• 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.

A Week With NVIDIA's G-SYNC Monitor

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Any chance you can link to that quote??
Click to expand...

Yes mate.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=25482564&postcount=19

Gregster said:
AMD still don't have eyefinity frame pacing sorted yet, so I wouldn't hold my breath on AMD coming with anything in the next year.
Click to expand...

They have it fixed for the 290 series on Eyefinity but Tahiti is still awaiting the driver. Better they get it right first time, If that means another month then so be it.

TheRealDeal said:
Phase 2 in January which should solve that. Would be funny if amd call there version Free-sync.
Click to expand...

Lol now that would be funny. Pretty sure that would ruffle some feathers as well.
 
Baboonanza said:
I guess they may simply define an open standard that monitor makers are free to implement themselves without having to pay AMD for either licensing or the actual hardware.
Click to expand...

Still, this means amd predominantly pay all the r&d costs out of their own pocket and then let monitor manufacturers use it license free? Above all they're a buisness, businesses like to make money and you don't make money giving away things for free. Also no license means manufacturers can change the hardware beyond amd's initial spec, to work on any card so they'd loose the 'buy our cards to use this kit' funds.

Don't get me wrong I would love to see something free that everyone can use but I just can't see that happening any time soon.

Unless I'm missing something blatant of course.
 
pgi947 said:
Unless I'm missing something blatant of course.
Click to expand...
The obvious reason would be to supplant Nvidia's proprietary tech as the preferred implementation, and the best way to do that is to make it free. The motivation is that if G-sync becomes popular it will cost AMD card sales.

And the R&D on a similar device might not be so bad now that we know that it's possible and some details about how it's done. I would think patent issues could potentially be more of a problem.

But this is all guess work. I just don't see AMD launching a hardware replacement for the g-sync monitor component when releasing a standard is much quicker and more in line with their past behaviour.
 
Last edited:
Baboonanza said:
The obvious reason would be to supplant Nvidia's proprietary tech as the preferred implementation, and the best way to do that is to make it free. The motivation is that if G-sync becomes popular it will cost AMD card sales.

And the R&D on a similar device might not be so bad now that we know that it's possible and some details about how it's done. I would think patent issues could potentially be more of a problem.

But this is all guess work. I just don't see AMD launching a hardware replacement for the g-sync monitor component when releasing a standard is much quicker and more in line with their past behaviour.
Click to expand...

Good shout.
 
Isn't it kind of a catch 22 situation for AMD? They can develop there own version of gsync but they'd still have to pay a license fee or royalties to NVidia due to the patents? They might as well just licence the gsync tech as is (assuming NVidia let them). At least that way you aren't locked to a single brand when you buy a gsync monitor. If AMD do go and release there own version of it, i'd assume it wont be compatible with NVidia cards. Bad for everybody really.
 
So much proprietary standards.
Mantle
PhysX
True Audio
G-Sync

Its great and all....But will it be good for gamers in the long run.
 
Jeps said:
Isn't it kind of a catch 22 situation for AMD? They can develop there own version of gsync but they'd still have to pay a license fee or royalties to NVidia due to the patents? They might as well just licence the gsync tech as is (assuming NVidia let them). At least that way you aren't locked to a single brand when you buy a gsync monitor. If AMD do go and release there own version of it, i'd assume it wont be compatible with NVidia cards. Bad for everybody really.
Click to expand...

Not really as they are effectively extensions of vsync but variable. Unless Apple decide they want the technology as Samsung make a monitor there wont be any one sueing anyone.
 
Jeps said:
Isn't it kind of a catch 22 situation for AMD? They can develop there own version of gsync but they'd still have to pay a license fee or royalties to NVidia due to the patents? They might as well just licence the gsync tech as is (assuming NVidia let them). At least that way you aren't locked to a single brand when you buy a gsync monitor. If AMD do go and release there own version of it, i'd assume it wont be compatible with NVidia cards. Bad for everybody really.
Click to expand...

No, the R&D cost on this is miniscule, Nvidia have decided to make effectively their own, exceptionally expensive monitor controller chip and past that cost on to their customers. Monitor makers WILL integrate the incredibly basic tech into their future controllers with essentially no additional cost.

In the future this means all monitors support it, no need to licence anything, AMD just send out frames as they are ready with a tiny bit of frame pacing, this is trivial stuff.

The only issue is the wait for monitor makers to get their new asics and launch a new model. Designing and releasing an asic isn't a 3 month process(but we have no idea when they started).

The only reason AMD would want to licence g-sync would be to have access to the insanely expensive Nvidia fpga chip containing monitors, for the future integrated monitors Nvidia can't do **** to stop AMD or monitor makers enabling this mode in any other non trademarked name(and if they get together to call it free-sync I may just die laughing).

Nvidia users will likely continue to be charged extra for g-sync branded screens..... re 3dvision, screens do nothing fancy or different to any other 3d screens, Nvidia don't do anything different with 3d, Nvidia can't patent 3d, yet they trademark 3dvision and lock out their own customers from free screen(all with identical technology) choice and only allow those screens which pay to be 3dvision branded to work with the driver.

Nvidia likely have a short term time to market advantage due to their fpga's, good for them, long term, AMD users WILL have the same thing for free on ANY screen including future g-sync screens(same way I can use a 3dvision branded screen for 3d with an AMD card, because these future monitors will no longer have the fpga made and controlled by Nvidia, but the normal standard controller asic.

So long term I see it almost identical to 3d/3dvision. It works on any 3d screen for AMD, Nvidia will lock out non paying screens. I can't see a single reason this won't be the case longer term, the short term fpga solution is a clever one, but is expensive and can't possibly be a long term solution by any sensible monitor maker. No monitor makers want to design a screen then have a version which bypasses in built pieces and uses an external extra and overly expensive chip.
 
Serious question time again...

If its as simple as just an nvidia branded controller chip that anyone could make should they want to, why will it only work with kepler and above cards? Driver or architecture restriction?
 
pgi947 said:
Serious question time again...

If its as simple as just an nvidia branded controller chip that anyone could make should they want to, why will it only work with kepler and above cards? Driver or architecture restriction?
Click to expand...

it isn't? (i think) pretty sure it's gotta be tuned to every single monitor it's put in, i.e you don't just make one chip then shove it in any monitor you can find, it's tailor made to each monitor (it's got a fgpa in it?), ips and 4k are coming next year supposedly

dunno about the kepler limitations though, if i had come up with it though i'd be wanting to lock it to my companies cards aswell, business is business and all that
 
Still don't really understand it all, I mean I use 120hz monitor with no vsync and can't imagine the image being any smoother than it is. How would gsync improve upon my current monitor?
 
nitram100 said:
Still don't really understand it all, I mean I use 120hz monitor with no vsync and can't imagine the image being any smoother than it is. How would gsync improve upon my current monitor?
Click to expand...

watch that video above, especially the end bit, night and day to me, i've used 120hz for 4+years and had 5 x 120hz monitors and 2 x 120hz projectors , 120hz doesn't magically cure all like some will have you believe
 
bee said:
watch that video above, especially the end bit, night and day to me, i've used 120hz for 4+years and had 5 x 120hz monitors and 2 x 120hz projectors , 120hz doesn't magically cure all like some will have you believe
Click to expand...

I did watch that video but it doesn't look any smoother than my monitor when it hits high frames. Are you saying that it will be that smooth on a g sync even when fps is low? Is that the big thing here?
 
bee said:
watch that video above, especially the end bit, night and day to me, i've used 120hz for 4+years and had 5 x 120hz monitors and 2 x 120hz projectors , 120hz doesn't magically cure all like some will have you believe
Click to expand...

exactly been using 120Hz since the Samsung 2233RZ in 09 and had a CRT before that and even with 120fps @ 120Hz there's still some judder

main thing im looking forward to with g-sync is cranking up the settings on some games without having to worry about smoothness when it runs at 50-70fps

currently i drop the settings on any game that cant run at 100+fps with my SLI 770s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom