Freesync monitors to start releasing in November

[Rakehellion]

Why is it win or lose? Why cant two products exist in the same space? We have more than one car manufacturer, more than one phone manufacturer, etc.

Because you don't need to worry about what company made the road when you consider buying a car.

Monitors can absolutely support freesync. Monitors can also support Nvidia Gsync.

Like those Blu-ray/HD-DVD players a few years back? It's nontrivial to support both and there's likely to be politics involved in the form of Nvidia giving kickbacks to companies who shun Freesync.

They're two technologies that do exactly the same thing and it greatly simplifies manufacturing when one of them doesn't exist.

 

[bystander36]

Like those Blu-ray/HD-DVD players a few years back? It's nontrivial to support both and there's likely to be politics involved in the form of Nvidia giving kickbacks to companies who shun Freesync.

They're two technologies that do exactly the same thing and it greatly simplifies manufacturing when one of them doesn't exist.

If each GPU company supports a different tech, there is no choice but to support both, or at least, have options for both. Unless demand for one of those tech's, most likely due to one of the company's demise, disappears, there will be support for both.

Until one of the companies supports both tech's, or vanishes, and the tech is still desired, both tech's will coexists.

 

[Atreidin]

I wouldn't put it past Nvidia to bribe companies to leave Freesync out of their monitors. I'm not saying they will, but that kind of thing happened before and could happen again.

 

[Phynaz]

I'll be curious to see the prices of Freesync capable monitors because Gsync monitors are stupid expensive.

I expect them to start pretty high priced and then drop quickly.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

But consider that the display manufacturer must implement support for the feature (mot mandatory) and any feature must be tested. Since it will be for a limited market (gaming) less units will be sold on which the cost could be spread. So they will clearly cost more than normal monitors. And all they need to do is be cheaper than the ROG Swift. So it would not surprise me if freesync, pulsed "2K" monitors will be around $50-$80 less than the ROG swift and still way more expensive than a normal display. It has nothing to do with AMD but the display manufactures.

Why would it cost more if the display controllers that are already being built to VESA specifications are replaced with display controllers that have updated VESA specifications that add adaptive sync?

With Freesync they are using an updated part that all monitors already have. With Gsync they have to add another module entirely. That's where the cost savings come from Adaptive sync, and where the added cost comes from Gsync.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

This is absolutely ridiculous. So now Freesync is nothing but an attempt to destroy the market? Really?

AMD saw a way to improve gaming, just as Nvidia did. But instead of coming out with a vendor locked design that would cost consumers an additional $200 on top of the cost of a new monitor, AMD found a way to cheaply replicate the results with an updated scaler and GPU. It was such a good idea that VESA included it as an optional spec for DP1.2a which makes it free for anyone who wishes to use it, Nvidia included.

AMD set out a timeline for delivery of adaptive-sync capable monitors of (I believe) Q1 2015 and now we are getting reports that the first monitors may actually come out next month.

So tell us, which design is better for consumers worldwide? Nvidia with their royalty generating vendor locked +$200 Gsync module or AMD with their free industry standard DP1.2a scaler?

The answer is pretty obvious.

I'd say your reasoning is pretty ridiculous

Tell me how we're supposed to objectively judge what AMD is offering? They have nothing for us other than "promises" and hot air. How are we supposed to come to a conclusion that what they're offering is better when it actuality it might not even be as good?

to me the answer is pretty obvious because there is only one proven solution to the problem right now, AMD is only claiming they have an alternative solution, and we have no idea if its really even a valid solution let alone a superior one.

You obviously are confused as to what the term 'vaporware' means:

"In the computer industry, vaporware (or vapourware, see spelling differences) is a product, typically computer hardware or software, that is announced to the general public but is never actually manufactured nor officially cancelled."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware

FreeSync was pre-announced to possibly be available by Q1 2015. And so far, they appear to be on schedule. Therefore, it is not vaporware.

yeah, curious as to why you didn't follow up with the very next line:

"Vaporware is often announced months or years before its purported release, with development details lacking. Usage of the word has broadened to products such as automobiles. At times, vendors are criticized for intentionally producing vaporware in order to keep customers from switching to competitive products that offer more features."

then there is this whole bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware#Early_announcement

"It can also be done in response to a competitor's already released product. The goal is to make potential customers believe a second, better product will be released soon. The customer might reconsider buying from the competitor, and wait."

then there are the definitions

Vaporware
noun
1.
Computer Slang. a product, especially software, that is promoted or marketed while it is still in development and that may never be produced.

vaporware in Technology
jargon
/vay'pr-weir/ (UK "vapourware") Products announced far in advance of any release (which may or may not actually take place).


vaporware isn't a term used only to describe a product that never gets released...

 

[Creig]

The 200$ G-Sync cost is based on a DIY FPGA design and not ASIC. With ASIC the cost is estimated to go down to around 40$.

So people keep saying. But G-sync has been out for nearly a year now, and the modules are still $200. And until they make the switch to ASIC, that's what you'll have to pay.

Also Freesync is not equal to G-Sync. So dont try and compare it as 2 equals because it simply isnt.

You don't know that. Nobody knows that. Once retail monitors come out, then we can read objective reviews comparing FreeSync and G-sync. Until then, it's all guesswork.

And we havent even gotten a review of Freesync yet, kinda odd isnt it? But again, its PR value was mainly to take some air out of G-Sync.

Remember this?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7641/amd-demonstrates-freesync-free-gsync-alternative-at-ces-2014

6 months later:
http://www.techspot.com/news/57023-amd-demos-freesync-on-hacked-monitor-at-computex.html

Why no reviews or testing? AMD saw G-Sync and panicked while trying to scramble something of their own together. Thats what happend.

No, there is no panic at all. There have been no reviews yet because a retail sample has not been produced. You typically don't see manufacturing samples of nvidia video cards being sent out to AnandTech for review, do you? Of course not. Until the final, retail design has been finalized, any and all specs are subject to change. And no company wants to have their engineering sample reviewed if it isn't going to be exactly the same as the retail model.

And with the optional DP1.2a and DP1.3 feature that nobody but AMD will support until 2016 or longer(if ever). It is the same as a vendor lock.

So you believe that a VESA standard is the same as a vendor lock?

Wow. Just... wow.

 

[Creig]

I'd say your reasoning is pretty ridiculous

Tell me how we're supposed to objectively judge what AMD is offering? They have nothing for us other than "promises" and hot air. How are we supposed to come to a conclusion that what they're offering is better when it actuality it might not even be as good?

to me the answer is pretty obvious because there is only one proven solution to the problem right now, AMD is only claiming they have an alternative solution, and we have no idea if its really even a valid solution let alone a superior one.

What part of my reasoning is ridiculous? I haven't seen any side-by-side comparison because FreeSync hasn't been released yet. Once it comes out then we can see if it's better, the same, or worse. AMD gave a Q1 2015 estimated timeframe for its release and so far they seem to be on schedule. Let's wait until we can read the reviews before making any comparisons.

yeah, curious as to why you didn't follow up with the very next line:

"Vaporware is often announced months or years before its purported release, with development details lacking. Usage of the word has broadened to products such as automobiles. At times, vendors are criticized for intentionally producing vaporware in order to keep customers from switching to competitive products that offer more features."

then there is this whole bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware#Early_announcement

"It can also be done in response to a competitor's already released product. The goal is to make potential customers believe a second, better product will be released soon. The customer might reconsider buying from the competitor, and wait."

then there are the definitions

Vaporware
noun
1.
Computer Slang. a product, especially software, that is promoted or marketed while it is still in development and that may never be produced.

vaporware in Technology
jargon
/vay'pr-weir/ (UK "vapourware") Products announced far in advance of any release (which may or may not actually take place).


vaporware isn't a term used only to describe a product that never gets released...

Vaporware is a term used to describe a product that either never gets released, or has its release date pushed back so far or so often that it seems unlikely to ever see the light of day. AMD has not even reached its first estimated release date yet, so there's no possible way for FreeSync to be called vaporware.

Duke Nukem Forever was vaporware. FreeSync is not.

 

[Creig]

Freesync was never live demoed. There are no hands-on preview 10months after the CES. There are powerpoint slides and videos of displays showing a static frametime.

You dont know if Freesync works like advertised. So how could it be better than G-Sync?

Please show a quote of me saying that G-Sync is better. You can't. Because I've never said that.

I believe that FreeSync will be cheaper since it will be integrated into the scaler instead of having to replace the scaler with a custom one like G-Sync does. And nobody will have to pay G-Sync royalties back to Nvidia.

But as to which one is better? I have no idea.

 

[sontin]

Please show a quote of me saying that G-Sync is better. You can't. Because I've never said that.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36828844&postcount=89

I even quoted you on this statement...

 

[Black Octagon]

Actually, the post you quote strongly implies that FreeSync is the better of the two...

 

[Creig]

In that quote, I did not say that Gsync was better from a technological standpoint. What I was saying was that from a consumer standpoint, FreeSync appeared to be better because it was based on a VESA standard, does not required a custom $200 scaler replacement and is royalty free, unlike G-Sync.

As far as to which system performs better, I have absolutely no idea. Right now, I have a hunch that G-Sync will do a better job than FreeSync at eliminating tearing just because G-Sync is using customized hardware to do the job. AMD seems to feel it can be done through Adaptive-sync just as well, but that remains to be seen. So I'm not discounting that, either.

Once the reviews are in we can discuss whether FreeSync performs as well as G-Sync. But until then, I'm keeping my opinion open.

 

[ShintaiDK]

So you believe that a VESA standard is the same as a vendor lock?

Wow. Just... wow.

If nobody else implement it, its the same.

 

[bystander36]

While AMD may not have vendor locked the standard, if no one else is using that standard, that feature is still vendor locked.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

What part of my reasoning is ridiculous? I haven't seen any side-by-side comparison because FreeSync hasn't been released yet. Once it comes out then we can see if it's better, the same, or worse. AMD gave a Q1 2015 estimated timeframe for its release and so far they seem to be on schedule. Let's wait until we can read the reviews before making any comparisons.

you said the answer was pretty obvious, when its certainly not obvious, that is pretty ridiculous

Vaporware is a term used to describe a product that either never gets released, or has its release date pushed back so far or so often that it seems unlikely to ever see the light of day. AMD has not even reached its first estimated release date yet, so there's no possible way for FreeSync to be called vaporware.

Duke Nukem Forever was vaporware. FreeSync is not.

Exactly, DNF was vaporware, now it is not

If we go by all the descriptions used in the Wiki article, Freesync certainly appears to fit.

1. Vaporware is often announced months or years before its purported release, with development details lacking. CHECK

2. It can also be done in response to a competitor's already released product. CHECK

3. The goal is to make potential customers believe a second, better product will be released soon. The customer might reconsider buying from the competitor, and wait. CHECK

I think you're just failing to realize that anything can be vaporware and it will be considered vaporware until it actually exists.

People complain about paper-launches, but Freesync is certainly far worse than a paper-launch, its very appropriate to call it vaporware, at least amongst people who know the term (I can understand an objection to it because it might be something fanboys can take it and run with it and misrepresent things). At any rate, its been over a year since we first learned about G-Sync and we knew more then about that technology than we do about Freesync now even after AMD has been boasting about it for the better part of a year. If that's not vaporware I don't know what is, because its basically AMD just blowing smoke (vapor) up our butt until we see something different.

 

[96Firebird]

While AMD may not have vendor locked the standard, if no one else is using that standard, that feature is still vendor locked.

I wouldn't use the term vendor locked, since AMD cannot prevent Nvidia from using adaptive sync. If Nvidia doesn't adopt it though, for whatever reason, the situation will suffer the same consequences as being vendor locked.

And LOL at Creig not posting the rest of the definition, which fully agrees that Free-Sync is vaporware.

 

[Final8ty]

While AMD may not have vendor locked the standard, if no one else is using that standard, that feature is still vendor locked.

Vendor locked means locked by the vender and nothing else, dont change the definition to suit your argument.
The outcome does not define the definition, the intention does, hence example such as murder/manslaughter.
If someone comes up with a hack to get AMD cards to work with G-Sync, that still does not stop G-Sync being vender locked because the vender intended it to be locked.

 

[Creig]

I wouldn't use the term vendor locked, since AMD cannot prevent Nvidia from using adaptive sync. If Nvidia doesn't adopt it though, for whatever reason, the situation will suffer the same consequences as being vendor locked.

Whether or not any other graphics card vendor utilizes adaptive sync in the future is irrelevant. They have the choice. Therefore FreeSync cannot be vendor locked.

And LOL at Creig not posting the rest of the definition, which fully agrees that Free-Sync is vaporware.

FreeSync is NOT vaporware.

"Vaporware", sometimes synonymous with "vaportalk" in the 1980s,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware#cite_note-Shea1984-4 has no single definition. It is generally used to describe a hardware or software product that has been announced, but that the developer has no intention on releasing anytime soon, if ever.

The above quote was also taken from the wiki.

By your definition, the minute any company announces that they are working on a product, that item is instantly vaporware. Which is utterly ridiculous.

AMD has demonstrated FreeSync prototypes, VESA has announced the inclusion of adaptive-sync in DP1.2a, three of the biggest scaler makers (Realtek, Novatek and MStar ) have announced that they plan to implement Adaptive-Sync and FreeSync into products before the end of the year, and now we have reports that FreeSync capable monitors may be out before the end of November.

 

[MaestroQuark]

So people keep saying. But G-sync has been out for nearly a year now, and the modules are still $200. And until they make the switch to ASIC, that's what you'll have to pay.

Excuse me, sitting here with a GSync monitor I did not by a module for.

 

[bystander36]

I wouldn't use the term vendor locked, since AMD cannot prevent Nvidia from using adaptive sync. If Nvidia doesn't adopt it though, for whatever reason, the situation will suffer the same consequences as being vendor locked.

And LOL at Creig not posting the rest of the definition, which fully agrees that Free-Sync is vaporware.

Whether AMD intentionally did it or not, customers are still vendor locked-in with those products. Though it was caused by Nvidia, rather than AMD.

Argue the definition all you want, and perhaps it is not technically what it is called, the result is the same for the consumer.

 

[Creig]

People complain about paper-launches, but Freesync is certainly far worse than a paper-launch, its very appropriate to call it vaporware, at least amongst people who know the term (I can understand an objection to it because it might be something fanboys can take it and run with it and misrepresent things).

Except for the fact that AMD has maintained that we won't see retail products until at least Q1 2015. They were very up front about its development cycle.

At any rate, its been over a year since we first learned about G-Sync and we knew more then about that technology than we do about Freesync now even after AMD has been boasting about it for the better part of a year. If that's not vaporware I don't know what is, because its basically AMD just blowing smoke (vapor) up our butt until we see something different.

"Vaporware", sometimes synonymous with "vaportalk" in the 1980s, has no single definition. It is generally used to describe a hardware or software product that has been announced, but that the developer has no intention on releasing anytime soon, if ever.

The above has been my understanding of the term 'vaporware' since the word came into being.

If AMD had first said FreeSync would be released in Q1 2014, then Q2, then Q3, etc.. then I would agree that it was vaporware. However, from everything I've read, AMD has always maintained that Q1 2015 was the expected date for retail sales of FreeSync capable monitors. Since we have not yet reached that date, FreeSync is not vaporware.

 

[Final8ty]

Whether AMD intentionally did it or not, customers are still vendor locked-in with those products. Though it was caused by Nvidia, rather than AMD.

Argue the definition all you want, and perhaps it is not technically what it is called, the result is the same for the consumer.

The definition is called Nvidia does not support that feature and VESA standard, its that simple and the only party who can be blamed for that is Nvidia.

 

[bystander36]

The definition is called Nvidia does not support that feature and VESA standard, its that simple and the only party who can be blamed for that is Nvidia.

Yet, the consumer is still locked to a brand. That is the point of it all, not some definition.

I realize that it is important to you to not put blame on AMD and I haven't. It still doesn't change the end result.

 

[Final8ty]

Yet, the consumer is still locked to a brand. That is the point of it all, not some definition.

Which still does not mean it is locked to a brand, the definition should not have even come into play, because locked means preventing other brands which is not the case, it is nothing but current circumstance.

 

[bystander36]

Oh, and I'm not even sure your definition is entirely accurate. Read this: http://searchcloudapplications.techtarget.com/definition/vendor-lock-in

Vendor lock-in is a situation in which a customer using a product or service cannot easily transition to a competitor’s product or service. Vendor lock-in is usually the result of proprietary technologies that are incompatible with those of competitors. However, it can also be caused by inefficient processes or contract constraints, among other things.

While it usually is the result of proprietary tech's, it does not have to be. This would fit perfectly into this definition.

The same can be seen on other sites with a definition: http://www.linfo.org/vendor_lockin.html