• 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.

FreeSync monitors hit mass production, coming in Jan-Feb

shankly1985 said:
The three monitors sampled at the AMD booth showcase the wide array of units that will be available this year using FreeSync, possibly even in this quarter. The LG 34UM67 uses the 21:9 aspect ratio that is growing in popularity, along with solid IPS panel technology and 60 Hz top frequency. However, there is a new specification to be concerned with on FreeSync as well: minimum frequency. This is the refresh rate that monitor needs to maintain to avoid artifacting and flickering that would be visible to the end user. For the LG monitor it was 40 Hz.
What happens below that limit and above it differs from what NVIDIA has decided to do. For FreeSync (and the Adaptive Sync standard as a whole), when a game renders at a frame rate above or below this VRR window, the V-Sync setting is enforced. That means on a 60 Hz panel, if your game runs at 70 FPS, then you will have the option to enable or disable V-Sync; you can either force a 60 FPS top limit or allow 70 FPS with screen tearing. If your game runs under the 40 Hz bottom limit, say at 30 FPS, you get the same option: V-Sync on or V-Sync off. With it off, you would get tearing but optimal input/display latency but with it off you would reintroduce frame judder when you cross between V-Sync steps.
http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/CES-2015-AMD-Talks-Technical-about-FreeSync-Monitors
Click to expand...

Minumium fps 40hz, lmao, yeah that is much better than gsync
What happened to 9-60
 
Am more interested in the on the fly switching between freesync on and off.. This is new information that they will cover more..

And has you said and has he said this is down to the manufacture not the tech :p

I will never be running 60hz anyways all that means jack to me.. 30-144hz for the most part is enough for me.

What is interesting though is what it will be like playing CSGO with the on the fly switching. Some the bigger, more demanding CSGO maps will hang around the 150fps range..

Interesting times..

Does Gsync handle on the fly switching? or do you need to switch on and off manually?
 
So key with this setup is to get the monitors with the lowest available freesync refresh rate / widest range.

And if you are in danger of going over the maximum FPS / refresh rate you can always FPS limit the game to the maximum refresh rate. To reduse the need to fall back to v-sync.
 
just a thought but maybe this divide will turn out in gamers favour, maybe we will see some battle of the MHz between gsync/freesync monitors
or a battle of some kind atleast! competition can be good!?

it would be a nice silver lining to making us choose! ><
 
Mei said:
just a thought but maybe this divide will turn out in gamers favour, maybe we will see some battle of the MHz between gsync/freesync monitors
or a battle of some kind atleast! competition can be good!?

it would be a nice silver lining to making us choose! ><
Click to expand...

I think it would be silly if nvidia doesn't support the display port standard, its an open standard that any manufacturer can adopt. If they dont they would be actively forcing a wedge in the market.


Note I said "display port standard" nvidia can make use of this and still call it whatever they want gsync 2.0 or whatever.
 
Apache14 said:
I think it would be silly if nvidia doesn't support the display port standard, its an open standard that any manufacturer can adopt. If they dont they would be actively forcing a wedge in the market.


Note I said "display port standard" nvidia can make use of this and still call it whatever they want gsync 2.0 or whatever.
Click to expand...

making it available immediately on NVidia cards would be the smart/safe thing to do but I don't think that's how this is going to play out

I think they will only make it available if a ton of monitors come out and its clear that gsync is losing, which could be pretty soon or not so...and until then maybe battle! :)
 
Freddie1980 said:
Hopefully Gsync will end up like Mantle in a few years - two products that pushed the industry standards to change for the better.
Click to expand...

g-sync has already done that.

Likely we would not have adaptive sync without it.

Thing I don't get though, if it was relatively easy and not overly expensive, why the hell didn't we see adaptive sync ages ago?
 
Mei said:
making it available immediately on NVidia cards would be the smart/safe thing to do but I don't think that's how this is going to play out

I think they will only make it available if a ton of monitors come out and its clear that gsync is losing, which could be pretty soon or not so...and until then maybe battle! :)
Click to expand...

A rumour about supporting it while publicly denying it would be the smart thing, just enough to stop people switching to AMD whilst being able to still sell gsync monitors ;)

I'm expecting (or rather it wouldnt surprise me if) adaptive sync to be a hardware change on nvidia's side just as only a tiny fraction of AMD's support it properly, so gsync will be the main option for nvidia's users for a while... nvidia only really need to support it if it actually does affect sales
 
Last edited:
andybird123 said:
A rumour about supporting it while publicly denying it would be the smart thing, just enough to stop people switching to AMD whilst being able to still sell gsync monitors ;)

I'm expecting (or rather it wouldnt surprise me if) adaptive sync to be a hardware change on nvidia's side just as only a tiny fraction of AMD's support it properly, so gsync will be the main option for nvidia's users for a while... nvidia only really need to support it if it actually does affect sales
Click to expand...

True that.

G-Sync has support all the way back to a 650Ti and Freesync supports a couple of GPUs and this is quite a big difference for the majority of gamers.
 
Gregster said:
True that.

G-Sync has support all the way back to a 650Ti and Freesync supports a couple of GPUs and this is quite a big difference for the majority of gamers.
Click to expand...

Thats ok, with Free-Sync people can upgrade to newer GPU's using the money they save against a G-Syng Screen. :D
 
humbug said:
Thats ok, with Free-Sync people can upgrade to newer GPU's using the money they save against a G-Syng Screen. :D
Click to expand...

Sick burn.

And again, I think the price comparisons will be skewed, because the current Gsync monitors probably have some decent margins (Point in case the 4K Acer Gsync which hasn't dropped in price, despite launching at the same price as other 4K none Gsync screens)

And again, Asus Tax 'n first screen of its kind 'n all that.

So the price variance will probably be exaggerated at first.
 
Gregster said:
True that.

G-Sync has support all the way back to a 650Ti and Freesync supports a couple of GPUs and this is quite a big difference for the majority of gamers.
Click to expand...

which makes it even more surprising there's so much support for it already
ok maybe counting chickens and need wait for them released but it looking good!

I don't see a mad exodus either way but I can see people easily choosing one brand over another if a nice screen is out on it
and its pretty sensible, a nice screen matters way more than a few fps
 
LambChop said:
Really ? Why ?
Click to expand...

Oh get off it Lamb Chop.

It's obvious that Nvidia would be forced into supporting the adaptive sync standard if it gains mainstream support. That doesn't mean they have to abolish Gsync.

Nvidia have stated before, they will support open standards where possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom