• 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.

Proprietary vs open standard nearly 4 years on

  • Thread starter Thread starter bru
  • Start date Start date
henson0115 said:
it was a goal of freesync 2 and to my knowledge they have achieved a range of a min of 48-144hz i havnt seen a single panel with a smaller range like freesync 1. also "The end result is LFC effectively removes the minimum refresh rate of adaptive sync displays, but for LFC to be supported, the monitor needs to have a maximum refresh rate that is at least double the minimum refresh rate. This is why not all FreeSync monitors support LFC; some come with just 48 to 75 Hz refresh windows, which doesn’t meet the criteria for LFC. However in the case of FreeSync 2, every monitor validated for this spec will support LFC so you won’t have to worry about the minimum refresh rate of the monitor."
so freesync 2 supporting lfc means that all monitors must have a bigger range.
melmac is off on the range part slightly. :)
Click to expand...

You're right, they announced the inclusion of HDR from the get go, it was a point of discussion at the time. As for LFC that's what it should have been about, my monitor has a range of 30 to 75 with LFC support & it works, The next iteration of Freesync should have only been about LFC & the range required to support it, AMD leaving Freesync still covering anything without HDR is allowing a question mark to hang over all other Freesync models, They haven't remedied the base problem of Freesync being seen as the inferior solution and that is what should have been bothering them, they'd said as much in past interviews.
 
nashathedog said:
You're right, they announced the inclusion of HDR from the get go, it was a point of discussion at the time. As for LFC that's what it should have been about, my monitor has a range of 30 to 75 with LFC support & it works, The next iteration of Freesync should have only been about LFC & the range required to support it, AMD leaving Freesync still covering anything without HDR is allowing a question mark to hang over all other Freesync models, They haven't remedied the base problem of Freesync being seen as the inferior solution and that is what should have been bothering them, they'd said as much in past interviews.
Click to expand...
The hdr element is a buzzword and guess they thought HDR would be more of an appeal to the non techsavy as a way of introducing them to freesync. Pure speculation of course. Either way you are right the marketing was crap and I hope they can address it in future. As this thread shows most people dont even realize the range on 2 is broader so it does need addressing.
 
I understand the concern about frequency ranges with Freesync but on the other hand if the FPS gets below 40 it's still going to be uncomfortable. When I had my 980 Ti Deus Ex Mankind Divided was the first game to bring FPS down to the 40ish mark at 1440p and even with G-Sync it felt nasty after gliding along at 60+ fps in all other titles I played.
 
Kirby Wurm said:
I understand the concern about frequency ranges with Freesync but on the other hand if the FPS gets below 40 it's still going to be uncomfortable. When I had my 980 Ti Deus Ex Mankind Divided was the first game to bring FPS down to the 40ish mark at 1440p and even with G-Sync it felt nasty after gliding along at 60+ fps in all other titles I played.
Click to expand...

Some settings in DX:MD if enabled made the framerate feel about half what it was saying if you dropped below 60 - with them disabled the game felt a lot more fluid at the same framerate. Infact I found that I had to be rendering constantly around 70-80 fps for it to feel like 60 in other games.
 
Kirby Wurm said:
I understand the concern about frequency ranges with Freesync but on the other hand if the FPS gets below 40 it's still going to be uncomfortable. .
Click to expand...

This! The range of any kind of sync technology is subjective; are you happy with frame rates lower than those specified as supported?

Personally, I find lower than 40fps pretty unbearable so really couldn't care if a panel supported lower than that.
 
Aside from cost gsync displays usually only have one hdmi and one dp port thats way too restrictive, I usually require at least one of each vga, plus dvi, DP for me is optional.

The reason is my monitors are also used for my consoles, my xbox360 needs a vga input.

Originally gsync monitors were just one DP port and thats it which was ridiculous for an expensive display.
 
BubbySoup said:
Neither tech is perfect, but I would say that overall Freesync is getting better whereas Gsync is getting worse.


5 mins 45s is all you need to know.
Click to expand...


Loving the fact they never thought to give the monitor fan a venting areas if using the vesa mount. Quality Acer!
 
henson0115 said:
so freesync 2 supporting lfc means that all monitors must have a bigger range.
melmac is off on the range part slightly. :)
Click to expand...

I wasn't ;) Read my post again.

melmac said:
you buy a Freesync 2 monitor and you are guaranteed a certain level of HDR, a monitor that works with LFC and lower latency.
Click to expand...

They will still list the Freesync range on the Freesync 2 monitors, it's just the low end won't matter because they are guaranteed to work with LFC.
 
am i the only one that has seen many posts about how gsync isnt working from xx driver etc? yes freesync is exactly the same in that regard but all the posts mentioning gsync make out like its perfect and always works with no problems etc etc.
 
D1craig said:
am i the only one that has seen many posts about how gsync isnt working from xx driver etc? yes freesync is exactly the same in that regard but all the posts mentioning gsync make out like its perfect and always works with no problems etc etc.
Click to expand...

As much as anything I think the problem is Windows 10 - MS seems to have broken G-Sync a couple of times in the last few months with changes to how the display model works - on Windows 7 I've not had any problems with it in awhile.
 
Rroff said:
As much as anything I think the problem is Windows 10 - MS seems to have broken G-Sync a couple of times in the last few months with changes to how the display model works - on Windows 7 I've not had any problems with it in awhile.
Click to expand...

2009 called, it wants its OS back :D
 
BubbySoup said:
Neither tech is perfect, but I would say that overall Freesync is getting better whereas Gsync is getting worse.


5 mins 45s is all you need to know.
Click to expand...
That the built in turbo and the noise you can hear is just the turbo whistle as the boost pressure increases
Don't you guys know anything...:p
 
Kaapstad said:
I have not used either a G-Sync or Freesync monitor.

What I never had I will never miss.

I started gaming back in the MS-DOS days when graphics were terrible but for me it has always been about gameplay.
Click to expand...

Been on both the freesync and gsync wagon and there are still times i prefer to run my monitor at a static refresh rate. IMHO variable refresh rate comes with its own set of problems which are amplified the further below 80ish fps you go.

nashathedog said:
I think 50's too high, 30 to whatever the panels max is along with LFC gives you a monitor with good support.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand why people are so obsessive with the lower end to being around 30hz.. its terrible, freesync or gsync, it just stinks to high heaven. If a game cannot hit atleast 60ish i simply don't bother. Of course this is my personal preference and i understand that others may disagree i just cannot see why they would. But i guess if a person is happy with 30ish fps then they have it easier when picking parts for their pc :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom