FS - list of AMD GPU's not supported.

[ocre]

I think the problem in this case is the initial marketing that was misleading. We were told AMDs cards have been able to do this since eDP (2008) so existing cards supported the technique and that a lot of existing monitors could do this with a firmware flash. Obviously this isn't the reality, in fact most AMD card owners will have to upgrade their GPU and their monitors on order to use the technology, only if you have a card from the last year and one of the right cards will it be available and no monitors will be upgradable at all.

Presumably the reason techreport decided to report this now is because a lot of people were (successfully) mislead and are under the mistaken impression they were Freesync ready and it would thus not cost them anything, which is obviously not the case. New monitor at least which will be a premium item due to the extra feature (no idea on the price yet) and probably a new GPU as well.

But I have to say having seen gsync its a technology well worth having, games do look and run a lot smoother and at higher settings. I was a big advocate of >60hz gaming and now I find I am reasonably happy down in the 50's averages with gsync and all the way down to 45 ish as drops in some games. It does allow me to boost up the settings a bit and still have the gameplay be smooth.

In my opinion, all the misleading.....
It was a huge stall tactic in a planned effort to obstruct. AMD done everything in their power to try to prevent people from adopting Gsync. They had no response but they had a plan. To smear and stall in every way possible while their engineers try to come up with an alternative. They probably had a rushed collaboration and some engineers (who probably didnt even know the full extent of gsync) came up with some ideas and AMD went all out campaign against Gsync.

Many people cry AMD lies but I think their only intentions was to stall and block Gsync while their engineers work out a way to implement their own version. So as they get further into this the finer details start to emerge. AMD story is changing because the engineers are discovering and working behind the scenes trying to put their idea to function. AMD management is rushing them and trying to keep tabs on the progress and the story starts changing because the project was being developed behind the curtains in real time. They originally spoke about an idea and its being molded to fit into a working product.

So its not that AMD intentionally wanted to misled, they intentionally wanted to stall and block gsync adoption because they seen this as an real threat. The scary truth is that AMDs engineers never had a working freesync when AMD first announced it. Just a theory that everyone in management and marketing went all out with. It remains to be proven and it could be a terrible disaster. Or they might pull it off after all.
But all the while the stall plan is still in heavily effect. These articles about freesync monitors being $100 less are nothing but pure fabrications. They have absolutely no say in what they will cost. Its complete smoke to try to fog up and stall gsync adoption.

Thats how i see it

 

[chimaxi83]

So much for FS being the free alternative. With NV you pay a $200 premium on the monitor, where as with AMD you have to buy a new GPU and potentially pay a premium on the monitor as well (depending on if the manufacturers of FS monitors decide to add one).

But I have to say I'm also not surprised. NV obviously had these plans behind closed doors with Kepler a while ago.

I have to say I'm not surprised when posts have misleading information. Let's try and use facts. Gsync and Freesync both support Kepler+/GCN 1.1+. If you don't have a newer card from either company, you have to buy a new one. Gsync has the benefit of supporting one generation older than AMD. Let's try a plausible tactic to discredit Freesync next time.

 

[monstercameron]

In my opinion, all the misleading.....
It was a huge stall tactic in a planned effort to obstruct. AMD done everything in their power to try to prevent people from adopting Gsync. They had no response but they had a plan. To smear and stall in every way possible while their engineers try to come up with an alternative. They probably had a rushed collaboration and some engineers (who probably didnt even know the full extent of gsync) came up with some ideas and AMD went all out campaign against Gsync.

Many people cry AMD lies but I think their only intentions was to stall and block Gsync while their engineers work out a way to implement their own version. So as they get further into this the finer details start to emerge. AMD story is changing because the engineers are discovering and working behind the scenes trying to put their idea to function. AMD management is rushing them and trying to keep tabs on the progress and the story starts changing because the project was being developed behind the curtains in real time. They originally spoke about an idea and its being molded to fit into a working product.

So its not that AMD intentionally wanted to misled, they intentionally wanted to stall and block gsync adoption because they seen this as an real threat. The scary truth is that AMDs engineers never had a working freesync when AMD first announced it. Just a theory that everyone in management and marketing went all out with. It remains to be proven and it could be a terrible disaster. Or they might pull it off after all.
But all the while the stall plan is still in heavily effect. These articles about freesync monitors being $100 less are nothing but pure fabrications. They have absolutely no say in what they will cost. Its complete smoke to try to fog up and stall gsync adoption.

Thats how i see it

All fair points. Idk if gsync is a "real threat", I don't think monitors get upgraded very often, anecdotally I don't plan on buying a new monitor until possibly my 1080 garbage Acer TN panel dies. I agree it was a stall tactic and a wip.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

poop. Was hopeing 7950 would get free upgrades. Anyone buying a new 280x should be a bit miffed. Ehhh a couple extra free games and a fat mail in rebate should make the hurt go away.

 

[Wildman107]

So its not that AMD intentionally wanted to misled, they intentionally wanted to stall and block gsync adoption because they seen this as an real threat. The scary truth is that AMDs engineers never had a working freesync when AMD first announced it. Just a theory that everyone in management and marketing went all out with. It remains to be proven and it could be a terrible disaster. Or they might pull it off after all.
But all the while the stall plan is still in heavily effect. These articles about freesync monitors being $100 less are nothing but pure fabrications. They have absolutely no say in what they will cost. Its complete smoke to try to fog up and stall gsync adoption.

First off, when AMD announced Freesync they did have a working sample. Secondly, please stop adding rhetoric like "Everyone at AMD management and marketing went all out....." because you don't work at AMD and this is obviously a huge exaggeration.

Secondly, do you really believe that Freesync monitors won't be cheaper than G-sync monitors? There's less hardware achieving the same thing sooooo...how could it not be cheaper? I think your vision of G-sync adoption is warped and in no way reflects reality. The g-sync monitors revealed so far are expensive (hurdle 1) and the technology is exclusive to Nvidia (hurdle 2).

Sorry, it's not AMD that's blocking adoption the way you think it is and the market for Freesync and G-sync is not big either.

 

[ocre]

First off, when AMD announced Freesync they did have a working sample. Secondly, please stop adding rhetoric like "Everyone at AMD management and marketing went all out....." because you don't work at AMD and this is obviously a huge exaggeration.

Secondly, do you really believe that Freesync monitors won't be cheaper than G-sync monitors? There's less hardware achieving the same thing sooooo...how could it not be cheaper? I think your vision of G-sync adoption is warped and in no way reflects reality. The g-sync monitors revealed so far are expensive (hurdle 1) and the technology is exclusive to Nvidia (hurdle 2).

Sorry, it's not AMD that's blocking adoption the way you think it is and the market for Freesync and G-sync is not big either.

First you have no idea what your talking about if you are calling the windmill a working sample. When nvidia invited game developers to try out gsync for the first time, that was a working demo. No one has played a game with Freesync, it still has yet to happen. So please stop with your attitude and take a moment to educate yourself in what these technologies are supposed to do. I will give u a hint, its got to do with gaming.........

So are just flat out wrong and have no idea what your talking about. We have seen no working alternative to gsync still after all this time. When amd sends out working freesync systems to the press and they can actually game on it, then they have a real working demo.

Secondly, a person can only imagine a freesync monitor will be cheaper that gsync, its hard to comment on a product that doesn't exist. Not only does it not yet exist, they arent even announced. Not a single model from a single company. So yeah, I guess we can all suppose that freesync monitors will be 100$ cheaper just as easily as we can suppose the method won't work nearly as well. While we are imagining and making stuff up. Imagine on that, there may be plenty of cheap crap freesync monitors and the technology may only work on windmill demos or movies cause we have all yet to see it in action while gaming.

So please, don't attack my opinion again. And please, don't be spreading bull. There is plenty of bull spread around as it is.

 

[rgallant]

its hard to comment on a product that doesn't exist. Not only does it not yet exist, they arent even announced. Not a single model from a single company

for a second there I thought you might be talking about the 870,880,970,980, the net is filled with comments on vapor ware as you stated.

 

[Wildman107]

First you have no idea what your talking about if you are calling the windmill a working sample. When nvidia invited game developers to try out gsync for the first time, that was a working demo. No one has played a game with Freesync, it still has yet to happen. So please stop with your attitude and take a moment to educate yourself in what these technologies are supposed to do. I will give u a hint, its got to do with gaming.........

So are just flat out wrong and have no idea what your talking about. We have seen no working alternative to gsync still after all this time. When amd sends out working freesync systems to the press and they can actually game on it, then they have a real working demo.

Secondly, a person can only imagine a freesync monitor will be cheaper that gsync, its hard to comment on a product that doesn't exist. Not only does it not yet exist, they arent even announced. Not a single model from a single company. So yeah, I guess we can all suppose that freesync monitors will be 100$ cheaper just as easily as we can suppose the method won't work nearly as well. While we are imagining and making stuff up. Imagine on that, there may be plenty of cheap crap freesync monitors and the technology may only work on windmill demos or movies cause we have all yet to see it in action while gaming.

So please, don't attack my opinion again. And please, don't be spreading bull. There is plenty of bull spread around as it is.

Hate to burst your nvidia bubble once again but read your original post. You said AMD didn't have freesync working (without ANY qualifications) and the windmill demo disproved that. So yeah - your statement was flat out false.

Secondly I never said that freesync monitors would be $100 cheaper. I merely suggested that it should be cheaper since it doesn't require addition hardware (common sense). But since you want to go and into your imagination world, imagine that freesync works just as well as g-sync. Imagine that there are crappy g-sync monitors out there as well as crappy freesync monitors. AMD is not your enemy in this and they certainly aren't hurting the market by backing a competing technology.

So please stop trying to twist my words, or qualify what you're trying to say in a later post and attack me for not knowing what you meant. Better yet stop spreading your bull and wait for the monitors to come out.

 

[Obsoleet]

Free as in no proprietary licence fee to pay. Not sure why people think it meant zero cost of implementation.

Yup, it's free for them, the vendors. Not free for anyone else. The marketplace moves forward with 2 adaptive vsync implementations on the desktop, and people still want to complain it wasn't 'free'.

 

[Creig]

First you have no idea what your talking about if you are calling the windmill a working sample. When nvidia invited game developers to try out gsync for the first time, that was a working demo. No one has played a game with Freesync, it still has yet to happen. So please stop with your attitude and take a moment to educate yourself in what these technologies are supposed to do. I will give u a hint, its got to do with gaming.........

Just because you couldn't game on it doesn't mean it wasn't a functional demo.

So are just flat out wrong and have no idea what your talking about. We have seen no working alternative to gsync still after all this time. When amd sends out working freesync systems to the press and they can actually game on it, then they have a real working demo.

Again, AMD's initial demos were to show that the technology existed to implement FreeSync. They have stated several times that they don't expect retail monitors to be available until late 2014/early 2015. Nobody hands out Alpha and Beta hardware to reviewers since the specs are likely to change between those early prototypes and actual production models.

Secondly, a person can only imagine a freesync monitor will be cheaper that gsync, its hard to comment on a product that doesn't exist. Not only does it not yet exist, they arent even announced. Not a single model from a single company. So yeah, I guess we can all suppose that freesync monitors will be 100$ cheaper just as easily as we can suppose the method won't work nearly as well. While we are imagining and making stuff up. Imagine on that, there may be plenty of cheap crap freesync monitors and the technology may only work on windmill demos or movies cause we have all yet to see it in action while gaming.

Gsync is a custom control board with 768mb of DDR3 that has to be tuned for the specific panel it is to be used with. Right now, Gsync modules cost $200 each. Nvidia hopes to get that cost down to around $100, but that hasn't happened yet.

FreeSync, on the other hand, is going to utilize Adaptive-Sync which is in the process of becoming an industry standard, albeit an optional standard. So even though it is only an estimate that FreeSync will be much less expensive to implement than Gsync, it is a very reasonable estimate given the current cost of Gsync.

 

[ocre]

Hate to burst your nvidia bubble once again but read your original post. You said AMD didn't have freesync working (without ANY qualifications) and the windmill demo disproved that. So yeah - your statement was flat out false.

Secondly I never said that freesync monitors would be $100 cheaper. I merely suggested that it should be cheaper since it doesn't require addition hardware (common sense). But since you want to go and into your imagination world, imagine that freesync works just as well as g-sync. Imagine that there are crappy g-sync monitors out there as well as crappy freesync monitors. AMD is not your enemy in this and they certainly aren't hurting the market by backing a competing technology.

So please stop trying to twist my words, or qualify what you're trying to say in a later post and attack me for not knowing what you meant. Better yet stop spreading your bull and wait for the monitors to come out.

burst my bubble?
oh please

We can go in circles forever and ever but it is now abundantly clear you missed the entire point in the first place.

Although a big part of me feels its completely pointless to address you at this point at all, I cant help but to chuckle as I try to say this as short and sweet as possible.

A lot has changed since AMD first spoke of freesync and what little it would take to implement it. As time went by and real details emerged, the reality was different than what was first portrayed nearly a year ago. There are many who claim that AMD just told a bunch of lies. I am sure there is a large chance that you are one of those people who just cannot comprehend how or even that things changed at all. But your denial doesnt make a difference. What AMD says freesync will take now is much different than the picture that was first painted. And there are plenty who see this as AMD lying. My post was in regards to that.

Your just in total denial that anything changed at all. And I really dont care to address that. My post was my opinion and theory on why these things may have changed over time, an alternative to the simple AMD lies theory. And there are those who strongly believe in this lie view, to them I offer another possibility.

Since you arent even aware there is a different picture now than what was painted a year ago, we are way too far apart. There is no way we are gonna get anywhere talking back and forth.
So lets stop ruining the thread now, please!!!

 

[AtenRa]

In my opinion, all the misleading.....
It was a huge stall tactic in a planned effort to obstruct. AMD done everything in their power to try to prevent people from adopting Gsync.

How many Gsync Monitors are being sold in retail today 9 months after the official release ?? :whiste:

They had no response but they had a plan.

AMD demonstrated working FreeSync on retail Laptops in January 2014.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7641/amd-demonstrates-freesync-free-gsync-alternative-at-ces-2014

The scary truth is that AMDs engineers never had a working freesync when AMD first announced it. Just a theory that everyone in management and marketing went all out with. It remains to be proven and it could be a terrible disaster. Or they might pull it off after all.

June 2014, Freesync working on retail monitor
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8129/computex-2014-amd-demonstrates-first-freesync-monitor-prototype

Freesync and No Freesync side by side
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv0nOBAXaCA

But all the while the stall plan is still in heavily effect. These articles about freesync monitors being $100 less are nothing but pure fabrications. They have absolutely no say in what they will cost. Its complete smoke to try to fog up and stall gsync adoption.

Thats how i see it

The ugly truth is, the only one stalling Gsync is NVIDIA themselves. 9 months after the official Gsync release of December 2013 and there is only one Gsync monitor sold in retail at $700+. That fact has nothing to do with AMD FreeSync and what you believe AMD trying to do with FreeSync and all this BS about stalling Gsync.