• 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.

Poll: Poll, nVidia CEO on Free Sync, is he believable or not?

Do you believe Jensen Huang

  • I believe Jensen Huang

    Votes: 21 10.9%
  • I do not believe Jensen Huang

    Votes: 118 61.5%
  • Pancakes

    Votes: 53 27.6%

  • Total voters
    192
Soldato
Joined
30 Mar 2010
Posts
13,008
Location
Under The Stairs!
FreeSync needs to be standardised and it needs to be enforced for a monitor to be FreeSync certified it needs to meet or exceed a set minimum set of features and support for the technology.

Clearly not as by doing battle with G-Sync, because AMD didn't enforce restrictions/pay walling FreeSync their end-the war is all but over, FreeSync won.

I think most don't realise why AIB's brought out lesser ranged FreeSync panels than their G-Sync panels, when the tech settled, it was choice driven by profit not restriction most gaming monitors are produced by aib's that provide both tech.

Then and ONLY then will it meet the same quality set by Gsync.

Can imagine watching a tense movie scene or bricking yourself scared to walk down a sewer tunnel with visual/sound/lighting cues in full flow viewed in pitch dark on a huge home cinema setup waiting for a pin to drop that will never drop because there's a hoover Ronsealed to the wall drowning out the atmosphere...

There is different BM's to claim quality, none of the two of them hit an absolute imo, I'm pretty sure there are thousands of vrr users basking in quality provided by FreeSync because it wasn't available on Nv pp, but a standardised feature set doesn't equate to a quality set by Gsync when a a quality can only be set by an affordable option over no option.

G-Sync had some benefits, FreeSync had other benefits, both had their faults, one is thriving, the other is going mission dodo.
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,379
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
With comments like that there is no way even Tony Blairs spin doctors would take on the task of making it sound like he meant something different. It's all there in black and white.

Exactly.

Gsync is competing with a free product which does the same job. It was never going to survive.

We are lucky AMD (and Intel I guess) aren't interested in locking people in to their own ecosystem and see that it only does bad things to the industry.

+1
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Jun 2018
Posts
2,827
One can only face palm that there were those that truly believed that gsync would out do freesync. Free...
Free...
Free...

Lets all think on that. Something that cost 2x more vs Free was going to depreciate and make EOL something being offered for free. Because its chips...because it's hardware...because it's used in more costly panels...the excuses go on and on and on.
Sad
 
Don
Joined
20 Feb 2006
Posts
5,207
Location
Leeds
One can only face palm that there were those that truly believed that gsync would out do freesync. Free...
Free...
Free...

Lets all think on that. Something that cost 2x more vs Free was going to depreciate and make EOL something being offered for free. Because its chips...because it's hardware...because it's used in more costly panels...the excuses go on and on and on.
Sad

Hold on, has G-Sync production ceased or are they just giving the option of adaptive sync also?
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Dec 2011
Posts
5,419
Location
Belfast
VESA Adaptive Sync is open source and people claiming AMD should have been more stringent on what was allowed to use the Freesync name are ironically ignoring this is why it undeniably won the Adaptive Sync war.

Had AMD stopped monitor manufacturers flooding the market with cheap Freesync monitors the technology would have had significantly reduced adaption rate. Cheap Freesync monitors have low adaptive sync ranges but they cost almost nothing extra to implement (higher spec DP port). Every single cheapo monitor out there with Freesync brought a tiny little bit more brand recognition. Top of the range Freesync monitors were as good as anything G-Sync offered. Lol if that wasn't true then Nvidia would never have "approved" them for the "coveted" G-Sync brand name.

Let that sync (pun intended) for a while. Nvidia have lost the Adaptive Sync war and have had to make a total 180 u-turn to allow this "crap technology" work on their superior GPU with the G-Sync name. Yet we are to believe Nvidia when they say they have the consumers best interests in mind.

Most rational consumers knew that a good Freesync monitor does exactly the same job as the best G-Syn has to offer, yet at a cheaper price.

I suppose the moral is that even Nvidia's much vaunted marketing has it's limits before people see through the BS.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 May 2007
Posts
10,049
VESA Adaptive Sync is open source and people claiming AMD should have been more stringent on what was allowed to use the Freesync name are ironically ignoring this is why it undeniably won the Adaptive Sync war.

Had AMD stopped monitor manufacturers flooding the market with cheap Freesync monitors the technology would have had significantly reduced adaption rate. Cheap Freesync monitors have low adaptive sync ranges but they cost almost nothing extra to implement (higher spec DP port). Every single cheapo monitor out there with Freesync brought a tiny little bit more brand recognition. Top of the range Freesync monitors were as good as anything G-Sync offered. Lol if that wasn't true then Nvidia would never have "approved" them for the "coveted" G-Sync brand name.

Let that sync (pun intended) for a while. Nvidia have lost the Adaptive Sync war and have had to make a total 180 u-turn to allow this "crap technology" work on their superior GPU with the G-Sync name. Yet we are to believe Nvidia when they say they have the consumers best interests in mind.

Most rational consumers knew that a good Freesync monitor does exactly the same job as the best G-Syn has to offer, yet at a cheaper price.

I suppose the moral is that even Nvidia's much vaunted marketing has it's limits before people see through the BS.

+1

I was going to post something very similar but you have summed up what i was going to say especially on flooding the market to get the Freesync/Adaptive Sync brand out there.

Hold on, has G-Sync production ceased or are they just giving the option of adaptive sync also?

No you will still have the option to buy the G-Sync monitors with the module along with certified G-Sync/Freesync monitors and other Freesync monitors that may work with Nvidia cards but won't carry the G-Sync name.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 May 2010
Posts
22,294
Location
London
Clearly not as by doing battle with G-Sync, because AMD didn't enforce restrictions/pay walling FreeSync their end-the war is all but over, FreeSync won.

I think most don't realise why AIB's brought out lesser ranged FreeSync panels than their G-Sync panels, when the tech settled, it was choice driven by profit not restriction most gaming monitors are produced by aib's that provide both tech.



Can imagine watching a tense movie scene or bricking yourself scared to walk down a sewer tunnel with visual/sound/lighting cues in full flow viewed in pitch dark on a huge home cinema setup waiting for a pin to drop that will never drop because there's a hoover Ronsealed to the wall drowning out the atmosphere...

There is different BM's to claim quality, none of the two of them hit an absolute imo, I'm pretty sure there are thousands of vrr users basking in quality provided by FreeSync because it wasn't available on Nv pp, but a standardised feature set doesn't equate to a quality set by Gsync when a a quality can only be set by an affordable option over no option.

G-Sync had some benefits, FreeSync had other benefits, both had their faults, one is thriving, the other is going mission dodo.

If this is the case then why have they sought to standardise it with FreeSync2? There was meant to be a certification program which meant the monitor is only certified as FreeSync2 if it meets certain criteria by AMD.

Unfortunately rather than removing the ambiguity around Freesync it just added to it.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
33,188
Nvidia has always done this. With sli, and blacklisting boards in drivers so sli was disabled or drivers don't work unless a certification fee is paid. They are entitled to do that, they are entitled to charge people making boards to pay to enable a feature... it's crappy ethically and it prevents me buying Nvidia until they stop such practices.

I'd even be okay if Jensen said simply without making excuses that we only allow the best and only those who pass certification will work and if they actually blacklisted other screens, instead he says you can enable it (though as it seems maybe they enable it such that it will flicker almost on purpose to prove their point) on other monitors but only these are good enough for 'g-sync' and then proclaiming freesync doesn't work is way beyond that. he's making a false statement about another companies product and being a **** about it. But yes, he's doing it to get that nice certification money.

You don't have to charge money for certification, I believe PSU makers pay a nominal fee for the time spent testing their PSUs to get the gold/silver/plat ratings, a lot of other certifications are free, freesync is free, you send a panel to AMD and they'll test it and if it works within the range the manufacturer defines they'll certify it for that range.

Nvidia SHOULD do it for free, or a nominal fee, but they've historically used their appeal to customers to charge an arm and a leg for such services while going out of their way to make sure motherboards/sli/whatever doesn't work properly (or at all) if such fees aren't paid.

G-sync has always been able to work over adaptive sync, it will work on all monitors that support it. Some monitor makers make less good monitors, that's natural, and have less good ranges as a result. I won't buy them, but I won't buy a £90 1080p panel either freesync or not but to deny a potential benefit for a user of a cheaper screen with a limited range is asinine, and to claim freesync doesn't work because some manufacturers make less good screens is absurd.

This is Jensen wanting the best features to carry the biggest premiums and for people to pay more rather than having tech filter down to low cost improvements as quickly as possible. He wants the guy who can only afford a £99 screen to not have a feature and to hope he pays more for it. Even though that feature is free and it costs nothing to support it, he wants that guy and everyone like him to have a worse experience because they should pay him more for a better experience. I can't stand him or his company's practices, same as Intel right now. Still using Intel because I'm waiting for Ryzen 3xxx then I'm switching. If AMD get enough marketshare to start acting like *****, then i'm screwed.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Aug 2014
Posts
5,960
I voted that I don't believe him but you can certainly find monitors with the Freesync branding that don't work well, that's because it's rather lax for my liking. There are many monitors that work brilliantly though so it's disingenuous to say Freesync as a whole doesn't work.

I don't like the fact Nvidia will be profiting from this, AMD should have had separate tiers for Freesync so we could see at a glance which are good then Nvidia wouldn't have been able to do this.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
33,188
I voted that I don't believe him but you can certainly find monitors with the Freesync branding that don't work well, that's because it's rather lax for my liking. There are many monitors that work brilliantly though so it's disingenuous to say Freesync as a whole doesn't work.

I don't like the fact Nvidia will be profiting from this, AMD should have had separate tiers for Freesync so we could see at a glance which are good then Nvidia wouldn't have been able to do this.

Should someone who can only afford a cheap screen be denied a free feature in freesync because the likes of Nvidia want to keep it to increase the prices of higher end monitors though? If it improves the experience for someone who can only afford a RX460 and a £100 screen, then if you don't think that screen is good enough who cares, chances are you think the £100 screen without freesync isn't good enough either, I certainly wouldn't get it with or without freesync.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Aug 2014
Posts
5,960
Should someone who can only afford a cheap screen be denied a free feature in freesync because the likes of Nvidia want to keep it to increase the prices of higher end monitors though? If it improves the experience for someone who can only afford a RX460 and a £100 screen, then if you don't think that screen is good enough who cares, chances are you think the £100 screen without freesync isn't good enough either, I certainly wouldn't get it with or without freesync.
I agree with you that it's much better for the budget monitors to have some Freesync functionality than none at all, I just think the higher end monitors should have had a 'Freesync Ultimate' badge so that we knew that it had a decent range and good performance. I'm glad Freesync 2 HDR does that now, I just wish AMD mandated at least Vesa HDR600 certification because HDR400 is not true HDR.

My point was that Nvidia shouldn't have had the opportunity to do what they are doing now as the 'Freesync Ultimate' certification would have precluded them from doing so.
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,379
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
They already do this, its called Free-Sync 2

To get 'Free-Sync 2' certification minimum standards need to be met, they are:

Minimum low latency DisplayHDR 400.
Free-Sync 2 panels must have Low Frame Rate Compensation.

Panels that don't meet those specifications are branded Free-Sync.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
39,267
Location
Ireland
So 10 votes so far are drinking the koolaid, interesting. That implies some people are buying into Huang stating that freesync doesn't work at all. Well, reviews and end user experience say otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
4 Jul 2012
Posts
16,911
So 10 votes so far are drinking the koolaid, interesting. That implies some people are buying into Huang stating that freesync doesn't work at all. Well, reviews and end user experience say otherwise.
We've all got a good idea who's voted for that as well.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,615
So 10 votes so far are drinking the koolaid, interesting. That implies some people are buying into Huang stating that freesync doesn't work at all. Well, reviews and end user experience say otherwise.


Not in the slightest. Some.people just aren't biased and can also trust 3rd parties


[/QUOTE]

Freesync seems to be all.over the place. AMD might well be able to fix a load of problems in drivers, but who knows what issues aren't resolved together nicks even coukd. And why should they.

Gsync guarantees certain user experiences. Interesting uninterrupted the same stamp of approval they need to all offer the same experience. Ironically AMD have decided this is the rightway to go,with freesync2 basicly the same thing.


It is not like nvidia block non-certified screen from working, the user just has to manually enable them.
 
Back
Top Bottom