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

[PeterScott]

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.

The lack of VRR, can be partially mitigated with a monitor that has high native refresh, even when running down at lower fps.

If you had a 144Hz monitor even if running the game near but less than 60 FPS it won't drop to 30 FPS, like 60Hz monitor, the next step down for 144Hz monitor using Vsync below 60 FPS is 48 FPS, which is much more tolerable.

With a high native refresh with choices of Vsync with smaller penalties for missing your target and the ability to simply run without vsync if you must have the fastest refresh, and even lower lag that VRR(though you get screen tear) , and then some games have triple buffering that helps as well.

So I won't be chasing VRR monitors until the proprietary VRR nonsense ends. I will just buy the best overall monitor/$ ignoring VRR features.

 

[bystander36]

The lack of VRR, can be partially mitigated with a monitor that has high native refresh, even when running down at lower fps.

If you had a 144Hz monitor even if running the game near but less than 60 FPS it won't drop to 30 FPS, like 60Hz monitor, the next step down for 144Hz monitor using Vsync below 60 FPS is 48 FPS, which is much more tolerable.

With a high native refresh with choices of Vsync with smaller penalties for missing your target and the ability to simply run without vsync if you must have the fastest refresh, and even lower lag that VRR(though you get screen tear) , and then some games have triple buffering that helps as well.

So I won't be chasing VRR monitors until the proprietary VRR nonsense ends. I will just buy the best overall monitor/$ ignoring VRR features.

Though when it comes to 144hz, you'll drop between 72 FPS and 48 FPS and skip 60 FPS all together. It's still not the same as variable refresh rate.

 

[PeterScott]

Though when it comes to 144hz, you'll drop between 72 FPS and 48 FPS and skip 60 FPS all together. It's still not the same as variable refresh rate.

I didn't say it was the same. Just that it helps. 48 fps is lot better than 30 fps. Higher refresh makes for smaller jumps between the points.

 

[BFG10K]

Why on earth would any monitor manufacturer go with nvidia's solution?

The same reason motherboard manufacturers pay nVidia SLI "certification" fees for every SLI-capable motherboard sold.

The same reason reviewers were forced to sign draconian multi-year NDAs.

The same reason why manufacturers like Asus and Gigabyte were forced to remove AMD from their highest value in-house brands.

nVidia is the Intel of the dGPU market, that's why.

 

[mv2devnull]

nVidia is the Intel of the dGPU market, that's why.

Yes. Manufacturers, who sell both dGPUs and displays, must have "deals". However, surely not all monitor makers are in other NVidia-dependent fields. What is the "incentive" there?

 

[beginner99]

What is the "incentive" there?

It's called competition. If you offer display with features X and your competitor has pretty much the same one with features X + Gsync, which display do you think an owner of a NV gpu will prefer?

Yes the gsync one will cost more but if you don't offer it, you will lose a certain amount of customers. And since NV has huge marketshare, that amount can be rather high. Proprietary works nice if you are almost a monopoly.

It's the same over and over again. The company trailing needs to be open (AMD, MS and 10 years ago google) and then starts looking stuff down once they get ahead. Android (Google) is best example of this. Android is mostly only Open-Source on paper.

 

[arandomguy]

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.

But for how long have you owned and used them?

Someone who buys into a G-sync display that has cheaper non G-sync alternatives a 1 month before Nvidia support non G-sync VRR would likely be somewhat irked I would think. Someone who's owned and used one for years already is much less likely to care.

 

[mikeymikec]

The same reason motherboard manufacturers pay nVidia SLI "certification" fees for every SLI-capable motherboard sold.

The same reason reviewers were forced to sign draconian multi-year NDAs.

The same reason why manufacturers like Asus and Gigabyte were forced to remove AMD from their highest value in-house brands.

nVidia is the Intel of the dGPU market, that's why.

Interesting. I guess that's food for thought for when I'm considering my next graphics card purchase as I prefer adherence to open standards. I was also recently considering a monitor upgrade to one with variable sync support and while the one I had my eye on would have worked, it would have been through luck that I'd picked a monitor with FreeSync support rather than G-Sync.

 

[DooKey]

But for how long have you owned and used them?

Someone who buys into a G-sync display that has cheaper non G-sync alternatives a 1 month before Nvidia support non G-sync VRR would likely be somewhat irked I would think. Someone who's owned and used one for years already is much less likely to care.

I purchased my ROG Swift shortly after it came out in 2014. I purchased my ROG UW in March of last year.