• 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.

G-Sync is a con?

JediFragger said:
Yup, nVidia are well-known (esp recently) of doing the right thing and fixing their mistakes :) ;)

You're in dreamland m8, nVidia are only interested in one thing and it begins with a $ :p
Click to expand...

Why did one of G-Sync's main suppliers 'ASUS' feel the need to do this in the first place? :)

Depending on how Screen vendors feel about this G-Sync may end up being the gaming world's equivalent of Betamax and HD-DVD.
 
Desktop monitors have the G-Sync module as DP does not natively support on the fly refresh rate changing. The module sits between the GPU and monitor and changes the refresh rate to match the GPU output. Newer laptop screens use eDP which supports on the fly refresh changes so no module is required although I would imagine some Nvidia licensing tax would still need to be paid hence why it is coming soon.

This is what I can work out from it anyway......?
 
Even if you got it to work i don't think you would laud g-sync, yes i use the aoc 24' g-sync monitor, in some ways i think it is too expensive but it does alleviate screen tear more than my old 120Hz monitor, gaming is smooth but only by tweaking the games graphics settings, sli + g-sync does not necessarily remove stuttering, that's about it really. The price is a con though, haha.
 
MOOGLEYS said:
Desktop monitors have the G-Sync module as DP does not natively support on the fly refresh rate changing. The module sits between the GPU and monitor and changes the refresh rate to match the GPU output. Newer laptop screens use eDP which supports on the fly refresh changes so no module is required although I would imagine some Nvidia licensing tax would still need to be paid hence why it is coming soon.

This is what I can work out from it anyway......?
Click to expand...

You are correct but some want to see a conspiracy when there really isn't one.
 
MOOGLEYS said:
Desktop monitors have the G-Sync module as DP does not natively support on the fly refresh rate changing. The module sits between the GPU and monitor and changes the refresh rate to match the GPU output. Newer laptop screens use eDP which supports on the fly refresh changes so no module is required although I would imagine some Nvidia licensing tax would still need to be paid hence why it is coming soon.

This is what I can work out from it anyway......?
Click to expand...

No reason why Nvidia's on board GPU scaler can't do this, i'd be surprised if they couldn't, AMD's GCN 1.1 GPU scalers can.

If Nvidia want to Tax Screen Vendors for it they may tell Nvidia where to stick it as Free-Sync has no such tax.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Why did one of G-Sync's main suppliers 'ASUS' feel the need to do this in the first place? :)

Depending on how Screen vendors feel about this G-Sync may end up being the gaming world's equivalent of Betamax and HD-DVD.
Click to expand...

No, look, eDP could always do variable refresh, we knew this. Desktop DP couldn't, and when nvidia worked on and released Gsync there was no DP1.2a.

Nvidia fulfilled a niche that no one else was at the time.

Spin forwards, nvidia are also going to be first to market with eDP variable refresh for gaming, despite AMD even having demoed this over a year ago.

"Asus" didn't do this, the driver is an *NVIDIA* demo driver released to ASUS and others to allow them to work on MOBILE gsync.

Did you even read the articles that were linked to? Because all of this is right in there without the tinfoil hat histrionics you are adding.

This does not in any way "prove" that current nvidia cards will support DP1.2a, all it proves is that nvidia are able to write a driver to take advantage of variable vblank via eDP... the same eDP that desktop GPU's don't have
 
Interesting article, that PCPER one. I strongly suggest that anyone interested in this thread actually go and read all three pages of it, as it might stop some of the more stupid comments.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Mobile-G-Sync-Confirmed-and-Tested-Leaked-Alpha-Driver

Just one thing to note anyone saying that Nvidia don't/Didnt need a module for Gsync.

This obviously leads us to the discussion of the need for a dedicated G-Sync module on current monitors. In order to get shipping variable refresh monitors in the market last year, NVIDIA had no choice but to create a module to replace the scalar in modern displays. No monitors existed then with embedded DisplayPort interfaces and the standard had not been created for Adaptive Sync. But as the release of AMD FreeSync displays nears, we have to ask: will a dedicated module be required for G-Sync on future products? Interestingly, NVIDIA says that the answer hasn't been 100% decided yet - the future could include this same module, a new module or perhaps even no module at all. There are features and technologies in the G-Sync module that haven't been revealed, at least according to NVIDIA, and with that line of thinking I don't see a time when NVIDIA relieves the desktop market of that requirement in the near term.
Click to expand...

One thing that does make me wonder just what is going on, is that if Adaptive Sync is the same as Gsync but without the module, then surely Nvidia can just take AMD/VESA to court for patent infringement, unless of course Nvidia didn't patent the crap out of their own technology. consequently I'm sure there are differences that we don't know about yet. Also surely AMD are not stupid enough to just copy Nvidia's technology so blatently unless there was enough difference that they could be taken to court over it.
 
bru said:
Interesting article, that PCPER one. I strongly suggest that anyone interested in this thread actually go and read all three pages of it, as it might stop some of the more stupid comments.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Mobile-G-Sync-Confirmed-and-Tested-Leaked-Alpha-Driver

Just one thing to note anyone saying that Nvidia don't/Didnt need a module for Gsync.



One thing that does make me wonder just what is going on, is that if Adaptive Sync is the same as Gsync but without the module, then surely Nvidia can just take AMD/VESA to court for patent infringement, unless of course Nvidia didn't patent the crap out of their own technology. consequently I'm sure there are differences that we don't know about yet. Also surely AMD are not stupid enough to just copy Nvidia's technology so blatently unless there was enough difference that they could be taken to court over it.
Click to expand...

Thats PCper's take on it, mine is different, I think Nvidia had a choice, i think Nvidia could have made the same Choice AMD have, and have chosen not to, instead chosen a rout that bags them more revenue at the expense of us and Screen Vendors.

It's also not Nvidia's technology, they invented nothing new, it's existing technology.
 
Last edited:
bru said:
Interesting article, that PCPER one. I strongly suggest that anyone interested in this thread actually go and read all three pages of it, as it might stop some of the more stupid comments.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Mobile-G-Sync-Confirmed-and-Tested-Leaked-Alpha-Driver

Just one thing to note anyone saying that Nvidia don't/Didnt need a module for Gsync.



One thing that does make me wonder just what is going on, is that if Adaptive Sync is the same as Gsync but without the module, then surely Nvidia can just take AMD/VESA to court for patent infringement, unless of course Nvidia didn't patent the crap out of their own technology. consequently I'm sure there are differences that we don't know about yet. Also surely AMD are not stupid enough to just copy Nvidia's technology so blatently unless there was enough difference that they could be taken to court over it.
Click to expand...


The sync capabilities have ALWAYS been in the dp spec. It was never used because desktop scalars never needed to be synched before, nobody thought hey let's do this. But on laptops, they figured they could use the adaptive sync to reduce power consumption, a primary directive on mobile devices. The specific nature of laptops and their laptop displays made it easy to enable.

Then they realized that they could apply that to desktops. However desktop displays do not have compatible scalars, although some could potentially be flashed to support the function. Some AMD cards have the functionality intact. Nvidia had turned off or not enabled that functionality in the driver. AMD took the route of an open standard and pushed for industry adoption where Nvidia went the closed path and added the scalar externally.


Nvidia's method was never anything more than a stop gap until the industry as a whole got async panels to market.

Now, how anyone gets from that to Nvidia suing anyone is a joke. They didn't invent anything, they merely repackaged what was already there, and are charging you for it. When async or whatever is on market and selling, it will obviously kill the desire to pay Nvidia for the technology that is free. And with this driver, it shows that Nvidia cards can potentially work with the open standard. They just need a driver that allows it. What will ppl do when they realize there is nothing really holding their green gpus from using async panels except Nvidia?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom