G-sync HDR Modules to add 500+ dollars to monitor price

[Juanitology]

This kinda blows my mind. There's pretty good 4K and 1440p 144Hz monitors for 500 bucks, and according to this article from techpowerup JUST the g-sync circuitry costs that much. This seems completely insane to me, especially in the context of AMD announcing FreeSync 2 just a few days ago which does the exact same thing as gsync... for a comparably negligible amount of money. I believe I read at some point the extra hardware for freesync was about 10-20USD for better scalers or something like that. 

Quote

The FPGA is sold in low quantities for $2000 at Digikey and Mouser. Assuming that NVIDIA buys thousands, PCPer suggests that the price of this chip alone will add $500 to monitor cost. The BOM cost is further increased by 3 GB of DDR4 memory on the module. With added licensing fees for G-SYNC, this explains why these monitors are so expensive.

 

Source: https://www.techpowerup.com/245463/nvidia-g-sync-hdr-module-adds-usd-500-to-monitor-pricing

Edited June 28, 2018 by Juanitology
removed formatting for dark theme users

[Crunchy Dragon]

Wonder if I'll ever invest in a G-Sync display or if I'll forever play at 75Hz on FreeSync panels...

[Shimejii]

1 minute ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Wonder if I'll ever invest in a G-Sync display or if I'll forever play at 75Hz on FreeSync panels...

Just get a 144 hz panel  They work fine without gsync if you got the hardware. Also theres a few "cheap" Dell gysnc screens usually for 250-300

[Crunchy Dragon]

1 minute ago, Shimejii said:

Just get a 144 hz panel  They work fine without gsync if you got the hardware. Also theres a few "cheap" Dell gysnc screens usually for 250-300

My current GPU isn't gonna drive 144Hz lol.

 

I plan on getting a 1080 this year so fingers crossed.

[Zodiark1593]

6 minutes ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

My current GPU isn't gonna drive 144Hz lol.

 

I plan on getting a 1080 this year so fingers crossed.

Well, that Gsync money goes a long way toward a capable gpu anyway.

 

[Shodapop98]

13 minutes ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

Wonder if I'll ever invest in a G-Sync display or if I'll forever play at 75Hz on FreeSync panels...

Same, I have the HP omen 32 and its set at 75hz

[PlayStation 2]

I've always wondered what exactly makes G-Sync so expensive compared to Adaptive sync or FreeSync.

[dizmo]

Pricey, though like all tech prices will drop over time. It's new and shiny.

Not to mention the fact they're buying them in low quantities, which only increases the price.

Really though, are we surprised? There will always be something that's the most expensive of any class, and if that's what Nvidia is aiming for, they've accomplished it. There's a certain "look what I have, you know what it costs" factor when you're aiming for high end, high performance hardware and that's something people often overlook.

 

[jagdtigger]

44 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I've always wondered what exactly makes G-Sync so expensive compared to Adaptive sync or FreeSync.

Because it requires extra proprietary hardware and nvidia is greedy so they ask a over the top price for it. Freesync on the other hand is based on adaptive sync, which is a DP standard and does not require any additional hardware.

[Arika]

i must be the only person that doesnt care about freesync or G-Sync

[Trixanity]

The price would be an easy fix for Nvidia and they could still sell their proprietary crap: make an ASIC instead.

It's expensive because they continue to use FPGA chips. It would seem to me that it's because they don't trust the longevity or adoption rate of GSync enough to commit fully. I mean they obviously pass the expense onto the consumer so it's not like it's a money sink for them but either they expect it to die slowly or the numbers aren't big enough to take the risk of mass producing their own chip to make it work.

Of course there is a very slight chance that they need to be able to continue to make changes as time passes but I think the idea of paying at least $500 (the $2000 is the only known number, the $500 was a guesstimate. It could be less but it's probably more) extra per monitor solely for an extra chip is insanity. I would really like to see Nvidia's justification for FPGA (and not the cooperate PR marketing BS of course).

[Christophe Corazza]

"The way you were meant to be played"

[TOMPPIX]

2 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I've always wondered what exactly makes G-Sync so expensive compared to Adaptive sync or FreeSync.

it's not expensive. it's greed.

[laminutederire]

47 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

The price would be an easy fix for Nvidia and they could still sell their proprietary crap: make an ASIC instead.

It's expensive because they continue to use FPGA chips. It would seem to me that it's because they don't trust the longevity or adoption rate of GSync enough to commit fully. I mean they obviously pass the expense onto the consumer so it's not like it's a money sink for them but either they expect it to die slowly or the numbers aren't big enough to take the risk of mass producing their own chip to make it work.

Of course there is a very slight chance that they need to be able to continue to make changes as time passes but I think the idea of paying at least $500 (the $2000 is the only known number, the $500 was a guesstimate. It could be less but it's probably more) extra per monitor solely for an extra chip is insanity. I would really like to see Nvidia's justification for FPGA (and not the cooperate PR marketing BS of course).

Freesync dis a not have this particular issue though. I'm not sure it's really the tech which is expensive. It's more that they designed it to charge a lot.

[Suika]

2 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I've always wondered what exactly makes G-Sync so expensive compared to Adaptive sync or FreeSync.

The fact that it's an externally developed module added on to a monitor as opposed to a system piggy backing off of existing VESA standards. Is it inferior or superior? Hard to say, probably not for the added cost at the very least.

[Peskanova]

5 minutes ago, Suika said:

The fact that it's an externally developed module added on to a monitor as opposed to a system piggy backing off of existing VESA standards. Is it inferior or superior? Hard to say, probably not for the added cost at the very least.

Well till know it was 100$ more if you wanted a gsync version of your monitor not 500$ but now i dont think with 500+ its worth it  

[Suika]

5 minutes ago, Peskanova said:

Well till know it was 100$ more if you wanted a gsync version of your monitor not 500$ but now i dont think with 500+ its worth it  

144Hz 4K HDR makes for a very expensive display by default, $500 would probably be an equivalent upcharge to what G-Sync costs for lower end displays now.

 

Not to say it's justified, I think NVIDIA should have stopped developing G-Sync once adaptive-sync was adopted, but it's not as ridiculous when you're already paying $2,500 for a display.

[Tartandy]

1 minute ago, Suika said:

Not to say it's justified, I think NVIDIA should have stopped developing G-Sync once adaptive-sync was adopted, but it's not as ridiculous when you're already paying $2,500 for a display.

Honestly I think if you're willing to spend $2000 on these HDR 144Hz 4k monitor you're proably the kind of person that would pay another $500 for G-Sync, and I think Nvidia knows that.

[Suika]

3 minutes ago, Tartandy said:

Honestly I think if you're willing to spend $2000 on these HDR 144Hz 4k monitor you're proably the kind of person that would pay another $500 for G-Sync, and I think Nvidia knows that.

Oh, I'm well aware, I just think it's a very anti-consumer move is all. Just a shame that nobody is competing with NVIDIA right now to make them sway their minds.

[Tartandy]

Just now, Suika said:

anti-consumer

 

Just now, Suika said:

NVIDIA

Now I'm far from an AMD fanboy, my current GPU is an Nvidia card, but honestly I don't think anyone would be surprised to see those two words in the same sentence. I do wish we had some more competition but I don't think the current status quo will be changing anytime soon with Nvidia dominating the high end. Where is Turing??? We've had pascal for so long, but why bother with anything new if you're already comfortably ahead, right?

[Lathlaer]

Perfectly happy with my normal G-Sync ultrawide here. 

 

I might consider swapping for an HDR G-Sync ultrawide but not the one that is supposed to be coming this year but it's succesor. I will not hesitate to pay for a good panel but the kinks must be sorted out.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Sierra Fox said:

i must be the only person that doesnt care about freesync or G-Sync

I don't really see the point. Why don't people just play at their refresh rate?

[Lathlaer]

6 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

I don't really see the point. Why don't people just play at their refresh rate?

Believe me, I'd love to be able to play the games I play the way I play at 120fps 3440x1440 ;-)

[Tartandy]

Just now, RorzNZ said:

I don't really see the point. Why don't people just play at their refresh rate?

I can speak to that. I rock a 1440p ultrawide without G-Sync at 60Hz, and while it's not by any means a deal breaker the tearing that I get as a result can be a real pain in the ass and distract me from what I'm doing in games.I plan on buying a 1440p 144Hz G-Sync pannel soon to use while gaming to get rid of the tearing, but I guess it just depends on how noticable you find it.

[suicidalfranco]

what did you expect?

You get what you pay for. And here you are paying for quality.