Nvidia G-Sync Licensing

[kuddlesworth9419]

It has been made quite clear that Nvidia will be licensing the G-Sync technology to monitor companies for a while know. However it has also been made completely clear that they would not be making it available to AMD. AMD however could reverse engineer the technology and possibly make it compatible with G-Sync however this is unlikely.

 

I think it will come to a point where licensing G-sync to AMD would be more beneficial to Nvidia then it would be to not license it out to AMD.

 

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/4935/3/nvidia-g-sync-in-action-licensing-g-sync

 

I am looking forward to Nvidia G-Sync more than anything that has come out of the technology scene for well since ever. I however will be waiting for a 2560X1600/1440 monitor to have the technology before I upgrade. I think it's priced very well to.

[lufihengr]

I hope AMD does not license it from Nvidia. (AMD fans don't get mad, but you prob don't even care)

Since that would mean Nvidia gets more money and would probably make the competition slow down.

[MetroP]

I don't want to get anyone excited, but Johann Andersson slipped a diamond in the Nvidia PR event, he mistakenly referred to G-Sync as "Double Sync" and grilled Tamasei about it being a "software" implementation, Tamasei refused to answer.
AMD obviously has something in the works that Johann knows about & has to do with Mantle & "double sync"

[Eroda]

Nvidia obviously doesn't want this technology in phones and TV's

[TechFan@ic]

The guys that would benefit from G-Sync the most are the console developers since they have very limited resources, well it happens that both consoles use AMD's GCN graphics architecture.
Nvidia is in a tough spot here, both Tim Sweeney and John Carmack primarily develop for consoles and both kept citing the benefits to the consoles during the Nvidia event.
So Nvidia would be shooting itself in the foot by not licensing this technology to AMD.

[DudeWazap]

. I however will be waiting for a 2560X1600/1440 monitor to have the technology before I upgrade. I think it's priced very well to.

I agree with you there. I also will be waiting for a 2560x1440 monitor to be released before I purchase a G-Sync monitor mainly because I don't want to go back to 1080p.

[CarlosRex]

I don't want to get anyone excited, but Johann Andersson slipped a diamond in the Nvidia PR event, he mistakenly referred to G-Sync as "Double Sync" and grilled Tamasei about it being a "software" implementation, Tamasei refused to answer.

AMD obviously has something in the works that Johann knows about & has to do with Mantle & "double sync"

He did say double sync, I thought I was the only one that heard him say that lol.

[KaareKanin]

This thing about nVidia not wanting to license g-sync to AMD, is this speculation, or do anyone have a source on this?

[LonliestofAll]

The guys that would benefit from G-Sync the most are the console developers since they have very limited resources, well it happens that both consoles use AMD's GCN graphics architecture.

Nvidia is in a tough spot here, both Tim Sweeney and John Carmack primarily develop for consoles and both kept citing the benefits to the consoles during the Nvidia event.

So Nvidia would be shooting itself in the foot by not licensing this technology to AMD.

I would love to see G-Sync enabled consoles, and TVs as well with G-Sync. I really hope that Nvidia can get their head out of the clouds and realize that if they license it to AMD. They can gain more money and see a market increase on both sides.

[TheMissxu]

NVVIdia is marketed just the same with AMD users using G-Sync -- just you don't have to buy a 6xx+ card to use it (a negative for NVidia).

Having AMD users buy the $100-150 GSync module would profit NVidia... Why wouldn't they do it?

[Warcony]

I don't think AMD will make their own solution like g-sync.  Nvidia has the drop on them, already has partners and has more resources.  I am sure in the near future they will be licensing it from Nvidia.  Like Linus says, g-sync implementation is a no brainer, it truly makes a difference.  It would be nice for the consoles boys.

[That Norwegian Guy]

I however will be waiting for a 2560X1600/1440 monitor to have the technology before I upgrade. I think it's priced very well to.

 

Same for me. It's kind of sad that they are starting out on dying resolution standards, making early adopters of future ready resolutions wait twiddling our thumbs.

 

These are my requirements in a new monitor:

• 16:10 aspect ratio, meaning 2560x1600 or more most likely.
• IPS
• 90 hz minimum. (So half-sync becomes 45+, my minimum frame rate)
• 6 ms response time or better

They are non-negotiable.

 

 

 

 

The guys that would benefit from G-Sync the most are the console developers since they have very limited resources, well it happens that both consoles use AMD's GCN graphics architecture.

Nvidia is in a tough spot here, both Tim Sweeney and John Carmack primarily develop for consoles and both kept citing the benefits to the consoles during the Nvidia event.

So Nvidia would be shooting itself in the foot by not licensing this technology to AMD.

 

Bleeding edge PC systems will benefit just as much as a console, having more horsepower does not make smoother gameplay any less desired.

[solomongrundy]

This thing about nVidia not wanting to license g-sync to AMD, is this speculation, or do anyone have a source on this?

Nvidia guy on PCPer said that they have no interest in licensing to third parties at this point in time. 

[MrPete1985]

I do not think AMD will make a hack to use gsync but third party devs might

[KaareKanin]

Nvidia guy on PCPer said that they have no interest in licensing to third parties at this point in time. 

 

I should have guessed PCPer had something like that on the tubes

[Yoinkerman]

If the tech is as revolutionary as people are claiming, nvidia should be shouting license fees from the rooftops.  Otherwise I'm wont to believe it'll be more like physx and less like the invention of fire.

[kuddlesworth9419]

Same for me. It's kind of sad that they are starting out on dying resolution standards, making early adopters of future ready resolutions wait twiddling our thumbs.

 

These are my requirements in a new monitor:

• 16:10 aspect ratio, meaning 2560x1600 or more most likely.
• IPS
• 90 hz minimum. (So half-sync becomes 45+, my minimum frame rate)
• 6 ms response time or better

They are non-negotiable.

 

 

 

 

 

Bleeding edge PC systems will benefit just as much as a console, having more horsepower does not make smoother gameplay any less desired.

As long as the frame rate is around 60 I am fine with that. To be honest there isn't much that can run a game at 60 fps at a resolution of 2560. 2 780's could though. 

[kuddlesworth9419]

This thing about nVidia not wanting to license g-sync to AMD, is this speculation, or do anyone have a source on this?

When has Nvidia ever licensed anything out to AMD.

[solomongrundy]

If the tech is as revolutionary as people are claiming, nvidia should be shouting license fees from the rooftops.  Otherwise I'm wont to believe it'll be more like physx and less like the invention of fire.

It's not like Nvidia can take Mantle and incorporate it with their cards. This goes both ways.  Goodluck getting a company to licence off the one thing that can differentiate it from everybody else.

[KaareKanin]

Nvidia guy on PCPer said that they have no interest in licensing to third parties at this point in time.

My takeaway from it was that they had no interest in telling AMD how to build their GPUs to run it. Or did I miss a part where he said that AMD wouldn't be allowed to do the hand shake and act with the G-Sync module? That said, I might just be too hopefull

 

When has Nvidia ever licensed anything out to AMD.

 

So just speculation on your part then  Oh, and BTW, since you didn't know, see my attachment

[solomongrundy]

You need a Kepler based GPU to interface with the Gsync module.  Same thing with Mantle, where you need a GCN based GPU for it to work.  Do you think GCN hardware will be put inside a Nvidia card anytime soon?  This is simple the question of what's important to you the most. Mantle or Gsync...and buy accordingly.

My takeaway from it was that they had no interest in telling AMD how to build their GPUs to run it. Or did I miss a part where he said that AMD wouldn't be allowed to do the hand shake and act with the G-Sync module? That said, I might just be too hopefull
 

 
So just speculation on your part then  Oh, and BTW, since you didn't know, see my attachment

[Kuzma]

I do not think AMD will make a hack to use gsync but third party devs might

This, e.g. RadeonPro

[KaareKanin]

You need a Kepler based GPU to interface with the Gsync module.  Same thing with Mantle, where you need a GCN based GPU for it to work.  Do you think GCN hardware will be put inside a Nvidia card anytime soon?  This is simple the question of what's important to you the most. Mantle or Gsync...and buy accordingly.

 

The reason why you need Kepler is because nVidia has put HW inside Kepler for doing the stuff, so as of right now, Kepler is the only thing with that HW inside. Exactly what that piece of HW does and how it does it, I don't know, but I'd be very surprised if it turns out it can't be done in any other way. So as long as AMD manages to output the right signal and do the correct hand shake with the screen module, it should be fine 

 

And the reason why I'm hopeful because I really want to see G-Sync get a lot of traction. If having the G-Sync module inside of a screen becomes a liability, then it probably won't.

[Tigerbomb8]

The reason why you need Kepler is because nVidia has put HW inside Kepler for doing the stuff, so as of right now, Kepler is the only thing with that HW inside. Exactly what that piece of HW does and how it does it, I don't know, but I'd be very surprised if it turns out it can't be done in any other way. So as long as AMD manages to output the right signal and do the correct hand shake with the screen module, it should be fine 

 

And the reason why I'm hopeful because I really want to see G-Sync get a lot of traction. If having the G-Sync module inside of a screen becomes a liability, then it probably won't.

I doubt it is done on a hardware level. It should be as simple as telling the monitor to refresh when a new frame is ready..

 

In any case I really hope someone reverse engineers it and finds out exactly what is being sent..

[James_AJ]

What the heck, AMD just go make an A-sync as software implementation