Petition: Nvidia should support VESA Adaptive-Sync / FreeSync

[max0x7ba]

Nvidia should support VESA Adaptive-Sync / FreeSync

 

[OatisCampbell]

This may be just a guess, but an article I saw on this site a few days ago leads me to believe NVIDIA may not be looking for advice on how to run the business.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10319...fy-2017-results-strong-growth-in-all-segments

Personally I have a 3008 (no free sync) and a 290, so I don't care what they do. (although the Pascal launch may put a Fury X within reach)

 

[Dribble]

Obviously its in our interests that they do. I wouldn't just want the current freesync however, because the standard sets the bar way to low - you can call a monitor freesync if it supports some level of variable frame rate, even if that is just 48-75 hz with no overdrive and no frame multiplier beneath freesync min fps (i.e. basically useless).

I like that fact that gsync monitors are of a higher quality because the min standard to call a monitor gsync is much higher. Right now everyone points out there are more freesync monitors so it must be better, but actually the best freesync monitors are pretty well all the gsync ones tweaked to support freesync instead, and that's because gsync has a much higher quality threshold. Without gsync there's probably be just a lot of rubbish freesync monitors.

Hence I'd be quite happy for nvidia to introduce some "nvidia certified freesync" or similar to up the standards. I don't suppose they will however, as a business it doesn't seem to be in nvidia's interest to support it.

 

[sandorski]

If you really want Freesync, buy AMD. That will change NVidia's mind a lot faster than a Petition.

 

[showb1z]

Obviously its in our interests that they do. I wouldn't just want the current freesync however, because the standard sets the bar way to low - you can call a monitor freesync if it supports some level of variable frame rate, even if that is just 48-75 hz with no overdrive and no frame multiplier beneath freesync min fps (i.e. basically useless).

That's not how it works. The reason you perceive G-sync as higher quality is because the added cost is so high that manufacturers can't justify putting it in lower-end non-gaming branded monitors. Only the expensive gaming segment of the market gets the G-sync treatment.
On the other hand, the added cost of freesync is low enough some manufacturers like Samsung pretty much consider it the new standard for their displays. Of course, a lot of these displays aren't really intended as gaming displays. But why is that a bad thing? Adaptive sync should be in as many monitors as possible. And the curved 1440p 144hz IPS panels get freesync as well of course, this has nothing to do with owing anything to g-sync monitors.

 

[3DVagabond]

That's not how it works. The reason you perceive G-sync as higher quality is because the added cost is so high that manufacturers can't justify putting it in lower-end non-gaming branded monitors. Only the expensive gaming segment of the market gets the G-sync treatment.
On the other hand, the added cost of freesync is low enough some manufacturers like Samsung pretty much consider it the new standard for their displays. Of course, a lot of these displays aren't really intended as gaming displays. But why is that a bad thing? Adaptive sync should be in as many monitors as possible. And the curved 1440p 144hz IPS panels get freesync as well of course, this has nothing to do with owing anything to g-sync monitors.

^^^This. Choice is a good thing. You can get 144Hz 24 and 27 Freesync gaming monitors. And you can get something more affordable that while not perfect, can still let you enjoy tear free gaming.

 

[Dribble]

That's not how it works. The reason you perceive G-sync as higher quality is because the added cost is so high that manufacturers can't justify putting it in lower-end non-gaming branded monitors. Only the expensive gaming segment of the market gets the G-sync treatment.
On the other hand, the added cost of freesync is low enough some manufacturers like Samsung pretty much consider it the new standard for their displays. Of course, a lot of these displays aren't really intended as gaming displays. But why is that a bad thing? Adaptive sync should be in as many monitors as possible. And the curved 1440p 144hz IPS panels get freesync as well of course, this has nothing to do with owing anything to g-sync monitors.

It is how it works, there is a certain standard of hardware support required to brand something freesync and a standard required to brand something gsync. They are not the same, the gsync one has significantly higher requirements. This is important - it's one of the reasons why Nvidia is seen as premium - because you get a better experience when you buy things Nvidia has stamped it's name on. Customers can buy knowing it works.

While it's great to push open, it is equally important to push quality. Open but rubbish is worse then closed but quality, the ideal is open with quality - something freesync does not currently guarantee you.

^^^This. Choice is a good thing. You can get 144Hz 24 and 27 Freesync gaming monitors. And you can get something more affordable that while not perfect, can still let you enjoy tear free gaming.

Having 100 monitors to choose from 90% of which are rubbish is not better then having 10 monitors to choose from all of which are good. Choice is only good if it's real choice between quality products - having a huge market of rubbish you have to sift through to find the real gold amongst the polished turds is not a good thing.

 

[ShintaiDK]

That's not how it works. The reason you perceive G-sync as higher quality is because the added cost is so high that manufacturers can't justify putting it in lower-end non-gaming branded monitors. Only the expensive gaming segment of the market gets the G-sync treatment.
On the other hand, the added cost of freesync is low enough some manufacturers like Samsung pretty much consider it the new standard for their displays. Of course, a lot of these displays aren't really intended as gaming displays. But why is that a bad thing? Adaptive sync should be in as many monitors as possible. And the curved 1440p 144hz IPS panels get freesync as well of course, this has nothing to do with owing anything to g-sync monitors.

If it was so, this wouldn't be the case:

 

[R0H1T]

It is how it works, there is a certain standard of hardware support required to brand something freesync and a standard required to brand something gsync. They are not the same, the gsync one has significantly higher requirements. This is important - it's one of the reasons why Nvidia is seen as premium - because you get a better experience when you buy things Nvidia has stamped it's name on. Customers can buy knowing it works.

While it's great to push open, it is equally important to push quality. Open but rubbish is worse then closed but quality, the ideal is open with quality - something freesync does not currently guarantee you.

Do we get 12bit IPS screens with 2ms response time & 144Hz refresh rate as standard components paired with a gsync module? If not it's a hogwash, nothing more & absolutely nothing less.

If you really want Freesync, buy AMD. That will change NVidia's mind a lot faster than a Petition.

Also this ^_^

 

[showb1z]

Having 100 monitors to choose from 90% of which are rubbish is not better then having 10 monitors to choose from all of which are good. Choice is only good if it's real choice between quality products - having a huge market of rubbish you have to sift through to find the real gold amongst the polished turds is not a good thing.

Full list here:
http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/technologies-gaming/freesync

These aren't rubbish monitors, they're just a bunch of non gaming focused monitors. Whether or not something is of sufficient quality is up to each individual to decide, with Nvidia that choice doesn't exist. How it's a bad thing people can also get the benefits of adaptive sync in non-gaming branded monitors is beyond me, but to each their own.

If it was so, this wouldn't be the case:

That was before low framerate compensation.

 

[ShintaiDK]

That was before low framerate compensation.

Assuming the monitor supports it. You can still get very awful Freesync monitors and its more common than not that its so. You can even find a Freesync monitor with 55hz minimum. And with a quick skimming there only seems to be 4 reaching down to 30hz.

And that's really the issue with Freesync that Dribble also mentions. Lack of some sort of quality standard.

 

[biostud]

Dont they already use it on their mobile gsync?

 

[showb1z]

Assuming the monitor supports it. You can still get very awful Freesync monitors and its more common than not that its so. You can even find a Freesync monitor with 55hz minimum. And with a quick skimming there only seems to be 4 reaching down to 30hz.

And that's really the issue with Freesync that Dribble also mentions. Lack of some sort of quality standard.

Yea and so what? They got freesync as an added bonus. Whether or not someone wants to pay for a quality monitor has nothing to do with freesync.
You're acting as if Freesync and G-sync are manufacturers. They're not, they're features manufacturers can choose to implement or not. G-sync doesn't get implemented on cheaper monitors because it's not worth it.
Apparently it's a bad thing people on a budget can enjoy adaptive sync as well.

 

[tential]

Obviously its in our interests that they do. I wouldn't just want the current freesync however, because the standard sets the bar way to low - you can call a monitor freesync if it supports some level of variable frame rate, even if that is just 48-75 hz with no overdrive and no frame multiplier beneath freesync min fps (i.e. basically useless).

I like that fact that gsync monitors are of a higher quality because the min standard to call a monitor gsync is much higher. Right now everyone points out there are more freesync monitors so it must be better, but actually the best freesync monitors are pretty well all the gsync ones tweaked to support freesync instead, and that's because gsync has a much higher quality threshold. Without gsync there's probably be just a lot of rubbish freesync monitors.

Hence I'd be quite happy for nvidia to introduce some "nvidia certified freesync" or similar to up the standards. I don't suppose they will however, as a business it doesn't seem to be in nvidia's interest to support it.

If only Nvidia would set a minimum standard for their coolers....
Seriously though, if someone wants to make a cheap Freesync monitor more power to them. Because not everyone can afford a high end monitor. Hence why we have a RANGE of choices.

By this line of reasoning, Nvidia should get rid of their inferior GPUs below the x70 series too... since we're setting arbitrary levels of "acceptable" performance now and all.

Forcing gamers to pay for more than 48-75 hz, if they find that to be acceptable is highly unreasonable.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yea and so what? They got freesync as an added bonus. Whether or not someone wants to pay for a quality monitor has nothing to do with freesync.
You're acting as if Freesync and G-sync are manufacturers. They're not, they're features manufacturers can choose to implement or not. G-sync doesn't get implemented on cheaper monitors because it's not worth it.
Apparently it's a bad thing people on a budget can enjoy adaptive sync as well.

If you are on a budget your experience with Freesync may be well below expectations and you could be off worse than no Freesync due to motion judder when they cant hit desired targets. And then we are into the "I had a bad experience" part with a user unlikely to return. It was simply a missed opportunity not to make sure quality followed.

 

[Rvenger]

I have a BenQ XL2730Z and Freesync works quite well. AMD has some kind of compensation built into the software to allow lower refresh rates beyond the scaler. I guess it would be considered some kind of buffer.

OK, freesync has lower quality scalers for the cheaper monitors, who cares? Why are we harping over this?... don't buy it if it doesn't suit you. Some people aren't rich and can afford a $600 monitor.

I am also in a market for a 1440p Gsync monitor but I am telling you I am not spending $600.

 

[tential]

I have a BenQ XL2730Z and Freesync works quite well. AMD has some kind of compensation built into the software to allow lower refresh rates beyond the scaler. I guess it would be considered some kind of buffer.

OK, freesync has lower quality scalers for the cheaper monitors, who cares? Why are we harping over this?... don't buy it if it doesn't suit you. Some people aren't rich and can afford a $600 monitor.

Well follow the discussion if you want to know why some people are upset.

Some people feel all monitors should provide at LEAST gsync level of experience and you should not be able to get a lower quality monitor with adaptive sync if you can NOT afford a $600 monitor.

Gsync starts at $350... so if you can't afford that, by their reasoning, you don't deserve to have adaptive sync.

Even though I don't need 144hz monitor, have no desire to purchase one, their line of reasoning is, if I want adaptive sync, I MUST get a monitor of at least this caliber, even if I don't need the functionality and only need a freesync range of 45-60, or whatever else I want.

But why buy a 4K screen to run it at QHD or 1080p? Along with this, while G-SYNC can refresh the panel at rates as low as 30Hz, I find that anything below 40Hz will start to see the pixels on the screen decay, resulting in a slight flicker; hence, the desire to stay above 40 FPS.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8910/acer-xb280hk-4k-gsync-monitor-review/2

So I'd have to pay for Gsyncs increased quality, to STILL not get the full gsync range advertised for 4K resolution. Talk about fun, and that's the only option on newegg for a 4K gsync monitor.

One of the LARGEST reasons I am PC gaming is freesync due to the flexibility and the fact I can actually get the EXACT monitor I want almost, instead of something I ABSOLUTELY do not want with Gsync.

There is also not a single acceptable Gsync on the market for me personally as well thanks to how closed the Nvidia ecosystem is.

I PC game to have options, not to be locked out of options....

 

[showb1z]

If you are on a budget your experience with Freesync may be well below expectations and you could be off worse than no Freesync due to motion judder when they cant hit desired targets. And then we are into the "I had a bad experience" part with a user unlikely to return. It was simply a missed opportunity not to make sure quality followed.

Got any actual proof or reviews of freesync not working as expected according to monitor specs or are you just implying things to put freesync in a bad light?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Got any actual proof or reviews of freesync not working as expected according to monitor specs or are you just implying things to put freesync in a bad light?

You should know since you mentioned LFC.

Only shame is it requires the 2½x factor.

That's why people on a budget may very easily get bad experiences. Because they may get a monitor with low Freesync intervals and on top of that having a graphics card that isn't going to produce miracles on its own in terms of speed.

 

[tential]

You should know since you mentioned LFC.

Only shame is it requires the 2½x factor.

That's why people on a budget may very easily get bad experiences. Because they may get a monitor with low Freesync intervals and on top of that having a graphics card that isn't going to produce miracles on its own in terms of speed.

People on a budget can't even afford Gsync, and thus would have an even worse experience.

So what's your point?

 

[crisium]

No one other than the two stockholders in the other thread would argue against Nvidia supporting this standard.

But I think they are saving it for when AMD starts getting more marketshare. A trump card.

Right now, lock in those with G Sync. More people have Nvidia GPUs, so they have that as leverage.

When AMD starts pushing towards 50% again, Nvidia have the option of giving their "new architecture only" Freesync support. Now all those Freesync owners have more reason to consider Nvidia for their next upgrade. Remember those Freesync users right now are relatively small due to AMDs sub 25% marketshare, but this is slowly accumulating and will grow larger if AMD does approach 50%.

Once Nvidia makes this change, they will likely not be able to reverse it. They want to encourage G Sync as much as possible for as long as possible because they will never, ever allow AMD to support G Sync so a G Sync sale is almost always vendor lock.

As soon as Nvidia decides to support Freesync, it becomes a double edged sword. Less people will buy G Sync and some will instead buy Freesync, so there goes some of your vendor lock in. But also some people with Freesync will now buy Nvidia. The latter must really, really outweigh the former since Nvidia cannot reverse this. Thus I think it will really take significant AMD marketshare for this to happen. To do it now when they have such a marketshare disparity would not be ideal timing.

 

[dacostafilipe]

Remember those Freesync users right now are relatively small ...

There already seems to be more "FreeSync users" around then G-Sync ones, as most new gaming monitors that are not G-Sync are most of the time FreeSync compatible ...

PS: I love people complaining about how a cheap monitor can look "cheap" in terms of features XD

 

[Rvenger]

I don't understand why they can't make a monitor with both.

 

[tential]

There already seems to be more "FreeSync users" around then G-Sync ones, as most new gaming monitors that are not G-Sync are most of the time FreeSync compatible ...

19 gsync options right now on newegg
32 freesync options right now on newegg.
Gsync's starting price? $350 for 144hz 1080p 24 inch screen. .
Yes, you HAVE to get 144hz, can't opt for 120hz if you want to save money or anything. Or even 90 hz.

Freesync starts at $170 for 40-60hz 1080p 24 inch.

$350 from freesync?
1440p, 1440hz 27 inch screen
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100160979 600559798 600417886&IsNodeId=1
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009769

You have MULTIPLE 144hz options under that from freesync for cheaper than $350.

I don't understand why they can't make a monitor with both.

Nvidia has to approve your monitor for Gsync so won't happen. Nvidia could use Freesync, or approve a Gsync monitor with Freesync capability. They will do neither for the time being. Which sucks, because obviously this would be the best of both worlds, or just to have them both use ONE freaking standard.

 

[crisium]

I don't understand why they can't make a monitor with both.

I have thought about this too. It is very possible that Nvidia forbids it. Or it is is technically impossible. Depends on how paranoid one is to which they guess.