[PCPER] NVidia G-sync

[toyota]

No the one who can't see the obvious is you. If NVIDIA licensed the technology that made it interoperable with AMD cards, they'd be giving consumers more choices. They would be free to pick competing lower priced AMD cards that have G-SYNC support and NVIDIA would stand to lose money on lost premium video card sales. It would be beyond idiotic for them as a business to do this. NVIDIA's goal is likely to take AMD out altogether so they can hold a monopoly, not help spend years researching a technology only to license it out to a competitor.

Do you see Intel licensing x86 to anyone else? Why didn't they give NVIDIA a license? Think about it.

lol ok you just keep thinking that and I wont stop you.

 

[3DVagabond]

Mantle is built for GCN. Are you going to pretend that it works on NV hardware now?

That's my point. If G-sync needs Kepler to work, then fine. If it doesn't and it's simply being artificially locked out of other hardware, not fine. Seems like nVidia can only compete if they stack the deck against the competition and when they do gain a competitive advantage they use it to bend their supporters over as far as possible. Why you would be in favor of that defies logic.

 

[Grooveriding]

For me it's not outrage at all. If they want this to take off it will gain a better foot hold if it gets opened wide up for everyone who games to make use of regardless of video card vendor. Maybe they have juggled the math and feel as an added proprietary feature they will make more money off it.

It's uniquely different from something like physx or txaa though, as it involves a hardware component. Can't they make money selling the modules alone and then charging some sort of licensing fee to add in software support for gsync on their competitor's drivers ? This technology really screams to be put out there if it is as good as the current small pool of people exposed to it are claiming.

I think it looks great as someone who only will use vsync for single-player games. This would actually allow a much better experience in multi-player games for someone like me.

None of us know what is going to happen yet but if this really is as great as we are led to believe and is relegated to a small selection of crappy TN monitors and remains vendor-locked it won't become as pervasive as some people expect it to be. Vendor locked I could deal with if it is as great as claimed, I would stick to using nvidia cards. But I want modules/upgrade kits designed for every popular monitor out there. I'll never use it if I have to use a 1080p TN 'gaming' monitor, or to get good IQ find I have to buy a 4K Asus monitor with a resolution no hardware known to man can run games at on decent settings.

I hope they are paying attention and realize many gamers who would be interested in this see monitor upgrades as a rarely done thing and many people using IPS screens will never go down to TN no matter how great this might be. Right now I just see Asus, Viewsonic, Benq and Phillips associated. None of them make a decent monitor apart from the Asus PQ321.

I want an upgrade kit for my U3011 or a kit made for those generic Korean 27" 1440p screens at the least. I think opening this up to other GPU vendors for a licensing fee and making money selling the modules would be a good idea as well. It would pay off in huge mind share if any one could make use of it and it is as good as claimed, it would still do plenty for the brand name.

 

[5150Joker]

That's my point. If G-sync needs Kepler to work, then fine. If it doesn't and it's simply being artificially locked out of other hardware, not fine. Seems like nVidia can only compete if they stack the deck against the competition and when they do gain a competitive advantage they use it to bend their supporters over as far as possible. Why you would be in favor of that defies logic.

And NVIDIA doing this is bad for them how? Like I said, as a gamer and consumer, I'd ideally want a universal standard. But I know that won't happen anytime soon so I'm just glad NVIDIA did this much. Put it this way, if AMD had the foresight to invent the same technology, do you think they'd have handed it over to NVIDIA?

For me it's not outrage at all. If they want this to take off it will gain a better foot hold if it gets opened wide up for everyone who games to make use of regardless of video card vendor. Maybe they have juggled the math and feel as an added proprietary feature they will make more money off it.

It's uniquely different from something like physx or txaa though, as it involves a hardware component. Can't they make money selling the modules alone and then charging some sort of licensing fee to add in software support for gsync on their competitor's drivers ? This technology really screams to be put out there if it is as good as the current small pool of people exposed to it are claiming.

I think it looks great as someone who only will use vsync for single-player games. This would actually allow a much better experience in multi-player games for someone like me.

None of us know what is going to happen yet but if this really is as great as we are led to believe and is relegated to a small selection of crappy TN monitors and remains vendor-locked it won't become as pervasive as some people expect it to be. Vendor locked I could deal with if it is as great as claimed, I would stick to using nvidia cards. But I want modules/upgrade kits designed for every popular monitor out there. I'll never use it if I have to use a 1080p TN 'gaming' monitor, or to get good IQ find I have to buy a 4K Asus monitor with a resolution no hardware known to man can run games at on decent settings.

I hope they are paying attention and realize many gamers who would be interested in this see monitor upgrades as a rarely done thing and many people using IPS screens will never go down to TN no matter how great this might be. Right now I just see Asus, Viewsonic, Benq and Phillips associated. None of them make a decent monitor apart from the Asus PQ321.

I want an upgrade kit for my U3011 or a kit made for those generic Korean 27" 1440p screens at the least. I think opening this up to other GPU vendors for a licensing fee and making money selling the modules would be a good idea as well. It would pay off in huge mind share if any one could make use of it and it is as good as claimed, it would still do plenty for the brand name.

You'll get no argument from me regarding monitor selection and it's in NVIDIA's interest to bring in as many hardware partners as they can which I'm sure they are doing. I'm willing to bet we'll see 27" 1440P displays with this technology eventually. Whether they will be non-TN display is questionable since TN really does reign supreme for gaming.

 

[3DVagabond]

Do we know this requires anything in the drivers except, "hello, I'm an nVidia card"?

 

[5150Joker]

Do we know this requires anything in the drivers except, "hello, I'm an nVidia card"?

We don't know anything about the tech yet.

 

[3DVagabond]

And NVIDIA doing this is bad for them how? Like I said, as a gamer and consumer, I'd ideally want a universal standard. But I know that won't happen anytime soon so I'm just glad NVIDIA did this much. Put it this way, if AMD had the foresight to invent the same technology, do you think they'd have handed it over to NVIDIA?

You'd have to define handing it over. If you mean, do I think AMD would use some artificial hardware lock out, then no I don't think they would do that.

 

[5150Joker]

You'd have to define handing it over. If you mean, do I think AMD would use some artificial hardware lock out, then no I don't think they would do that.

Whether it's artificial or not is meaningless, proprietary is proprietary. What I asked you is very clear: Do you think AMD would have licensed a unique game changing technology that could help them regain lost market share to NVIDIA?

 

[exar333]

Exciting tech, for sure. This has been an exciting time for GPU enthusiasts recently.

 

[bystander36]

My prediction is either:
1) Nvidia licenses out the tech to AMD.
2) Nvidia takes advantage of the tech for a few months, to gather a few extra users, then release it and just sell the chips to monitor companies.
3) AMD comes out with their own version (less likely).

I'm sure they want to gain something from the new tech. There are R&D costs to make up and some competition.

 

[3DVagabond]

Whether it's artificial or not is meaningless, proprietary is proprietary. What I asked you is very clear: Do you think AMD would have licensed a unique technology that could help them regain lost market share to NVIDIA?

I don't think AMD or nVidia will pay either one to license each others tech, even if it's offered. That has nothing to do with what I am asking.

Let me say it again though. If AMD developed G-sync and the only way to stop it from running on nVidia hardware is with an artificial lock out in place, then no, I don't think they would do it.

 

[5150Joker]

I don't think AMD or nVidia will pay either one to license each others tech, even if it's offered. That has nothing to do with what I am asking.

Let me say it again though. If AMD developed G-sync and the only way to stop it from running on nVidia hardware is with an artificial lock out in place, then no, I don't think they would do it.

That's a pretty evasive way to exonerate AMD. So if AMD somehow designed it to be dependent on GCN, that'd be ok right? It's essentially the same thing, a decision to create new technology that favors their own hardware (like Mantle)--doesn't matter whether its based on existing silicon or software. And AMD would be foolish to create technology like G-SYNC and not make it proprietary. Then again they usually are bleeding money so they don't exactly have the brightest management on earth.

 

[bystander36]

I don't think AMD or nVidia will pay either one to license each others tech, even if it's offered. That has nothing to do with what I am asking.

Let me say it again though. If AMD developed G-sync and the only way to stop it from running on nVidia hardware is with an artificial lock out in place, then no, I don't think they would do it.

I think they would, if they developed one.

However, I don't think they'd do it. Instead, they'd likely ask for a standard to be made, or wait for a standard to be made before jumping in.

TressFX is not the same as this. TressFX works better on AMD hardware, and to convince Dev's to use it, they let them sell it to all users and AMD gets benchmark wins as a result of them using it.

Gsync is a little different, as it doesn't require dev help and it doesn't effect performance. The one thing it could do is sell the chips they created for it, so there is a chance it will be opened up.

We are arguing about something that may or may not even be true.

 

[3DVagabond]

That's a pretty evasive way to exonerate AMD. So if AMD somehow designed it to be dependent on GCN, that'd be ok right? It's essentially the same thing, a decision to create new technology that favors their own hardware (like Mantle)--doesn't matter whether its based on existing silicon or software. And AMD would be foolish to create technology like G-SYNC and not make it proprietary. Then again they usually are bleeding money so they don't exactly have the brightest management on earth.

It's not the same thing at all. I asked if it's something that requires Kepler to run or if nVidia will artificially lock it. I think if it's artificially locked then it shows nVidia feels they need to tilt the playing field to their favor to compete. If not then they'd just sell the hardware to the monitor manufacturers and be done with it.

Mantle can't run on anything except GCN. It's not like AMD is locking out nVidia cards. It won't run on AMD's own VLIW architecture. Mantle doesn't do a check on which brand video card brand you are using and then choose to work if it detects an AMD card.

I'm not trying to exonerate anyone. If AMD made G-sync and the only way to make it not run on competing hardware was to artificially lock out the other brands, then no, I don't think they'd do it. They would let it run on Intel and nVidia graphics.

 

[blackened23]

If AMD made G-sync and the only way to make it not run on competing hardware was to artificially lock out the other brands, then no, I don't think they'd do it. They would let it run on Intel and nVidia graphics.

So you're saying AMD would give away a technology that they spent millions of R+D dollars developing? Don't agree. That would be stupid. Ridiculous. Etc.
Corporations aren't in business for the betterment of mankind, they're there to make money. Giving technology away allows people to buy competitor's products. Needless to say, not a smart strategy, especially after R+D funds were spent on creating it.

Although a ubiquitous standard would be nice, G-sync will be NV specific.

 

[3DVagabond]

So you're saying AMD would give away a technology that they spent millions of R+D dollars developing? Don't agree. That would be stupid. Ridiculous. Etc.
Corporations aren't in business for the betterment of mankind, they're there to make money. Giving technology away allows people to buy competitor's products. Needless to say, not a smart strategy, especially after R+D funds were spent on creating it.

Although a ubiquitous standard would be nice, G-sync will be NV specific.

I know it'll be nVidia specific. It's been stated as much. I want to know how it'll be kept that way. Because, if it's through some DRM style lockout it will be hacked. You can count on that.

 

[bystander36]

So you're saying AMD would give away a technology that they spent millions of R+D dollars developing? Don't agree. That would be stupid. Ridiculous. Etc.
Corporations aren't in business for the betterment of mankind, they're there to make money. Giving technology away allows people to buy competitor's products. Needless to say, not a smart strategy, especially after R+D funds were spent on creating it.

Although a ubiquitous standard would be nice, G-sync will be NV specific.

I mostly agree, but there is an angle that would let them open it up, though I bet it may be after a few months of it being Nvidia only. That benefit to Nvidia, if it were sold to AMD users too, is they can sell more Gsync chips to monitor companies.

 

[blackened23]

I mostly agree, but there is an angle that would let them open it up, though I bet it may be after a few months of it being Nvidia only. That benefit to Nvidia, if it were sold to AMD users too, is they can sell more Gsync chips to monitor companies.

Yeah, true. It all depends on whether more revenue is derived from selling upgrade kits or creating a value add for the Geforce brand. Based on NV's way of doing things I think they'll use it mostly to get more Geforce customers that find value in g-sync rather than the former, but anything is possible I guess.

Honestly, this is one of those things which I hope becomes ubiquitous through a VESA standard or something, but I highly doubt that would ever happen. I like the concept of g-sync very much. Why hasn't this been done on a wide scale? Not just for PCs either, you know? I like it.

 

[Final8ty]

I don't think AMD or nVidia will pay either one to license each others tech, even if it's offered. That has nothing to do with what I am asking.

Let me say it again though. If AMD developed G-sync and the only way to stop it from running on nVidia hardware is with an artificial lock out in place, then no, I don't think they would do it.

I dont think they would either because they could of done the same with this but they didn't.
NV just need to update there drivers.

AMD solves 4K display problems with VESA Display ID v1.3
http://semiaccurate.com/2013/10/11/amd-solves-4k-display-problems-vesa-display-id-v1-3/

 

[Erenhardt]

I can't remember when AMD artificially locked competitor. But we have that going on the green side all the time.

What I think will happen:
1. NV releases g-sync locked to nvidia only cards
2. Few months after release someone hacks g-sync to run with amd card
3. Nvidia opens g-sync and "gets" good press for creating open standard in the industry, leading tech progress and playing fair with their competitor.

 

[Keysplayr]

I don't think AMD or nVidia will pay either one to license each others tech, even if it's offered. That has nothing to do with what I am asking.

Let me say it again though. If AMD developed G-sync and the only way to stop it from running on nVidia hardware is with an artificial lock out in place, then no, I don't think they would do it.

You won't answer the question directly. Why? Would it mean that someone else is right that isn't you? Joker is making full tilt sense here and you keep dancing around his very VERY direct question.

 

[Keysplayr]

It's not the same thing at all. I asked if it's something that requires Kepler to run or if nVidia will artificially lock it. I think if it's artificially locked then it shows nVidia feels they need to tilt the playing field to their favor to compete. If not then they'd just sell the hardware to the monitor manufacturers and be done with it.

Mantle can't run on anything except GCN. It's not like AMD is locking out nVidia cards. It won't run on AMD's own VLIW architecture. Mantle doesn't do a check on which brand video card brand you are using and then choose to work if it detects an AMD card.

I'm not trying to exonerate anyone. If AMD made G-sync and the only way to make it not run on competing hardware was to artificially lock out the other brands, then no, I don't think they'd do it. They would let it run on Intel and nVidia graphics.

Why do you use the word artificially? It's REALLY being locked. Nothing artificial about it.
And why do you think Nvidia has to do this to compete?
Nvidia competes just fine. Pretend G-Sync doesn't exist. Is Nvidia not competing?
When AMD innovates something like G-Sync, that's the only way we'll know if they'd share it with Nvidia.

 

[3DVagabond]

Don't you guys understand English? I'm not dancing around anything. No, I don't think AMD would lock nVidia and Intel out. No, no, no, no, no! Did I say it enough times for you to understand?

What I mean by artificial, is it's not something that is native to the tech itself, but has to be added in.

 

[Keysplayr]

Don't you guys understand English? I'm not dancing around anything. No, I don't think AMD would lock nVidia and Intel out. No, no, no, no, no! Did I say it enough times for you to understand?

What I mean by artificial, is it's not something that is native to the tech itself, but has to be added in.

So the tech itself is artificial to then. It "had to be added in" also.
You're using "artificial" as a buzzword, when it really is misleading. There isn't anything artificial about a real lockout.

And Mantle? I wonder if Nvidia's hardware is flexible and programmable enough to run it. Think AMD would lend a hand to their chum?

 

[BD2003]

[redacted] people does every thread have to turn turn into nvidia vs amd? Don't you get tired of that [redacted] after a while?

Profanity isn't allowed in the technical forums. And no, they never get tired of it.
-- stahlhart