Edit: Freesync does not work on Nvidia Cards, false alarm

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
5,919
87
106
#1
https://techreport.com/blog/34136/g...-begin-playing-nice-with-tr-freesync-monitors

If you have the 411.70 driver, or haven't downloaded yet, you should do so before it gets patched out and save it somewhere in storage, lmao! Seems like Freesync accidentally got enabled in this driver. It should be patched out soon, but for people who are bored, looks like it enables Freesync in windowed or borderless fullscreen mode. Has been tested with Maxwell, Pascal, and Turing cards so far.
 

Lordhumungus

Golden Member
Jan 14, 2007
1,198
0
91
#2
Fingers crossed the community can drum up enough backlash for them to keep it enabled going forward, however unlikely that may be.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,156
218
126
#3
This can go both ways. Either NV showing their greedy bastard colors by patching it out again or actually making it official.
 
Jun 3, 2011
10,075
150
126
#4
Patch it out?? Patch it out!? It's over,man. It's done. The internet is forever, once you release a whoopsy, it stayys forever. It never goes away.


Which leads to the question: accident or stunt?
 

Shmee

Memory and Storage, Graphics Cards
Super Moderator
Sep 13, 2008
3,847
59
126
#5
I hope it is because they have changed their stance? Time will tell.
 
Aug 14, 2000
21,451
254
126
#6
No way they would give up their Gsync tax without a good reason. Unless this was intentional, it'll be patched out.

Just like how they disabled SLI on ULi chipsets, and how they disabled hardware PhysX with AMD cards.

Paying nVidia customers always seem to get shafted because of "certification" and "a better experience".
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,321
824
136
#7
Update from Techreport:
After further research and the collection of more high-speed camera footage from our G-Sync displays, I believe the tear-free gameplay we're experiencing on our FreeSync displays in combination with GeForces is a consequence of Windows 10's Desktop Window Manager adding some form of Vsync to the proceedings when games are in borderless windowed mode, rather than any form of VESA Adapative-Sync being engaged with our GeForce cards. Pending a response from Nvidia as to just what we're experiencing, I'd warn against drawing any conclusions from our observations at this time and sincerely apologize for any misleading conclusions we've presented in our original article. The original piece continues below for posterity.
 

arandomguy

Senior member
Sep 3, 2013
470
16
116
#8
Shouldn't whether or not it is working be easily noticeable just by the eye-test?

That's what variable refresh rate has been marketed as regardless of brand.
 
Jun 3, 2011
10,075
150
126
#9
Im on 3xx drivers because ... reasons. Quake reasons.
Even if NV does patch it, i dont see a reason to not stick with 411 if you have a Fs monitor.

As always, i agree with BFG10K - NV has shafted people in the name of "experience" more times that i can remember; like not allowing me to uninstall SHIELD or streaming components from my GefExp.

But ... as long as they have the hardware they have ...
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
227
96
#10
IIRC when people were using the hack to use Freesync by passing through a second low end AMD card in your system, someone tested it with a freesync monitor that reports current screen refresh in HZ. That is definitive.
 

DooKey

Golden Member
Nov 9, 2005
1,469
13
106
#11
No way they would give up their Gsync tax without a good reason. Unless this was intentional, it'll be patched out.

Just like how they disabled SLI on ULi chipsets, and how they disabled hardware PhysX with AMD cards.

Paying nVidia customers always seem to get shafted because of "certification" and "a better experience".
As always...vote with your wallet.
 

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,218
157
126
#12
As always...vote with your wallet.
In theory it sounds like the best option....Currently it doesn't look like it's worked out so good for the end users. Guess you can't win them all.
 

Avalon

Diamond Member
Jul 16, 2001
7,458
6
91
#13
I would find it odd that the functionality was there to begin with. Based on TechReport's update, seems they misspoke initially.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
227
96
#15
What's with that? I've no idea (asking out of genuine curiosity).
Freesync seems to add nothing, or close to nothing to the cost of a similar non VFR monitor.

Every Gsync Monitor requires a proprietary NVidia chip, and monitors with it cost at least $200 more, so NVidia gets a nice cut on every Gsync monitor. Hence the Gsync tax.
 
May 19, 2011
12,550
567
126
#16
Freesync seems to add nothing, or close to nothing to the cost of a similar non VFR monitor.

Every Gsync Monitor requires a proprietary NVidia chip, and monitors with it cost at least $200 more, so NVidia gets a nice cut on every Gsync monitor. Hence the Gsync tax.
Does AMD do anything similar? AFAIK their solution is called Freesync.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
227
96
#17
Does AMD do anything similar? AFAIK their solution is called Freesync.
No, AMD just publishes open specs that monitor makers can meet how they wish and doesn't charge them anything.
 
May 19, 2011
12,550
567
126
#18
No, AMD just publishes open specs that monitor makers can meet how they wish and doesn't charge them anything.
Why on earth would any monitor manufacturer go with nvidia's solution? Is it any better?
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
227
96
#19
Why on earth would any monitor manufacturer go with nvidia's solution? Is it any better?
Because most gamers have NVidia cards, and if they want to sell them VFR monitors, only the proprietary NVidia solution will work.
 

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
5,919
87
106
#20
I guess what I dont understand is, even if this is not freesync, it seems to work similarly to freesync, or at least way better than vsync? Basically there's no tearing from 45-60 fps with vsync off in this mode, while clearly looking smoother than with vsync on. So whatever it is, it's basically some Windows desktop vsync mode that's way better than what's available in the Nvidia driver.

If I were to guess this is probably some form of triple buffering that Nvidia doesn't enable with their vsync in DirectX. I never understood why Nvidia only enabled triple buffering in Open GL, other than, I assume, to make vsync look worse and gsync look better in general gaming.
 
Last edited:

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,153
10
106
#21
I guess what I dont understand is, even if this is not freesync, it seems to work similarly to freesync, or at least way better than vsync? Basically there's no tearing from 45-60 fps with vsync off in this mode, while clearly looking smoother than with vsync on. So whatever it is, it's basically some Windows desktop vsync mode that's way better than what's available in the Nvidia driver.

If I were to guess this is probably some form of triple buffering that Nvidia doesn't enable with their vsync in DirectX. I never understood why Nvidia only enabled triple buffering in Open GL, other than, I assume, to make vsync look worse and gsync look better in general gaming.
In Windowed mode, Windows enables a form of V-sync and also enables a form of triple buffering. That last part is why the FPS will vary in such a way. The bad news is that it also causes more latency when you maintain your refresh rate. V-sync on a single GPU usually uses single buffering, so it will tend to lock at 30 FPS when it is failing to reach 60. With SLI or CF, it also behaves as triple buffering does, as there is an additional buffer added for each GPU.

This still doesn't vary the refresh times. When you are below your refresh rate, you'll get a mix of 1 or more frames of wait time between each change of frame. This causes some micro stuttering.
 
Apr 4, 2005
95
1
71
#22
So, now that the source has confirmed that this is not true don’t we think this thread title should be changed?
 

gdansk

Senior member
Feb 8, 2011
377
21
91
#23
It would be wise to update the title. Best to avoid confusion. We all wanted this to be true (except for some people who bought Gsync displays and don't want to feel like they wasted their money).
 

DooKey

Golden Member
Nov 9, 2005
1,469
13
106
#24
It would be wise to update the title. Best to avoid confusion. We all wanted this to be true (except for some people who bought Gsync displays and don't want to feel like they wasted their money).
Huh? I own G-Sync displays and have no problem at all if NV adopts VESA standards for VRR. It just needs to work as well as G-Sync does because I won't downgrade capability. G-Sync is a great technology. If HDMI 2.1 support of VRR is as good I'll buy a display with that as soon as I'm ready for more resolution above my current 3440x1440 UW.
 

gdansk

Senior member
Feb 8, 2011
377
21
91
#25
Huh? I own G-Sync displays and have no problem at all if NV adopts VESA standards for VRR. It just needs to work as well as G-Sync does because I won't downgrade capability. G-Sync is a great technology. If HDMI 2.1 support of VRR is as good I'll buy a display with that as soon as I'm ready for more resolution above my current 3440x1440 UW.
I said some, not all. I've seen a few of them.
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS