[TechPowerUp article] FreeSync explained in more detail

[Mand]

A new variable refresh controller is required, and no monitor currently on the market has this.

Emphasizing this key point, one that has been confirmed by both AMD and Nvidia execs at this point. No existing desktop monitors can do Free-Sync, even if DP 1.3 arrived tomorrow and you could magically invent DP 1.3 outputs for your existing graphics cards.

I'm still not clear on how a DP 1.3 standard having support for something requires the controller board in the display to actually do it. Interface specs are filled with things that not all products make use of.

 

[Raghu]

NVIDIA is now selling the GSync kits, that fit ASUS VG248QE, for $199+shipping.

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/g-sync/diy

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Clearly most people are "upgrading" to 1080p panels per sales data. Like you said. Monitors last a while. I know most of my friends have lower than 1080p panels, and their last purchase was in 2007-2008.

But that's the beauty of having choice on the market. Choice with freesync and g-sync, although free-sync won't exist until 2015 it seems like. G-sync has monitors in production, now, with resolutions up to 4k. 1440p to 4k. So there's consumer choice there as well. But I do think that most people do upgrade to 1080p. I know plenty of hardcore competitive gamers that did a sidegrade for lightboost. Seems most people love lightboost, although I think a few in this thread may hate it.

I don't disagree with you in terms of market choice. G-sync has all of the bases covered (every resolution), and i'd assume that free-sync will have those bases covered in 2015 as well.

Clearly most people have no idea what gysync or a GPU even is. Gsync is aimed squarely at us, the enthusiasts. That is the sole reason why you would be silly upgrade to 1080p gsync. Just wait for the higher res models and more news on freesync before making a decision.

Freesync may end up not being as good gsync but if it is nearly as good and works for all vendors then you don't lock yourself to nvidia for 5+ years.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

If its not as good why would we want it?

Its not like freesync is free, sounds like we need new vc's and panels just to get inferior tech?

Its easy enough to sell things this day either way.

 

[sushiwarrior]

Well you should align this statement with the statement provided to PCPer by AMD's VP of visual computing. Cuz that's not what they were told. PCPer discussed this in depth in one of their podcasts last week - A new variable refresh controller is required, and no monitor currently on the market has this. So it has to be added. So it isn't free, unless i'm missing something. Adding something that doesn't currently exist doesn't seem free, although there could be charity companies that will do this for AMD. I'm not entirely sure.

Adding something to monitors that doesn't currently exist.

I'm thinking of how this can be free.

Coming up short here.

G-sync module isn't free because nvidia is adding something to monitors that doesn't currently exist. Desktop monitors do not have variable refresh aware control panels. All of which was confirmed by AMD's Kodira. Unless we're to think that nvidia's engineers are idiots and added it for completely no reason. There's always that possibility. You never know. Maybe they're over-engineering g-sync. Because their engineers are stupid. Always a possibility I guess, right?

Sure, let's compare.

I received an email from AMD's Koduri that indicated that there might be some monitors already on the market that could support variable refresh rate TODAY with just a firmware update. This would be possible if a display was shipping with a controller that happened to coincidentally support variable refresh, perhaps in an early stage of development for the upcoming DP 1.3 standard.

So to reiterate, this technology could definitely exist currently, it's just unlikely and something only the panel vendors would really know. Which AMD is currently finding out, or so they say.

Gsync is more than just making the monitors understand variable refresh rates, they also need logic for storing long frames into memory and interfacing with the other display components.

Freesync just requires a checkbox on a spec sheet essentially. All the monitor, and it's controller, need to do are receive an EDID (IIRC? or a similar secondary channel) signal saying "refresh at this time" or "run at this refresh rate". That is all. What Gsync needs to do, is replace the entire controller. To me, this seems somewhat akin to making a new operating system to run a game you want to develop, or something similarly extreme and difficult. Their controller is doing more work than it needs to, IMO.

Again, "Freesync" requires implementation of a very simple feature to operate. The display does no work, the computer does the thinking.

Gsync requires a frame buffer, a complete removal of the display controller, a new PCB, removes other features, only supports limited connectivity options, etc. etc. etc. and oh wait, you have to pay upwards of $200 for it, and it currently only supports one monitor, and is difficult to build new support for considering it's trying to reinvent the wheel with every monitor you design it for.

Yes, Freesync is clearly just as difficult as Gsync. Your analysis is spot on.

If its not as good why would we want it?

Its not like freesync is free, sounds like we need new vc's and panels just to get inferior tech?

Its easy enough to sell things this day either way.

It requires a controller that supports the feature, but not a complete overhaul. The cost of the extra logic should be negligible, but I'm just guessing. Panels have nothing to do with it.

Call it "CheapSync" if you'd rather.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

If its not as good why would we want it?

Its not like freesync is free, sounds like we need new vc's and panels just to get inferior tech?

Its easy enough to sell things this day either way.

If the only way you can tell a difference is through a frametime graph but there is no visually perceptable difference you would lock yourself to one vendor for the lifetime of your monitor?

No thanks. :\

 

[BallaTheFeared]

It requires a controller that supports the feature, but not a complete overhaul. The cost of the extra logic should be negligible, but I'm just guessing. Panels have nothing to do with it.

Call it "CheapSync" if you'd rather.

I'd rather call it what it is, Vaporware-Sync. That's the nice thing about nothing tech, it can be anything.

If the only way you can tell a difference is through a frametime graph but there is no visually perceptable difference you would lock yourself to one vendor for the lifetime of your monitor?

No thanks. :\

Why would frametime graph show a difference?

Its so hard to sell video cards and other computer parts, I'm still locked into my pent ii.

 

[sushiwarrior]

I'd rather call it what it is, Vaporware-Sync. That's the nice thing about nothing tech, it can be anything.

I would give it time before jumping to any conclusions, but say what you will. Nvidia will accept your $200 in cash, credit, debit, or cheque....

 

[bystander36]

I'd be happy if Free-sync turns out to be as good as G-sync. Unfortunately, all the technical talk slips in hints that it will at least add additional latency.

For most, latency may not be as big of a deal, but to me, I get nausea due to latency.

 

[Abwx]

Yes, Freesync is clearly just as difficult as Gsync. Your analysis is spot on.

It requires a controller that supports the feature, but not a complete overhaul. The cost of the extra logic should be negligible, but I'm just guessing. Panels have nothing to do with it.

Call it "CheapSync" if you'd rather.

From what i did understand zt hardware.fr it doesnt require
a controler other than the one already present in the panel.

Either the screen has already a compatible controler that can
be updated through firmware or the chip is not compatible and
would require a silicon revision that wouldnt increase the cost
given how trivial the thing is to implement in wich case only
future panels would support it.

 

[OCGuy]

I would give it time before jumping to any conclusions, but say what you will. Nvidia will accept your $200 in cash, credit, debit, or cheque....

I'm not sure how this is relevant or on topic...doesn't every company accept currency for goods and services?

 

[VulgarDisplay]

I'd rather call it what it is, Vaporware-Sync. That's the nice thing about nothing tech, it can be anything.




Why would frametime graph show a difference?

Its so hard to sell video cards and other computer parts, I'm still locked into my pent ii.

OK then. Tell me why freesync is inferior? How do you plan do to it if it becomes available?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I would give it time before jumping to any conclusions, but say what you will. Nvidia will accept your $200 in cash, credit, debit, or cheque....

They've had it for eight years. How much more time do they need?

$200 or 8 LTC ♥

 

[Abwx]

OK then. Tell me why freesync is inferior? How do you plan do to it if it becomes available?

It is not , it s just a different approach with the dedicated
hardware integrated in the GPU display engine rather than
in an external card.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

OK then. Tell me why freesync is inferior? How do you plan do to it if it becomes available?

It's not real and can't be purchased for any price today.

Doesn't exist loses to real products 9 times out of 10 times.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

It's not real and can't be purchased for any price today.

Doesn't exist loses to real products 9 times out of 10.

Thought so. :whiste:

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Thought so. :whiste:

Me too, 17 pages and you're asking for a recap.

 

[sushiwarrior]

They've had it for eight years. How much more time do they need?

$200 or 8 LTC ♥

It's not real and can't be purchased for any price today.

Doesn't exist loses to real products 9 times out of 10.

Well sure, and quantum computing has been around for 34 years, yet I can't buy that anywhere.

Future products matter for those who either have patience or aren't capable of purchasing said $200 product. Obviously there is only one option now. For some people, that option is expensive and not what they want. We are discussing the alternative. I would suggest taking useless observations somewhere else, instead of derailing the thread.

 

[bystander36]

It is not , it s just a different approach with the dedicated
hardware integrated in the GPU display engine rather than
in an external card.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...h-FreeSync-Could-Be-Alternative-NVIDIA-G-Sync

All that is needed for this to work, as AMD explained it, was an eDP connection between the discrete GPU and the display, a controller for the screen that understands the variable refresh rate methods of eDP 1.0 specifications and an updated AMD driver to properly send it the signals. The panel can communicate that it supports this variable refresh technology to the graphics card through the EDID as resolutions and timings are communicated today and then the graphics driver would know to send the varying vblank signals to adjust panel refresh times on the fly.

So yeah, AMD's implementation does require a display with a controller that can handle variable refresh rates. G-sync is similar.

In terms of actual quality, it may not be the same either. We'll have to wait and see, but some hints suggest it'll at least have added latency that G-sync doesn't.

I hope AMD realizes that we don't want a compromised product, and decides to do what it takes to make this a quality implementation. I'll be happy if it is good.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Well sure, and quantum computing has been around for 34 years, yet I can't buy that anywhere.

Future products matter for those who either have patience or aren't capable of purchasing said $200 product. Obviously there is only one option now. For some people, that option is expensive and not what they want. We are discussing the alternative. I would suggest taking useless observations somewhere else, instead of derailing the thread.

Useless, like a product that doesn't exist, has been around for eight years? I don't know what's worse the fact that nothing isn't an alternative, or the child like thought process that leads grown people to believe monitor makers will change the way they do something that will cost them more to do for nothing.

Like I said, AMDs best products are the ones that haven't been released. Hype and vaporware have been their best products since Athlon FX.

 

[Abwx]

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...h-FreeSync-Could-Be-Alternative-NVIDIA-G-Sync
So yeah, AMD's implementation does require a display with a controller that can handle variable refresh rates. G-sync is similar.

No , it is not similar at all , freesync require only the existing
controlers that are inside the panel to support a variable refresh
protocol while gsync require an additional controler that manage
the protocol for the panel controler, i find this implementation
quite unlogical and cost innefficient , no one will negate that
it s better to simply update future panel controlers such that
they are freesync compatible , it would add perhaps 0.01%
to the cost of the existing chips.

 

[bystander36]

No , it is not similar at all , freesync require only the existing
controlers that are inside the panel to support a variable refresh
protocol while gsync require an additional controler that manage
the protocol for the panel controler, i find this implementation
quite unlogical and cost innefficient , no one will negate that
it s better to simply update future panel controlers such that
they are freesync compatible , it would add perhaps 0.01%
to the cost of the existing chips.

But the problem is, you are assuming the existing controller supports variable frame rates. What if they don't? It would appear, most if not nearly all don't.

 

[sushiwarrior]

Useless, like a product that doesn't exist, has been around for eight years? I don't know what's worse the fact that nothing isn't an alternative, or the child like thought process that leads grown people to believe monitor makers will change the way they do something that will cost them more to do for nothing.

Like I said, AMDs best products are the ones that haven't been released. Hype and vaporware have been their best products since Athlon FX.

Monitor makers would probably love to support it, because I could advertise an extra feature which makes gamers want to fight with each other over to buy my monitor first.

Even if it turns out to be vaporware, blabbing that nonstop like a broken record is not helpful for discussion. Why can't we talk about a hypothetical technology?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Agreed, I'm not being helpful in fantasy land.

Likewise why can't people point out the obvious issues in fantasy land where the logic is monitor makers will add a feature that costs them money so they can all decrease their margins on a product everyone already needs?

 

[sushiwarrior]

Agreed, I'm not being helpful in fantasy land.

Likewise why can't people point out the obvious issues in fantasy land where the logic is monitor makers will add a feature that costs them money so they can all decrease their margins on a product everyone already needs?

Yes, why did we bother putting HDMI or DisplayPort in monitors? VGA is great, think of the savings. Let's just never add any features, ever, because in this fantasy land we all sell tons of product without innovating or competing or coming up with anything new.

The cost of adding the simple logic to interpret refresh signals would be minuscule if the tech works like we think it does. New controllers are always being made, this just would mean the next generation of controllers have a slight tweak, no real additional cost to the end user (or the company, really) and in this fantasy land, the end the consumer gets variable refresh, and the company gets an easy sell on why the consumer wants their monitor.

In real life, I guess you bend over, pull out your wallet, and thank glorious Jen-Hsun Huang for being so thoughtful and kind to gamers everywhere.