Are Nvidia shooting themselves in the foot with G-Sync?

[Luke]

I understand that G-Sync may have some benefits over Freesync but they're small and offer more or less the same experience especially on newer Freesync monitors. I'm just wondering why Nvidia has not created their own software to work with VESA's Adaptive Sync because at the moment Freesync could be a huge reason why someone would choose AMD over Nvidia.

 

Is it because Nvidia wouldn't be making as much money? At the moment there is a G-Sync module in every G-Sync monitor so in that sense Nvidia is selling a product to monitor manufacturers and making money from it but is AMD even making money from FreeSync? It's just their software that let's AMD GPU's take advantage of VESA's Adaptive Sync. Maybe a small licensing fee?

 

I've heard the argument that G-Sync being it's own module gives it more potential but you'd think they would at least offer a FreeSync-Like version of G-sync without the module for less money but then they'd be competing with themselves and i don't believe anyone could justify the extra cost of a monitor with proper G-sync monitor at that point.

[Energycore]

3 minutes ago, Luke said:

I understand that G-Sync may have some benefits over Freesync

What benefits? There are none anymore. Freesync works over borderless window now.

 

I think Nvidia will have to adopt Freesync at some point. Consumers don't like paying $200 for something they can get for free.

 

That said we're talking about Nvidia, the company that managed to outsell by tenfold against a competition that was way way better (refer to the video).

 

[Darel321]

well... thats nothing new with nvidiots -.-

[Luke]

2 minutes ago, Energycore said:

What benefits? There are none anymore. Freesync works over borderless window now.

 

I think Nvidia will have to adopt Freesync at some point. Consumers don't like paying $200 for something they can get for free.

 

That said we're talking about Nvidia, the company that managed to outsell by tenfold against a competition that was way way better (refer to the video).

 

 

Yea i basically said that there may be benefits in case i was missing something. I know that G-Sync had a better usable FPS range early on compared to FreeSync monitors but i've heard they're basically the same these days. 

[Techicolors]

i remember early adoptions for Freesync showed that Freesync created more motion blur compared to G-sync, which didn't have any. i think it's been fixed though 

 

sadly most prefer not go to freesync at the moment because AMD has no high-end card (yet) 

[samcool55]

Atm, yes.

A lot of people that want to upgrade have trouble deciding between the rx 480 and the GTX 1060.

I'm sure some people went with the RX 480 because of the freesync/g-sync thing.

 

For me personally the freesync/g-sync wasn't the deciding factor, but it is however one of the few reasons i got an rx 480 instead of a GTX 1060.

[Techicolors]

i remember early adoptions for Freesync showed that Freesync created more motion blur compared to G-sync, which didn't have any. i think it's been fixed though 

 

sadly most prefer not go to freesync at the moment because AMD has no high-end card (yet) 

[Energycore]

4 minutes ago, Technicolors said:

sadly most prefer not go to freesync at the moment because AMD has no high-end card (yet) 

I mean, there's the Fury X I guess. Most people don't need much more than that, and 1080p 75Hz Freesync monitors are really good value.

[Luke]

1 minute ago, Technicolors said:

i remember early adoptions for Freesync showed that Freesync created more motion blur compared to G-sync, which didn't have any. i think it's been fixed though 

 

sadly most prefer not go to freesync at the moment because AMD has no high-end card (yet) 

Isn't FreeSync mostly beneficial when you're below the refresh rate of your monitor though? I don't see a problem with using a Freesync monitor on a RX 480 for example especially if it's a 1080P monitor which a lot of them are.

[Misanthrope]

9 minutes ago, Energycore said:

I think Nvidia will have to adopt Freesync at some point.

Yeah, that point being when AMD actually manages to get some fucking GPU market share and that point is coming errr.....

 

 

[MageTank]

5 minutes ago, Energycore said:

What benefits? There are none anymore. Freesync works over borderless window now.

 

I think Nvidia will have to adopt Freesync at some point. Consumers don't like paying $200 for something they can get for free.

 

That said we're talking about Nvidia, the company that managed to outsell by tenfold against a competition that was way way better (refer to the video).

 

There are still some benefits. Built in Lightboost is still a serious boon, and (correct me if I am wrong) but AMD had a weird ghosting issue with Freesync. There is also the issue of Freesync not having a defined standard, so monitors end up with vastly different Freesync Windows, while G-Sync requires certification to ensure it meets Nvidia's standards.

 

Either way, I agree with this topic's point. There is no reason why Nvidia can't use Adaptive Sync, it's built into the DP standard. It's an artificial lock, and it's anti-consumer. Even if G-Sync offered a superior experience, giving consumers a choice between the two is just better for everyone. 

 

5 minutes ago, Darel321 said:

well... thats nothing new with nvidiots -.-

Being too much of a fanboy for AMD makes you no better than the "nvidiots" you set out to insult. Perhaps act more like an adult, and less like a rabid fanboy?

[Luke]

2 minutes ago, Energycore said:

I mean, there's the Fury X I guess. Most people don't need much more than that, and 1080p 75Hz Freesync monitors are really good value.

This monitor was $199 CAD ($149 USD) on Black Friday i was so tempted to buy it - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236755&cm_re=ASUS_VG245H-_-24-236-755-_-Product

[samcool55]

2 minutes ago, Luke said:

 

Yea i basically said that there may be benefits in case i was missing something. I know that G-Sync had a better usable FPS range early on compared to FreeSync monitors but i've heard they're basically the same these days. 

If you only look at what range g-sync and freesync can work, freesync is the clear winner.

G-sync can have a range between 30Hz and 144Hz.

Freesync can work from 9Hz to 240Hz.

 

http://wccftech.com/amd-freesync-nvidia-gsync-verdict/

I know it's WCCFtech but it's for once correct actually

 

[manikyath]

16 minutes ago, Energycore said:

 

I think Nvidia will have to adopt Freesync at some point. Consumers don't like paying $200 for something they can get for free.

if nvidia will be adopting something it'll be adaptivesync, and not freesync, because in essence freesync is as proprietary as gsync

 

also, on the topic of one being better than the other, the module in the Gync displays does *something*, but the biggest difference is that there's cheap freesync displays which are at their core just not as good as the kind of displays they smack gsync on. if you get a freezsync display of the same price bracket (minus the gsync premium) you essentially get more or less the same experience.

 

it's mostly a matter of nvidia trying to protect their ecosystem, sure they could have dirt cheap gsync displays like there's dirt cheap freesync displays out there, but someone would buy a cheap display as their first gsync panel and the experience would just be terrible, putting that person off from buying gsync again.

 

in essence, the "premium" you pay for gsync is more "quality assurance" than anything else.

[Techicolors]

18 minutes ago, Energycore said:

I mean, there's the Fury X I guess. Most people don't need much more than that, and 1080p 75Hz Freesync monitors are really good value.

yeah that is true. the fury x has only 4gb VRAM so that might become a bottleneck in some titles but it shouldn't pose too much of an issue. and i know about AMD drivers getting better over time, the HBM memory and all of that. but with this generation, with Polaris, there are no high-end cards from AMD while NVIDIA already has a couple out for some time now (AMD might be moving with Vega for high-end actually). that might change in the next couple of months with Ryzen and the rumored 490 though 

 

18 minutes ago, Luke said:

Isn't FreeSync mostly beneficial when you're below the refresh rate of your monitor though? I don't see a problem with using a Freesync monitor on a RX 480 for example especially if it's a 1080P monitor which a lot of them are.

makes sense. it'll help tremendously in games where frame rates fluctuate like a raging storm. but the 480 is only around the mid-range, not really high-end 

[stationvsbox]

14 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

Atm, yes.

A lot of people that want to upgrade have trouble deciding between the rx 480 and the GTX 1060.

I'm sure some people went with the RX 480 because of the freesync/g-sync thing.

 

For me personally the freesync/g-sync wasn't the deciding factor, but it is however one of the few reasons i got an rx 480 instead of a GTX 1060.

Well with the newest drivers the 480 is officially faster than the 1060 

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, stationvsbox said:

Well with the newest drivers the 480 is officially faster than the 1060 

*In some titles

[Darel321]

9 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Being too much of a fanboy for AMD makes you no better than the "nvidiots" you set out to insult. Perhaps act more like an adult, and less like a rabid fanboy?

well sorry nvidia fanboy for insulting you... I actually cant care less for both of them, but the facts speaks for themselves its not the first time nvidia tries to be the fat kid eating all the candies

[manikyath]

3 minutes ago, stationvsbox said:

Well with the newest drivers the 480 is officially faster than the 1060 

there's honestly many reasons aside from speed why you would choose one or the other.

 

the speed of your GPU isnt all that matters

[MageTank]

2 minutes ago, Darel321 said:

well sorry nvidia fanboy for insulting you... I actually cant care less for both of them, but the facts speaks for themselves its not the first time nvidia tries to be the fat kid eating all the candies

I more than likely own more AMD/ATI products than you do, lol. As for being a fanboy, it's clear you didn't read my post at all, as I criticized Nvidia for their practices and even called them anti-consumer. Your only input on this post was muttering the word "nvidiots" and offering no insight. As far as I am concerned, you are the only fanboy in this thread. 

[samcool55]

2 minutes ago, MageTank said:

*In some titles

True, in DX11 it really depends on the title.

Switch to DX12 and the RX 480 is overall the clear winner

 

Anyway, as we know AMD cards in general are more futureproof than nvidia cards due to the optimizations they get over time.

Or as some people call it AMD finewine

 

But tbh you can keep throwing benchmarks at this fighting which one is the winner which is a discussion that happened multiple times here...

[MageTank]

Just now, samcool55 said:

True, in DX11 it really depends on the title.

Switch to DX12 and the RX 480 is overall the clear winner

 

Anyway, as we know AMD cards in general are more futureproof than nvidia cards due to the optimizations they get over time.

Or as some people call it AMD finewine

 

But tbh you can keep throwing benchmarks at this fighting which one is the winner which is a discussion that happened multiple times here...

Oh, I agree with you. Nvidia's DX12 performance is awful, and scales negatively in nearly every DX12 title I've seen. I only wanted to clarify that some titles might still have the 1060 ahead of the RX 480, so others don't get confused later on if they see a 1060 performing higher on a benchmark. 

[Praesi]

"I like Apples. Round and tasty."

"Apples? You Fool. Bananas are fruit of the future. Curved and taste way better than your stupid Apples."

"Dont you say that again...."

"Or what..?"

"Apples!"

"Bananas!"

"APPLES!"

"BANANAS!"

[PlayStation 2]

No, not really. Nvidia knows people will cough that money up, and the ones that do are the ones that sell G-Sync. Personally I don't really care too much, but it's whatever.

[Paradine Sage]

No, nVidia aren't shooting themselves in the foot with G-Sync.

 

At least not until and unless someone else actually produces a card that can compete in the mid to high end market. Yeah, if you are a 1060/480 level customer then G-Sync isn't worth it and you should buy the 480 (it is a better value for money proposition at that performance point). But do you want to game at 4K? Do you want to use VR? Do you want to run multiple 1440p monitors? That entire area of the market is totally owned by nVidia and these are the people who are willing to shell out for the G-Sync displays.

 

When you are already dropping 1500 to 2500 USD between your graphics card and monitor, an extra hundred or two bucks just doesn't matter that much. At those price levels you are targeting a performance level, not a price point, and unless someone else offers performance that is substantially the same then a few hundred bucks higher or lower just isn't much of a deal breaker.