Intel Pledges Support for FreeSync, Where Does That Leave G-Sync?

[TheELF]

Well,that's my whole point ,intel saying they will support Adaptive-Sync technology can mean a lot of different things.

 

[Headfoot]

Not really dude. It means they're (planning on) supporting the VESA standard Adaptive-Sync specification, which is defined and specific. It can be found in the Displayport 1.2a spec doc (and the dp 1.3 spec doc too I think)

 

[TheELF]

Not really dude. It means they're (planning on) supporting the VESA standard Adaptive-Sync specification, which is defined and specific. It can be found in the Displayport 1.2a spec doc (and the dp 1.3 spec doc too I think)

Ok,so is this freesync then?

 

[Headfoot]

Short answer: more or less yeah

Long answer:
FreeSync is AMD's implementation of the Adaptive Sync standard. Due to AMD working with VESA early on in the design phase of the spec, there is one of these chicken-and-the-egg issues.

So an Intel implementation would at the least have to meet the Adaptive Sync spec to be compliant. But Intel could also build additional features on top of that on their side of the equation or do something else like that and brand their particular implementation differently. Kinda like how any wireless access point will be Wi-Fi compliant to a particular standard (802.11ac for example) but they can still have proprietary branded features above and beyond the spec like Broadcom's TurboQAM.

Basically, FreeSync is AMD's branded version of the optional DP 1.2a/1.3 feature Adaptive Sync and Intel's solution will probably be pretty similar overall and identical in certain respects, but it could have some extra bells and whistles.

Provided Intel is actually serious about following through on their pledge

 

[PrincessFrosty]

The last thing anyone with an intel integrated chipset has to worry about is perfect Vsync, while integrated graphics is something that has moved from a joke to something we should take seriously, it's not in the realm of high end graphics and gaming that freesync/gsync is.

What matters most is not so much what 3rd party vendors support it, but what support the 2 major GPU manufacturers have, and with Nvidia dominating market share it almost doesn't matter, most gamers have Nvidia cards. Of AMDs tiny market share a lot of these people are bitcoin miners and GPGPU users who want the faster GPGPU abilities for cheaper and wont be interested in vsync and related tech.

 

[TheELF]

The last thing anyone with an intel integrated chipset has to worry about is perfect Vsync, while integrated graphics is something that has moved from a joke to something we should take seriously, it's not in the realm of high end graphics and gaming that freesync/gsync is.

But that exactly is the point,with a slow gpu you have more need for freesync because it is much harder to get up to the monitors sync.
Screen tearing is much more annoying than low fps.

 

[alcoholbob]

Basically dead I would say. Freesync 4K displays like the Samsung U32E850 were announced as far back as September of 2014 but did not come out until August 2014.

Since we haven't heard any announcements of a single 30"+ 16:9 Gsync display, 1440P or 4K, at any of the recent major conferences we basically know that Gsync isn't really an option for 4K gaming until Pascal at least in 2016.

And Pascal will be a new architecture, Nvidia could possibly release DP 1.2a at that time as well.

So late 2015/early 2016 we will find out either if Nvidia has jumped into the adaptive sync wagon and abandon Gsync (since Freesync displays already outnumber Gsync significantly and hardly any new models are coming) or if they actually intend to stubbornly keep supporting gsync while being a year or two behind Freesync displays.

My guess is? The former. Gsync displays will trickle in as they are while we get flooded with Freesync displays, Intel will have DP1.2a and Nvidia will have no choice but to follow suit with Pascal.

 

[Atreidin]

This was brought up as a more-than-likely possibility a while ago, and some mocked it as an absurd idea, even though IGPs are perfect for adaptive sync, and Intel is way more likely to go with an open standard over a closed one they have no control over. The marketshare of Intel graphics isn't exactly insignificant, either. Monitor makers know what's up.

 

[3DVagabond]

It's actually been called proprietary by many here even though it's part of an open standard simply because only AMD had first support. This will remove that strawman.