AMD's FreeSync and VESA A-Sync discussion

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SoulWager

Member
Jan 23, 2013
155
0
71
Cuts out the Video card vendors upcharge, though.



It's a bit more involved than that to bring product to market.
Context.
Keep in mind that DP 1.2A that supports the adaptive sync standard is only ~5 months old. This is pretty fast adoption. It took ~10 months to see the first retail Gsync monitor from the time final working models were demoed. Nothing happens overnight.

Just as a side note, Gsync monitors were supposed to be out 2nd Q and didn't make it until well into the 3rd Q. You didn't see people dramatizing that though.
There were certainly delays with g-sync, but it was obviously not vaporware, and the people that REALLY wanted it could get the mod board. That's irrelevant. What matters is that there is finally some credibility that there will in fact be adaptive sync displays next year. I think AMD's long term existence depends on those displays selling well.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
201
106
Context.There were certainly delays with g-sync, but it was obviously not vaporware, and the people that REALLY wanted it could get the mod board. That's irrelevant. What matters is that there is finally some credibility that there will in fact be adaptive sync displays next year. I think AMD's long term existence depends on those displays selling well.
My only point is people are acting like this is taking too long and AMD hasn't been forthcoming. It's not long at all if you consider how much had to be done from a public demonstration of a proof of concept, getting the display standard in place, to a marketed product in about 1 year.
 

SoulWager

Member
Jan 23, 2013
155
0
71
My only point is people are acting like this is taking too long and AMD hasn't been forthcoming. It's not long at all if you consider how much had to be done from a public demonstration of a proof of concept, getting the display standard in place, to a marketed product in about 1 year.
Well yeah, everyone was expecting AMD would take 18-24 months to come up with a response, starting at the g-sync announcement event. Then CES happened and the people that drank the kool-aid were saying it would be on every display within months. Turns out that initial estimate was pretty accurate. The timing of the VESA announcement is irrelevant, because work on supporting variable refresh in hardware can start before the interface is finalized.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
201
106
Well yeah, everyone was expecting AMD would take 18-24 months to come up with a response, starting at the g-sync announcement event. Then CES happened and the people that drank the kool-aid were saying it would be on every display within months. Turns out that initial estimate was pretty accurate. The timing of the VESA announcement is irrelevant, because work on supporting variable refresh in hardware can start before the interface is finalized.
1st Q 2015 has been the date as long as I can remember their being one.
 

Dribble

Golden Member
Aug 9, 2005
1,946
481
136
My only point is people are acting like this is taking too long and AMD hasn't been forthcoming. It's not long at all if you consider how much had to be done from a public demonstration of a proof of concept, getting the display standard in place, to a marketed product in about 1 year.
They still haven't demo'd it! A video running at a fixed frame rate is not a freesync demo. Big difference between that and nvidia announcing gysnc and showing it working in games. AMD have a history of announcing vaporware to try and one up nvidia (see anything hardware physics related), or some half arsed solution too look good they they then drop (see 3D and the single game they promoted). Given that history people have every right to question free sync.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
201
106
They still haven't demo'd it! A video running at a fixed frame rate is not a freesync demo. Big difference between that and nvidia announcing gysnc and showing it working in games. AMD have a history of announcing vaporware to try and one up nvidia (see anything hardware physics related), or some half arsed solution too look good they they then drop (see 3D and the single game they promoted). Given that history people have every right to question free sync.
And it still took them ~10 mos from there and they were much further along. I'm not addressing anything except people who seem to think we should have Freesync monitors at retail by now or it's an AMD fail. It hasn't been long enough for proof of concept to retail samples yet. If we see retail models Q1 of 2015 that's a real accomplishment considering how much work needs to be done.
 

BrightCandle

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
4,762
0
76
Im wondering. Has there been a real time demo showing the capabilities of free sync??
Possibly. We have definitely seen 45 fps based demos with the wind turbines and are told that this 45 fps was achieved using a variable vblank signal. In the most recent showing its possible that we also saw it varying between 45 and 60, but the video is just too blurry to be sure and no one who attended the event has answered my query on this point.

I think they did show it, from the video I swear I saw a 6X and a 4X at different points in the video but I am only about 60% certain. So I stick with my maybe, I haven't yet seen solid evidence they have. They certainly haven't shown it with a real game yet.
 

Dribble

Golden Member
Aug 9, 2005
1,946
481
136
Possibly. We have definitely seen 45 fps based demos with the wind turbines and are told that this 45 fps was achieved using a variable vblank signal. In the most recent showing its possible that we also saw it varying between 45 and 60, but the video is just too blurry to be sure and no one who attended the event has answered my query on this point.

I think they did show it, from the video I swear I saw a 6X and a 4X at different points in the video but I am only about 60% certain. So I stick with my maybe, I haven't yet seen solid evidence they have. They certainly haven't shown it with a real game yet.
First time they left the fps monitor up so you could clearly see it was a fixed rate. Second time they hid the fps so you couldn't see which is pretty damming. If it was really variable they would have shown it so it was obvious. Hence it's very likely the most AMD have so far achieved in public is a fixed rate video.
 

BrightCandle

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
4,762
0
76
First time they left the fps monitor up so you could clearly see it was a fixed rate. Second time they hid the fps so you couldn't see which is pretty damming. If it was really variable they would have shown it so it was obvious. Hence it's very likely the most AMD have so far achieved in public is a fixed rate video.
The third time they had FPS showing again, but the video quality was awful and off angle and made it really hard to tell. You are the right the first 2 showings were both fixed FPS confirmed by reviewers that were there and talked to AMD about the demo. I don't know about the third one we can't be sure. The FPS counter was back however after being missing for the second demo.
 

Creig

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,171
13
81
AMD chose to reveal very early hardware that was nothing more than proof-of-concept to demonstrate that they were indeed working towards a finished product. And some people kept crying "Lies! It's all lies since it can't do everything they said it will!". Despite the fact that AMD had very clearly laid out their projected roadmap for eventual retail production.

If AMD had instead chosen to keep FreeSync under wraps until it was ready for reviews, those same people would have been crying "Lies! It's all lies since they won't show us anything! It's vaporware!".

Really, there was no way for AMD to please those people.

Personally, I think they chose the best option by revealing FreeSync updates as they progressed. I hope they continue to show us what they are working on and the hurdles they've overcome to bring FreeSync to the point it is at today.
 

f1sherman

Platinum Member
Apr 5, 2011
2,243
0
0
http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/19346-nvidia-utlovar-stod-for-g-sync-konkurrenten-adaptive-sync

About a year ago, NVIDIA G-Sync technology, where the graphics card control screen refresh rate.
The effect is that the image is perceived as more responsive, especially at lower frame rates, and this has no side effects like tearing and severe delays.
The competitor AMD still has no equivalent solution on the market, but are working feverishly with what's called Project Freesync .

Unlike AMD, Nvidia wants to see an open solution, and therefore works together with the standardization body VESA , which is behind the DisplayPort standard.
Freesync exploits function Adaptive-Sync DisplayPort 1.2a, which like Nvidia G-Sync makes it possible to control the monitor's refresh rate.
The snag is that there is not yet any compatible computer monitors.

While enthusiasts are waiting to try AMD Freesync Nvidia is planning to steal rampjuset by doing the same, and implement support for DisplayPort Adaptive-Sync,
even though the technology in practice compete with Nvidia G-Sync.
This was stated at a secret press conference in San Francisco for the launch of the new Maxwell-based graphics card Geforce GTX 980 and GTX 970 .

A few more in-depth details than that yet to be revealed. More information about Nvidia's prospective investment in Adaptive-Sync released probably when they first find compatible monitors on the market, which is expected early next year.
 

gorobei

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2007
3,267
430
126
Is that a typo? Did it mean to say "Unlike Nvidia, AMD wants to see an open solution..."
most likely a problem with either the original article phrasing or the google translation of it.

either way that pretty much marks the death knell for gsync asic. if nv cards support async there is no reason for monitor makers to spend the extra money for additional ram and the custom nv controller chip. with the 3 announced controller asic makers adopting async into their newest chips this jan, there is no way nv can match their economies of scale.

the real question is will older gsync cards be able use AS or only the g9x0?
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
134
106
Maxwell doesnt support DP 1.2a arcording to their own data.

And secret pressconference..ye right. Click click ads....
 
Last edited:

f1sherman

Platinum Member
Apr 5, 2011
2,243
0
0
could be... I dunno. How's the sweclockers credibility anyway?

at first I thought they confused it with Nvidia's own Adaptive VSync
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
201
106
most likely a problem with either the original article phrasing or the google translation of it.

either way that pretty much marks the death knell for gsync asic. if nv cards support async there is no reason for monitor makers to spend the extra money for additional ram and the custom nv controller chip. with the 3 announced controller asic makers adopting async into their newest chips this jan, there is no way nv can match their economies of scale.

the real question is will older gsync cards be able use AS or only the g9x0?
Async is not Freesync. For example, you can use Async to simply vary the refresh rate to lower fixed values for power consumption reduction.

Without an article written in English, or a native Sweedish speaker to interpret for us, you can't take anything definitive from the Sweclockers article.
 

SoulWager

Member
Jan 23, 2013
155
0
71
Async is not Freesync. For example, you can use Async to simply vary the refresh rate to lower fixed values for power consumption reduction.

Without an article written in English, or a native Sweedish speaker to interpret for us, you can't take anything definitive from the Sweclockers article.

Your first sentence is right, but the distinction you made between freesync and a-sync is wrong. A-sync requires the display implement support for variable refresh. Freesync is AMD's branding for their own technology to drive a variable refresh display. Nvidia can implement support for adaptive sync, call it g-sync, and license their branding to display manufacturers, as can AMD with the freesync branding. I would hope they both have strict latency and image quality requirements for anyone they licensed the brand to.
 

antihelten

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,764
274
126
Async is not Freesync. For example, you can use Async to simply vary the refresh rate to lower fixed values for power consumption reduction.

Without an article written in English, or a native Sweedish speaker to interpret for us, you can't take anything definitive from the Sweclockers article.
I'm not a native swedish speaker, but being danish is close enough that I can tell you that the error is with google translate. The correct translation of the line in question would be:

"In contrast to Nvidia, AMD wants to see an open solution, and is therefore working together with the standardization organisation VESA, which is behind the displayport standard."
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
201
106
Your first sentence is right, but the distinction you made between freesync and a-sync is wrong. A-sync requires the display implement support for variable refresh. Freesync is AMD's branding for their own technology to drive a variable refresh display. Nvidia can implement support for adaptive sync, call it g-sync, and license their branding to display manufacturers, as can AMD with the freesync branding. I would hope they both have strict latency and image quality requirements for anyone they licensed the brand to.
I don't think we are fundamentally disagreeing. I just gave an example of a capability of Async besides real time variable refresh. You gave a more accurate definition, for sure. :thumbsup:

On your point though, I never thought about the possibility that other GPU manufacturers might have to work around AMD licenses to implement features using DP's Async. It sounds like nVidia can implement it as well though, which is good. I want it to be a feature everybody offers to speed up it's adoption.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
201
106
I'm not a native swedish speaker, but being danish is close enough that I can tell you that the error is with google translate. The correct translation of the line in question would be:

"In contrast to Nvidia, AMD wants to see an open solution, and is therefore working together with the standardization organisation VESA, which is behind the displayport standard."
Thanks. I assumed that. From the article are they saying nVidia is going to support variable refresh capability using Async?
 

SoulWager

Member
Jan 23, 2013
155
0
71
I'm not a native swedish speaker, but being danish is close enough that I can tell you that the error is with google translate. The correct translation of the line in question would be:

"In contrast to Nvidia, AMD wants to see an open solution, and is therefore working together with the standardization organisation VESA, which is behind the displayport standard."
I figured that line was translated incorrectly.

I also don't get why people were so upset with Nvidia developing a proprietary solution, it's hard to convince display giants to support a technology before you create a market for it.
 

SoulWager

Member
Jan 23, 2013
155
0
71
I don't think we are fundamentally disagreeing. I just gave an example of a capability of Async besides real time variable refresh. You gave a more accurate definition, for sure. :thumbsup:

On your point though, I never thought about the possibility that other GPU manufacturers might have to work around AMD licenses to implement features using DP's Async. It sounds like nVidia can implement it as well though, which is good. I want it to be a feature everybody offers to speed up it's adoption.
I doubt there's any (enforceably) patentable IP, but there are definitely trademark issues for anyone that wants to use the branding.
 

antihelten

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,764
274
126
Thanks. I assumed that. From the article are they saying nVidia is going to support variable refresh capability using Async?
The line mentioning Nvidia supporting ASYNC is fairly well translated by google translate. This would be my translation:

"While enthusiast are waiting to try AMDs freesync, Nvidia is planning on stealing the show, by doing the same* and implement support for Displayport Adaptive-Sync, despite the fact the technique is in practise competing with GSYNC"

*the swedish text says "doing the same", which is slightly confusing, since Nvidia is obviously not going to implement freesync, but I think they are referring to earlier in the text where they describe the functionality of freesync, and it is this functionality that Nvidia will "do the same".
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY