Question CES 2019 - The beginning of the end for gsync?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

pj-

Senior member
May 5, 2015
481
249
116
On Jensen's stream a few minutes ago he spent 10 minutes talking around the fact that they are going to start supporting some freesync monitors at the driver level next week as "gsync compatible".

He made a point of saying that only 12 of the 400 they tested so far met their requirements. Not sure if it will be an "at your own risk" thing, or if it will only be supported for the specific models that pass their testing.

Edit: Apparently it can be enabled on any freesync monitor.
https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2019/01/06/g-sync-displays-ces/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Krteq

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
5,177
7,628
136
My guess is all the freesync monitors that didn't give a large enough range to work within were a "fail". How large a range is anyone's guess but most Freesync monitors are garbage so it's not surprising that NVIDIA claims very few "pass". Even still, I'd have to think that way more than 12 out of 400 would be acceptable.

Yeah, I assumed that as well. My response was particularly about certain monitors that share the same panels (or virtually the same) panels as other monitors and yet some pass and some don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ozzy702

Reinvented

Senior member
Oct 5, 2005
489
77
91
Yeah, I assumed that as well. My response was particularly about certain monitors that share the same panels (or virtually the same) panels as other monitors and yet some pass and some don't.

When I watched the presentation, they made it seem that if it doesn't pass their qualification, that it will end up having the "blanking" or "pulsing" as shown in the videos. So, I am skeptical, and worried...yet very excited for this to happen.
 

ozzy702

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2011
1,151
530
136
When I watched the presentation, they made it seem that if it doesn't pass their qualification, that it will end up having the "blanking" or "pulsing" as shown in the videos. So, I am skeptical, and worried...yet very excited for this to happen.

Which shouldn't happen given that it doesn't happen under AMD GPUs. It may just take some time for issues to be ironed out in NVIDIA's drivers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leadbox

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
136
Just another nV trap

No, it really is good.

In the past manufactures split effort building separate Freesync (often with barebones FS capability) and GSync monitors.

Now what many will do is build good FSync monitors that are also GSync certified/compatible.

Which means they will also be very good FSync monitors.

IMO the most desirable monitors are going to be FSync monitor wiht GSync certification even if you want to run them on AMD HW because you know they will have a high baseline of decent VRR features, and of course it leaves your future open to switching GPUs without losing VRR.
 

Guru

Senior member
May 5, 2017
830
361
106
All of them will work, its just that not all can work at 144hz, which is what Nvidia seems to be testing, work flawlessly at a big enough resolution and 144hz, which I'm guessing most budget and mainstream freesync monitors will fail.
 

DisarmedDespot

Senior member
Jun 2, 2016
587
588
136
I'm curious if they'll keep Freesync's Low Framerate Compensation, where Freesync still works beneath the minimum if the max is 2.5 times the min. My monitor usually only has a range of 40-75 hz, but if I OC it to 80 and drop the low end of the range to 32, I get VRR from 1 to 80. I recently went from am RX 580 to a 1080 Ti, so if this works out I'm set.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,672
2,817
126
nVidia's hand was forced much like they were forced to license SLI on non-nForce chipsets when Intel used their same tactics against them. I fully expect the "gsync compatible" monicker to have licensing fees.

Still, we have to give credit's where credit's due. This is a good move for consumers. More choice/competition is always better.
 

Shmee

Memory & Storage, Graphics Cards Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 13, 2008
7,381
2,415
146
Potentially good news here, as my monitor is on the list.
 

Despoiler

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2007
1,966
770
136
What does a non-validated FreeSync gaming monitor look like?


The comments out the monitor brand as LG and the model. Low and behold no one with AMD cards are having the same issues. People even figured out that the blinking was because Nvidia is trying to push G-Sync into a range that the monitor doesn't support. What this means is that Nvidia isn't actually following the specification for adaptive sync. If they read the EDID like they are supposed to then the GPU would know what adaptive sync range the monitor supports and act accordingly. There wouldn't be blinking. They are trying to shoehorn their G-Sync implementation into adaptive sync. Most of this announcement is more of the same Nvidia deceptive marketing.
 
Last edited:

Glo.

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2015
5,658
4,411
136
The comments out the monitor brand as LG and model and low and behold no one with AMD cards are having the same issues. People even figured out that the blinking was because Nvidia is trying to push G-Sync down into a range that the monitor doesn't support. The demostration is Nvidia marketing storytime like it usually is.
Conspiracy theories even on Tech forums.

;)
 

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,505
2,248
136
feel like my alienware 34" $800 monitor was a waste if I could have just gotten a free sync monitor.

Didn't you do research and select your monitor as the best option for you at the time of purchase? Weren't you happy with it all the way up to this announcement?

Not sure why you'd want poor mans g-sync to save a few hundred bucks. /s

I'm wondering if it's one of those pay to play as far as the certification process goes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: coercitiv

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
feel like my alienware 34" $800 monitor was a waste if I could have just gotten a free sync monitor.

The majority of Gsnyc displays are better than the typical Freesync displays in my experience. Wider range of refresh, and superior smoothness especially when really hit with serious dips.

So it kinda depends on your content. If you play a lot of esports stuff at 100+ fps and don't have many dips, Freesync is a great value. If you're pushing AAA stuff at say 28-77fps all Ultra/Max, then a lot of Freesync displays will not fulfill things all that well.

It's a lot like how Nvidia has had Freesync laptops for a while now, but labeled as Gysnc. No Gsync module, narrow refresh range, but cashing in on the branding.

So it's a bit of both worlds. The fancy official Gsync module displays generally delivered a superior experience, but there absolutely was a high cost to them. FS is a bit of a mixed bag, but you get a lot of options from bad to really good.

So this news is a big win, just have to be careful with the actual specs and hope their drivers improve fast.
 

Dribble

Platinum Member
Aug 9, 2005
2,076
611
136
nVidia's hand was forced much like they were forced to license SLI on non-nForce chipsets when Intel used their same tactics against them. I fully expect the "gsync compatible" monicker to have licensing fees.

Still, we have to give credit's where credit's due. This is a good move for consumers. More choice/competition is always better.
There can't be licensing fee's to Nvidia but there might well be higher costs. e.g. the example they gave in that video of blurring was because that monitor disabled overdrive with freesync. That is because monitor maker didn't bother tuning it for all the different refresh rates available. Making something work properly takes effort, which costs money, which will get passed on in the final price of the monitor.
 

Wall Street

Senior member
Mar 28, 2012
691
44
91
I like the idea of a free market solution, consumers are smart, if someone wants to buy a cheaper monitor that isn't as good, why should nVidia not let them? T

I view freesync/adaptive sync as similar to 144 hz, or 1440p. It is a specification and not a certification. Some people are saying that AMD is too loose in allowing the use of the freesync spec, but it is only a feature and not a certification program.

Freesync is available in some $100-150 monitors. Of course those monitors have a lot of compromises to hit those price points. These monitors work great in the situation where sometimes a game dips below 60 FPS but the framerate isn't too variable to need LFC, for example console games. These full monitors cost less than the $200 G-sync updcharge, so of course I do not expect the performance of a $700 ROG monitor. Clearly being able to get an affordable monitor with a 48-75 hz freesync range is better than having no variable refresh at all?

The problem with G-sync is that there is a market for variable refresh displays below the $500-700 market for G-sync monitors. nVidia was perfectly fine with consumers having to spend more and not letting monitor makers address this market with monitors which have compromises that gamers may be willing to accept. Now there is too much pressure from the mainstream with widespread VRR support from TVs, lower priced monitors, AMD GPUs and XBox, so nVidia can no longer ignore it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ozzy702 and Arkaign

Wall Street

Senior member
Mar 28, 2012
691
44
91
My guess is all the freesync monitors that didn't give a large enough range to work within were a "fail". How large a range is anyone's guess but most Freesync monitors are garbage so it's not surprising that NVIDIA claims very few "pass".

nVidia said that they will only certify monitors with a 2.4x range of min to max refresh. That means that 30-75, 60-144 and 48-144 ranges work.

However, monitors with a minimum framerate of >40 hz will require a >100 hz maximum framerate, disqualifying a lot of the cheaper freesync monitors which only go to 75 hz.

edit: looking at the 12 'approved' monitors, 100% of them are 144 hz or 240 hz, so nVidia may intend to not to certify any slower panels.
 
Last edited:

ibex333

Diamond Member
Mar 26, 2005
4,086
119
106
Really, both G-sync and Freesync is a scam. There's no screen tearing or any issues whatsoever without them. I use a regular monitor with my 1080GTX and there is no screen tearing. All games look fine at any fps above 30.

To be fair, I don't play any FPS games at all. RTS and RPG only. But I never seen this "screen tearing" everyone talks about.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
Really, both G-sync and Freesync is a scam. There's no screen tearing or any issues whatsoever without them. I use a regular monitor with my 1080GTX and there is no screen tearing. All games look fine at any fps above 30.

To be fair, I don't play any FPS games at all. RTS and RPG only. But I never seen this "screen tearing" everyone talks about.

Lol what?

I went from a really nice 12-bit IPS 2560x1440 60hz display to a 3440x1440 Gsnyc and it was a gargantuan improvement. RPGs, FPS, hell even the smoothness of moving things around the desktop was far better.

I also tried RX580 with a mid-range 1440p Freesync and it was pretty good, though you have to lower some details to make sure it doesn't dip below FS range or it gets ugly again.

Going back to 60hz with dips is agonizing. Locked 60 is fine, but still inferior.

Freesync and Gsync are not close to a scam. VRR is the best improvement in display tech in ages. However, one could say that Gsync module displays are overpriced, and/or that some Freesync displays are a bit janky. But scam? No. Might not be a match for you personally though, and that's fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Krteq and ozzy702

ozzy702

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2011
1,151
530
136
Really, both G-sync and Freesync is a scam. There's no screen tearing or any issues whatsoever without them. I use a regular monitor with my 1080GTX and there is no screen tearing. All games look fine at any fps above 30.

To be fair, I don't play any FPS games at all. RTS and RPG only. But I never seen this "screen tearing" everyone talks about.

You couldn't be more wrong but maybe it's not an issue for the games you play and your personal sensitivity to it. I almost exclusively play first person shooters and screen tearing ruins the experience. Going from a 60hz vanilla 1440p monitor to a 144hz Gsync 1440p monitor was probably the single greatest improvement I've ever seen from a tech purchase. Screen tearing is obnoxious and before adaptive sync I'd always tailor my settings so that I could pull as steady 60fps and use vsync to avoid the tearing but we know what that means in terms of latency, etc.

I can't go back to vanilla 60hz, I tried on a friend's machine and it was horrible.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rifter

repoman0

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2010
4,443
3,281
136
^That guy is wrong about almost everything, don't worry about him.

Anyway, I always have the worst timing ... just got my $600 Gsync display early last year. Oh well, it's still nice and I don't plan to change GPUs or my display for years, so I'll get my money out of it. I knew I shouldn't reward obnoxious corporate locking in behavior, but I made my money back and more on NVDA stock and sold it all near the top. Now it's worth half that and we can all laugh at them.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
136
You couldn't be more wrong but maybe it's not an issue for the games you play and your personal sensitivity to it. I almost exclusively play first person shooters and screen tearing ruins the experience. Going from a 60hz vanilla 1440p monitor to a 144hz Gsync 1440p monitor was probably the single greatest improvement I've ever seen from a tech purchase. Screen tearing is obnoxious and before adaptive sync I'd always tailor my settings so that I could pull as steady 60fps and use vsync to avoid the tearing but we know what that means in terms of latency, etc.

I can't go back to vanilla 60hz, I tried on a friend's machine and it was horrible.

While FS/GS is not a scam, I sometimes feel it is a bit overrated. If given the choice between one of those low refresh 40-75 Hz "freesync" monitors and 120-144Hz fixed frequency, I would choice the latter. IMO the high refresh trumps FS/GS, but both would be better.

With a 144Hz monitor, Vsync will cause less hitching on frame dips, and if I was really worried about the ultimate smooth, no lag performance in a competitive twitch game, I would simply run Vsync off, as that has less lag that FS/GS and is the fastest option at the expense of screen tearing which doesn't bother me that much in twitch games.

So I wasn't going to let FS/GS influence my next monitor/card purchase decisions. Now that there is the possibility of a good monitor that supports both, I will probably look for that on my next upgrade.
 

ozzy702

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2011
1,151
530
136
While FS/GS is not a scam, I sometimes feel it is a bit overrated. If given the choice between one of those low refresh 40-75 Hz "freesync" monitors and 120-144Hz fixed frequency, I would choice the latter. IMO the high refresh trumps FS/GS, but both would be better.

With a 144Hz monitor, Vsync will cause less hitching on frame dips, and if I was really worried about the ultimate smooth, no lag performance in a competitive twitch game, I would simply run Vsync off, as that has less lag that FS/GS and is the fastest option at the expense of screen tearing which doesn't bother me that much in twitch games.

So I wasn't going to let FS/GS influence my next monitor/card purchase decisions. Now that there is the possibility of a good monitor that supports both, I will probably look for that on my next upgrade.


I agree. If you can pull 120-144hz steady, adaptive sync isn't as big a deal. 100hz and below it's huge in my opinion. For some reason tearing just drives my brain nuts, even more so now that I'm used to gsync.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arkaign