[Sweclockers] AMD opens up about Freesync

[showb1z]

Just because it wasn't shown to the public doesn't mean a thing and gives no way to dispute it [atleast as an industry outsider].

Wouldn't they have had a better demo though? It was pretty unimpressive, and didn't really prove that Free-sync is capable of the same things as G-sync at all. The eDP standard they used has been available since 2009 and that demo was the best they could do after "years of research"?
Even now, it's still a year until we can expect the first hardware even though they've supposedly also been working with manufacturers for a while.
Meh, I don't buy it. Makes a lot more sense that Free-sync is just something they whipped together as a response to G-sync. And it's working too, people are writing G-sync off, even though we barely know anything about Free-sync at all.
Marketing spin aside, I hope it succeeds. The faster this technology becomes mainstream, the better.

 

[dacostafilipe]

Wouldn't they have had a better demo though? It was pretty unimpressive, and didn't really prove that Free-sync is capable of the same things as G-sync at all.

That's 100% true. It showed something G-Sync can't do (I mean, we have no prove/demo/paper that it can, if you know what I mean :whiste.

It demos that they can change the frequency of the LCD to adapt to a running application. This could be huge for the notebook business if they can reduce the energy usage while watching a movie.

 

[BrightCandle]

Sounds impressive except for the fact that is something that laptops/tablets/phones have been capable of for a while with eDP and its something AMD, Nvidia and Intel are capable of. But those eDP features aren't sufficient to implement what gsync does because they require prediction or low update rates. Which is why its important to know what was added to the spec in terms of adaptive vsync because if its just eDP features and like the January demo it is not the same thing. No working demo and no technical brief other than "trust us its awesome" isn't really good enough after all the lies that have been told in and since January that have been found and caused AMD to have to backtrack. We need more information before we can conclude its even a competitor let alone better. Nothing sweclockers has said added any information we didn't already know, it was just a lot of hot air as per usual.

Why is it Freesync seems to have this hot air around it, if its a cool technology just come out and show us how it will work or how it does work. Seems simple enough. Its just suspicious the way this has so much hot vapour around it without substance, that always makes me nervous around technology announcements.

 

[dacostafilipe]

... because they require prediction or low update rates ...

PSR is not VBLANK. You do not provide a TTL, you just wake up the main link when you have a new image and the TCON starts to read from the DP input instead of the video buffer.

 

[dacostafilipe]

Robert Hallock:

We have a prototype monitor on the floor at Computex, but the display industry still has engineering work to do. Spec is new!

Source: https://twitter.com/thracks/status/469295108379013120

 

[Dribble]

Show me it working AMD. I don't get why you can't do this today? From what you've said:
a) it's free and it's easy.
b) you've been developing it for years, longer then nvidia who already have shipping products so surely you must have a working demo by now?
c) it doesn't need new hardware, other then the variable sync bit which is already in lots of laptops, some of which you have as you used it in the fix rate video demo.
d) lots of your graphics cards already support it.

 

[sontin]

So, "display industry still has engineering work to do"?
Why? I thought everything has existed before and they only need to provide a firmware update?

/edit: Directly from AMD:

The exec's puzzlement over Nvidia's use of external hardware was resolved when I spoke with him again later in the day. His new theory is that the display controller in Nvidia's current GPUs simply can't support variable refresh intervals, hence the need for an external G-Sync unit. That would explain things. I haven't yet had time to confirm this detail with Nvidia or to quiz them about whether G-Sync essentially does triple-buffering in the module. Nvidia has so far been deliberately vague about certain specifics of how G-Sync works, so we'll need to pry a little in order to better understand the situation.

Regardless, the good news here is that AMD believes a very effective G-Sync-like variable refresh technology shouldn't add any cost at all to a display or system. The term "free sync" is already being spoken as shorthand for this technology at AMD.

http://techreport.com/news/25867/amd-could-counter-nvidia-g-sync-with-simpler-free-sync-tech

This is guerrilla marketing at best.

 

[3DVagabond]

So, "display industry still has engineering work to do"?
Why? I thought everything has existed before and they only need to provide a firmware update?

You still have to design and certify products. That doesn't take a few days.

 

[sontin]

AMD said you dont need a new controller in the display and they questioned why nVidia went this way.

 

[BrightCandle]

You still have to design and certify products. That doesn't take a few days.

Nobody is asking for a product, we just want to see details of how it works and a demo on prototype hardware of it doing what its meant to do for a real game. After all their hardware already does it and I should be expecting my firmware for my monitor any time now. With such wide availability and such a long development period it would seem reasonable they would have some form of prototype available to roll out even if its really rough.

 

[blackened23]

This guy being interviewed is a marketer scum through and through, complete with half truths and vague statements. AMD originally stated that free-sync doesn't require new hardware. Guess what, it requires monitors with different controllers which is ............... new hardware. That sure does sound pretty similar to g-sync. And their free-sync pre-dates G-sync? Excuse me while I laugh at that one. If they say so.

Of course a free alternative would be great. The problem is, the way AMD's marketing has gone about this entire thing has left a sour taste. Complete dishonesty from the get-go.

It's hard to take anything the marketing of these guys states seriously given their significant history of questionable social media marketing methods and outright lies in their marketing slides/presentations. When they can deliver something on the market (which still requires new controllers in monitors, mind you) then we can evalutate it at that point. Evaluating anything from marketing scum, i'll pass. Already there have been so many lies by AMD's marketing about free-sync that there's not a single reason to take anything at face value. When they have a product on the market, speak then, otherwise, es tee ef u.

 

[3DVagabond]

This guy being interviewed is a marketer scum through and through, complete with half truths and vague statements. AMD originally stated that free-sync doesn't require new hardware. Guess what, it requires monitors with different controllers which is ............... new hardware. That sure does sound pretty similar to g-sync. And their tech pre-dates G-sync? Excuse me while I laugh at that one. If they say so.

It's hard to take anything the marketing of these guys states seriously given their significant history of questionable social media marketing methods and outright lies in their marketing slides/presentations. When they can deliver something on the market (which still requires new controllers in monitors, mind you) then we can evalutate it at that point. Evaluating anything from marketing scum, i'll pass.

You definitely need to strain what marketing people say. Kind of like nVidia has been working with Msft for four years now on DX12. Not a one of them will give you the straight facts.

 

[blackened23]

Correct. Never base judgement completely on marketing. That applies to any company - any and ALL of them. Nvidia isn't completely innocent, as I didn't like their Titan Z marketing. I really disliked the fact that the Titan Z was marketed as a gaming product, it should not have been at all. Their marketing were being idiots about that. But that really created a backlash anyway, and a well deserved one. All of these companies have done things via marketing at various points and time that were stupid. However, AMD is just on a different level these days when it comes to questionable marketing with deceptive practices and questionable claims. I won't delve further into that, but reading this stuff about free-sync is just hilarious. There are just too many half truths in that interview, that it blows my mind. Maybe this Hallock guy lies so much that he believes himself.

WHEN THIS IS ON THE MARKET, we can evaluate the merits THEN. Not a moment before for me. Like I said, a free alternative to g-sync, I don't see why ANYONE would have an issue with that. (Then again, it ISNT free if it requires new controllers in monitors. If that's the "free" criteria, we can call g-sync free as well) If VESA has a standard that does what g-sync does implemented into a VESA spec, hey that's great. I absolutely do not have an issue with a standardized specification and across the board support via displayport. I don't think ANYONE would have an issue with that, if it can be proven to do what g-sync does. That's awesome, it really is.

However, AMD trumping this up the way they are with pre-hype, half truths and promises 6-9 months before anything can be shown? It's in bad taste. When they can show us the money, show us the money then and make some noise then. At this point and time, it's meaningless.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

Sounds pretty vague tbh. Need to see it for myself. In the meantime, I'm pretty much ignoring gsync thanks to this development though.

 

[parvadomus]

Its a matter of time to make that awful monitor modules to disappear from the market. Goodbye G-Sync!

 

[Mand]

Sounds pretty vague tbh. Need to see it for myself. In the meantime, I'm pretty much ignoring gsync thanks to this development though.

So, you're ignoring a proven solution that's available on the market now in favor of something that might, someday, turn into something that could potentially compete with it, but that we have no guarantee won't be worse or more expensive?

How does that make sense, exactly?

And again, open standards do not always win. Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD. Proprietary versus open. Proprietary won.

Either way you look at this statement from my angle - it looks like the same repeated mistakes AMD does all the fucking time.

They're quick to burst out claims without actually thinking what it means to their product.


A. It's a lie.

B. They're so incompetent NVidia owned them both on a working standard + time to market.

Which one is worse?

This is a rather interesting way of putting it. Even if they're not lying, why are they 11-17 months behind?

I am now very interested in seeing the performance of this prototype machine, though. AMD, this is your big chance to redeem yourself. Don't blow it by giving us something fake.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Its a matter of time to make that awful monitor modules to disappear from the market. Goodbye G-Sync!

Lol, nobody's forcing you to buy one. Can't believe some people's hate toward this.

 

[Mand]

Its a matter of time to make that awful monitor modules to disappear from the market. Goodbye G-Sync!

The monitor modules are already basically gone. They're now being included in displays at the factory, being designed into them. The DIY kit was a way of getting it out there as quickly as possible, to the bleeding edge enthusiast crowd willing to rip out the guts of a perfectly good display in order to upgrade it.

That's hardly representative of the expected market presence.

 

[Mand]

WHEN THIS IS ON THE MARKET, we can evaluate the merits THEN. Not a moment before for me. Like I said, a free alternative to g-sync, I don't see why ANYONE would have an issue with that. (Then again, it ISNT free if it requires new controllers in monitors. If that's the "free" criteria, we can call g-sync free as well) If VESA has a standard that does what g-sync does implemented into a VESA spec, hey that's great. I absolutely do not have an issue with a standardized specification and across the board support via displayport. I don't think ANYONE would have an issue with that, if it can be proven to do what g-sync does. That's awesome, it really is.

The thing is, we don't even have proof that G-Sync isn't free. No, Nvidia is not sharing the tech openly, but that doesn't mean that they're then charging display OEMs a licensing premium. It's in Nvidia's best interest to get G-Sync into as many displays as possible, and licensing fees are a way to discourage that from happening - so why would they do it? Their business model isn't built around selling display controllers, it's built around selling GPUs. The more G-Sync displays out there, the more value their GPUs have. G-Sync is there to drive GPU sales, period. Which means all this nonsense about "free!!!" is very likely bogus - because G-Sync could be just as free.

The only reason it's not open is that they don't want AMD to be able to benefit from it and remove Nvidia's competitive advantage (a substantial one, being 11-17 months ahead). That doesn't mean it's going to be more expensive for us, just that you won't be able to use it on an AMD card. Well, guess what, you can't use the Maxwell architecture on an AMD card either, and I don't see people raising hue and cry over that.

 

[f1sherman]

The only reason it's not open is that they don't want AMD to be able to benefit from it and remove Nvidia's competitive advantage (a substantial one, being 11-17 months ahead)

AMD FreeSync press demonstrations to be ready within 4-10 months.
NVIDIA G-Sync demo - Montreal Oct 2013

G-sync is 11-17 months ahead if we are to believe AMD marketing.
Add conservative 6 months due to marketing spin and lack of honesty (as demonstrated below), and realistically they are 1.5-2 years behind.



– The engineering timeline of the Radeon R9 and R7 Series, which feature Project FreeSync-compatible display controllers, establishes that FreeSync predates G-Sync by a healthy margin.

This logic establishes that Nvidia (& Microsoft) started working on DirectX 12 in 2009 because Fermi features DX12 compatible silicon.

 

[blackened23]

The thing is, we don't even have proof that G-Sync isn't free. No, Nvidia is not sharing the tech openly, but that doesn't mean that they're then charging display OEMs a licensing premium. It's in Nvidia's best interest to get G-Sync into as many displays as possible, and licensing fees are a way to discourage that from happening - so why would they do it? Their business model isn't built around selling display controllers, it's built around selling GPUs. The more G-Sync displays out there, the more value their GPUs have. G-Sync is there to drive GPU sales, period. Which means all this nonsense about "free!!!" is very likely bogus - because G-Sync could be just as free.

The only reason it's not open is that they don't want AMD to be able to benefit from it and remove Nvidia's competitive advantage (a substantial one, being 11-17 months ahead). That doesn't mean it's going to be more expensive for us, just that you won't be able to use it on an AMD card. Well, guess what, you can't use the Maxwell architecture on an AMD card either, and I don't see people raising hue and cry over that.

Pretty much. At this point, AMD is just blowing smoke and telling half truths for something that won't be available on the market for 6 months to a year if that. And the hilarious part is, that these so called "free" sync monitors require a new controller just as g-sync does (although it should be mentioned, that once g-sync becomes ASIC based it will be MUCH cheaper than the DIY FPGA kit). On top of this, AMD claimed that it would work on existing monitors on the market. That was a bold faced lie. The "free" part of free-sync is also a bold faced lie. As it turns out, monitors require new controllers for this free-sync thing. Is that free? Well, *clown face* if this free-sync module is free than we can say the g-sync module when it becomes asic based will be free. (clarification: the DIY GSYNC kit is FPGA based and expensive, ASIC based is built into the monitor and much cheaper). Major rolleyes there at the entire "free" thing.

I'm sorry, after seeing AMD make so many lies about this entire free-sync nonsense I can't take anything seriously until it's here on the market. And we know that won't happen for a while. And as one could expect, Mr. Hallock is continuing the tradition of lies with his interview regarding free-sync. Who knows if it's intentional. Maybe it's the corporate culture and his briefing was based on incorrect information. Regardless, it's hard to NOT be harsh on AMD about this because the number of half truths in the marketing over this stuff has just been immense. Now AMD isn't the only company guilty of stupid marketing, certainly this applies to all companies, but the level of stupidity i'm seeing in this interview just blows my mind.

So I maintain the idea is good, AMD's marketing has been full of half truths, and I won't judge anything until it's here with actual hardware on the market that can be evaluated. It has nothing to do with the idea of a VESA alternative. I think that's fine. Great, in fact. But the entire way AMD has gone about this has left a sour taste for sure.

 

[Creig]

The thing is, we don't even have proof that G-Sync isn't free. No, Nvidia is not sharing the tech openly, but that doesn't mean that they're then charging display OEMs a licensing premium. It's in Nvidia's best interest to get G-Sync into as many displays as possible, and licensing fees are a way to discourage that from happening - so why would they do it? Their business model isn't built around selling display controllers, it's built around selling GPUs. The more G-Sync displays out there, the more value their GPUs have. G-Sync is there to drive GPU sales, period. Which means all this nonsense about "free!!!" is very likely bogus - because G-Sync could be just as free.

Except that g-sync can't possibly ever be "free".

A g-sync module equipped monitor will always command a price premium over a non g-sync monitor. It's simple economics. The current standalone g-sync module is a whopping $200. Anand reported that "I'm hearing that NVIDIA wants to try and get the module down to below $100 eventually". Even if Nvidia manages this at some point, that $100 is going to have to be paid by somebody. And it sure as heck isn't going to be Nvidia or the monitor manufacturers. It will be us, the end consumers. So just put the idea of a "free" g-sync out of your mind because it simply won't ever happen.

If the stated modifications necessary for monitor compliance for freesync are true, it should be much less expensive. Possibly cheap enough for "free" to be a fairly accurate description. Don't forget, g-sync requires a custom controller and 768mb of RAM. Neither of which would normally be present inside a computer monitor. A DP controller, on the other hand, is already a requirement for any monitor utilizing a DP port.

Really Mand, freesync currently in an Alpha stage. It's not as if they said it would be available tomorrow. They've given us an approximate timeline to get everything ready so let's just see how it pans out. It would be nice if we could continue to get updates as work progresses, but a lot of times companies like to keep their cards close when working on things of this nature. Hopefully in 4-10 months, we'll be able to read about Freesync previews and judge for ourselves how it compares to g-sync.

 

[dacostafilipe]

It would be nice if we could continue to get updates as work progresses

In 2 weeks they will have a prototype to show. Then we will know if it works or not.

 

[Creig]

In 2 weeks they will have a prototype to show. Then we will know if it works or not.

Well, we'll know how well their prototype works anyhow.

 

[Leadbox]

We don't know how g-sync works, what that huge 768MB memory is for, all we know is what does and to what degree and what it can't do. Nvidia aren't forthcoming with such details, so my question is were do some on this thread get off demanding AMD come out with details on how their unique software/hardware approach to VRR works