[TR] FreeSync monitors will sample next month, start selling next year

[96Firebird]

This one http://www.dell.com/us/p/alienware-18/pd?oc=dkcwx04s&model_id=alienware-18 supposedly has it. Let us know after you buy it.

Where do you see that this has a-sync? Nothing in the specs specify...

 

[Mand]

Even if Freesync is not mainstream yet, it doesn't really matter much because frankly G-Sync itself has not proven to be a good enough alternative for the following reasons:

1) It's available only in TN panels, and out of that already small selection of monitors, there is ONLY 1 monitor that is even good -- the $800 Asus PG278Q 27". Are you kidding me? The price is too high and the screen size is way too small for many of us who have been PC gaming on larger LCDs/30" monitors and Plasma screens for 5-6 years. When 27" Korean IPS 2560x1440 monitors go between $300-400, $800 for a TN GSync monitor is just appalling even from a prestigious brand like Asus. :whiste:

2) We all know that 4K is the future so buying a 2560x1440 $800+ panel only to replace it in 2-3 years with a 4K monitor seems like a stop-gap solution. There isn't a single good 4K monitor with G-Sync yet. And even when it comes out, if 27" TN 2560x1440 costs $800, how much will the 4K G-Sync IPS one cost?

3) G-Sync => So you spend $$$ and lock yourself to NV for the useful life of a monitor which for most of us is 6-8 years (!!!). Not sure if serious. Maybe NV will produce the best GPUs for the next 8 years but maybe not but buying a G-Sync monitor more or less means you will be paying more for every single GPU upgrade for the next 6-8 years since you don't have a choice buying AMD. For example right now I can buy 2 used after-market 290s for $600-700 vs. buying $1,200 GTX780 Ti SLI that can even be much slower, which is unacceptable. Can NV guarantee that for the next 6-8 years they'll offer very similar price/performance to AMD every generation or if I am paying a premium be faster in every single game? Nope, they can't.

#1 and #2 should be addressed over time but not #3. I really have a problem with being locked into 1 vendor, especially one that overcharges for their products and the price increases have only gotten worse in the last 5 years. I want an industry open standard so that I can pick and choose what GPU I want to buy.

#1 and #2 as you say will fix themselves over time. For #3, FreeSync is going to be just as vendor-locked as G-Sync. You won't be able to get a monitor that does both, so if you buy a FreeSync monitor, you'll have to buy Radeons in order to use its variable refresh. It won't work with Nvidia cards.

It's also worth pointing out that yes, the Swift is expensive, but that cannot be generalized to all G-Sync monitors. The Swift has a number of other features that up its price substantially, features that have never before been combined into a single display: 1440p, guaranteed 144hz, 8-bit high-quality panel. Even without G-Sync it's a top of the line product.

The TN/IPS debate is getting tiresome. IPS is not strictly superior, there are design tradeoffs in the liquid crystal world and IPS and TN pick different ones to be better at. You can't get a 144Hz IPS display, period. If you weight that highly, then no IPS display can ever be "good." There is no one true answer to what makes a good display: it depends hugely on what you value, what application you're using it for, and even your personal sensitivity to the various flaws and defects that both types possess.

Where do you see that this has a-sync? Nothing in the specs specify...

I believe he's referring to this:

"Charge through the most intense stages of your favorite games with NVIDIA® SLI® enabled Dual NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 880M graphics with 16GB of combined GDDR5 memory. For added impact, NVIDIA® PhysX brings your games to life with dynamic, interactive environments while NVIDIA® Adaptive Vertical Sync prevents image tearing for nearly seamless gaming sessions. "

It's important to note that Adaptive Vertical Sync is not Adaptive Sync. Not the same thing. Adaptive vsync is a predecessor tech, and doesn't work the same way.

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/adaptive-vsync/technology

What adaptive vsync does is turn vsync on when FPS is over the refresh rate, and turn it off when FPS drops below the refresh rate. It is not variable refresh, and it does not at all do the same things as either Adaptive Sync or G-Sync.

 

[Keysplayr]

Where do you see that this has a-sync? Nothing in the specs specify...

Maximum performance with dual graphics
Get in the game like never before with dual graphics options from NVIDIA and AMD that deliver increased performance, better image rendering and higher frame rates.

Charge through the most intense stages of your favorite games with NVIDIA® SLI® enabled Dual NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 880M graphics with 16GB of combined GDDR5 memory. For added impact, NVIDIA® PhysX brings your games to life with dynamic, interactive environments while NVIDIA® Adaptive Vertical Sync prevents image tearing for nearly seamless gaming sessions.

This isn't a-sync. This is adaptive V-Sync where V-sync is enabled to smooth out the transitions between 60 to 30 to 15fps and keeps them from changing upbruptly eliminating or reducing hitching during that happening.

 

[96Firebird]

I saw that, but that has been around for a while now. I thought he meant it was the first screen with actual A-sync. Guess not.

 

[KingFatty]

For #3, FreeSync is going to be just as vendor-locked as G-Sync.

I think you agree that G-Sync suffers from vendor lock-in. It's a way for Nvidia to leverage sales of Nvidia cards, and satisfies the definition of vendor lock-in.

But I don't agree that FreeSync is the same. I mean, couldn't Intel or any vendor simply comply with the standard and have access to it? There are no legal barriers where AMD could block others right?

Maybe I have a different definition of vendor lock in. Also, vendor lock in is not bad, it's a good tool for leveraging your intellectual property etc. and capitalizing on all the hard work you invested.

On the flip side, choosing to disregard the benefits that lock-in provides by effectively donating your R&D to the public use, well, that's kind of a cool thing from a sort of philosophical perspective, but perhaps the business world would frown on that sort of pie in the sky thinking that doesn't give immediate financial reward the way vendor lock-in would?

 

[Spanners]

...couldn't Intel or any vendor simply comply with the standard and have access to it?

In-Sync®

 

[Mand]

I think you agree that G-Sync suffers from vendor lock-in. It's a way for Nvidia to leverage sales of Nvidia cards, and satisfies the definition of vendor lock-in.

But I don't agree that FreeSync is the same. I mean, couldn't Intel or any vendor simply comply with the standard and have access to it? There are no legal barriers where AMD could block others right?

Maybe I have a different definition of vendor lock in. Also, vendor lock in is not bad, it's a good tool for leveraging your intellectual property etc. and capitalizing on all the hard work you invested.

On the flip side, choosing to disregard the benefits that lock-in provides by effectively donating your R&D to the public use, well, that's kind of a cool thing from a sort of philosophical perspective, but perhaps the business world would frown on that sort of pie in the sky thinking that doesn't give immediate financial reward the way vendor lock-in would?

Yes, G-Sync will cause a vendor lock. If you buy a G-Sync panel and switch to Radeon, you lose variable refresh. A G-Sync panel won't support FreeSync.

The problem, though, is that even though AMD may not do anything to lock Adaptive Sync (as it's a VESA spec), if Nvidia doesn't support Adaptive Sync then you're just as locked. And there's no indication they're going to support it, especially since when asked about it their response was basically "We think G-Sync is better." Maybe if Adaptive Sync really takes off Nvidia will reconsider their stance and add support for it, but that certainly won't happen anytime soon.

So, we can try to get into the blame game if we want, but the reality is that either tech is going to lock you in to a particular GPU vendor. We can say it sucks, but it's virtually certain we'll have to live with it.

 

[caswow]

Yes, G-Sync will cause a vendor lock. If you buy a G-Sync panel and switch to Radeon, you lose variable refresh. A G-Sync panel won't support FreeSync.

The problem, though, is that even though AMD may not do anything to lock Adaptive Sync (as it's a VESA spec), if Nvidia doesn't support Adaptive Sync then you're just as locked. And there's no indication they're going to support it, especially since when asked about it their response was basically "We think G-Sync is better." Maybe if Adaptive Sync really takes off Nvidia will reconsider their stance and add support for it, but that certainly won't happen anytime soon.

So, we can try to get into the blame game if we want, but the reality is that either tech is going to lock you in to a particular GPU vendor. We can say it sucks, but it's virtually certain we'll have to live with it.

if you are a consumer like this, swallowing nvidia as it is without questioning their decisions you deseve to be milked:sneaky:

 

[NIGELG]

So, we can try to get into the blame game if we want, but the reality is that either tech is going to lock you in to a particular GPU vendor. We can say it sucks, but it's virtually certain we'll have to live with it.

No,we do not have to live with it....vote with your wallet and don't support crappy vendor lock in from any company.

 

[jackstar7]

Yes, G-Sync will cause a vendor lock. If you buy a G-Sync panel and switch to Radeon, you lose variable refresh. A G-Sync panel won't support FreeSync.

The problem, though, is that even though AMD may not do anything to lock Adaptive Sync (as it's a VESA spec), if Nvidia doesn't support Adaptive Sync then you're just as locked. And there's no indication they're going to support it, especially since when asked about it their response was basically "We think G-Sync is better." Maybe if Adaptive Sync really takes off Nvidia will reconsider their stance and add support for it, but that certainly won't happen anytime soon.

So, we can try to get into the blame game if we want, but the reality is that either tech is going to lock you in to a particular GPU vendor. We can say it sucks, but it's virtually certain we'll have to live with it.

You don't address the Intel aspect. If my AMD product meets a bad end, I might still have limited ability to keep my system running on iGPU and Adaptive Sync might be even more valuable if supported by Intel. If your nV GPU dies, so much for most of your sweet monitor's features.

If monitor makers can get a LMB mode and Adaptive Sync and not lock people into nV GPUs, then I can see the market shifting away from nV's lock-up and forcing nV to support the open tech in order to maintain their market share, which could potentially keep their GPU prices in check (as if anything could).

Hopefully we start seeing more g-sync monitors actually hit the market in real quantities so we can see if all of them come with a hefty additional cost for the tech, or if there will be "budget" models available, too.

And then we can see what happens when FreeSync hits the market and decide with our cash what to support. I know I have to get a new GPU either way, so I'm definitely paying attention to where the greatest value is going to be.

 

[blackened23]

if you are a consumer like this, swallowing nvidia as it is without questioning their decisions you deseve to be milked:sneaky:

LOL. Yeah, how dare nvidia spend millions on R+D and refuse to share that technology which cost millions in R+D. I guess BMW should share their R+D trade secrets with the world. Free of charge. Even after they spent significant manpower and R+D on it. Welcome to the real world where that doesn't happen.

Look, if you like AMD by all means get AMD and their FS. They are primarily only a hardware company and they spend far less on development of software and R+D than nvidia does, that's just a fact. AMD does a bare bones implementation of technology, generally speaking (HD3D being a good example) which costs them nothing in R+D. I bet HD3D had like 2 people behind it, it probably cost them next to nothing and the results showed it because HD3D sucked compared to 3D vision. Being that they spend less time developing it, in the past, the results showed that since HD3D was generally inferior to 3d vision. I'm not saying FS will replicate that. What I am saying is that anyone thinking a corporation is evil for spending millions on R+D and not readily sharing something that spent tons of manpower and money on, well, I find that hilarious. Again, i'm not saying FS will replicate the failures that AMD has had in the past. But you can bet your money that AMD had like 2 guys devoted to it and they spent next to no R+D. Will the results show that? I don't know yet. I'd hope not because g-sync having a competing alternative would be a good thing.

 

[Atreidin]

If Nvidia was willing to license the ability to use Gsync to AMD for a reasonable sum (read: somewhat less than a controlling interest in AMD as a company) then I'd be more excited about it. I don't like the idea of Nvidia boxing out competition this way. If Gsync is like the second coming like it's proponents claim, then of course people buying new monitors would go for it. Best case for Nvidia, AMD sales go down because of no Gsync compatibility. Which is great for Nvidia but kind of sucks for everyone else on the planet who buys their stuff, even Nvidia fans (unless they enjoy giving more money to Nvidia, I suppose). Sure they are allowed to do whatever is within the bounds of the law but that doesn't mean whatever they want to do is good for consumers. For people bad at reading comprehension, note I'm not predicting any sales figures, I'm just speaking hypothetically.

I'm going to be against vendor lock-in no matter what. Sometimes it's forced on you by the invisible hand of the market but I refuse to be happy about it.

 

[Mand]

No,we do not have to live with it....vote with your wallet and don't support crappy vendor lock in from any company.

Even if you buy AMD, you're still not going to change Nvidia's mind on supporting A-Sync. There's really very little influence we have in this case, I think.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

You don't address the Intel aspect.

There is no intel aspect, they don't make gpu's suitable for midrange gaming.

I think nvidia will eventually support the adaptive sync, but their current hardware is probably not even compatible.

 

[Atreidin]

Gamers could have a unified movement to encourage the companies to work together. If there was one standard that every graphics company used then it would be available and proliferate faster and probably also cheaper. If you could get the fanboys to realize that vendor lock-in is not in their best interest then maybe you could get somewhere.

 

[BrightCandle]

Its kind of irrelevant that its in the spec because the only two companies are both implementing different things and on different hardware. Intel + whoever really don't matter here, its all about these two companies that own the discrete graphics card and gaming market. Each is implementing its own thing and each has separate monitors coming out. The lock in is effectively equal from AMD and Nvidia on this one, right now there is no practical difference on that front.

If you buy a Freesync monitor you'll be locked to AMD and if you buy a gsync monitor you'll be locked to Nvidia. Maybe in the future an Async monitor will exist that also supports Intel, but I doubt any of us are intending to run Intel embedded graphics for gaming. It might benefit Intel more than AMD or Nvidia due to their very low FPS, but so far they aren't talking about supporting it and right now they aren't a player in the gamers space really.

 

[BrightCandle]

Gamers could have a unified movement to encourage the companies to work together. If there was one standard that every graphics company used then it would be available and proliferate faster and probably also cheaper. If you could get the fanboys to realize that vendor lock-in is not in their best interest then maybe you could get somewhere.

Nvidia has been trying to fix the vsync issue for years, I remember them talking about it back at the beginning of the century when LCD's first started appearing. They said at the time the issue was one of wide spread compatibility and that everyone was doing it this way and LCD's had to be compatible with CRTs, ie the standards were stopping progress.

The way Nvidia invested to fix the issue was to prove that it worked. Had they not done so we might never have got this. The problem with standards is that unless everyone agrees its beneficial upfront its not going to happen, and what does happen goes much slower. Sometimes we want standards to prevail, but in the beginning when a technology is new it always comes from one company, then another competes and then we get the standards process a while later. We won't see a genuine standard with all interested parties involved (AMD just pushed its version of how this works into the spec as an optional part) for this for quite a few years.

 

[stahlhart]

Thread closed at OP's request.
-- stahlhart