All Samsung's Ultra HD monitors in 2015 to support FreeSync

[dacostafilipe]

If it wasnt, freesync would work on g-sync monitors.

We are just waiting for nVidia to open the specs ... (or not :hmm

I dont get where you and SoulWager got the illusion that its just some driver tweak that is needed. Specially when AMD themselves only support it on a limited set of GPUs.

You don't get it, that's the problem. A-Sync is easy to understand, it's just an command that get's send over the data channel and ... that's it. Everything else (how the screen controller should react to the command) is something we know from eDP, nothing new here.

AMD uses VBLANK directly for example.

While nVidia uses the G-Sync module to modify the VBLANK.

What?

AMD uses A-Sync to change the refresh rate on the LCD controller.

nVidia uses some proprietary commands to change the refresh rate on the G-Sync module, that replaces the LCD controller.

Both do exactly the same thing.

 

[tential]

as much as I am a fan of underdogs, Nvidia's solutions are almost always more thought out and more well implemented. Their business strategy is also superior, for example requiring an Nvidia chip in monitors to support the GSync

Look how well that strategy just worked for them? Samsung just pledged to support freesync.
If this article read "Samsung pledges to support Gsync on all UHD models!" Then sure, I'd give props to NV but quoting Gsync as an example of how Nvidia is "superior" to AMD in business strategy is a hilarious no go.

Nvidia is superior to AMD in business strategy in SO MANY ways, this was the worst example you could have possibly picked.

 

[SoulWager]

If it wasnt, freesync would work on g-sync monitors.

I dont get where you and SoulWager got the illusion that its just some driver tweak that is needed. Specially when AMD themselves only support it on a limited set of GPUs.

AMD uses VBLANK directly for example.

While nVidia uses the G-Sync module to modify the VBLANK.

You seem to have some misunderstandings as to the purpose of the g-sync module and the way displayport works. Nvidia had to put new hardware into the display because no displays supported variable refresh. Samsung decided to make some variable refresh compatible displays using the adaptive-sync standard. These are coming out in March, a year and a half after g-sync was announced. Why did it take so long? Because it requires new hardware inside the monitor. Yes, AMD lied about this.

Now, on to displayport. It's a digital interface, not analog. There is a MSA packet sent once per frame, with information about the video format and how to decode it. By default, it requires timing data that fixes the framerate. With a variable refresh source, you don't know all that timing information by the time you need to send it, so adaptive-sync display controllers have to be able to get by without it, and those display controllers cannot just assume that data is going to stay the same from frame to frame. This is why there needed to be new asics in order for monitors to support adaptive-sync. (sure, they could have used FPGAs, but then they wouldn't be any cheaper than g-sync).

G-sync has to do pretty much the same exact thing, the big difference is that the g-sync module does a proprietary handshake to let the GPU know it can handle a variable refresh signal, where an adaptive-sync display uses the DPCD bits published in the standard. Maybe the g-sync module needs a slightly different set of timing data than the adaptive-sync standard allows/requires, but adaptive-sync doesn't change any fundamental assumptions about how a GPU operates, it just changes some configuration data, and some per frame metadata.

On the other hand, the switch from fixed refresh to variable refresh could very easily require a hardware change, because there are years of work there, most of it built on the assumption of a fixed refresh rate. Remember my comment about how every link in the chain must support variable refresh?

 

[f1sherman]

FWIU there's hardware required on the videocard that is lacking on nVidia. That's why they have to use the complex Gsync mudule mounted in the monitor.


Can you explain your reasoning, please?

Nvidia is not stupid. I very much doubt they would risk being heavily invested in particular technology,
when the same result can be achieved with already available tech, with VESA DP update, firmware update, AND/OR with better scaler.
The idea of sending frames to display at the rate at which they are available, and pacing the display refresh rate to follow GPU frame generation is simple enough.
But every great idea is simple at it's core, and every implementation of this idea becomes a real-world problem - and solving a real world problem is never a simple task.

So far FreeSync in action has been seen by AMD family members and few of their friends. Contrary to how Gsync had been publicly presented and demoed. And heavily praised(!).

All this is what's leading me to that speculation of AMD having early problems. And Gsync being better, more advanced solution.

It's Xmas season - sales will be up for everyone.
Every G-Sync monitor sold is a customer locked down for foreseeable future. And AMD doesn't even have an engineering sample or convincing demo to proudly show to the world.
Yet come march Samsung is shipping.
Why not yell from the top of their lungs about G-sync killer... weird, no?

FreeSync can go to 9Hz, but I don't know of any monitors that can hold the image that long. ~15Hz is the slowest. It's good to have the monitor be the limiting factor though rather than the videocard.

Saying FreeSync supports 9Hz is a bit convoluted.
It's Display/panel that can go to 9Hz.
And even then, what good is 9fps, not to mention...khm... 30'' at 9Hz(!)LOL?
I doubt there is any need for this, except for marketing purpose.
But hey, why not go for it. It certainly doesn't hurt: 9Hz - 240Hz

 

[AnandThenMan]

Nvidia is not stupid. I very much doubt they would risk being heavily invested in particular technology,
when the same result can be achieved with already available tech...

See motherboards with the "required" Nvidia chip to support SLI as an example. Nvidia is not above these types of shenanigans in an effort to sell more hardware. It remains to be seen if the G-Sync module is required, won't know that until a full comparison of FreeSync setups are done.

So far FreeSync in action has been seen by AMD family members and few of their friends. Contrary to how Gsync had been publicly presented and demoed. And heavily praised(!)

Please provide proof that AMD employees are showing FreeSync to family members (WTF) and friends. And why would you even bring them into the discussion they have ZERO to do with anything.

Every G-Sync monitor sold is a customer locked down for foreseeable future.

Being locked into a specific vendor/tech for the foreseeable future is a bad choice why would you praise such a thing.

 

[Gunbuster]

See motherboards with the "required" Nvidia chip to support SLI as an example. Nvidia is not above these types of shenanigans in an effort to sell more hardware.

There is no "Nvidia chip", its a flag written on the motherboard BIOS that the Nvidia driver looks for to enable SLI.

Also please explain how requiring a certified motherboard would be called a shenanigan to "sell more hardware"

 

[f1sherman]

I am sorry. I was exaggerating of course FreeSync demos being very low key, almost family events
There was no AMD "friends" at FS presentation, but more importantly there was no overly impressed press either.

Being locked into a specific vendor/tech for the foreseeable future is a bad choice why would you praise such a thing.

I am not

 

[ocre]

This ->

Please provide proof that AMD employees are showing FreeSync to family members (WTF) and friends. And why would you even bring them into the discussion they have ZERO to do with anything.

went right over the head!!!!

 

[boozzer]

I personally want AMD to win this war. it is about damn time the price gouging green NV is taught a lesson.

Warning issued for inflammatory language.

Any more posts like this and the thread gets locked. Stop it, NOW.

-- stahlhart

 

[imaheadcase]

The price of implementing freesync is apparently so low, that there's no reason not to implement it in these monitors.

Right, its called marketing. AMD paid samsung to have it in monitors. In a year, that agreement will end and back to normal. Standard issue stuff.

 

[wand3r3r]

Right, its called marketing. AMD paid samsung to have it in monitors. In a year, that agreement will end and back to normal. Standard issue stuff.

Source? I haven't seen a word about paying anyone and I assume they didn't.

 

[AnandThenMan]

There is no "Nvidia chip", its a flag written on the motherboard BIOS that the Nvidia driver looks for to enable SLI.

Yes there is (was) see nForce 200 bridge chip.

I am sorry. I was exaggerating of course FreeSync demos being very low key, almost family events

Now it's "almost" family events? What happened to friends? I don't see the need for the derogatory tone.

Anyway, the bottom line is buying G-Sync monitors now is a really really bad idea. FreeSync could very well obsolete G-Sync overnight, or it may not match G-Sync in capability. Either way people need to wait and evaluate both.

 

[SoulWager]

Anyway, the bottom line is buying G-Sync monitors now is a really really bad idea. FreeSync could very well obsolete G-Sync overnight, or it may not match G-Sync in capability. Either way people need to wait and evaluate both.

I don't see how g-sync goes obsolete. It's not like we can compare performance or price yet. Even if AMD is going to be competitive, it's not like someone with a g-sync compatible video card will be buying an adaptive-sync display.

If you're ONLY buying a monitor, and already have one of the variable refresh compatible AMD video cards, wait for these to be released.

If you're buying both a video card and a monitor, maybe wait, maybe get something now, depends on budget and what you need it for.

Otherwise, this doesn't really change any purchase decisions.

 

[jackstar7]

Right, its called marketing. AMD paid samsung to have it in monitors. In a year, that agreement will end and back to normal. Standard issue stuff.

Why does Samsung needs AMD's money?

Back up this claim, or delete it, please.

 

[Final8ty]

LG are also bring out FreeSync screens.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I don't see how g-sync goes obsolete. It's not like we can compare performance or price yet.

Which is what I said, can't compare yet. If FreeSync does everything G-Sync does then yes G-Sync is sunk.

Even if AMD is going to be competitive, it's not like someone with a g-sync compatible video card will be buying an adaptive-sync display.

Why not? FreeSync adds very little if any cost to the price of the display so it will be in all displays. People will have the choice to buy any display they want, or certain displays with G-Sync. People don't like being tied to proprietary stuff, see Sony as a great example of this.

 

[96Firebird]

FreeSync adds very little if any cost to the price of the display so it will be in all displays.

So why is Samsung announcing it will only be in their 2015 4K monitors? Why not all of them?

 

[jackstar7]

So why is Samsung announcing it will only be in their 2015 4K monitors? Why not all of them?

Market segmenting?

There are strong rumors of LG doing ultrawide 1440p with freesync, and I know I am interested in that option, but I'm glad to see Samsung push their next gen monitors out with next gen tech. If it gets solid response in the market, I'm sure it will spread to other segments.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Because maybe there are starting with the 4K line first? Seeing not everyone is going to buy a 4K display by default (although they should strongly consider 4K) then Samsung will put the same tech into other monitors. And why wouldn't they it's the same thing just different panel.

 

[SoulWager]

Which is what I said, can't compare yet. If FreeSync does everything G-Sync does then yes G-Sync is sunk.

But freesync only works with AMD GPUS. Also, while Nvidia can keep improving g-sync, AMD is kind of stuck depending on display manufacturers to keep pace. There is a TON of room to improve on g-sync, and adaptive-sync isn't enough to reach that performance ceiling. The obvious big mean problem with big rewards is blending variable refresh with low persistence. Then there's a lot of low hanging fruit that Nvidia and AMD can grab with driver and firmware updates.

Why not? FreeSync adds very little if any cost to the price of the display so it will be in all displays. People will have the choice to buy any display they want, or certain displays with G-Sync. People don't like being tied to proprietary stuff, see Sony as a great example of this.

Don't confuse price and cost. Cost will be low in high volumes, but it's still a niche feature, so it will carry a price premium for at least a few months, maybe a few years.

 

[AnandThenMan]

But freesync only works with AMD GPUS.

Nvidia can support if they want, same with Intel (which may already support it not sure). G-Sync only works with Nvidia GPUs and this will never change.

Don't confuse price and cost. Cost will be low in high volumes, but it's still a niche feature, so it will carry a price premium for at least a few months, maybe a few years.

You know the prices of FreeSync enabled monitors versus ones without? So what is the cost premium?

 

[jackstar7]

I hope we can get a freesync thread that doesn't devolve into fud-slinging.

If these are a few months out, and LG is said to be working on models as well, I think it's reasonable to expect other manufacturers will also bring some to market. And that means reviews should be coming relatively soon, too. Then we'll know if this adds value and is worth upgrading for.

None of this is a bad thing for any "camp". It's more features being added to our monitors that improve the experience.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Nvidia can support if they want, same with Intel (which may already support it not sure). G-Sync only works with Nvidia GPUs and this will never change.

You know the prices of FreeSync enabled monitors versus ones without? So what is the cost premium?

Intel doesnt support it. And Skylake wont either in terms of near future. So it would have to be after that.

Anyone can support it if they choose to implement it. But its still only AMD that does, on newer cards only.

 

[papapapapapapapababy]

why would i want to play at ultra hd...when games are made at 900P, i have a (WQHD) screen and i feel that's just 2 much pixels...

 

[tential]

How many monitors support Gsync currently?
How many monitors are planned to support Gsync in 2015?