I have trouble with that word. Good old google chrome spell checker always saves me though.
You also like your Sauce.
-
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.
AMD freesync coming soon, no extra costs.... shocker
- Thread starter drunkenmaster
- Start date
You also like your Sauce.
There are few monitors that support it, like every single new feature. Can it be added through firmware updates, possibly but lets think about who that benefits.... the end user, great, but the manufacturer? So they can sell you a new freesync compatible screen or enable a great option for free which will make them zero money...... I don't hold high hopes on that one
Silly question, in the first quote you seem to be implying that the monitor manufacturers will put a price premium on the panels that support this feature and in the second quote you seem to be saying that it will be free and there wont be a premium. So which do you really believe will be the case? My self I'm sure there will be a premium for such a feature although I wouldn't like to put a price on it.
On a separate note there has been a lot of mention of G-Sync being locked into Nvidia (needing the hardware in the monitor), but if this new FreeSync needs the built in hardware in the AMD GPU's how is this really any different, it is locked into AMD in the same fashion.
Before anyone says oh yes but Nvidia can build the hardware into their next chips, yes they can but just the same as AMD can support the Nvidia implementation. I know that it will all come down to cost but that is not the point I trying to make, I find it odd that one is being said to be open and one closed when in reality they are both locked to their own vendors.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
he's not saying AMD plan to lock it, he's saying that just because AMD push to have this added to VESA doesn't mean that Nvidia have to add it to their cards or that it will be added to either "for free"... if Nvidia choose not to add the new hardware (if it needs any) then effectively anyone who buys a "freesync" monitor will still be "locked to AMD" in the same way that someone who buys a gsync monitor is "locked to NVidia"
either monitor can still be used by any card in non-freesync/gsync mode, but obviously if you buy a freesync/gsync monitor then you are going to err towards a repeat purchase on GPU's to go with it
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,243
- Location
- Edinburgh
The difference being one is an industry standard so nVidia wouldn't need to licence the technology and are free to decide if they want to support it while nVidia could charge AMD any amount they like or just not licence gsync to them at all, so AMD don't have the option of supporting it in future.
Edit: Quoted the wrong guy! I'm an idiot...
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 2,877
- Location
- -
Why was this technology demonstrated on new tablets supporting the V_BLANK commands, and not on one of the countless monitors or TVs that surely supports it?
So has it been explained why Freesync is being compared to G-sync yet? because the way I see it:
Adaptive V-sync
Smooths out <60fps
Stops tearing but suffers input lag >60fps due to v-sync.
Freesync
Smooths out <60fps
Stops tearing but suffers input lag >60fps due to v-sync.
More power efficient - useful in battery powered devices.
G-Sync
Smooths out <60fps
Stops tearing >60fps and no v-sync related input lag.
This is a lot of hype over nothing (aside from potential power savings in certain screens).
All of these articles comparing it to G-Sync are neglecting to mention that the primary reason for G-Sync is to give the v-sync-less experience without tearing above 60fps, Freesync will have input lag due to v-sync being enabled.
Adaptive V-sync
Smooths out <60fps
Stops tearing but suffers input lag >60fps due to v-sync.
Freesync
Smooths out <60fps
Stops tearing but suffers input lag >60fps due to v-sync.
More power efficient - useful in battery powered devices.
G-Sync
Smooths out <60fps
Stops tearing >60fps and no v-sync related input lag.
This is a lot of hype over nothing (aside from potential power savings in certain screens).
All of these articles comparing it to G-Sync are neglecting to mention that the primary reason for G-Sync is to give the v-sync-less experience without tearing above 60fps, Freesync will have input lag due to v-sync being enabled.
Last edited:
Adaptive V-sync does not eliminate tearing under 60Hz (or whatever yout monitor's refresh is). It simply enables v-sync dynamically, ie on > 60hz , off <60hz
We don't know enough about Free-sync to make this conclusion. For all we know Free-sync could indeed eliminate v-sync lag.
This is a lot of hype over nothing (aside from potential power savings in certain screens).
This is just your assumption based on limited data. Until we know more we cannot conclude this is the only benefit.
The fact that the Free-sync article neglected to mention input lag does seem bizarre considering it is one of the main selling points of G-sync.
We need more info.
AMD do not need to, but VESA themselves can. VESA standards are not free, so any features monitor manufacturers add to their monitors, will attract a premium. Be it freesync or g-sync.
If it needs the hardware that is present in AMD GPU's then it wont work on non AMD GPU's.
Didn't the original article say it was a proposed VESA standard? or have I got confused during the reading of this thread?
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
The first post I wasn't implying what you think I was, put simply.
A £200 screen that supports freesync, a £200 screen that has identical features but has been updated to support freesync. If you have neither and need a screen, it's £200 either way. If you already have a screen, and most people do, then there is little financial incentive to add in a feature to the existing screen, when by not doing so you generate more sales for a new £200 screen.
That is a very far cry from having two screens, what costing £200 without freesync, another that supports it, costs absolutely nothing more to produce, but you price at £300.
Personally I don't believe "freesync" is anything Nvidia can't do, I believe strongly that they've used an overly expensive FPGA to short cut the time to market of already coming "normal" chips that will add the same feature. FPGA's are essentially programmable chips, a more normal fixed function chip doing the same job will 99% of the time be hugely smaller, hugely more efficient, hugely cheaper. FPGA's advantage is time to market basically, and R&D cost(if you just add some programming to a FPGA you buy off the shelf, making your own FPGA would be much much harder).
The only real reason to make an FPGA version with all the downsides and increased cost, and losing extra inputs on the monitor, is time to market. There is no way in hell it will be a FPGA solution into the future, even if AMD could never do freesync, it would benefit Nvidia/Asus/whoever financially to replace it with final fixed function chips.
Everything about it screams, this is standard but we did it this way to short cut to market and make it ours. Nothing particularly wrong with that, except the cost to end users, which is my only problem with g-sync.
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Outside of you saying (I assume) freesync doesn't work above 60fps and so it's just v-sync..... I've seen no other claim remotely to this.
Secondly, adaptive v-sync does not change the refresh rate of the panel, AT ALL, g-syncs main feature, is variable refresh rate, freesync's main feature is, variable refresh rate.
Variable refresh rate, g-sync and freesync do this. Adaptive v-sync has nothing at all to do with changing the monitors refresh rate, the question is when freesync is 100% clearly on the same line as g-sync and can't even possibly be compared to adaptive v-sync, why are you pushing that line of thinking?
Another point, Nvidia's own patents talk AT LENGTH about power saving features of adaptable refresh rate... it's where the idea stemmed from in the first place and IS a major feature of g-sync also(you will see this when you get g-sync enabled mobile devices, they WILL advertise it as a feature).
Lastly, why do you in none of your lists there suggest g-sync, v-sync or freesync reduce tearing below 60fps?
Tearing is when a frame updates as the screen is being refreshed, it's a timing issue, it doesn't relate to frame rate at all and tearing is significantly magnified at lower frame rates.
A HUGE feature of g-sync is getting rid of tearing below 60fps, I just find it odd you missed it out in all scenarios.
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
It's not about the hardware needed on the GPU, the lock in is on the screens. Nvidia can say "though screen x supports xxx-sync, and we could choose to support that, we won't, you can only use the screens we approve".
If the monitor supports a feature that ANY hardware is freely capable of supporting, the specific hardware implementation from Nvidia, AMD or Intel locks no one else in/out from that screen.
Nvidia, AMD/Intel, Qualcomm, Apple, Samsung, can make a active decision to support something that would become industry standard, or choose not to support it. Most people choose to support these things, Nvidia do for most industry standards.
It's when you go an alternative route to specifically lock in your own users, and charge for it, that people have a problem.
Everyone's hardware solution will be slightly different, it's knowing that it's a standard screen that matters, and that it would work with any gpu you used it with(except maybe Nvidia) that makes it not locked in.
Vblanking is an option on that laptop, if you put that screen in another laptop with Intel cpu/gpu, the screen hasn't changed, the vblanking option is there, the only thing stopping it working would be Intel refusing to support it, fully entitled to, but AMD couldn't in any way prevent Intel from using that vblanking method of doing freesync.
As with g-sync, AMD will likely call it some name, freesync or something more, professional, trademark the name, like 3dvision or anything else, and then that trademarked name would encompass their own entire package, hardware, driver, and output, but it stops there. Intel might call their hardware and driver "latesync", it might do everything in hardware/software completely differently, it might be better or worse, send out better or worse timed frames, but it hits a standard cable, gets to a standard monitor and the monitor does it's own thing no matter where those frames came from.