• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD freesync coming soon, no extra costs.... shocker

Gregster said:
It got ignored/dismissed as per usual, as it didn't fit their arguments. Don't forget that nVidia are the bad guys and anything that makes them look decent will be dismissed.
Click to expand...
Seriously? Cause what I'm seeing in this topic is not supposed to be about G-sync but about "freesync".

The possibility is definitely there, but yes whether or not will "freesync" come into realisation is another matter. However look back over the pages...despite there's still limited initial information available regarding the subject at this stage, some people seem to be already "experts" on the matter and jump the gun deny the possibility completely, charging in in a hurry to try to beat it down with a stick, like they don't want freesync to happen :rolleyes:
 
humbug said:
Looks pretty straight forward to me. Nvidia offered up CPU PhysX and it was taken up, Nvidia did not offer up GPU PhysX.
Click to expand...

Maybe on that occasion and maybe nVidia felt a little peeved after extending a hand to help get PhysX working on AMD HW.

When talking about bringing PhysX to AMD, this was the response...
The team sought support from AMD in the form of a Radeon HD4800 series sample, so they could work out a similar solution for it, but AMD rejected it telling it wasn't a venture worth investing product samples and PR information on,
Click to expand...

http://www.techpowerup.com/64787/ra...ffered-to-help-us-expected-more-from-amd.html

That was the article I linked. Sorry for OT but it does clarify that AMD turned away PhysX and frankly, I would render it impossible to work on my competitor if I had been shunned like that.

Back on topic now :)
 
TheRealDeal said:
The 2 laptops used cost no extra as far as i am aware equal free.
Click to expand...

Technical demonstration built for laptop panel running at fixed FPS does not equal "FreeSync is free and does what G-Sync does".

The point is, there is no FACTUAL based Source that will show Freesync as being usable in the wild whilst gaming, effective, comparable to/beating G-Sync and at no additional cost to end user.

Again, pure speculation and assumption. Which is fine, just don't dress it up as something it's not.
 
Sin_Chase said:
Technical demonstration built for laptop panel running at fixed FPS does not equal "FreeSync is free and does what G-Sync does".

The point is, there is no FACTUAL based Source that will show Freesync as being usable in the wild whilst gaming, effective, comparable to/beating G-Sync and at no additional cost to end user.

Again, pure speculation and assumption. Which is fine, just don't dress it up as something it's not.
Click to expand...

As far as i am aware to get a G-Sync monitor you have to pay a good bit more than the standard version of the monitor.

It sounds like when freesync comes along you will just buy the standard monitor and it will work without having to pay any extra. That's when the actual supporting monitors hit the market. Hence you buy the monitor and it costs you no more as it is the standard monitor.
 
Rusty0611 said:
lol look at the OP :p.
Click to expand...
It changes nothing :p

They could have simply comment that they are happy to pay the price premium to Nvidia to get to play the tech sooner, and if freesync eventually available then it's good for everyone, rather than attacking the possibility of freesync saying that it won't work based on nothing.
 
Marine-RX179 said:
They could have simply comment of they are happy to pay the price premium to get to play the tech sooner, and if freesync eventually available then it's good for everyone, rather than attacking the possibility of freesync saying that it won't work based on nothing.
Click to expand...

Yeah that was never gonna happen. This is ocuk gpu section. :D
 
Sin_Chase said:
;)
Click to expand...

There is never 100% certainty in unreleased hardware but if it becomes an industry standard then everything i said will be true. The only question is how much will these monitors cost even though they will be standard features.

I would rather freesync becomes the main standard than be locked into G-Sync.

It's good to be optimistic now and then.
 
TheRealDeal said:
I would rather freesync becomes the main standard than be locked into G-Sync.
Click to expand...
Same. I'd rather retain the choice to go Red or Green each time I upgrade my graphic card, then to be tied up in Nvidia's jail cell...like how people are locked within Apple's eco system because of having already invested too much money on that environment.

But of course, "freesync"'s performance has to be comparable to G-sync (not necessarily need to better it), or otherwise it would be pointless.
 
Gregster said:
Maybe on that occasion and maybe nVidia felt a little peeved after extending a hand to help get PhysX working on AMD HW.

When talking about bringing PhysX to AMD, this was the response...


http://www.techpowerup.com/64787/ra...ffered-to-help-us-expected-more-from-amd.html

That was the article I linked. Sorry for OT but it does clarify that AMD turned away PhysX and frankly, I would render it impossible to work on my competitor if I had been shunned like that.

Back on topic now :)
Click to expand...


Hi greg,

Sorry to jump back to the story you highlighted, but i have read a number of times on this forum, in the main from you, how Nvidia offered AMD physx and they turned them down & its nice to see the news story that you claim backs this up,

however and to be honest maybe i'm been a little stupid but that's not what that news story is saying,

It's saying a third party company (NGOHQ.com) may have reverse engineered the driver against the EULA to make it work, which to be honest if that was only a hint at the time no wonder AMD walked away from it,

extended a few lines from your quote was the following which explains that

"clearly a case of them downplaying the issue to evade possible action from NVIDIA on supporting the use of its proprietary technologies in violation of license agreements"

There was no way AMD where going to allow that to be added to its driver, Nvidia would have the lawsuit ready to go the second that driver went out & right about now we would have a single GPU company...

The way you make it sound its as if Nvidia went to AMD HQ knocked on the door with a parcel marked Physx and AMD slammed the door on them, which in fact based on that news link was just AMD passing on a court case using the articles own words

"After being denied support from a company they were banking the most on, they were left to their own plight against NVIDIA who have a history of an aggressive business model, even more so after it was known NGOHQ.com may have reverse engineered drivers, a clear violation of the EULA".

To be honest it that article just reads AMD dodge bullet
 
tommybhoy said:
Facts

Freesync-FREE

Gsync-additional cost.
Click to expand...

But what SinChase was saying is that we do not know the capabilities of FreeSync (nor even G-Sync really) yet, so to reduce this whole situation down to your statements above is flawed as it seems to make the assumption that FreeSync and G-Sync will be of equal capabilities.

What would you rather have, a feature which is free but doesn't really do the job that well or a similar feature which costs money but does the job well?

I can see this being the case with G-Sync and FreeSync - but that's just my prediction, based on evidence over time which has shown that paid services/products are, on the whole, better than free ones.
 
tommybhoy said:
Facts

Freesync-FREE

Gsync-additional cost.
Click to expand...

Freesync requires displayport 1.3 compatibility and more importantly a scaler (I think thats the right name for the chip) that can support varying refresh rates. How do you know that both of these will cost the same as their non-freesync compatible counterparts?
 
Hey Jock,

To be honest, the story is quite weak with little in the way of either. Another part of that story is:

The dramatic turnaround of events has caused a little more than a ripple across the industry, the team at NGOHQ.com now claims that NVIDIA actually offered help to them and that they want to strengthen the industry position of CUDA as a viable competitor to Intel and its processing technologies.
Click to expand...

So seems from that, all nVidia were doing was going up against Intel and wanted AMD to join that fight.

Of course, there could have been far more to it that we will never hear of but taking that article on the whole, I read it as AMD just said no. There was the other article which shows nVidia offered AMD PhysX as well.

http://www.bit-tech.net/custompc/news/602205/nvidia-offers-physx-support-to-amd--ati.html

Maybe it is me reading this how I want but to me, nVidia did make the attempt.

Edit:

I did some further digging and again Bit-Tech confirm that nVidia were backing NGOHQ.com to get AMD (ATI then) PhysX working on AMD HW.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/07/09/nvidia-helping-to-bring-physx-to-ati-cards/1

However, an intrepid team of software developers over at NGOHQ.com have been busy porting Nvidia's CUDA based PhysX API to work on AMD Radeon graphics cards, and have now received official support from Nvidia - who is no doubt delighted to see it's API working on a competitor's hardware (as well as seriously threatening Intel's Havok physics system.)

As cheesed off as this might make AMD, which is unsurprisingly not supporting NGOHQ's work, it could certainly be for the betterment of PC gaming as a whole. If both AMD and Nvidia cards support PhysX, it'll remove the difficult choice for developers of which physics API to use in games. We've been growing more and more concerned here at bit-tech at the increasingly fragmented state of the physics and graphics markets, and anything that has the chance to simplify the situation for consumers and developers can only be a good thing.
Click to expand...

Anyways, that is enough from me on this subject in this thread, as I am massively off topic and that is upsetting people :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom