• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

AMD's FreeSync and VESA A-Sync discussion

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
130
106
Broadwell and Braswell will not support DP1.2a either. And its basicly 100% sure that Skylake wont as well since its already finished. In case anyone hopes for Intel to join the wagon.

Just look at HDMI 2.0 support, or lack of the same. And HDMI 2.0 is 11 months old.

DisplayPort 1.3 is also around the corner. So alittle ackward to release 1.2a now.
 
Last edited:

BrightCandle

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
4,762
0
76
nVidia's Petersen made it clear that nVidia will not support Adaptive-Sync with DP1.2a.
He did more than say he wouldn't support the DP 1.2a extension, he expressed grave concern about this specification change becoming mandatory in DP 1.3 and forcing all monitors to change, Nvidia would be against that. Seeing as how they are on the committee that I think is an expression that they would block its inclusion.

Like I said before standards are part of a process were all interested parties come together to define what the solution is. If one party tries to force its version through, a version the competitor can't itself implement, then its not possible to make a standard out of it. It wont be become mandatory in DP 1.3 by the sounds of things, it might only be optional again or maybe not in there at all.
 
Last edited:

sontin

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2011
3,273
149
106
Yeah, AMD is forcing their solution as a standard which would harm everybody who cant support it. Heck they it even harm their own customers who brought a 7970 instead of a GTX680.
 

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
1
0
nVidia's Petersen made it clear that nVidia will not support Adaptive-Sync with DP1.2a.
Actually, that's not exactly what he stated. He made it clear that 1.2a ASync are optional extensions are not required of anyone. Of course the current cards do not support 1.2A optional extensions. Hell, most of AMD's cards except the 260,260x, 290,290X do not support these optional extensions.

He also stated that it will not become mandatory in 1.3 because it would throw the entire scaler, cabling and monitor industry into a state of flux, because the electronics required for FS cannot be forced on scaler mfgrs and panel mfgrs. They are and will remain just that, optional extensions.

If you re-watch the presentation it makes a lot of sense. It's impossible for AS to become a mandatory part of DP. But will remain an optional extension.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
200
106
He did more than say he wouldn't support the DP 1.2a extension, he expressed grave concern about this specification change becoming mandatory in DP 1.3 and forcing all monitors to change, Nvidia would be against that. Seeing as how they are on the committee that I think is an expression that they would block its inclusion.

Like I said before standards are part of a process were all interested parties come together to define what the solution is. If one party tries to force its version through, a version the competitor can't itself implement, then its not possible to make a standard out of it. It wont be become mandatory in DP 1.3 by the sounds of things, it might only be optional again or maybe not in there at all.
Is that how VESA works? Do members have veto power? Or is it simply a democratic vote?

Yeah, AMD is forcing their solution as a standard which would harm everybody who cant support it. Heck they it even harm their own customers who brought a 7970 instead of a GTX680.
AMD is forcing? Harm everybody who can't support it? AMD is hurting their own customers? Where does this stuff come from? It's so ridiculous it's funny. :D
 

sontin

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2011
3,273
149
106
AMD is forcing? Harm everybody who can't support it? AMD is hurting their own customers? Where does this stuff come from? It's so ridiculous it's funny. :D
So, a 7970 user can use adaptive sync for gaming?
Oh wait.

But it's okay. We know that AMD doesnt care about their own customers. :sneaky:





You're threadcrapping. Your post has zero to do with the topic.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director
 
Last edited by a moderator:

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
1
0
Just watch the PCPer presentation. He goes into why they are optional extensions and they will remain optional extensions, and it's not because of just NV. It would throw the entire scaler, cable, and panel industry into flux therefore it cannot be forced, the way he explained it made sense. And there is added cost (to the existing ecosystem of scalers, LCD electronics, panels, etc) no matter anyone's fantasies of thinking otherwise, so it will remain optional, and will remain optional extensions within the VESA DP Spec.
 

Final8ty

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2007
1,172
13
81
So, a 7970 user can use adaptive sync for gaming?
Oh wait.

But it's okay. We know that AMD doesnt care about their own customers. :sneaky:
As if the 7970 is recent tech and AMD stripped that feature :rolleyes:

So the answer is to never move forwards and bring out new features because there will always be users who have older tech that cant use them.
Every tech should be able to be retro fitted no matter what or how new or how old :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Round and round she goes, where she stops nobody knows.
This is really pointless guys.




Come on Keys, three straight posts of thread craps?


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director
 
Last edited by a moderator:

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
200
106
So, a 7970 user can use adaptive sync for gaming?
Oh wait.

But it's okay. We know that AMD doesnt care about their own customers. :sneaky:
It never had the capability. Unlike people who bought PhysX cards and had them deactivated after the fact.

As if the 7970 is recent tech and AMD stripped that feature :rolleyes:

So the answer is to never move forwards and bring out new features because there will always be users who have older tech that cant use them.
Every tech should be able to be retro fitted no matter what or how new or how old :rolleyes:
Exactly. It's pretty obvious to people who think about it rationally.
 

Leadbox

Senior member
Oct 25, 2010
744
63
91
Just watch the PCPer presentation. He goes into why they are optional extensions and they will remain optional extensions, and it's not because of just NV. It would throw the entire scaler, cable, and panel industry into flux therefore it cannot be forced, the way he explained it made sense. And there is added cost (to the existing ecosystem of scalers, LCD electronics, panels, etc) no matter anyone's fantasies of thinking otherwise, so it will remain optional, and will remain optional extensions within the VESA DP Spec.
With all the buzz around variable refresh, I think going forward, it would be a pretty unwise business decision to not support or offer some kind of variable refresh type tech with your monitor. So if adaptive sync works as claimed, I don't see how being optional or mandatory matters.
 

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
1
0
It never had the capability. Unlike people who bought PhysX cards and had them deactivated after the fact.



Exactly. It's pretty obvious to people who think about it rationally.
The interesting thing is that AMD is so quick to start a marketing campaign intended to smear nvidia's g-sync (even the name, FS, is a direct offshoot of g-sync) which has been proven in the field, yet they remain completely mum on the technical details behind freesync. I can't think of any reviewer who didn't consider g-sync a game changer. Even linus of linustechtips made the ROG Swift panel his daily driver (he said this on the wan show), and you will not find any reviewer who loves IPS panels more than him. Yet despite that, he is using the Swift as his daily panel for everything, and said he couldn't imagine gaming without it.

Could FS match this? Maybe. I think an alternative is great. However, I find AMD's smear campaign to be utterly ridiculous because #1) FS is still far away from being purchasable and #2) They will give no details on it despite being the ones behind the 1.2A optional extensions. That was their doing. But now they don't want to tell us what the tech details are? What do they have to hide?

I'm not so sure there's anything to think about rationally. AMD has given us nothing except slinging mud at nvidia, really. As classy as their marketing is, I do like the fact that NV generally goes into further detail into the how and why things work as they do with g-sync. Tom Pederson went into depth of a lot of things, what would it hurt for AMD to actually answer the questions behind this. After all they're the ones so intent on slinging mud at NV but they will tell us nothing about FS. What's up with that? Why exactly are we debating something that AMD has told us nearly NOTHING about? This thread is rather pointless with that in mind. We're at the point of where if AMD thinks FS is that great, maybe it is, but shut up and either 1) prove it or 2) provide technical details of how and why.

AT THE VERY LEAST. Give us technical details. NV gave a ton of technical info about g-sync before the hardware even went into production. All of the hows and whys of how it is beneficial and good for gamers. What has AMD done? Nothing. If you can do nothing but sling mud at NV, you better believe your solution be as good as ULMB/g-sync. And share the techinical details. If it isn't then AMD should shut the hell up and stop throwing mud at your competitor with a proven solution that all reviewers love.
 
Last edited:

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,597
2,689
126
So, a 7970 user can use adaptive sync for gaming?
Oh wait.

But it's okay. We know that AMD doesnt care about their own customers. :sneaky:
You mean like NVIDIA doesnt care about their own customers ???

G-Sync GPU support

No GTX650Ti, GTX650, GTX640, GTX630 support.

No Fermi support for G-Sync ?? why is that ??? there are a lot of Fermi customers around the world with GTX570/580 and even lower models.

:rolleyes:

[/sarcasm]





You're threadcrapping. Your post has zero to do with the topic.

Just report instead of responding.

esquared
Anandtech Forum Director
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,597
2,689
126
If it isn't then AMD should shut the hell up and stop throwing mud at your competitor with a proven solution that all reviewers love.
You mean that people here saying AMD lies should shut the hell up and stop throwing mud and FUD and wait for AMD to first release a finalized version of FreeSync ???? :sneaky:
 

wand3r3r

Diamond Member
May 16, 2008
3,180
0
0
The interesting thing is that AMD is so quick to start a marketing campaign intended to smear nvidia's g-sync (even the name, FS, is a direct offshoot of g-sync) which has been proven in the field, yet they remain completely mum on the technical details behind freesync. I can't think of any reviewer who hasn't said g-sync isn't a game changer. Even linus of linustechtips made the ROG Swift panel his daily driver (he said this on the wan show), and you will not find any reviewer who loves IPS panels more than him. Yet despite that, he is using the Swift as his daily panel for everything, and said he couldn't imagine gaming without it.

Could FS match this? Maybe. I think an alternative is great. However, I find AMD's smear campaign to be utterly ridiculous because #1) FS is still far away from being purchasable and #2) They will give no details on it despite being the ones behind the 1.2A optional extensions. That was their doing. But now they don't want to tell us what the tech details are? What do they have to hide?

I'm not so sure there's anything to think about rationally. AMD has given us nothing except slinging mud at nvidia, really. As classy as their marketing is, I do like the fact that NV generally goes into further detail into the how and why things work as they do with g-sync. Tom Pederson went into depth of a lot of things, what would it hurt for AMD to actually answer the questions behind this. After all they're the ones so intent on slinging mud at NV but they will tell us nothing about FS. What's up with that? Why exactly are we debating something that AMD has told us nearly NOTHING about? This thread is rather pointless with that in mind. We're at the point of where if AMD thinks FS is that great, maybe it is, but shut up and either 1) prove it or 2) provide technical details of how and why.

AT THE VERY LEAST. Give us technical details. NV gave a ton of technical info about g-sync before the hardware even went into production. All of the hows and whys of how it is beneficial and good for gamers. What has AMD done? Nothing. If you can do nothing but sling mud at NV, you better believe your solution be as good as ULMB/g-sync. And share the techinical details. If it isn't then AMD should shut the hell up and stop throwing mud at your competitor with a proven solution that all reviewers love.
If the thread is pointless why keep posting?

Since when does anybody release technical details about a product in development? It's naive to expect anything before they are ready to release it. Of course they are going to point out that a cheap or presumably free alternative is coming, everyone who buys into gsync are stuck with nv..

Why don't you guys focus on the few tidbits we have and avoid the spin.
 

SoulWager

Member
Jan 23, 2013
155
0
71
If the thread is pointless why keep posting?

Since when does anybody release technical details about a product in development? It's naive to expect anything before they are ready to release it. Of course they are going to point out that a cheap or presumably free alternative is coming, everyone who buys into gsync are stuck with nv..

Why don't you guys focus on the few tidbits we have and avoid the spin.
Since when does anybody officially announce a product or feature if they aren't ready to talk about the details?

Of course it's not going to be free, or even cheap. Prices will be dictated by market forces. Few competitors and high demand = high prices. Nvidia will only loosely be competing with AMD here, you won't see people jumping ship over monitor price unless they were already planning on buying a new monitor and a new GPU at the same time. Both platforms lock you in to a single GPU vendor for the foreseeable future.

The main thing that will bring prices down is volume.
 

BrightCandle

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
4,762
0
76
480hz would be a major advancement, its 4x any consumer product today, and 8x a "normal" monitor. That order of magnitude improvement would make things a lot smoother, even if the variance was quite high. I suspect you are right that would eliminate the problem, it would also take 8x as much horse power to render it. If we can get a similar quality of output at 60-120hz with adaptive sync technology instead then its considerably cheaper to do it that way than to try and push monitors much further than they are capable.

Another way to put it is that each frame on the GPU would have 1/8th the processing power available compared to the same game at 60hz, so it will look a lot worse.
 

Mand

Senior member
Jan 13, 2014
664
0
0
Exactly. If nobody chooses to pick it up or if nobody is capable of picking it up it's not even remotely the same thing as a vendor lockout. A vendor lockout is what is done when nVidia detects an AMD GPU as the primary render device and actively shuts down their hardware so it can't do PhysX calculations.
I see the problem, we're using two different terms. Vendor lock was used to describe how if you buy a G-Sync monitor, you have to then buy a Geforce card in order to take advantage of it. If you use a Radeon, you then don't get G-Sync. This is not the same as what you describe, where one company disables something that would otherwise work on another card, as is the case with PhysX.

That is a separate discussion from what people have brought up, which is that if you go with A-Sync, you won't be locked to a particular GPU vendor. Except, that's not the case. The end result is if you want to use an A-Sync monitor, you'll have to buy a Radeon.
 

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,230
1,111
126
The end result is if you want to use an A-Sync monitor, you'll have to buy a Radeon.
Of course since AMD stated that they ll support the norm, not that the competitor is barred from doing it as well but if they dont want to support the format it means that they re not interested in an open standard, that s all.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS