AMD: DisplayPort 1.3 and HDMI 2.0 in 2016 Radeon GPUs, First FreeSync Over HDMI Monitors

andybird123 · 11 Dec 2015 at 00:12

No, I said I found it unlikely TVs would get freesync, you then started going off about what I said 6 months ago, which isn't what I said 6 months ago

It's down to context, people were saying that existing monitors were going to get free updates to include freesync, but none of them did. A UM65 would drop in price over time, but add on freesync and call it a UM67 and you get to keep charging the higher price. You were suggesting that mainstream £500 Telly's could have freesync, and I'm just saying I find it more likely to be £2k TVs that get it (if any). Given how appaling most £500 TVs are for input lag, you have to start getting to £1500 Samsung's before it gets below about 30ms, what is going to be the point of having freesync on a TV with 50ms input lag?

Consoles I don't think will have much impact on that either - Sony even make the PS4 and their Telly's have some of the worst input lag going!

bru · 11 Dec 2015 at 00:15

drunkenmaster said:
Not being dead TODAY doesn't mean that g-sync isn't dead in the future, it will be(in it's current additional hardware and huge cost increase incarnation). They will always have g-sync which everyone always said, it will just switch to being implemented using adaptive sync in the future.

I do have to agree G-Sync with its currant add in hardware wont last forever, adaptive sync has shown that the same thing more or less can be done with an VRR enabled scaler. I do agree that, that is probably the way it will go in the future. How long it will take to get there is anyone's guess.

Kaapstad · 11 Dec 2015 at 00:27

drunkenmaster said:
Yet the AOC monitor is £100 and has freesync, you also don't add £20-40 to the cost, you're comparing entirely different monitors that happen to be the same size but have entirely different panels and specifications.

Look at any non g-sync/freesync monitors, a screen with a faster response time, higher refresh rate and extra input costs more, £27 more for that is pretty much standard but you're insisting this cost is for freesync and that the extra port, better panel, higher refresh rate and better response time are all therefore free.

As for having to buy a screen therefore it's not free... no one ever claimed it was, only ridiculous people ever made the argument in the first place. Freesync has no ADDITIONAL hardware cost over a normal monitor is the only claim that has ever been made, thus even bringing up an argument of "you have to buy a screen therefore it isn't free" is completely ludicrous and shows quite obviously how weak your argument is.

YOu compare different screens with different specs to find a cost difference while ignoring the same screens with the same spec having no price difference with/without freesync.

There is absolute proof you are wrong and you counter this with stupid arguments. Freesync has more market penetration already, it has a wider range of price points, screen styles and has always offered better functionality of the screen like multiple inputs.

Not being dead TODAY doesn't mean that g-sync isn't dead in the future, it will be(in it's current additional hardware and huge cost increase incarnation). They will always have g-sync which everyone always said, it will just switch to being implemented using adaptive sync in the future.

Both Freesync and G-Sync are dinosaurs as at some point in the future monitor manufacturers will come up with a standard of their own that both AMD and NVidia will have to sign up to.

tommybhoy · 11 Dec 2015 at 00:32

Doubt it, there already is a freely available vrr system in place, they aren't going to insist on anything.

andybird123 said:
No, I said I found it unlikely TVs would get freesync

Cool, and I think it's inevitable, nothing wrong with either opinion, difference being I'll answer what you put in front of me, you don't.

andybird123 said:
you then started going off about what I said 6 months ago, which isn't what I said 6 months ago

Wut?

Youv'e read it wrong bud, I said:

tommybhoy said:
I rember you saying the same thing about monitor FS,~6 months after debut, scaler costs been absorbed, you think Sammsungs going to sit back and let LG run with an extra tick box feature-I don't think so, all it takes is one player to introduce TV FS.

Nothing in there talking about what you said 6 months ago, was talking about scaler costs being absorbed after 6 months. :cool:

varkanoid · 11 Dec 2015 at 00:32

Orangey said:
They could have done 4K120 months ago but instead they're going to drip feed us gradually bigger numbers in rez/refresh rate/response time to maximize profits.

When it finally comes it'll probably be crappy TN first, then "high-end" TN, then slow IPS, then fast VA, then slightly faster IPS, etc etc.

..and you are not going to want any of it if Quality Control doesnt improve.

I think I would prefer guarantee of no dead/stuck pixels or back light bleed and no dust behind the screen before 4k with 120mhz refresh.

Its okay pushing for advances with new tech when they cant even get the basic manufacturing processes correct.

tommybhoy · 11 Dec 2015 at 00:38

Agreed, the likes of Acer/Asus are extracting the urine with QC considering the premium.

Orangey · 11 Dec 2015 at 01:58

There is no time for QC when you are farting out a new model every 2 months.

shamus21 · 11 Dec 2015 at 07:21

DP1.3 & HDMI 2.0 Better late then never. Lets hope this fixes multi monitor issues.

Mtom · 11 Dec 2015 at 08:10

Kaapstad said:
Both Freesync and G-Sync are dinosaurs as at some point in the future monitor manufacturers will come up with a standard of their own that both AMD and NVidia will have to sign up to.

They already did.
Its called Adaptive-Sync (Freesync) and its a VESA standard.

KillBoY_UK · 11 Dec 2015 at 09:52

Mauller said:
Oh, thank you for your insightfulness. The last i heard the GPU's in all of the consoles were produced by AMD. I never realised that the numerous other components in the system were directly involved in graphics rendering and display output.

And considering that the current crop of consoles can't hold a stable FPS, i think the console makes would be wanting to push the feature if the consoles are capable.

Plus like with any technology, the TV makers have to produce them. Redundant argument to say that something wont get implemented because something doesn't yet exist. you need the thing to exist for implementation.

FS-HDMI currently a closed standard not currently part of the HDMI standard and will be relaying on custom scalers on the display device. So its extremely unlikely you will see it in this gen of consoles and a massive question mark on if it would make it in to the next gen of consoles.

andybird123 · 11 Dec 2015 at 09:58

tommybhoy said:
Nothing in there talking about what you said 6 months ago, was talking about scaler costs being absorbed after 6 months.

you said "you said the same thing about monitor FS"
the time between when I said something about monitor FS and now is irrelevant, again you are picking a completely tangential point just to try to "prove" me wrong on something, I was clarifying what I said about monitor FS which you kept challenging me on

tommybhoy · 11 Dec 2015 at 10:14

In relation to what I quoted you with, I'm not trying to prove you wrong, you dug that hole yourself, zero cost increase state you are wrong-fact.

maonayze · 11 Dec 2015 at 10:18

Someone throw Andybird a rope....that's quicksand your in and you are thrashing about like a shark. :eek:

I actually think that, just as we have seen AMD thinking further ahead than Nvidia with Parallelism/DX12 etc... they seem to have thought long and hard and further into the future with the tech that they are about to start pushing now.

HDMI FS is aimed at the future console market for sure....just as we are starting to see the PS4 and XBONE struggle with framerates on some of the AAA games out now....AMD/RTG seems to be one step ahead....at least in their ideas.

interesting times ahead indeed....2016 could really spark the return of AMD/RTG due to them looking at this from a much wider perspective than their rivals.....time will tell and we are all invited along for the ride.

The Futures bright.....the futures.....RED!.......possibily

Stanners · 11 Dec 2015 at 10:28

maonayze said:
Someone throw Andybird a rope....that's quicksand your in and you are thrashing about like a shark.

I actually think that, just as we have seen AMD thinking further ahead than Nvidia with Parallelism/DX12 etc... they seem to have thought long and hard and further into the future with the tech that they are about to start pushing now.

HDMI FS is aimed at the future console market for sure....just as we are starting to see the PS4 and XBONE struggle with framerates on some of the AAA games out now....AMD/RTG seems to be one step ahead....at least in their ideas.

interesting times ahead indeed....2016 could really spark the return of AMD/RTG due to them looking at this from a much wider perspective than their rivals.....time will tell and we are all invited along for the ride.

The Futures bright.....the futures.....RED!.......possibily

It is all old news

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/co...-amd-freesync-and-nvidia-gsync-over-hdmi.html

humbug · 11 Dec 2015 at 10:31

I'm struggling to understand what Any's problem is with it.

Just because he wouldn't benefit they shouldn't do it?

tommybhoy · 11 Dec 2015 at 10:42

Stanners said:
It is all old news

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/co...-amd-freesync-and-nvidia-gsync-over-hdmi.html

Wasn't that a case of just a secondary non vvr capable input?

humbug said:
I'm struggling to understand what Any's problem is with it.

Just because he wouldn't benefit they shouldn't do it?

His refusal to acknowledge the 'free' in FreeSync sounds like he just doesn't like the free part and it should carry cost because Nvidia charge for it?

humbug · 11 Dec 2015 at 10:54

tommybhoy said:
Wasn't that a case of just a secondary non vvr capable input?

His refusal to acknowledge the 'free' in FreeSync sounds like he just doesn't like the free part and it should carry cost because Nvidia charge for it?

No idea but the tech has potential in more than just Desktop gaming, a lot more if its going to be over HDMI, few manufacturing outside of Desktop gaming are going to pay $150 for a lump of hardware that they have to install when they can get the same thing for free, especially if it ties them to one vendor.
how long before Apple take up the tech with AMD's solution? the new Nintendo?

Nvidia will milk the module while the going is good and then drop it with a PR campaign on how brilliant their solution is and no longer a need for the module, its Inevitable.

Oh... and APU's in smart Telly's

Stanners · 11 Dec 2015 at 11:03

tommybhoy said:
Wasn't that a case of just a secondary non vvr capable input?

His refusal to acknowledge the 'free' in FreeSync sounds like he just doesn't like the free part and it should carry cost because Nvidia charge for it?

Not sure to be honest, I just took the article for what it states that Both AMD and Nvidia had Fs/Gs over hdmi. This was back in June so I guess the announcements we are hearing now are progressions from this(or maybe not

)

Phixsator · 11 Dec 2015 at 11:13

KillBoY_UK said:
a lot of it was good stuff but highly dependent of other company and group to support going forward. Also this in the Anandtech write up this is interesting:

So much for AMD being free and open with there standards ? Then again it could be what they need if they have the same level of control that nvidia do on Gsync with the entire chain (panels, monitors, scalers, drivers) before they rubber stamp a screen with FS-HDMI they will come out with a better product in the end.

Thats only because its not part of the HDMI standards..AMD wants it to be, therefor making it available to everyone, but until it is adopted by who ever controls what goes into the HDMI standards its easier this way(would be my guess)

Stanners said:
It is all old news

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/co...-amd-freesync-and-nvidia-gsync-over-hdmi.html

Its not old news if AMD/RTG is going for console freesync. I dont think G-sync would ever work with a console as long as its AMDs hardware that are powering it. We already have Freesync "TVs" from the korean market. The console market is not a bad place to be selling Freesync monitors and while AMD might not make any money directly from that it would give the owner more of a reason to pick up a Radeon graphics card the next time they are shopping for one since they have the panel that supports its.. Its sorta the same nvidia is already doing by with their g-sync screens just in a different order.

There is also all the dirt cheapo monitors that only ships with HDMI to lower production cost. Having these enabled with freesync wouldnt be a bad idea either as long as the scaler doesnt cost more.

humbug · 11 Dec 2015 at 11:16

AMD will lobby VSEA just as they did with A-Sync.