Freesync monitors to start releasing in November

[dacostafilipe]

Explain to me how this customer uses variable refresh rates without buying an AMD video card.

You are mixing stuff.

FreeSync (or the name AMD will use when released) IS locked to AMD hardware.

A-Sync (the VESA spec) IS NOT vendor locked.

You need something like FreeSync to decide when to update the screen based on the applications refresh rate (and other stuff). But at the end, FreeSync just uses A-Sync to control the screen.

There's no reason to believe that we (=random developer) can't write our own software to control an A-Sync screen. Reading EDID and pushing commands over DP is not that complicated. This would also allow devs to control the screen with the engine and fix games that use special rendering techniques (ex: Diablo3 not working with G-Sync).

PS: Yes, this could also apply to G-Sync if somebody reverse engineer the protocol. But with A-Sync this is a lot easier and, most important, there would be no legal problems involved.

 

[3DVagabond]

You are mixing stuff.

FreeSync (or the name AMD will use when released) IS locked to AMD hardware.

A-Sync (the VESA spec) IS NOT vendor locked.

You need something like FreeSync to decide when to update the screen based on the applications refresh rate (and other stuff). But at the end, FreeSync just uses A-Sync to control the screen.

There's no reason to believe that we (=random developer) can't write our own software to control an A-Sync screen. Reading EDID and pushing commands over DP is not that complicated. This would also allow devs to control the screen with the engine and fix games that use special rendering techniques (ex: Diablo3 not working with G-Sync).

PS: Yes, this could also apply to G-Sync if somebody reverse engineer the protocol. But with A-Sync this is a lot easier and, most important, there would be no legal problems involved.

There apparently is a hardware requirement on the video card end, thus why Bonaire and later GPU's are needed.

 

[dacostafilipe]

There apparently is a hardware requirement on the video card end, thus why Bonaire and later GPU's are needed.

AMD says that GCN 1.1 display controllers have "additionally feature" but I did not find any information about it. Maybe it's just AMD focusing on specific hardware because they lack manpower on the software side.

 

[3DVagabond]

AMD says that GCN 1.1 display controllers have "additionally feature" but I did not find any information about it. Maybe it's just AMD focusing on specific hardware because they lack manpower on the software side.

Wut? Any basis for this speculation? Or do we just file this under "anything's possible"?

 

[dacostafilipe]

Wut? Any basis for this speculation? Or do we just file this under "anything's possible"?

The first part is in AMD's FreeSync FAQ. The second one is just personal speculation.

 

[bystander36]

You are mixing stuff.

FreeSync (or the name AMD will use when released) IS locked to AMD hardware.

A-Sync (the VESA spec) IS NOT vendor locked.

You need something like FreeSync to decide when to update the screen based on the applications refresh rate (and other stuff). But at the end, FreeSync just uses A-Sync to control the screen.

There's no reason to believe that we (=random developer) can't write our own software to control an A-Sync screen. Reading EDID and pushing commands over DP is not that complicated. This would also allow devs to control the screen with the engine and fix games that use special rendering techniques (ex: Diablo3 not working with G-Sync).

PS: Yes, this could also apply to G-Sync if somebody reverse engineer the protocol. But with A-Sync this is a lot easier and, most important, there would be no legal problems involved.

I did not confuse Freesync with A-sync. Freesync is the software to allow variable refresh rates using A-sync as a tool to make it happen.

Now you did not explain how an Nvidia user can get variable refresh rates with an A-sync monitor, without changing the conditions of my example. I specifically mentioned that Nvidia did not support variable refresh rates through A-sync as one of the conditions, which is quite possible to happen. And writing your own code to support A-sync does not exactly match the easy to transition part of the definition, and let's assume the dev's don't write special software (even if they did, it would be limited to those games).

Try again.

 

[caswow]

I did not confuse Freesync with A-sync. Freesync is the software to allow variable refresh rates using A-sync as a tool to make it happen.

Now you did not explain how an Nvidia user can get variable refresh rates with an A-sync monitor, without changing the conditions of my example. I specifically mentioned that Nvidia did not support variable refresh rates through A-sync as one of the conditions, which is quite possible to happen. And writing your own code to support A-sync does not exactly match the easy to transition part of the definition, and let's assume the dev's don't write special software (even if they did, it would be limited to those games).

Try again.

so dx11.1 and dx11.2 were vendor locked because nvidia refused to support it? this makes no sense.

your only argument is nv doesnt support this so it must be vendor locked.

 

[bystander36]

so dx11.1 and dx11.2 were vendor locked in because nvidia refused to support it? this makes no sense.

Assuming this is still true. No, but a customer who wants to use dx11.1 or dx11.2 would have been locked into AMD.

 

[piesquared]

Then answer my follow up post.

What follow up question? All I see are misrepresentations and games of semantics. It's clear that everybody considers vendor lock in in this context to be the situation where the technology is proprietary to one vendor. Obviously that is not the case with A-Sync as it is open and free for anyone to adopt as it is a VESA standard. By your revisionist definition, not only is Nv vendor locking Gsync, but A-Sync as well since they are not offering it to it's customers. Fortunately, IHV's will adopt A-Sync including Nv, because they'll have no choice as it becomes widely adopted. Nv are trying to buy time with propaganda until it gets A-Sync hardware and software working on future hardware.

 

[piesquared]

Assuming this is still true. No, but a customer who wants to use dx11.1 or dx11.2 would have been locked into AMD.

Nope, not vendor locked at all. It was Nv's choice to not support those extensions of DX for it's customers. Choice. Lock. 2 diametrically opposed approaches.

 

[bystander36]

What follow up question? All I see are misrepresentations and games of semantics. It's clear that everybody considers vendor lock in in this context to be the situation where the technology is proprietary to one vendor. Obviously that is not the case with A-Sync as it is open and free for anyone to adopt as it is a VESA standard. By your revisionist definition, not only is Nv vendor locking Gsync, but A-Sync as well since they are not offering it to it's customers. Fortunately, IHV's will adopt A-Sync including Nv, because they'll have no choice as it becomes widely adopted. Nv are trying to buy time with propaganda until it gets A-Sync hardware and software working on future hardware.

Clearly this is the issue.

I'm not talking about how the tech is locked. I'm not revising anything either.

I'm saying, and I am clearly backed up by the definition, is that I the customer would be locked-in to one brand if no one but a single company supports a tech I need to use.

 

[piesquared]

Clearly this is the issue.

I'm not talking about how the tech is locked. I'm not revising anything either.

I'm saying, and I am clearly backed up by the definition, is that I the customer would be locked-in to one brand if no one but a single company supports a tech I need to use.

There is no issue because there is no vendor lock with VESA's A-Sync. IHV's can support it for their customers or not. If your hardware doesn't support the open standard, then you need to lobby your hardware's manufacturer to support it, which they are free to do. By your definition choice=vendor lock. There's no lock, AMD, intel, Nv, ARM, VIA, Imagination, and everybody else has the choice to support it.

 

[bystander36]

There is no issue because there is no vendor lock with VESA's A-Sync. IHV's can support it for their customers or not. If your hardware doesn't support the open standard, then you need to lobby your hardware's manufacturer to support it, which they are free to do. By your definition choice=vendor lock. There's no lock, AMD, intel, Nv, ARM, VIA, Imagination, and everybody else has the choice to support it.

Yes, they could, but if they don't, how is the customer (me), able to use it on anything but the vendor who does?

I, the customer (not the tech), is locked-in to one vendor.

 

[piesquared]

Yes, they could, but if they don't, how is the customer (me), able to use it on anything but the vendor who does?

I, the customer (not the tech), is locked-in to one vendor.

A-Sync is open for anyone to use, and if an IHV chooses not to support the open standard, then it is that particular IHV that is locking you out, not the one that supports it. You are not locked, you can petition that IHV to give it's customers support for the open standard, and they have that choice to do so. Nv chooses not to give that support for their customers, that doesn't make the standard a lock in in any way, shape, or form.

 

[bystander36]

A-Sync is open for anyone to use, and if an IHV chooses not to support the open standard, then it is that particular IHV that is locking you out, not the one that supports it. You are not locked, you can petition that IHV to give it's customers support for the open standard, and they have that choice to do so. Nv chooses not to give that support for their customers, that doesn't make the standard a lock in in any way, shape, or form.

What part of "easily transition" is hard to understand? I am locked-in. Petitioning a vendor to support my needs does not allow me to transition to that vendor until they support it. And yes, it isn't AMD's fault, I never said that. I specifically said it wasn't their fault. It isn't VESA's fault either. It would indeed be the fault of anyone who doesn't support it.

That still doesn't change the fact that I have one vendor that can support what I need. I am still locked-in to one vendor.

Note: I still haven't ever said the standard is locked in (at least not intentionally) and I'm done. Clearly you will not view it from the customer point of view.

 

[piesquared]

What part of "easily transition" is hard to understand? I am locked-in. Petitioning a vendor to support my needs does not allow me to transition to that vendor until they support it. And yes, it isn't AMD's fault, I never said that. I specifically said it wasn't their fault. It isn't VESA's fault either. It would indeed be the fault of anyone who doesn't support it.

That still doesn't change the fact that I have one vendor that can support what I need. I am still locked-in to one vendor.

Because one vendor has announced support for the open standard at this time, does not make it a vendor lock in. It makes it what it is: AMD giving consumers support for an open standard.

I am viewing it from a vendor lock in point of view, which includes consumers. Consumers can purchase A-Sync technology and have a cross platform solution which can be supported by multiple vendors, unlike other solutions where you are locked to one particular brand without choice.

 

[bystander36]

Because one vendor has announced support for the open standard at this time, does not make it a vendor lock in. It makes it what it is: AMD giving consumers support for an open standard.

I will respond to this. You are correct. I never disagreed with this. This was in response to the original hypothetical of Nvidia not supporting it, which is quite possible they won't.

 

[Meekers]

This is becoming a pointless argument in semantics. Both sides are correct for different reasons.

It is open in sense that Nvidia could support it if they chose to, there is no licensing to stop them, though it could possibly take added hardware(we don't know at this point).

For at least the near future, and possibly forever, it is locked in practical terms because as long as Nvidia doesn't implement their own solution you will never be able to use A-sync on Nvidia hardware.

I think AMD deserves praise for using an open standard, and I hope Nvidia implements it in the future even if they keep G-Sync, but that does not change the fact that in practice you will just as locked in with AMD and A-sync as you would be with Nvidia and G-Sync. The difference is that there is hope that if you went A-Sync Nvidia will support it in the future but not the other way around. It is pointless to argue those points much further.

 

[piesquared]

This is becoming a pointless argument in semantics. Both sides are correct for different reasons.

It is open in sense that Nvidia could support it if they chose to, there is no licensing to stop them, though it could possibly take added hardware(we don't know at this point).

For at least the near future, and possibly forever, it is locked in practical terms because as long as Nvidia does implement their own solution you will never be able to use A-sync on Nvidia hardware.

I think AMD deserves praise for using an open standard, and I hope Nvidia implements it in the future even if they keep G-Sync, but that does not change the fact that in practice you will just as locked in with AMD and A-sync as you would be with Nvidia and G-Sync. The difference is that there is hope that if you went A-Sync Nvidia will support it in the future but not the other way around. It is pointless to argue those points much further.

Close, but there are a few other factors to consider also. There are multiple IHV's that also have the option of supporting A-Sync, it's not just AMD v. Nv. A-Sync monitors will support power and video playback optimizations which other IHVs like intel and ARM will benefit from for mobile and other devices. Gaming is one aspect, but it's an all in one package so supporting A-Sync gets all of the above. Support will be wide spread because it benefits consumers, IHV's and monitor manufacturers due to the fact that it's an open standard.

 

[bystander36]

That is a different topic. You are now talking about your assurance that it will be widely supported. Our topic was about if it won't.

As far as wide spread adoption, we really only have 3 players for Windows gaming. AMD and Nvidia, the only ones in the discrete gaming market. Variable refresh rates are not an issue with video playback, so we can, at least for now, talk about gaming support.

Here is how I predict things. I see two mid term outcomes:
1) If every monitor with a displayport supports this, including any scalar requirements, then I predict Nvidia will jump on board and support A-sync. They'd be setting themselves up at a huge disadvantage if they didn't.

2) If only special monitors have everything required to utilize A-sync for variable refresh rates, then I do not expect Nvidia will jump aboard.

My Intel prediction is less certain than that. They tend to not focus on gaming, and may ignore it, but if it is easy enough to implement, they may. I think it is far more likely in scenario 1 that they would.

 

[biostud]

If A-sync is virtually cost free for monitor manufactures to implement there's no reason not to implement it in every monitor.

 

[piesquared]

It still comes back to the same point, that it is an open standard free for all to adopt. AMD, ARM, intel, Imagination, VIA, Nv and any other GPU manufacturer can support A-Sync making it a solution for widespread adoption. There is no reason for them not to, therefore it seems a forgone conclusion that they will. It's the exact opposite of a vendor lock in.

My prediction is that intel, ARM, VIA, Imagination and other IHV's will join AMD and provide support for the standard, and Nv will have to follow. IMO it doesn't matter if every monitor sold has support for A-Sync, there will be some differentiation. In the future I expect A-Sync will become mandatory for the DisplayPort spec.

 

[SoulWager]

It still comes back to the same point, that it is an open standard free for all to adopt. AMD, ARM, intel, Imagination, VIA, Nv and any other GPU manufacturer can support A-Sync making it a solution for widespread adoption. There is no reason for them not to, therefore it seems a forgone conclusion that they will. It's the exact opposite of a vendor lock in.

My prediction is that intel, ARM, VIA, Imagination and other IHV's will join AMD and provide support for the standard, and Nv will have to follow. IMO it doesn't matter if every monitor sold has support for A-Sync, there will be some differentiation. In the future I expect A-Sync will become mandatory for the DisplayPort spec.

That's bull. The only relevant desktop GPU vendors right now are Nvidia and AMD, Intel is a distant third. It would be stupid to pay a premium for a gaming monitor before buying a discrete video card. Adaptive-sync monitor owners are going to be locked into AMD video cards until there are enough of these monitors in circulation that Nvidia can justify supporting them. That won't happen until the people buying a-sync monitors go looking for new video cards, so it'll take a year or two after a-sync gains traction, at the earliest.

You're all forgetting how small the market for a-sync actually is. Half of AMD's current GPU lineup won't support variable refresh, and monitor vendors aren't going to put this in every monitor because it's a niche market that will tolerate a price premium. The potential market for g-sync is several times bigger, because Nvidia has been selling g-sync compatible video cards for much longer, especially in the market segment that would be buying a new monitor primarily for variable refresh rate.

 

[piesquared]

That's bull. The only relevant desktop GPU vendors right now are Nvidia and AMD, Intel is a distant third. It would be stupid to pay a premium for a gaming monitor before buying a discrete video card. Adaptive-sync monitor owners are going to be locked into AMD video cards until there are enough of these monitors in circulation that Nvidia can justify supporting them. That won't happen until the people buying a-sync monitors go looking for new video cards, so it'll take a year or two after a-sync gains traction, at the earliest.

You're all forgetting how small the market for a-sync actually is. Half of AMD's current GPU lineup won't support variable refresh, and monitor vendors aren't going to put this in every monitor because it's a niche market that will tolerate a price premium. The potential market for g-sync is several times bigger, because Nvidia has been selling g-sync compatible video cards for much longer, especially in the market segment that would be buying a new monitor primarily for variable refresh rate.

No, this is bull. We aren't talking only about discrete GPU vendors. Monitor makers are going to put this in monitors because it has multiple benefits, and will be able to charge a small premium for them. Gsync has a diminishing market because they are vendor locked and only support their discrete cards. With A-Sync there are multiple APUs from AMD and intel, discrete cards from AMD, SoC's on ARM including Imagination, Qualcomm, Samsung, etc. etc.

 

[bystander36]

A Windows gamer buying an A-sync monitor for variable refresh isn't going to care much about what other markets are doing. It won't matter if all those ARM systems are using it. It is only going to matter if a Windows gaming GPU can.

We are talking about specific possible problems.

Windows gamer wants variable refresh rate. He has a choice to buy a G-sync monitor or A-sync monitor. What discrete video card can he purchase and utilize his monitor?