I see the 34um67's up on the ocuk now. The price isn't too bad either. I'm still surprised it says 3440x1440 though as the number makes it sound like it should be the freesync version of the um65. I'd have definitely considered it if I had AMD cards.
Upcoming FreeSync monitors
- Thread starter aatu
- Start date
@melmac:
???
My conclusion was that Freesync =/= Adaptive Sync. As a confirmation, what conclusion did YOU reach? I'm getting a little bit of mixed signals here. For example, for my initial point 6, which discussed Freesync, you replied with discussion about Adaptive Sync. Even more confusing is that (IMO) you implied that Freesync (or its implementation) "has nothing to do with AMD" (?!). On point 7, in which I talk about AMD and Freesync, you reply with discussion about VESA and Adaptive Sync. So for me, those made the impression that you consider them to be the one and the same, as you're using them back and forth, interchangeably. But on your latest reply you seem to be making a distinction between them?
Or are you depicting the Adaptive Sync as the "hardware" portion, and Freesync as the "software" portion, or something along those lines? But even that would still fall inside the "implementation" concept.
And just to make sure: when you are talking about "their method", to me that's pretty much synonymous to "implementation", "integration", "solution", etc. (in this context, naturally).
Also, you do understand I'm using quotes straight from AMD... And IMO, they make a pretty clear distinction between Freesync and Adaptive Sync, I even emphasized the parts that confirm this.
???
My conclusion was that Freesync =/= Adaptive Sync. As a confirmation, what conclusion did YOU reach? I'm getting a little bit of mixed signals here. For example, for my initial point 6, which discussed Freesync, you replied with discussion about Adaptive Sync. Even more confusing is that (IMO) you implied that Freesync (or its implementation) "has nothing to do with AMD" (?!). On point 7, in which I talk about AMD and Freesync, you reply with discussion about VESA and Adaptive Sync. So for me, those made the impression that you consider them to be the one and the same, as you're using them back and forth, interchangeably. But on your latest reply you seem to be making a distinction between them?
Or are you depicting the Adaptive Sync as the "hardware" portion, and Freesync as the "software" portion, or something along those lines? But even that would still fall inside the "implementation" concept.
And just to make sure: when you are talking about "their method", to me that's pretty much synonymous to "implementation", "integration", "solution", etc. (in this context, naturally).
Also, you do understand I'm using quotes straight from AMD... And IMO, they make a pretty clear distinction between Freesync and Adaptive Sync, I even emphasized the parts that confirm this.
@ Aatu,
I don't know what you are saying. I only tried to address the points you mentioned in your first post, points 5, 6 and 7. Nowhere did I say adaptive sync = Freesync.
Can you quote that part that makes you think I implied Freesync has nothing to do with AMD? Freesync is all AMD. It's adaptive sync that has nothing to do with AMD.
I will go back to point 6 again. You say that monitor manufacturers will have to talk with AMD to implement freesync in a monitor. That tells me that you think Freesync is in the monitor, its not and never will be.
I will just try to explain this better
Freesync- is a combination of hardware and software on an AMD GPU.
Adaptive sync - is the hardware (display port and scaler) on a monitor.
If AMD charged royalties for Freesync, they would be charging themselves as they are the only company that can use Freesync
But I think I know where the misunderstanding is now. You think Freesync is like Gsync and replaces adaptive sync on the monitor, that, when you have Freesync you don't need adaptive sync. But it's not like that at all. Without an adaptive sync monitor, freesync would be useless.
I don't know what you are saying. I only tried to address the points you mentioned in your first post, points 5, 6 and 7. Nowhere did I say adaptive sync = Freesync.
Can you quote that part that makes you think I implied Freesync has nothing to do with AMD? Freesync is all AMD. It's adaptive sync that has nothing to do with AMD.
I will go back to point 6 again. You say that monitor manufacturers will have to talk with AMD to implement freesync in a monitor. That tells me that you think Freesync is in the monitor, its not and never will be.
I will just try to explain this better
Freesync- is a combination of hardware and software on an AMD GPU.
Adaptive sync - is the hardware (display port and scaler) on a monitor.
If AMD charged royalties for Freesync, they would be charging themselves as they are the only company that can use Freesync
But I think I know where the misunderstanding is now. You think Freesync is like Gsync and replaces adaptive sync on the monitor, that, when you have Freesync you don't need adaptive sync. But it's not like that at all. Without an adaptive sync monitor, freesync would be useless.
Last edited:
I'm talking about Freesync and its implementation. Then you said AMD has nothing to do with it. This is also linked to the next agenda: How I see it, monitor manufacturers need to talk to AMD if they want to use the Freesync-trademark and advertise their products as compatible. And this is not a special case with Freesync, it applies to all trademarks; at some point of the value chain, somebody has to make an agreement of using the trademark, and possibly even paying for it. Unless that specific trademark-holder has made a public statement to use it freely (potentially with light/obvious restrictions). For example, monitor manufacturers will have to pay not just for using an HDMI port, but also for using the logo. If AMD says no to using Freesync, manufacturers can't legally advertise it as such (Adaptive Sync would be a separate agreement, btw). The monitor might adhere to all the technical requirements, and might even work as-is (possibly through a patch), if AMD/nVidia don't impose any sort of certification check upon usage. With big and trustworthy manufacturers, this usually isn't a problem, as AMD actually WANTS more manufacturers to use their tech. But that doesn't prevent AMD from charging for the usage of their trademark, if they wanted to.
It might be that I'm misunderstanding something, but indeed, for Freesync I always took it as the monitor requiring something extra, as well. Not necessarily anything more than a few extra code lines at the firmware (like a certification code). At CES, I remember one monitor being advertised as Adaptive Sync -compatible (quick search suggests it was the Asus MG279Q), while others were advertised as Freesync-compatible.
And no, I didn't make any such assumptions towards G-Sync similarity, as I don't know that much about G-Sync's internal architecture, to begin with.
In Question 5 you asked was freesync AMD's implementation of Adaptive sync? It isn't.
In question 6, you made it sound like it was a continuation of question 5. So naturally I presumed that you were still basing your question on the fact that you thought Freesync was AMD's implementation of adaptive sync. And I answered accordingly.
So in question 6, you are talking more about rights of use and logos more than the technical side of things? If so, it would be up to AMD to pay the monitor manufacturer money to put the "Freesync compatible" logo on the monitor. Because Freesync has nothing to do with the monitor manufacturer, they just make an adaptive sync monitor.
But this is where the waters are muddied, Freesync has come to mean adaptive sync for many people. So I don't know how that will affect rights/logos etc.
The monitor manufacturer doesn't have to pay any royalties for adaptive sync as that is free.
(just a minor correction: they weren't "questions", but statements of how I saw the situation -- after the numbered statements, I gave a few questions, though)
Hmm, I think there's a disagreement, then. In my view, I still see the Freesync as an implementation of the Adaptive Sync technology.
I see the Freesync as something that's supposed to ENHANCE the Adaptive Sync technology. Adaptive Sync is the base requirement, but Freesync adds some extra "secret sauce" to give it an edge over the base functionality. As for G-Sync, it apparently takes advantage of a specialized hardware to do things slightly differently, but achieving similar results.
The trademark discussion is indeed more akin to the rights of advertising it as such. But also to the rights of using the proprietary code, not just the logo. As for who pays for the logo usage: it would definitely be the manufacturers. AMD is "selling" a product to the market, Freesync. Monitor manufacturers are selling their product, the monitors. Freesync would be a positive feature they can flaunt with their products. I see no reason why AMD would pay for manufacturers, instead. As for whether AMD would even charge for it, is another matter. Granted, AMD has an incentive to make it easy and cheap for manufacturers to become "part of the family", to make Freesync an ubiquitous technology, but it would make little sense to actually pay manufacturers to use it. That would be more akin to bribing, actually.
And this links to the part where I said "AMD can still mess up their own pricing". But that's not even all of it. There's a huge temptation to recoup R&D costs via GPU card price-hikes. They know the industry/market is now interested in the tech, and they could quite safely keep the prices 5-10% above of what they would normally charge. If they get greedy, they will add 30%, and thus "mess up". Another point would be the cost of Freesync-certification. Is it an expensive proprietary certification, or is there a standard body that can certificate it while doing the other standard tests (CE, for example)?
And just to make sure, when I say "few lines", I'm not talking about "Freesync_enabled=1", I'm talking about something along few kilobytes. There could be some proprietary algorithms, for example, that work in consort with the Freesync-compatible GPU. Then again, it could be just a certification check, so the GPU knows how to proceed next.
As for Adaptive Sync royalties:
Yes, and I stated this in point 3. But bear in mind, manufacturers still can't advertise their products as compatible without prior agreement. This could be something as simple as a certificated test verifying that the product conforms to the standard, though.
Hmm, I think there's a disagreement, then. In my view, I still see the Freesync as an implementation of the Adaptive Sync technology.
I see the Freesync as something that's supposed to ENHANCE the Adaptive Sync technology. Adaptive Sync is the base requirement, but Freesync adds some extra "secret sauce" to give it an edge over the base functionality. As for G-Sync, it apparently takes advantage of a specialized hardware to do things slightly differently, but achieving similar results.
The trademark discussion is indeed more akin to the rights of advertising it as such. But also to the rights of using the proprietary code, not just the logo. As for who pays for the logo usage: it would definitely be the manufacturers. AMD is "selling" a product to the market, Freesync. Monitor manufacturers are selling their product, the monitors. Freesync would be a positive feature they can flaunt with their products. I see no reason why AMD would pay for manufacturers, instead. As for whether AMD would even charge for it, is another matter. Granted, AMD has an incentive to make it easy and cheap for manufacturers to become "part of the family", to make Freesync an ubiquitous technology, but it would make little sense to actually pay manufacturers to use it. That would be more akin to bribing, actually.
And this links to the part where I said "AMD can still mess up their own pricing". But that's not even all of it. There's a huge temptation to recoup R&D costs via GPU card price-hikes. They know the industry/market is now interested in the tech, and they could quite safely keep the prices 5-10% above of what they would normally charge. If they get greedy, they will add 30%, and thus "mess up". Another point would be the cost of Freesync-certification. Is it an expensive proprietary certification, or is there a standard body that can certificate it while doing the other standard tests (CE, for example)?
And just to make sure, when I say "few lines", I'm not talking about "Freesync_enabled=1", I'm talking about something along few kilobytes. There could be some proprietary algorithms, for example, that work in consort with the Freesync-compatible GPU. Then again, it could be just a certification check, so the GPU knows how to proceed next.
As for Adaptive Sync royalties:
Yes, and I stated this in point 3. But bear in mind, manufacturers still can't advertise their products as compatible without prior agreement. This could be something as simple as a certificated test verifying that the product conforms to the standard, though.
Sorry man, no matter how many times you say it, it's still wrong. You still are confusing things. Freesync is only on AMD GPUs and APUs.
The trademark discussion is indeed more akin to the rights of advertising it as such. But also to the rights of using the proprietary code, not just the logo. As for who pays for the logo usage: it would definitely be the manufacturers. AMD is "selling" a product to the market, Freesync. Monitor manufacturers are selling their product, the monitors. Freesync would be a positive feature they can flaunt with their products. I see no reason why AMD would pay for manufacturers, instead. As for whether AMD would even charge for it, is another matter. Granted, AMD has an incentive to make it easy and cheap for manufacturers to become "part of the family", to make Freesync an ubiquitous technology, but it would make little sense to actually pay manufacturers to use it. That would be more akin to bribing, actually.
Well this is the problem, and is what's causing all the confusion, Freesync is the term been applied to the monitor as well. The technology in the monitors, that any GPU maker can connect to, is called adaptive sync. I don't know what agreements AMD and monitor manufacturers came to, but, if there was any money paid out than AMD would have had to pay it. Because, monitor manufacturers are advertising these monitors as AMD freesync capable, which is putting the AMD logo on their Monitors and implying that the technology in the monitors only works with AMD cards. Which is not the case, any GPU manufacturer can use adaptive sync. So they are reducing their market to AMD users only.
AMD can't pay manufacturers to use freesync. Because, again, it only works on AMD cards.
AMD isn't selling a product to the market in this case. They pushed for the Adaptive sync technology to be included in the display port standard. Of course they are using this feature to sell more cards, the more people that buy an adaptive sync monitor, the more people might buy AMD cards.
I am not sure where to start with this paragraph. Variable rate technology has been around for a while now, it has been part of the Embedded display port standard for a few years. Both AMD and Intel have been using in in their Laptops, APUs and integrated GPUs for power saving since 2009. There is no R&D costs to recoup. Like the AMD Kabini APU can support connection to an adaptive sync monitor and it only costs £24
There is no Freesync certification, well unless AMD do some internal certification. Nobody will use freesync only AMD. AMD can't sell freesync to anyone else, because it's only useable on AMD products. It can't be licensed and sold to anyone because it wouldn't do them any good.
To put it another way, you can't put AMD's drivers on a machine with a NVidia GPU, it just wouldn't work. And that's all Freesync is, drivers to make their hardware sync properly with an adaptive sync monitor.
Freesync (on an AMD card) packages the frames and tells the monitor it is sending frames at XX frame per second. Adaptive Sync (on the monitor) receives this communication and changes the refresh rate of the monitor to match the frame rate.
does that make more sense? They are two things working in Tandem, but are completely separate.
Not sure what point you are trying to make here? If you are talking about the monitor, then the lines of code, or proprietary algorithms to enable adaptive sync are all governed by VESA for the Display port. It's an open royalty free standard, as you yourself said in point 3, it's not going to check to see if you have an AMD GPU. It doesn't care what GPU you use.
@melmac:
Bear with me still a moment as I'm trying to grasp the things.
Hmm, ok. I think I get it now. So for now, I can accept that there is NOTHING of AMD in the monitor itself. No proprietary code, no info bits, whatsoever. So there's no technical aspect to license, either. I had misunderstood this part. Which is actually quite disappointing, as that effectively means that Freesync can't bring anything MORE to the table than what Adaptive Sync provides, so there's no "enhancement", like I initially thought there was. That would indeed also lead to no need for any technical Freesync-certification, only for Adaptive Sync.
Nevertheless, I still don't see how Freesync wouldn't be defined as an implementation for the Adaptive Sync, sorry. And I also don't see how exclusivity to AMD's GPUs&APUs would limit it, in any way. Or are we disagreeing on the "implementation"-term itself, perhaps? Wiki's definition is exactly how I've understood the situation (the monitor not having anything AMD-proprietary doesn't change this):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implementation#Computer_science
And I also disagree with the trademark issue. That's not how I've understood trademarks work, at all. Usually the royalties are paid to the trademark holder, not the other way around... Wiki agrees with me on this, as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalties#Trade_mark_royalties
So indeed, maybe what you're talking about with "agreements" is something else, as I think it would definitely fall outside of trademark agreements, at least. If the monitor manufacturer advertises their products as "Freesync-compatible", then that part is under a trademark agreement. They will need a permission to use AMD's trademark. Unless AMD has given a public statement (or something similar) which defines the requirements for using that specific trademark. Which would still be counted as a permission, though.
And Freesync is AMD's product, and it is indeed trying to "sell" it to the market. I did use quotation marks with "selling" (not only in this reply), because it's not in the traditional sense of selling a product. It's more like selling an ecosystem, a brand, an image, a functionality. It is something that AMD wants the market (users and manufacturers) to adopt as widely as possible, and create interest/hype around it.
As for R&D cost recouping:
The R&D costs don't just magically stop after you release a product to the wild. Or yes, in a perfect world products would indeed be "complete"/"final" on release, but in the current world (especially in computer industry) products have bugs, issues, fixes and improvements. There are probably people working on Freesync even at this very moment.
Bear with me still a moment as I'm trying to grasp the things.
Hmm, ok. I think I get it now. So for now, I can accept that there is NOTHING of AMD in the monitor itself. No proprietary code, no info bits, whatsoever. So there's no technical aspect to license, either. I had misunderstood this part. Which is actually quite disappointing, as that effectively means that Freesync can't bring anything MORE to the table than what Adaptive Sync provides, so there's no "enhancement", like I initially thought there was. That would indeed also lead to no need for any technical Freesync-certification, only for Adaptive Sync.
Nevertheless, I still don't see how Freesync wouldn't be defined as an implementation for the Adaptive Sync, sorry. And I also don't see how exclusivity to AMD's GPUs&APUs would limit it, in any way. Or are we disagreeing on the "implementation"-term itself, perhaps? Wiki's definition is exactly how I've understood the situation (the monitor not having anything AMD-proprietary doesn't change this):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implementation#Computer_science
And I also disagree with the trademark issue. That's not how I've understood trademarks work, at all. Usually the royalties are paid to the trademark holder, not the other way around... Wiki agrees with me on this, as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalties#Trade_mark_royalties
So indeed, maybe what you're talking about with "agreements" is something else, as I think it would definitely fall outside of trademark agreements, at least. If the monitor manufacturer advertises their products as "Freesync-compatible", then that part is under a trademark agreement. They will need a permission to use AMD's trademark. Unless AMD has given a public statement (or something similar) which defines the requirements for using that specific trademark. Which would still be counted as a permission, though.
And Freesync is AMD's product, and it is indeed trying to "sell" it to the market. I did use quotation marks with "selling" (not only in this reply), because it's not in the traditional sense of selling a product. It's more like selling an ecosystem, a brand, an image, a functionality. It is something that AMD wants the market (users and manufacturers) to adopt as widely as possible, and create interest/hype around it.
As for R&D cost recouping:
The R&D costs don't just magically stop after you release a product to the wild. Or yes, in a perfect world products would indeed be "complete"/"final" on release, but in the current world (especially in computer industry) products have bugs, issues, fixes and improvements. There are probably people working on Freesync even at this very moment.
Some very clear posting and info from Melmac here. Thanks
Ha, I think it's confusing gibberish myself
But you are welcome, I am glad at least one person understands what I am saying. No problem, we are just having an interesting discussion
I am talking specifically about the points you brought up in relation to AMD and the monitor manufacturers. Everything I said applies to this situation only, not for trademark rules in general. I don't think they apply in this situation.
You see AMD are the ones pushing for this technology to be used in monitors. They are looking to increase brand awareness, they are the ones who convinced monitor manufacturers to take a chance with adaptive sync technology. That's why I think if any money changed hands, AMD would have had to pay it because they are using this to sell more GPUs. That putting the AMD logo on the monitor is more beneficial to AMD than the monitor manufacturer because, as I said in a previous post, it reduces their market to just AMD owners.
Where did I argue against this? I even said it in my last post. They are using this feature to sell more cards. They are a business after all.
what you are talking about exists in everything, There will always be day to day running costs. There will always be someone looking into new ways of doing things, there will always be people fixing bugs and problems in older things. So I don't see that you have any point here at all. These are things that are a definite for any business you are in.
You brought up this to show that costs of cards would increase because of freesync. If there is a difference, it's tiny. I showed you a product that supports freesync right now at £23 that shows how cheap it is.
But!!! Here is the but, a lot of discussion spiralled out of control a little because of the one thing that you misunderstood, that freesync isn't in the monitor, that it isn't an upgrade to adaptive sync.
Now that you understand it better, go back and read this thread from post number 71 where you list all your points. I think you will find that this thread would have been a lot shorter
Trademark, etc.:
Ok, so that's just some other "agreement" discussion. What I've been saying, is that if AMD so chooses, they COULD initiate royalties to Freesync (aka. point 7). That holds true even if there's no technical property inside the monitor. If they want to make Freesync more ubiquitous and increase their GPUs' sales, they will probably want to keep the trademark costs low, though.
And this is just my personal opinion, but I think that for monitor manufacturers the "Freesync-compatible" branding is more profitable than leaving it out.
As for Freesync=product:
There was a little bit of mixed signals there, so I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page with regards to Freesync being a product to be "sold".
R&D, etc.:
The point was that they've just brought Freesync to the market. From this point forward, they will be recouping the material and labour costs that went into bringing it to market. Or are you suggesting that the laptop functionality was already all they had to do, and just copy-paste it into desktop side of things? Because I would disagree with that. I'd guess they had a whole department working on it. And not just over the weekend.
Also, they naturally can't divide the R&D costs equally between a £20 card and a £200 card. So bringing an example of a bargain bin product doesn't prove a point, I'm afraid.
Price-hike being small:
That's why I said they COULD mess up their pricing, not WOULD. I even gave examples of what I would think would be fairly acceptable and what would be over-the-top. It was way back in the thread.
And actually I already read the WHOLE thread, before I even made the previous reply. The whole discussion initially spiraled from the "AMD can still mess up pricing" and "Freesync=implementation". Which both still hold true, from my point of view. Granted, part of the momentum disappeared with the no-technical-portion part, but that still doesn't change the bottom line.
Ok, so that's just some other "agreement" discussion. What I've been saying, is that if AMD so chooses, they COULD initiate royalties to Freesync (aka. point 7). That holds true even if there's no technical property inside the monitor. If they want to make Freesync more ubiquitous and increase their GPUs' sales, they will probably want to keep the trademark costs low, though.
And this is just my personal opinion, but I think that for monitor manufacturers the "Freesync-compatible" branding is more profitable than leaving it out.
As for Freesync=product:
-->
There was a little bit of mixed signals there, so I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page with regards to Freesync being a product to be "sold".
R&D, etc.:
The point was that they've just brought Freesync to the market. From this point forward, they will be recouping the material and labour costs that went into bringing it to market. Or are you suggesting that the laptop functionality was already all they had to do, and just copy-paste it into desktop side of things? Because I would disagree with that. I'd guess they had a whole department working on it. And not just over the weekend.
Also, they naturally can't divide the R&D costs equally between a £20 card and a £200 card. So bringing an example of a bargain bin product doesn't prove a point, I'm afraid.
Price-hike being small:
That's why I said they COULD mess up their pricing, not WOULD. I even gave examples of what I would think would be fairly acceptable and what would be over-the-top. It was way back in the thread.
And actually I already read the WHOLE thread, before I even made the previous reply. The whole discussion initially spiraled from the "AMD can still mess up pricing" and "Freesync=implementation". Which both still hold true, from my point of view. Granted, part of the momentum disappeared with the no-technical-portion part, but that still doesn't change the bottom line.
Again, No!! it would the stupidest thing ever. They are not going to charge royalties for a technology that only they can ever use.
You are been selective, because it's AMD Freesync compatible. You see monitor manufacturers will still be able to sell the monitor even if they don't include the "amd freesync compatible" logo, but, that doesn't do anything for AMD, they don't sell more cards, their name doesn't get out there. AMD need this more than the monitor makers.
No you misunderstood again. It's not a product as such. You can't sell it on it's own. It's just a feature that can be used to sell more cards, just like eyefinity and trueaudio are features of AMD cards.
Gsync is a product. Nvidia actually custom make it for the monitor manufacturers.
You are saying lots of things that sort of make sense but don't really apply in any way to freesync.
This is old tech. It's been out for years. And yes, it is just a case of taking a standard in embedded display port and adding it to the desktop display port standard. It costs AMD next to nothing. It's the monitor manufacturers that have to bear most of the costs as they have to install an improved scaler and a 1.2a/1.3 display port. There is nothing that AMD has to recoup.
All AMD has to have is a hardware controller on the GPU and a 1.2 display port on the card. I showed the bargain basement product to show you how cheap the hardware controller is, that it adds next to nothing to the price.
They have to write code into their drivers to enable freesync. But how much will this cost AMD really? as they have to pay these people anyway.
You based pricing earlier in the thread on figures pulled out of your head with no understanding of what freesync was or how it worked. Can you really say these figures are valid now? They aren't.
Sorry, to be very, very blunt, you are quite entitled to your opinion, but you are completely wrong on both counts.
Last edited:
Trademarks:
But they are not paying for the technology, they are paying for the trademark. And stupid or not, trademark royalties just work that way. And like I said, I'm not saying they WILL charge for it, I'm saying they COULD charge for it. I think I've emphasized this enough.
Being selective:
And I wasn't being selective, doesn't matter whether there is AMD in there or not, it's still more beneficial than not. But like I said it's just my personal opinion. Furthermore, if they don't want to mention AMD, it's not like they HAVE to. And they can also still advertise the regular "Adaptive Sync -compatible" or "variable refresh rate compatible".
Product:
Umm, didn't I already say it myself that it's "not in the traditional sense of selling a product"...? From a company's view, even a service is a product. Freesync is indeed a product. It can't be packaged and shipped, but it's still a product. That's why I used the quotation marks for "selling".
R&D:
"It costs AMD next to nothing"
"There is nothing that AMD has to recoup"
"as they have to pay these people anyway" (!!!)
... Ok, I'm not even going to go to that. Let's just say I disagree VERY strongly with how costly you think common R&D is. And I think the last part tells every economist/engineer that it would also take a relatively big effort to explain it.
(or maybe it's me who's wrong, so let's just leave it at that)
Pricing:
I didn't base the price-hikes to R&D. Those were just my own opinions on how much they could and could not get away with. I think I was quite clear on that.
Bluntness:
And sorry to be blunt myself, but you haven't brought any piece of evidence that would convince me otherwise.
But they are not paying for the technology, they are paying for the trademark. And stupid or not, trademark royalties just work that way. And like I said, I'm not saying they WILL charge for it, I'm saying they COULD charge for it. I think I've emphasized this enough.
Being selective:
And I wasn't being selective, doesn't matter whether there is AMD in there or not, it's still more beneficial than not. But like I said it's just my personal opinion. Furthermore, if they don't want to mention AMD, it's not like they HAVE to. And they can also still advertise the regular "Adaptive Sync -compatible" or "variable refresh rate compatible".
Product:
Umm, didn't I already say it myself that it's "not in the traditional sense of selling a product"...? From a company's view, even a service is a product. Freesync is indeed a product. It can't be packaged and shipped, but it's still a product. That's why I used the quotation marks for "selling".
R&D:
"It costs AMD next to nothing"
"There is nothing that AMD has to recoup"
"as they have to pay these people anyway" (!!!)
... Ok, I'm not even going to go to that. Let's just say I disagree VERY strongly with how costly you think common R&D is. And I think the last part tells every economist/engineer that it would also take a relatively big effort to explain it.
(or maybe it's me who's wrong, so let's just leave it at that)
Pricing:
I didn't base the price-hikes to R&D. Those were just my own opinions on how much they could and could not get away with. I think I was quite clear on that.
Bluntness:
And sorry to be blunt myself, but you haven't brought any piece of evidence that would convince me otherwise.
I agree with you about trademarks, if I was selling shoes, I couldn't put the nike symbol on the them without Nike's permission, and would probably have to pay a hefty sum as well.
But it just doesn't apply to this situation because it's AMD who have most to gain from putting their logo on the monitor. It's AMD who have worked with monitor manufacturers to bring adaptive sync to the market.
I have tried to explain to you, that in this case, putting the AMD Freesync compatible on the monitor is actually less beneficial as it reduces the market for the monitor to AMD owners only. But you refuse even to consider this.
And there you go again with your misunderstanding of the whole thing. They won't put adaptive sync compatible or variable refresh rate compatible on the monitor. They ARE adaptive sync monitors.
Really? You are comparing a service to freesync? Is eyefinity a product? Is tessellation a product? Is vsync a product? Triple buffering? Should I keep listing features of GPUs? Freesync is just another feature of AMD graphics cards. A feature that might convince some people to buy AMD cards.
R&D:
"It costs AMD next to nothing"
"There is nothing that AMD has to recoup"
"as they have to pay these people anyway" (!!!)
... Ok, I'm not even going to go to that. Let's just say I disagree VERY strongly with how costly you think common R&D is. And I think the last part tells every economist/engineer that it would also take a relatively big effort to explain it.
(or maybe it's me who's wrong, so let's just leave it at that).
You obviously don't read anything I write. I will try again, I will keep it very simple.
AMD had no part in the development of variable refresh rate. The only thing AMD did was submit an application to VESA to get variable refresh rate included in the desktop display port specification. This was approved by VESA and it has become known as Adaptive sync.
AMD don't manufacturer or design the scalers or display ports used in adaptive sync.
SO outside of the development of drivers for freesync show me what R&D costs AMD have to recoup? And I understand that man hours would have to be included in developing the drivers.
You have to remember that this tech has been used by AMD since 2009. They have been selling laptops and APU's with this feature since then, so they have a lot of the ground work already done for the development of freesync.
Yes, I know, your opinion, but it has to be based on something? Surely?
I could post some links, but, why bother? I mean when you were trying to convince me that freesync was actually in the monitor, you posted 4 links that proved my point, but you managed to read them in such a way that you thought they proved what you were saying.
Here is an interesting read about display port, might be a good place for you to start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,595
Guys I don't mean to be rude, but for your particular discussion could you guys may be do it under a seperate thread? So this thread can avoid going off-topic too much and be kept strictly as for news of what FreeSync monitors will be available soon? Thanks.
Well neither this thread or the other thread about upcoming monitors
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18637089
has had any new info since Gibbo started the following thread.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18649333
I am guessing any further info of what's coming will be going in there.
This thread would have died three days ago if me and Aatu weren't still having a discussion about things.
@melmac:
Trademark:
It doesn't matter which one you think might potentially gain more. That's not how TRADEMARK royalties work. If there is some other kind of agreement, that's their business. But it's outside the trademark royalty issue.
And for the record, I did consider it (the part about who benefits more), but like I already stated, I just disagree with it. You do understand you are disagreeing with my opinion, just the same?
"Adaptive Sync -compatible" or "variable refresh rate compatible":
... Are you arguing with me on a technicality, or something? Fine, they'll say it "supports"/"uses" (or whatever word you want to put in there) Adaptive Sync / variable refresh rate. Either way, the point was that they can still flaunt the Adaptive Sync / variable refresh rate, no matter whether they even mention Freesync or not. Or are you suggesting they wouldn't want to mention them at all?
Product/service/etc:
It would also seem I would have to explain the wider concept of a product, as well. Which I'm not going to. In short, when you're talking about a product, it seems you're talking more about a physical object. I'm talking about a product in the marketing sense, from a company's perspective. That includes not only physical objects, but pretty much anything you can put a price on. Anything you can collect money from, is essentially a product for the company holding the rights to it.
R&D:
I wasn't kidding when I said I won't go further into that. If it is indeed that AMD's R&D for Freesync was 0€, then yes, you are correct, they have nothing to recoup. I strongly disagree with that assessment, though.
Pricing:
Like I said, "on how much they could and could not get away with". If you want a term for it, then "consumer/market psychology/behaviour". Freesync has created hype around itself, which AMD can take advantage of.
Links:
?? As I recall, those links were to prove that Freesync=/=Adaptive Sync. Which they actually did prove. Although they weren't needed, because I just confused your replies as if you were suggesting they would be the same thing.
And I don't remember finding anything that would actually DENY the monitor component. But because there's no mention of it, either, I took your word for it, instead. Even if there WERE a physical component in the monitor, those articles would probably still hold true. So at the moment, I'm actually just trusting your word on that (combined with the logicality of there being no mention of it).
But I agree with Marine-RX179, this is going too off-topic, so let's try to wrap this up. In essence, we are disagreeing on so many fronts, so I don't think it's worthwhile to continue, when we have so radically different views. So I'd suggest we'll just agree to disagree.
Trademark:
It doesn't matter which one you think might potentially gain more. That's not how TRADEMARK royalties work. If there is some other kind of agreement, that's their business. But it's outside the trademark royalty issue.
And for the record, I did consider it (the part about who benefits more), but like I already stated, I just disagree with it. You do understand you are disagreeing with my opinion, just the same?
"Adaptive Sync -compatible" or "variable refresh rate compatible":
... Are you arguing with me on a technicality, or something? Fine, they'll say it "supports"/"uses" (or whatever word you want to put in there) Adaptive Sync / variable refresh rate. Either way, the point was that they can still flaunt the Adaptive Sync / variable refresh rate, no matter whether they even mention Freesync or not. Or are you suggesting they wouldn't want to mention them at all?
Product/service/etc:
It would also seem I would have to explain the wider concept of a product, as well. Which I'm not going to. In short, when you're talking about a product, it seems you're talking more about a physical object. I'm talking about a product in the marketing sense, from a company's perspective. That includes not only physical objects, but pretty much anything you can put a price on. Anything you can collect money from, is essentially a product for the company holding the rights to it.
R&D:
I wasn't kidding when I said I won't go further into that. If it is indeed that AMD's R&D for Freesync was 0€, then yes, you are correct, they have nothing to recoup. I strongly disagree with that assessment, though.
Pricing:
Like I said, "on how much they could and could not get away with". If you want a term for it, then "consumer/market psychology/behaviour". Freesync has created hype around itself, which AMD can take advantage of.
Links:
?? As I recall, those links were to prove that Freesync=/=Adaptive Sync. Which they actually did prove. Although they weren't needed, because I just confused your replies as if you were suggesting they would be the same thing.
And I don't remember finding anything that would actually DENY the monitor component. But because there's no mention of it, either, I took your word for it, instead. Even if there WERE a physical component in the monitor, those articles would probably still hold true. So at the moment, I'm actually just trusting your word on that (combined with the logicality of there being no mention of it).
But I agree with Marine-RX179, this is going too off-topic, so let's try to wrap this up. In essence, we are disagreeing on so many fronts, so I don't think it's worthwhile to continue, when we have so radically different views. So I'd suggest we'll just agree to disagree.
It seems the operating frequency ranges are a bit narrower than what I had anticipated. From the pre-order thread, there's a little bit of details (only Acer monitors, though):
Acer XB270HA = 55 - 144Hz
Acer XB270HU = 30 - 144Hz
Acer XB280HK = 55 - 75Hz
Acer XG270HU = 50 - 144Hz
The 30-144Hz is quite alright, but that 55-75Hz is quite ... depressing. Anyone buying these monitors should definitely check the ranges before purchase, so there are no inconvenient surprises afterwards.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,376
Hang on, the XB280HK is the gsync 4k one, which has a max refresh of 60hz, but listed there as 55-75hz?
I'm not sure that list is accurate
Similarly the XB270HA is the TN gsync one, which i also know does down to 30fps, but listed there as 55hz, so that is also wrong
I'm not sure that list is accurate
Similarly the XB270HA is the TN gsync one, which i also know does down to 30fps, but listed there as 55hz, so that is also wrong
Last edited: