freesync/adaptive sync are running when you're above 80-120 fps?  I only ever think about them as making low FPS and stutters less of a shit experience.  Is there something perceptible that these solutions are doing when above 120 fps?

[Samfisher]

17 minutes ago, MoonSpot said:

21.5".  I almost wish they'd just stop making anything smaller than 24".  Charge people that want/need smaller monitors a premium to account for the pain in the rump low volume products cause within the supply chain and tooling for short production runs.

Does anyone even care if g-sync/freesync/adaptive sync are running when you're above 80-120 fps?  I only ever think about them as making low FPS and stutters less of a shit experience.  Is there something perceptible that these solutions are doing when above 120 fps?

Stuttering can happen at any time.  It's not limited to low FPS situations.

 

1 hour ago, spartaman64 said:

so what should amd do? disable freesync on the asus monitor and make everyone angry. or talk to asus and be like you shouldnt do that and if asus doesnt listen they storm their factory?

Demand a standard quality to be adhered to.  They do control the tech after all.  Freesync isn't free. It's just cheaper than G-Sync.

[spartaman64]

1 minute ago, Samfisher said:

Stuttering can happen at any time.  It's not limited to low FPS situations.

 

Demand a standard quality to be adhered to.  They do control the tech after all.  Freesync isn't free. It's just cheaper than G-Sync.

but there is really nothing amd can do other than say they want the other company to follow a standard

[Samfisher]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

but there is really nothing amd can do other than say they want the other company to follow a standard

Ugh, not license the tech?  You do know it's not free right?  If AMD doesn't specify what they want in their licensing terms, that's really on them.

[spartaman64]

Just now, Samfisher said:

Ugh, not license the tech?  You do know it's not free right?  If AMD doesn't specify what they want in their licensing terms, that's really on them.

the hardware side is controlled by vesa. amd can disable their software from working with the monitor but that will make a lot of people angry at amd

[Samfisher]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

the hardware side is controlled by vesa. amd can disable their software from working with the monitor but that will make a lot of people angry at amd

The hardware is not controlled by vesa... wat? Freesync existed before Adaptive sync ever existed in the specifications for Vesa.

[MoonSpot]

15 minutes ago, Samfisher said:

Stuttering can happen at any time.  It's not limited to low FPS situations.

That seems like an evasion of the question I asked.  Personally I also want manufacturers of freesync monitors to clearly state their supported range(s) with the models specs, but I want to primarily know the bottoms.  Never thought to care if they were running at the monitors max (assuming over 60/75Hz monitor)

[Sakkura]

7 minutes ago, Samfisher said:

The hardware is not controlled by vesa... wat? Freesync existed before Adaptive sync ever existed in the specifications for Vesa.

The adaptive sync standard is controlled by VESA, and that's what is implemented in the monitor.