Freesync monitors to start releasing in November

[piesquared]

It does matter because it drives adoption of the standard, so more product. Gsync is a niche because of it, and support will likely dwindle down to nothing. A consumer buying a monitor intending to watch some videos on it will reportedly get a better experience with an A-Sync monitor. They'll also get the added benefits of smoother game play and lower power consumption.

 

[bystander36]

It does matter because it drives adoption of the standard, so more product. Gsync is a niche because of it, and support will likely dwindle down to nothing. A consumer buying a monitor intending to watch some videos on it will reportedly get a better experience with an A-Sync monitor. They'll also get the added benefits of smoother game play and lower power consumption.

Do you have a link to that report?

It might be interesting to see monitors support 24/48hz, for video playback. A-sync isn't needed for video anyways, as it is steady and consistently at one speed. You just need monitors to support 24 or 48hz. That's always been possible, yet it never has happened.

I agree G-sync is for a niche market. Windows Gaming. Same with Free-sync. A-sync may have other applications, but video playback is not one that needs it, although it could be used instead of simply offering 48hz on displays.

 

[3DVagabond]

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.

nVidia's customers have to want it. It's obvious that nVidia isn't interested in offering variable refresh to it's customers if they aren't going to get compensated by the monitor purchase as well as the VC purchase. They believe that their brand is strong enough that they can get away with that. I guess we'll see if people accept that.

 

[bystander36]

nVidia's customers have to want it. It's obvious that nVidia isn't interested in offering variable refresh to it's customers if they aren't going to get compensated by the monitor purchase as well as the VC purchase. They believe that their brand is strong enough that they can get away with that. I guess we'll see if people accept that.

The problem isn't a matter of Nvidia wanting its customers to have it, but whether they are ok with not making a profit off of that transition and at what point can making a profit hurt their sales.

If all DP monitors will support it, I'd expect Nvidia doesn't want most AMD users having variable refresh rates, while their customers don't. If only a handful of special monitors support it, then Nvidia may try to compete for those customers with G-sync.

As a customer, I'd prefer it be widespread and for nothing, but I'm also well aware that we don't always get what we want.

 

[SoulWager]

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.

Vendor lock is about the consumer being locked into sticking with the same vendor when upgrading. Cell phones, tablets, and laptops don't apply, unless you're talking about expensive platform specific software. In all those cases, you don't care if your old display was adaptive-sync compatible because you can't re-use it.

On the desktop, it does matter, because you don't want to spend hundreds of dollars replacing a perfectly good monitor, just so you can switch video card vendors.

 

[Phynaz]

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.

Intel has something like 65% of the GPU market share. I have no idea why you would call the 800lb gorilla in room irrelevant.

As far as the size of the current market, well all markets start small. How big will the market be year from now? How about 3?

 

[SoulWager]

Intel has something like 65% of the GPU market share. I have no idea why you would call the 800lb gorilla in room irrelevant.

As far as the size of the current market, well all markets start small. How big will the market be year from now? How about 3?

I'm talking about the market for desktop adaptive-sync displays. It doesn't make sense to buy one for integrated graphics.

65% of which GPU market? According to the steam hardware survey, less than 20% of gamers are using Intel graphics. How many non-gamers do you expect to care about this feature? How many gamers with Intel graphics do you expect to be able to afford a new monitor just for this feature? Not many.

 

[3DVagabond]

I'm talking about the market for desktop adaptive-sync displays. It doesn't make sense to buy one for integrated graphics.

65% of which GPU market? According to the steam hardware survey, less than 20% of gamers are using Intel graphics. How many non-gamers do you expect to care about this feature? How many gamers with Intel graphics do you expect to be able to afford a new monitor just for this feature? Not many.

Why not? You're likely to spend more time below the refresh rate with iGPU than discrete.

 

[SoulWager]

Why not? You're likely to spend more time below the refresh rate with iGPU than discrete.

Because you'll get a far better experience on a discrete gpu with the old monitor than on an adaptive-sync monitor with integrated graphics.

 

[3DVagabond]

Because you'll get a far better experience on a discrete gpu with the old monitor than on an adaptive-sync monitor with integrated graphics.

Who's cares about old monitors? This is only if you are buying a new monitor, obviously.

 

[SoulWager]

Who's cares about old monitors? This is only if you are buying a new monitor, obviously.

Anyone trying to decide between buying a new monitor and a new GPU cares. If you had enough money for both, you wouldn't still be using integrated graphics.

 

[3DVagabond]

Anyone trying to decide between buying a new monitor and a new GPU cares. If you had enough money for both, you wouldn't still be using integrated graphics.

People buy new setups including monitor all of the time and use integrated graphics. Now, if monitors that support AdaptiveSync cost $600+ like G-Sync monitors do, then I'll agree.

 

[piesquared]

I'm talking about the market for desktop adaptive-sync displays. It doesn't make sense to buy one for integrated graphics.

65% of which GPU market? According to the steam hardware survey, less than 20% of gamers are using Intel graphics. How many non-gamers do you expect to care about this feature? How many gamers with Intel graphics do you expect to be able to afford a new monitor just for this feature? Not many.

Of course it makes sense to buy one for integrated graphics. AMD's APUs are quite good for gaming, and they have Mantle support. How many people play League of Legends. 160 million? If it doesn't make sense then neither does buying a card to get 200fps. There are also other features that make buying an A-Sync monitor worthwhile besides gaming.

Here's an example of what an A-Sync monitor ad might look like:

"Monitor xyz featuring the new, Display Port A-Sync technology for smooth gaming, smooth video playback, and lower power consumption"

The problem for Gsync is that it is what you described. Stuck on desktop gaming cards locked to one vendor. A-Sync can spread far and wide and will likely become a mandatory feature of the spec.

 

[xthetenth]

If a monitor that makes gaming on integrated graphics significantly more palatable is only 20 or 30 dollars more, it might well be well worth it compared to an ever so slightly less bad integrated graphics option even on a cheap build. If it's cheaper it's a no-brainer.

 

[Dribble]

Anyone who cares enough to buy a freesync monitor will have discrete graphics. These are and will stay high end gaming monitors. It is quite reasonable to assume that Intel doesn't matter at all in this market. It's only AMD and Nvidia.

 

[dacostafilipe]

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).

YOU will not write your "own" code. YOU will use the code of some badass developer who did all the work. YOU will just start the software and let un run in the background and maybe configure it from time to time.

Remember RivaTuner?

Try again.

Seriously?

 

[Creig]

Anyone who cares enough to buy a freesync monitor will have discrete graphics. These are and will stay high end gaming monitors. It is quite reasonable to assume that Intel doesn't matter at all in this market. It's only AMD and Nvidia.

You are very wrong. From all appearances, there is a minimal cost to bring adaptive-sync technology to computer monitors. As such, it makes sense that monitor manufacturers may decide include adaptive-sync on all of their models, not just those marketed towards high end gamers.

The cost of making a monitor FreeSync compliant is quite marginal though, somewhere in the range of $10-20

http://wccftech.com/amds-free-sync-technology/

As has already been mentioned, it's actually the low end systems that would benefit more from FreeSync than an enthusiast gaming machine.


​

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Anything announced yet?

 

[Phynaz]

I'm talking about the market for desktop adaptive-sync displays. It doesn't make sense to buy one for integrated graphics.

You missed the part where Intel is nearly doubling their igp performance ever year. Actually you missed the whole point when I said the market for these displays will only get larger over time. Heck having an igp would be one of the major points.

Now I don't know if you missed the point because I didn't explain it well or if you chose to ignore it.

 

[Phynaz]

Anyone who cares enough to buy a freesync monitor will have discrete graphics. These are and will stay high end gaming monitors. It is quite reasonable to assume that Intel doesn't matter at all in this market. It's only AMD and Nvidia.

I think in a couple of years it will a checkbox feature. Why would manufactures relegate it to their high end lines? Displays are a competitive market, somebody is going to go down-market with this and then everyone will have to follow suit.

 

[Dribble]

You are very wrong. From all appearances, there is a minimal cost to bring adaptive-sync technology to computer monitors. As such, it makes sense that monitor manufacturers may decide include adaptive-sync on all of their models, not just those marketed towards high end gamers[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Just like 120hz then...

 

[bystander36]

YOU will not write your "own" code. YOU will use the code of some badass developer who did all the work. YOU will just start the software and let un run in the background and maybe configure it from time to time.

Remember RivaTuner?



Seriously?

Again, you are changing the conditions. The hypothetical is that it doesn't work on the other brand.

Now you are talking about possible hacks. And yes, the "try again" is because of 3 pages of ignoring the hypothetical, and just assuming it is fully supported, or ignoring the definition, and ignoring just about anything written.

 

[Creig]

Just like 120hz then...

Do 120hz monitors typically cost $10-$20 more than their 60hz equivalents?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Do 120hz monitors typically cost $10-$20 more than their 60hz equivalents?

So you say A-sync monitors will only have a 10-20$ premium?

 

[bystander36]

So you say A-sync monitors will only have a 10-20$ premium?

It would be awesome if they do, but that does not sound like what he just said. He was asking if 120hz monitors cost so little extra, which we all know it cost much more.