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

[kuddlesworth9419]

I have a G-Sync display and I'm very happy with it. G-Sync is better but you do pay for it I got mine when FreeSync wasn't even a thing. And I have an Nvidia card already so I had to get G-Sync. Not complaining though because G-Sync is pretty good. It's the best display tech in the past 10 years or so. It completely removed a huge problem that people had accepted for so long.

 

Give Nvidia credit for doing it because if they hadn't no one would have bothered. 

[CyanideInsanity]

16 minutes ago, kuddlesworth9419 said:

I have a G-Sync display and I'm very happy with it. G-Sync is better but you do pay for it I got mine when FreeSync wasn't even a thing. And I have an Nvidia card already so I had to get G-Sync. Not complaining though because G-Sync is pretty good. It's the best display tech in the past 10 years or so. It completely removed a huge problem that people had accepted for so long.

 

Give Nvidia credit for doing it because if they hadn't no one would have bothered. 

How is it better when they do the same thing? Minus gsync going always to the panels max rate, I don't believe the experience is any different.

 

And what about those laptops with vrr, was that before gsync or after? I don't have time to scour the depths of the internet right now.

 

 

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, xAcid9 said:

We're definitely not on the same page. 

 

Yes Nvidia's current implementation of AdaptiveSync need that module right now but might not need it in the future.

its not "their implimentation" of adaptive sync its their implementation of variable refresh rate. and yes they can choose to follow the VESA standard but they cant do the same if they dont jump on board the VESA standard unless they make their own display connector standard

[spartaman64]

57 minutes ago, kuddlesworth9419 said:

I have a G-Sync display and I'm very happy with it. G-Sync is better but you do pay for it I got mine when FreeSync wasn't even a thing. And I have an Nvidia card already so I had to get G-Sync. Not complaining though because G-Sync is pretty good. It's the best display tech in the past 10 years or so. It completely removed a huge problem that people had accepted for so long.

 

Give Nvidia credit for doing it because if they hadn't no one would have bothered. 

its not really better they do the same thing and if you know the variable refresh rate of a monitor doesnt go up to the max frame rate then just dont buy that monitor

[WereCat]

49 minutes ago, CyanideInsanity said:

How is it better when they do the same thing? Minus gsync going always to the panels max rate, I don't believe the experience is any different.

 

And what about those laptops with vrr, was that before gsync or after? I don't have time to scour the depths of the internet right now.

 

 

I think it is better in the sense that it covers better low FPS. FreeSync monitors usually have very narrow range like 50-75FPS while GSync goes well under 40 and well above 100.

Even though FreeSync is rated to handle up a lot more very few monitors with it supports it.

[Sakkura]

8 hours ago, Samfisher said:

Nope.  Intel will license Freesync from AMD (it's free anyway).

They wouldn't have to. They could create their own Xyzsync and it should work with the so-called Freesync monitors on the market (at least the Displayport version, not sure about Freesync over HDMI).

[Sakkura]

32 minutes ago, WereCat said:

I think it is better in the sense that it covers better low FPS. FreeSync monitors usually have very narrow range like 50-75FPS while GSync goes well under 40 and well above 100.

Even though FreeSync is rated to handle up a lot more very few monitors with it supports it.

Plenty of Freesync monitors have a wider range than 50-75, I actually think the great majority do.

[CyanideInsanity]

2 hours ago, WereCat said:

I think it is better in the sense that it covers better low FPS. FreeSync monitors usually have very narrow range like 50-75FPS while GSync goes well under 40 and well above 100.

Even though FreeSync is rated to handle up a lot more very few monitors with it supports it.

Not sure how long ago it was(news to me as of this thread), but freesync now does the same thing as gsync when down low with low framerate compensation doubling the frequency of the display.

 

Meaning gsync only has max refresh rate support at all times over poorer implementations of freesync. Honestly an automatic increase of $100 or so just for that isn't worth it imo.

[Delicieuxz]

Nvidia's holding-out on going non-proprietary-sync is probably harming monitor sales, because there are probably other people who are like myself in holding out on purchasing a new monitor, until it's known where these standards are going, and where they will be usable. I have an Nvidia GPU right now, but I'm not buying a G-sync monitor because they're too expense, and I don't want to invest in a closed implementation of a free technology.

 

If anything, I'm most likely, to sell my Nvidia GPU and buy an AMD GPU when Vega releases, so that I can also buy a Freesync monitor. And if Nvidia keeps their expensive and proprietary G-sync, then I might stay with AMD, because doing so will perpetually save me more money, and not depend on additional hardware that could cause further problems.

[Notional]

Why is this still a discussion? Anyways time to clear up a few misconceptions:

 

• Both Gsync and Adaptive Sync uses a technology called Variable VBlank, where the monitor controller (scaler+tcon) forces the monitor to hold an image until the next one is provided, instead of a default refresh cycle. This is standard in most monitors and was made as a power savings feature for laptops. This is also why AMD first showed a proof of concept on a laptop monitor.
• Gsync replaces the entire monitor controller with their own proprietary module with an FPGA processor + Ram. Essentially a full computer. As a result, AMD made a proof of concept in said laptop to show they could do the same without an expensive proprietary module.
• AMD then created the Adaptive Sync standard for VESA to implement. I'm sure they made the requirements more lenient to get the VESA members to vote it through.
• Adaptive Sync is thus the hardware standard, by VESA, that monitor vendors has to support in their monitor controller (scaler/TCON/etc). This has nothing to do with freesync.
• Freesync is the driver/software implementation/branding AMD has, that utilizes Adaptive Sync. Intel and NVidia can make their own software implementation to utilize Adaptive Sync. Heck NVidia can even call their software/driver implementation Gsync, if they want to. "Gsync, now with Adaptive Sync support". Nvidia hates consumers and loves money, so they won't. Fuck you Nvidia.
• Like all standards, you can implement them in a good way or a not so good way. AMD has 0 influence on this. If a monitor vendor wants to use the Freesync brand/logo, it has to work within a certain interval set by AMD. LG's monitors are good enough for this.
• Adaptive Sync is royalty free like all other parts of the DisplayPort technology. If a company wants to use the Freesync brand, that's free too, but they have to live up to AMD's requirements.
• Yes Adaptive Sync is a standard. Just like DisplayPort is a standard.
• No there's nothing a Gsync monitor can do, that a well implemented Adaptive Sync monitor cannot do.
• Yes there are infinite things an Adaptive Sync monitor can do, that a Gsync monitor cannot do. The vendors has free reigns. As a result, you're not gonna see 10bit/HDR/whatever Gsync monitors anytime soon, until NVidia releases a new module.

[Vode]

On 10/14/2016 at 3:52 PM, CyanideInsanity said:

As an nvidia AND gsync user, I see nothing about it that makes it worthwhile over freesync.

There is a tradeoff regarding input latency if you start to nitpick.

 

Gsync has less latency at certain FPS (I believe around 45FPS) while Freesync has less latency in another range of FPS.

 

But I think it's nothing to write home about.

[jawong2000]

I never used to notice screen tearing. It never bothered me the slightest.

 

Having upgraded to a PG348Q for half a year now, i definitely notice screen tear when i use someone else's PC.

 

That said, screen tearing still doesnt bother me.

 

Bottom line - GSYNC isnt worth $200. Especially not once you start hitting 100+ hz. At 144hz screen tearing is pretty much unnoticeable unless you go looking for it.

[Misanthrope]

5 hours ago, CyanideInsanity said:

Not sure how long ago it was(news to me as of this thread), but freesync now does the same thing as gsync when down low with low framerate compensation doubling the frequency of the display.

 

Meaning gsync only has max refresh rate support at all times over poorer implementations of freesync. Honestly an automatic increase of $100 or so just for that isn't worth it imo.

Also it is not "only" 100. That's probably the manufacturer cost but most Gsync panels are only much higher price brackets making the average price difference overall 300 or 400 bucks.

 

Of course you get a lot more features for those 300 to 400 bucks (Higher resolutions, higher refresh rates, bigger monitor sized, more curved displays, etc.) but it still means that Nvidia or vendors just refuse to do more midrange monitors with Gsync making most of the high end vs Freesync ones which run the range of prices from the lower end 1080p screens all the way to the monstrosity Linus reviewed recently.

[ThinkWithPortals]

On 13/10/2016 at 4:39 PM, N.tony said:

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

Fuck off.

 

This is what I object to about NVIDIA. The amount of fucking elitism it takes to say "here's a technology that does the same thing as our competitor's technology, but we're going to restrict it's availability to the high end and charge you more for it because there's jack-shit you can do about it."

 

This whole "holier-than-thou, better-than-you" thing that NVIDIA carries on with recently is really pissing me off. Makes me kind of proud that I have an AMD card and a Freesync display.

[Sniperfox47]

4 hours ago, Vode said:

There is a tradeoff regarding input latency if you start to nitpick.

 

Gsync has less latency at certain FPS (I believe around 45FPS) while Freesync has less latency in another range of FPS.

 

But I think it's nothing to write home about.

If you want to nitpick, that's not strictly true.

 

That's true with certain implementations of Adaptive Sync but not all of them. It has to do with how the monitor scaler handles things, not with the standards themselves.

 

GSync is pretty similar across the board since they all use the same scalers. Freesync has more variation since the scaler is left up to the individual implementation.

[Sharp_3yE]

On ‎10‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 5:50 AM, KOMTechAndGaming said:

I meant they will make less money 

I know what you meant and I disagree. The best way to make money is to sell more. Not selling would make less money. They need to do something that will allow monitor manufacturers to put their own tech into the module and design it how they need it to be.

 

The solution I to give the designs to the manufacturers to make their own module. It allows the manufacturers to be much more flexible and cost efficient.

 

We know for a fact that ARM makes a LOT of money selling their processor designs to manufacturers so I don't understand your logic that this would make Nvidia less money.

[MorganO]

58 minutes ago, TheCMan said:

I know what you meant and I disagree. The best way to make money is to sell more. Not selling would make less money. They need to do something that will allow monitor manufacturers to put their own tech into the module and design it how they need it to be.

 

The solution I to give the designs to the manufacturers to make their own module. It allows the manufacturers to be much more flexible and cost efficient.

 

We know for a fact that ARM makes a LOT of money selling their processor designs to manufacturers so I don't understand your logic that this would make Nvidia less money.

Oh yeah,  I may have misunderstood what you said

Edited October 18, 2016 by KOMTechAndGaming
Autocorrect

[That Norwegian Guy]

14 hours ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

Fuck off.

 

This is what I object to about NVIDIA. The amount of fucking elitism it takes to say "here's a technology that does the same thing as our competitor's technology, but we're going to restrict it's availability to the high end and charge you more for it because there's jack-shit you can do about it."

 

This whole "holier-than-thou, better-than-you" thing that NVIDIA carries on with recently is really pissing me off. Makes me kind of proud that I have an AMD card and a Freesync display.

This, and GameWorks, was the combined reason I recycled my GTX 760 in three different places and bought a 290x.

They're Apple. No, they're worse than Apple.

 

Also stoked that the Freesync monitor I got (Acer XG270HU) ended up measured the lowest combined input lag monitor (tied with the BenQ XL2730Z) in the 1440p/ 144hz sweet spot among both G-Sync and Freesync monitors. And it goes all the way down to 40hz if needed.