Question on DisplayPort 1.2, 1.2a and 'Adaptive-Sync'

[Hitman928]

I'm not a mod, but I think the discussion of technology between Async and Gsync is best left out of this thread, it was discussed recently in a thread that Mand linked to and that thread was locked for a reason. I think the purpose of this thread is simply a question of availability and product options. Barring any other finds from forum members, I think the question has been answered for the OP but to sum up:

Gsync: real availability expected 1 - 2 months from now, but monitor choice is limited and carries ~$200 - $250 increase in price to the base models.

Async: spec just announced, 8 - 12 months from now (best case) you may start to see some availability. Price increase is unknown but should be substantially cheaper than Gsync enabled monitors. Hopefully more demos of the tech are given within the next 6 months or so.

Any discussion outside of availability or product options will probably get this thread well off the rails and locked.

 

[f1sherman]

Async: spec just announced, 8 - 12 months from now (best case) you may start to see some availability. Price increase is unknown but should be substantially cheaper than Gsync enabled monitors. Hopefully more demos of the tech are given within the next 6 months or so.

More?
Like this one?

Two identical displays - Find the intruder


AMD acts like smooth frame delivery is easy and all we need is improved display port standard,
but they have yet to demonstrate benefits of their Adaptive Sync, let alone push for adoption and displays availability.

 

[Mand]

Gsync: real availability expected 1 - 2 months from now, but monitor choice is limited and carries ~$200 - $250 increase in price to the base models.

There's a few difficulties in extrapolating here.

First off, there is no guarantee of a base model. There is no version of the Swift that doesn't have G-Sync. I actually expect this to be the case for much of them - it takes enough effort to develop the G-Sync module for a particular display that they'd have to redo a lot of the work to make a non-G-Sync version - so why bother making one, and instead just have two different products aimed at different market segments?

Second, we can't really extrapolate that much from the DIY kit price. Yes, it was $200, but how much of that is a bleeding edge early adopter fee, for something that is only useful if you're a serious enough enthusiast to rip out the guts of your existing display, running the risk of breaking it in the process?

No doubt, G-Sync will command a premium. As it should - it's performing a new function that nothing else has ever done before. The hardware design and implementation is expensive and labor-intensive. They have to recoup the costs in the form of a price premium. How big that will be is uncertain. What is also uncertain is the amount the "proprietary" label will increase prices. The doomsayers claim that it just leads to gouging, but it seems plausible to me that the proprietary aspect is there not to squeeze out a few extra bucks from someone who purchases a G-Sync display in the form of licensing fees, but rather to direct people into buying Nvidia GPUs. I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia isn't charging display OEMs a dime for any licensing fees. They could be, but it's plausible to me that they wouldn't - they want as many display OEMs on board as possible, because G-Sync being available in a wide range of products helps drive GPU sales, which is what Nvidia actually cares about.

We have absolutely no idea how much of a premium A-Sync will have. It will have one, again, as variable refresh is new functionality that traditional displays don't have, so the new function you'll have to pay for. It will still have significant development costs, and it will have hardware costs to recoup as well. The only realistic claim for a cheaper A-Sync is a lack of licensing fees - but if those don't exist for G-Sync, then there's no advantage for A-Sync in that area.

The Swift is, certainly, an expensive monitor. At $799, it's way, way up there. There are plenty of people who will look at that and say "WHAT!? I wouldn't pay $200 for a TN, $800 is ridiculous!" - and that's valid. But, again, this isn't just any old cheap TN monitor. 1440p, full 8-bit color, 120Hz native, without hacked overclocking. Those are specs that high-end IPS displays would love to be able to claim, but are rare at this point even for them. Throw in G-Sync and it becomes a remarkably good buy.

And no, I'm not going to bother debunking the same tired arguments in yet another thread. They were already discredited completely in the last one, go read it again unless you have something actually new.

 

[BrightCandle]

Between now and when the monitors are released the async requirements could change. They might reduce or increase the GPUs that support it, we might see manufacturers skip 1.2a and go straight to DP 1.3 and use that instead and that wouldn't work on any existing hardware etc etc. With no products announced we don't really know. What AMD has said so far is GCN 1.1 cards support it and you'll need a new monitor. Hopefully in 6 months to a year that will still be the case after the development has been done.

 

[Hitman928]

Mand, I started to give a longer reply to your post, but decided a more general post would be better. To be honest, I feel like your maybe bringing arguments from other forums over to your posts here as I honestly don't understand what motivates some of your statements here.

Anyway, Nvidia's implementation of Gsync was clearly motivated by a desire to have a faster time to market and to keep things proprietary. It's not a very cheap or elegant solution (talking about the implementation, not the tech). Because of this, it will have limited supply and high cost until Nvidia comes out with a new way of implementing it. Sure, we don't know the exact $$$ amount, but we have a pretty good idea given what has currently been offered.

If OEM's are using Nvidia's own gsync units, then they're not paying any licensing fees, that's not how it works, but they are paying for the modules Nvidia is supplying. Someone would pay a licensing fee if they wanted to take Nvidia's technology and make their own implementation of it.

As far as Async goes, again, we don't know the exact dollar amount it would take to implement, but because it is a change to how the already integrated display controller works based on existing technology, the cost will be significantly less and it will be a lot easier to include into the implementation of additional monitors. That is how the whole industry works when new specs come out (even optional ones). How well it works is yet to be seen as AMD hasn't given any good demos of it yet and probably won't until an actual Async monitor is developed.

Will Gsync and Async both work in the market place? Will one beat out the other? Will Async end up DOA? No one knows. If you really feel like you can predict the market so accurately, I suggest you apply for a job at every major tech company as they will pay you ridiculous amounts of money for that foresight as you could save any major tech company hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars through the years. From a consumer perspective, Gsync looks to be the better performer, but that's not the only thing that determines market acceptance, otherwise USB would have been dead long ago.

 

[Hitman928]

Between now and when the monitors are released the async requirements could change. They might reduce or increase the GPUs that support it, we might see manufacturers skip 1.2a and go straight to DP 1.3 and use that instead and that wouldn't work on any existing hardware etc etc. With no products announced we don't really know. What AMD has said so far is GCN 1.1 cards support it and you'll need a new monitor. Hopefully in 6 months to a year that will still be the case after the development has been done.

I think this pretty much sums up the current state of Async.

 

[Mand]

Do I need a motivation other than getting to an accurate assessment of the state of the technology?

So far the only objection people have been able to raise that isn't refuted completely and totally by readily-available, easily-sourced evidence is that I have some sort of personal stake involved and therefore I shouldn't be trusted. If all you have is to attack me personally, I think that pretty much ends the discussion.

A-Sync is not a change to how the already-integrated display controller works based on existing technology. That is flatly false - as confirmed by AMD itself. It requires new hardware in order for a monitor to be compatible, and it is not just a simple tweak of existing systems. That's also flatly false.

The assumptions that the A-Sync enthusiasm is based on are nothing more than an invention of the internet, they are not backed up by any actual evidence in the real world. Not by AMD's demo, not by AMD's statement, not by the VESA spec update, not by display manufacturers, not by anything. It was a bit of hype blown up into the echo chamber of various forums until it became something that people just "know" is true. Even though it's not.

Seriously, go read the last thread, read the sources, read the explanations. I did this all before, and there's no point in doing the same thread twice.

 

[Hitman928]

Do I need a motivation other than getting to an accurate assessment of the state of the technology?

So far the only objection people have been able to raise that isn't refuted completely and totally by readily-available, easily-sourced evidence is that I have some sort of personal stake involved and therefore I shouldn't be trusted. If all you have is to attack me personally, I think that pretty much ends the discussion.

Who has attacked you personally? You seem to be the only one making (taking) things to be personal. I haven't seen any attacking at all in this thread, personal or not. . .

A-Sync is not a change to how the already-integrated display controller works based on existing technology. That is flatly false - as confirmed by AMD itself. It requires new hardware in order for a monitor to be compatible, and it is not just a simple tweak of existing systems. That's also flatly false.

I'm not going to get into this again because it's not relevant to the thread. All I'll say is that, no, it is not false, you are just misreading what I am saying. You can look at the other thread where it was laid out in detail.

The assumptions that the A-Sync enthusiasm is based on are nothing more than an invention of the internet, they are not backed up by any actual evidence in the real world. Not by AMD's demo, not by AMD's statement, not by the VESA spec update, not by display manufacturers, not by anything. It was a bit of hype blown up into the echo chamber of various forums until it became something that people just "know" is true. Even though it's not.

I honestly have no idea what this means and as I said before, it seems you are bringing arguments you have had on other forums over here, otherwise I don't know where you're coming from.

 

[Mand]

Several people in the last thread did, actually, attack me personally. Your comments are questioning my motives rather than my arguments, and that's pretty close.

I addressed all the concerns you raised in the other thread, what you are claiming just isn't borne out by the facts. Just because I disagreed with you does not mean I misread what you were saying.

I am glad that you say that you're not wanting to get into it again, but if that's the case then repeating the same debunked information is something that you could refrain from doing.

 

[Hitman928]

Several people in the last thread did, actually, attack me personally. Your comments are questioning my motives rather than my arguments, and that's pretty close.

I addressed all the concerns you raised in the other thread, what you are claiming just isn't borne out by the facts. Just because I disagreed with you does not mean I misread what you were saying.

I am glad that you say that you're not wanting to get into it again, but if that's the case then repeating the same debunked information is something that you could refrain from doing.

Seriously, what? I think I'll just peace out of this thread, nothing to be gained here. Hopefully we can actually get some good discussion going in the future as I really am looking forward to this new tech.

 

[3DVagabond]

That's a rather gross misrepresentation. The Swift is a real product, with a real launch window, that could be here in a month or two. To call it on par with A-Sync is utterly laughable.

G-Sync exists and is in real products, both currently existing on people's desks and in a number of upcoming products. A-Sync is a Word document. There's a real, valid distinction there, and it is not acceptable to spread misinformation by calling them equivalent.

Look who's talking! lol

I stated a simple fact, right now he has to wait because he can't buy one, unlike you are making it sound. They haven't been released yet. That hasn't stopped people from calling it "a real product" for the last six months now, though.

 

[Mand]

Look who's talking! lol

I stated a simple fact, right now he has to wait because he can't buy one, unlike you are making it sound. They haven't been released yet. That hasn't stopped people from calling it "a real product" for the last six months now, though.

People bought them in January. They've been reviewed. Characterized. Evaluated. Loved.

The Swift has not yet been released, no. But G-Sync most certainly has.

And there's a big difference between "he can't buy one" and "he can't buy one until next month." One gives a false impression, the other is the truth.

 

[3DVagabond]

Sure there are, here is a site in the UK with them in stock and selling:
http://www.scan.co.uk/products/3xs-...or-1920x1080-800000001-350cd-m-1ms-vesa-dport


Gsync monitors have been on sale since January time. There have been some supply issues here and there (due to demand!) but its been possible to buy them easily enough for months. Gsync is on sale and has been for a while. Its also a technology that works very well. Admittedly most people are waiting on the 1440p Asus ROG monitor but 1080p monitors are available and have been for most of this year.

Cool they have some now. They have been mostly OoS though since Dec. I don't check everyday, mind you. I've looked 1/2 dozen times or so and this is the first time I've seen them listed as available. I would say "buy them easily" is overstating it a bit but they are available, so I stand corrected.

 

[Mand]

Out of stock is not the same thing as not available.

 

[BrightCandle]

Cool they have some now. They have been mostly OoS though since Dec. I don't check everyday, mind you. I've looked 1/2 dozen times or so and this is the first time I've seen them listed as available. I would say "buy them easily" is overstating it a bit but they are available, so I stand corrected.

I first noticed they were in stock in February after the initial sell out and I have checked about every 2 weeks since and they have always been in stock except once. No problems with availability. The modules themselves have been hard to get but still on sale for much of the last year. Its a myth, you can buy a gsync monitor right now and have been able to do so pretty much all year.

 

[3DVagabond]

I first noticed they were in stock in February after the initial sell out and I have checked about every 2 weeks since and they have always been in stock except once. No problems with availability. The modules themselves have been hard to get but still on sale for much of the last year. Its a myth, you can buy a gsync monitor right now and have been able to do so pretty much all year.

You are a good poster here. I will take your word for it.

 

[moonbogg]

I have an $800 roll of money in one hand and a sling shot in the other. I'm using them to hunt ROG Swift salesmen. Seen any?

 

[Despoiler]

Between now and when the monitors are released the async requirements could change. They might reduce or increase the GPUs that support it, we might see manufacturers skip 1.2a and go straight to DP 1.3 and use that instead and that wouldn't work on any existing hardware etc etc. With no products announced we don't really know. What AMD has said so far is GCN 1.1 cards support it and you'll need a new monitor. Hopefully in 6 months to a year that will still be the case after the development has been done.

FYI, 1.2a is already the standard. A-Sync is such a trivial change that it didn't even warrant a new version.

 

[Mand]

FYI, 1.2a is already the standard. A-Sync is such a trivial change that it didn't even warrant a new version.

It may be a trivial change to the spec (I would not characterize it that way) but it's most definitely not a trivial change to the hardware.

 

[Phynaz]

It may be a trivial change to the spec (I would not characterize it that way) but it's most definitely not a trivial change to the hardware.

I'm sure you can back that up with authoritative links, right?

 

[Grooveriding]

Can you show me any where in the states to buy one? Serious question, I looked and couldn't find a single one on sale anywhere, not even a kit. Not sure how high the demand is as we have zero information on supply or demand and only one monitor Gsync works with right now that I can tell. P.s. your link shows 3 user reviews. I know user review does not equal units sold by any means, but if it's really been on sale in numerous supply for five months, you'd think it'd have a few more than 3 people giving feed back.

I have a lot of doubt that Gsync is in such excessive demand (could be wrong) simply because for the one monitor that has Gsync compatibility, adding Gsync doubles the price of the monitor, I just don't see the market for that being large right now considering it is a 1080p monitor and many higher quality monitors in the same price bracket. Once some higher end monitors come out, I could see more people jumping on them because then you're only adding ~30% additional cost to add Gsync rather than doubling the price. You're always going to have some initial takers to be on the bleeding edge, but they're not in high numbers.

No availability in NA apart from the after market kit. That one linked earlier is the specific monitor the kit has to be installed in retrofitted with it and sold. There is nothing off the shelf straight from manufacturer with the module rolled into it. Just that one model that works with the available kit and that Asus monitor is an abysmal panel by all accounts.

I think the Asus swift will be the first actual off the shelf monitor with gsync support, so it will be that one or the other monitor with the kit installed. It's because of that slow rate of adoption that I think we'll see decent IPS panels that support A-sync before gsync.

If DP 1.2a is necesary then I assume we'll have to wait till the end of this year or next year for nvidia cards that will support it. Seems not a big deal as with the rate monitors are arriving that support all these new specs it should coincide. A better and smarter buy as well because you won't be locked into nvidia should you want to use AMD instead at any given time. Just makes more sense because once you start using this tech, you're not going to want to stop using it.

Just need to get it in some decent monitors rather than cheap TN screens.

 

[Despoiler]

It may be a trivial change to the spec (I would not characterize it that way) but it's most definitely not a trivial change to the hardware.

Just keep saying that and maybe someone will believe you. Non-trivial changes require a version change. That is what version changes signify....

 

[Mand]

I'm sure you can back that up with authoritative links, right?

Yep. Go read the other thread. It's all there, it's all been said. Unless you have something new, continuing to press me again and again to repeat myself is not going to get me to crack and do something foolish you can report me for.

Of course, if you don't believe AMD on what will be required for something AMD is pushing to implement, I'm not sure who you would believe.

 

[Stuka87]

It may be a trivial change to the spec (I would not characterize it that way) but it's most definitely not a trivial change to the hardware.

Where is the data backing up this claim?

AMD and VESA say it requires a change, not a whole redesign as you keep implying. Like stated, if it required a change to the actual hardware, it would require a version change per VESA's requirements (Which I cannot post as you have to be a member to read them). What it requires is a firmware change to the hardware. The V_Blank call already exist, ASync is an expansion of that functionality. Now since displays do not typically have firmware that is upgradable (They are almost always write once roms) it will require displays that have the functionality enabled on them.

The bigger change is on the GPU side as its the one doing most of the work. In nVidia's case, their module is doing the work so they have a wider range of GPU's that work with it.

 

[Phynaz]

Yep. Go read the other thread. It's all there, it's all been said. Unless you have something new, continuing to press me again and again to repeat myself is not going to get me to crack and do something foolish you can report me for.

Of course, if you don't believe AMD on what will be required for something AMD is pushing to implement, I'm not sure who you would believe.

Don't see any in there. How do you know so much about what it takes to implement at the same time you are complaining there isn't any technical info available?