Nvidia and Freesync... never?

[Despoiler]

They havent done it because they like making money, and can get away with it because they know they are offering something no one else is able to. The fact that they have 80% of the GPU market says that the vast majority of consumers agree with them.

As much as me you and alot of other enthusiast want them to support a open standard until the new HDMI spec came out they had no reason to do so. Its not like not supporting it is hurting there sales.

If they like making money wouldn't it be smarter to make an ASIC so they can eliminate the majority of the fixed cost of the product? They could just take even more profit by not dropping the price. The vast majority of consumers are low information that marketing actually works on. It doesn't matter what the product is or how good it is compared to others. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

 

[Rifter]

If they like making money wouldn't it be smarter to make an ASIC so they can eliminate the majority of the fixed cost of the product? They could just take even more profit by not dropping the price. The vast majority of consumers are low information that marketing actually works on. It doesn't matter what the product is or how good it is compared to others. Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

I think they make more money doing it the way they are doing it now.

I dont think AMD makes any money off monitors sold with freesync.

I do think Nvidia makes money off monitors sold with Gsync because they are selling the proprietary G-Sync module to the monitor manufacturers to install in the monitors. And im sure they are making a profit on that sale. Basically Nvidia has found a way to profit off monitor sales.

 

[Madpacket]

I cant believe you just said this when this is the whole point you are missing.

The point me and tential are trying to make is on the high end with G-sync you can do that, pay more for a faster GPU and better Gsync display and get better results. With freesync THIS IS NOT AN OPTION..

Fair enough, pay more and get more (most of the time). I can't argue it's nice to have the option to throw money at something if you can afford it. However, the "amount of more" is what I take issue with. It's still a poor value and essentially a ripoff in comparison to Freesync which can give you a very similar experience for far less money. You can ignore the $300+ price premium all you want (it's sometimes larger on the higher end monitors, which is normally the same audience who buy 1080 Ti's) but you can get an awesome gaming experience (possibly superior, depending on the type of Freesync panel like the Samsung UWS I mentioned earlier) with a tuned Vega 56 + 1440P IPS/VA panel. 4K gaming is still iffy on a 1080 Ti without reducing some features, but that's not a huge deal as you can always turn down a few superfluous things like 8XMSAA to get the FPS back up, but then you're back to gaming on a 60Hz display....

The ideal gaming setup today includes at least a 27" 1440P IPS 144Hz, or more recently 100Hz 34"+ UWS 1440P monitors. Compare the prices between Freesync/Gsync here as that's what high-end gamers will be targeting for purchase. Now take a Vega 56, flash it to a 64 and undervolt it to sane power levels and enjoy ~1080'ish performance with the choice of a much larger list of less expensive Freesync monitors.

If you waited a year for Vega and got pissed because it failed to live up to certain expectations it doesn't invalidate the card as a decent option for people who already own a good Freesync display, or for gamers who want a high-end monitor without paying a $300+ premium.

Yes, Elfear is correct in that if Nvidia would just adopt the open standard we gamers could choose whatever videocard offers the best value. Hopefully, this will happen but I'm not holding my breath.

Anyways, I feel like I'm repeating myself so I'll stop here.

 

[Rifter]

Hopefully, this will happen but I'm not holding my breath.

I think they will have to, now that its part of HDMI specs not much choice, Nvidia has 4 options here as i see it:

1. Drop HDMI and go DP only - Unlikely to happen as TV's do not have DP and nvidia wont drop HDMI for this reason.
2. Conform to new HDMI specs, including A-sync and allow their GPU's to work with all a-sync HDMI monitors. - Ideal for us situation, unlikely for Nvidia to do without a fight
3. Do not conform to HDMI specs, support all HDMI specs except a-sync, keep pushing g-sync, and deal with their cards not having official HDMI support. - I think this is likely one of the options they will go with
4. Delay adopting new HDMI spec, release volta with old HDMI spec only, keep pushing gsync as long as possible, then finally with volta replacement cave and adopt new HDMI spec, and support a-sync on all HDMI displays. - This is the other likely option, IMO.

 

[tential]

Fair enough, pay more and get more (most of the time). I can't argue it's nice to have the option to throw money at something if you can afford it. However, the "amount of more" is what I take issue with. It's still a poor value and essentially a ripoff in comparison to Freesync which can give you a very similar experience for far less money. You can ignore the $300+ price premium all you want (it's sometimes larger on the higher end monitors, which is normally the same audience who buy 1080 Ti's) but you can get an awesome gaming experience (possibly superior, depending on the type of Freesync panel like the Samsung UWS I mentioned earlier) with a tuned Vega 56 + 1440P IPS/VA panel. 4K gaming is still iffy on a 1080 Ti without reducing some features, but that's not a huge deal as you can always turn down a few superfluous things like 8XMSAA to get the FPS back up, but then you're back to gaming on a 60Hz display....

The ideal gaming setup today includes at least a 27" 1440P IPS 144Hz, or more recently 100Hz 34"+ UWS 1440P monitors. Compare the prices between Freesync/Gsync here as that's what high-end gamers will be targeting for purchase. Now take a Vega 56, flash it to a 64 and undervolt it to sane power levels and enjoy ~1080'ish performance with the choice of a much larger list of less expensive Freesync monitors.

If you waited a year for Vega and got pissed because it failed to live up to certain expectations it doesn't invalidate the card as a decent option for people who already own a good Freesync display, or for gamers who want a high-end monitor without paying a $300+ premium.

Yes, Elfear is correct in that if Nvidia would just adopt the open standard we gamers could choose whatever videocard offers the best value. Hopefully, this will happen but I'm not holding my breath.

Anyways, I feel like I'm repeating myself so I'll stop here.

If AMD just had faster GPUs that were competitive, we'd also not be having this debate.

 

[96Firebird]

The ideal gaming setup today includes at least a 27" 1440P IPS 144Hz, or more recently 100Hz 34"+ UWS 1440P monitors. Compare the prices between Freesync/Gsync here as that's what high-end gamers will be targeting for purchase. Now take a Vega 56, flash it to a 64 and undervolt it to sane power levels and enjoy ~1080'ish performance with the choice of a much larger list of less expensive Freesync monitors.

I'm not seeing much of a difference in price between a 27" 2560x1440 IPS/VA that runs 100Hz+ when comparing GSync/Freesync... Using this quick search on Newegg. Shows the cheapest non-refurbed Freesync at above requirements at $550, the same price as this GSync screen.

 

[tential]

Fair enough, pay more and get more (most of the time). I can't argue it's nice to have the option to throw money at something if you can afford it. However, the "amount of more" is what I take issue with. It's still a poor value and essentially a ripoff in comparison to Freesync which can give you a very similar experience for far less money. You can ignore the $300+ price premium all you want (it's sometimes larger on the higher end monitors, which is normally the same audience who buy 1080 Ti's) but you can get an awesome gaming experience (possibly superior, depending on the type of Freesync panel like the Samsung UWS I mentioned earlier) with a tuned Vega 56 + 1440P IPS/VA panel. 4K gaming is still iffy on a 1080 Ti without reducing some features, but that's not a huge deal as you can always turn down a few superfluous things like 8XMSAA to get the FPS back up, but then you're back to gaming on a 60Hz display....

The ideal gaming setup today includes at least a 27" 1440P IPS 144Hz, or more recently 100Hz 34"+ UWS 1440P monitors. Compare the prices between Freesync/Gsync here as that's what high-end gamers will be targeting for purchase. Now take a Vega 56, flash it to a 64 and undervolt it to sane power levels and enjoy ~1080'ish performance with the choice of a much larger list of less expensive Freesync monitors.

If you waited a year for Vega and got pissed because it failed to live up to certain expectations it doesn't invalidate the card as a decent option for people who already own a good Freesync display, or for gamers who want a high-end monitor without paying a $300+ premium.

Yes, Elfear is correct in that if Nvidia would just adopt the open standard we gamers could choose whatever videocard offers the best value. Hopefully, this will happen but I'm not holding my breath.

Anyways, I feel like I'm repeating myself so I'll stop here.

GTX 1080 + Gsync Monitor + $300 = Vega + Freesync Monitor + 15+ Months of waiting

So ya... some people want to pay the "tax" to forgo the 15+ months of waiting.
$20 a month to enjoy GTX 1080 levels of performance for 15+ months while someone else waits...
That's not bad.

You could have eth mined and paid for it back already before a person had a chance to even get Vega.

4K gaming is still iffy on a 1080 Ti without reducing some features,

If 4K gaming is still iffy on a GTX 1080Ti, then why in GODS NAME would I try it with a GPU that has 77% of its horsepower!?

 

[Elfear]

If AMD just had faster GPUs that were competitive, we'd also not be having this debate.

Sure we would because we consumers would still be locked into an ecosystem whether we get the fastest AMD or Nvidia card.

GTX 1080 + Gsync Monitor + $300 = Vega + Freesync Monitor + 15+ Months of waiting

So ya... some people want to pay the "tax" to forgo the 15+ months of waiting.
$20 a month to enjoy GTX 1080 levels of performance for 15+ months while someone else waits...
That's not bad.

But what happens when the new monitor hotness hits the streets? Either you fork out another $300 premium for the G-Sync version or, if there is no G-Sync version, you wait...

Either way you end up waiting and the best option to fix this issue for consumers is for Nvidia to adopt A-Sync.

 

[bystander36]

Sure we would because we consumers would still be locked into an ecosystem whether we get the fastest AMD or Nvidia card.

The point he was making, is that Nvidia seems to be a lot more consistent at delivering that performance, while AMD doesn't (lately they've pretty much given up on the high end). So his point was to buy Nvidia for the likelihood he gets that top in performance.

But what happens when the new monitor hotness hits the streets? Either you fork out another $300 premium for the G-Sync version or, if there is no G-Sync version, you wait...

Either way you end up waiting and the best option to fix this issue for consumers is for Nvidia to adopt A-Sync.

People don't typically buy new monitors like they do GPU's, but if they did, that would free themselves up to jump to FreeSync, which would counteract your previous comment. That said, it does seem that some people around here have money to burn.

And yes, it would be nice if they used A-sync, and had G-sync quality assurance marketing on monitors with their label on it.

 

[Elfear]

The point he was making, is that Nvidia seems to be a lot more consistent at delivering that performance, while AMD doesn't (lately they've pretty much given up on the high end). So his point was to buy Nvidia for the likelihood he gets that top in performance.

I get the point he was making and he's correct that Nvidia has been more consistent in the high-end lately. My point still stands though. We'd still be having this debate if AMD released a GP102 competitor because we'd still be locked into one ecosystem.

People don't typically buy new monitors like they do GPU's, but if they did, that would free themselves up to jump to FreeSync, which would counteract your previous comment. That said, it does seem that some people around here have money to burn.

It would only counteract my previous statement if AMD had something to compete with GP102 so that someone could switch back and forth in order to buy the monitor they want. That also seems like a huge waste of money.

As a consumer, it's frustrating to be locked into one ecosystem or the other. I've patiently waited to pull the trigger because Freesync has the better monitors IMO but Nvidia has the faster cards. So again, consumers would be much happier if Nvidia adopted A-Sync and we had more choices.

 

[tential]

It only exacerbates the issue when AMD doesn't have a GP102 competitor.