We've also still got to see freesync work, only a fanboy would assume it's just going to be perfect without ever having seen it in action, and so far AMD has not impressed on that front. Nvidia demo'd fully working gsync in games a long time before you could buy a monitor, AMD have not (fixed frame rate videos don't count). Why is that? You know if it worked AMD would have demo'd it as it would slow down gsync sales, so you've got to assume it doesn't work yet. So how well will it work - the bar is high as nvidia's implementation is pretty well flawless, and while the monitors are expensive they are brilliant gaming monitors (not just because of the gsync support).
Reminds me of 3D - AMD also had the open free answer to all things 3D and the forums were full of fanboys proclaiming how good it was, and how nvidia's closed expensive solution was a dead end. In the end it was supported natively in a total of 1 game as far as I am aware, and that game didn't have a good 3D implementation, now AMD have quietly dropped it, unlike Nvidia who stayed true to their claims and keep the 3D support going. If you'd listened to the fanboys and bought a samsung 3D monitor and AMD card you were a fool, 3D vision was well worth the additional cost.
Reminds me of 3D - AMD also had the open free answer to all things 3D and the forums were full of fanboys proclaiming how good it was, and how nvidia's closed expensive solution was a dead end. In the end it was supported natively in a total of 1 game as far as I am aware, and that game didn't have a good 3D implementation, now AMD have quietly dropped it, unlike Nvidia who stayed true to their claims and keep the 3D support going. If you'd listened to the fanboys and bought a samsung 3D monitor and AMD card you were a fool, 3D vision was well worth the additional cost.
Last edited:
BTW that Fud article is fairly old.
Facebook
Twitter