• 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

humbug said:
All Tomy is saying is AMD and Intel get G-Sync in another form on compatible screens for no extra cost, while with Nvidia you get G-Sync on compatible screens that cost $150 more.

The good thing is Nvidia could adopt the same version AMD and Intel would be using if they wanted to.

Whats wrong with that?
Click to expand...

we don't actually know if monitor manufacturers are going to try to sell their "freesync" monitor versions for more or less as none of them exist yet

in theory they should be even cheaper than the standard model as a freesync monitor will have a single port and no scaler hardware at all

we've also not seen production models side by side on gsync yet, so the cost is still debatable - the only "gsync" monitor on sale is a custom modified one so all we know is the cost that some retailers are charging for a modding service which is not the same thing

tommybhoy said:
@greg

If that was aimed at me then that's bs.

@andy

I'm well aware what works on what, I only picked up on that particular quote as bru tends to be negative in anything AMD so I skipped the rest.

The physx part, can you point out out source where AMD specifically declined Nvidias offer and what the conditions were please, all I have ever seen is along the lines of Nvidia stating 'we are open to other vendors using PhysX' while actively going out their way blocking Physx on their own hardware when an AMD gpu is present in the system.
Click to expand...

it is somewhere in the "gameworks usurps power" threadnought, though I'll be buggered if I can be bothered to go find it
 
andybird123 said:
we don't actually know if monitor manufacturers are going to try to sell their "freesync" monitor versions for more or less as none of them exist yet
Click to expand...



There's no documentation to suggest that EPD1.3 standard will be similar. It takes awhile for a standard to be implemented, years in fact. I'd just like to see G-Sync running for myself before anyone else tries to say they "called it" that it's NV being money grabbers lol. :rolleyes:
 
bru said:
So which other currant GPU's will this work on then? If it needs the hardware that is on the AMD GPU's.....oh would that be none....so my original statement at this point in time is factually correct, now if I had of written it in 5 months time who knows if it would be correct or not, but right now it is correct.
Click to expand...

Intel supports the eDP standard required and is likely using the same method, they've demo'd it before. No matter how much you try and keep rephrasing the argument you were implying AMD could "lock" this in. The key word is lock, AMD could lock no one out of using a free standard on a monitor Nvidia CAN lock out whoever they want from freesync.

bru said:
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.
Click to expand...

You and greg now are making excuses for why AMD guys are calling the Nvidia version locked and saying isn't the AMD method locked in also.

This is exactly what you said, then repeated in another post. There is no misinterpretation.

It is different. AMD can NOT implement what Nvidia have done without Nvidia allowing it, Nvidia CAN implement what AMD have done without question, with absolutely no limits from AMD, or Intel or anyone else.


AMD's implementation uses an industry standard from the monitor, anyone at any time they so choose can access this feature of the monitor, this is not locked to being a feature only workable by AMD gpu's, AMD have no say in who accesses the feature on the monitor. It is absolutely categorically NOT locked to AMD.

Your original question was patently clear, your next statement was factually incorrect as the option to change frame rate on the monitor does NOT require AMD hardware at all. Your responses to your questions being answered were instantly hostile and Greg's defence via claiming everyone misunderstood, have a patently clear agenda as usual.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Intel supports the eDP standard required and is likely using the same method, they've demo'd it before. No matter how much you try and keep rephrasing the argument you were implying AMD could "lock" this in. The key word is lock, AMD could lock no one out of using a free standard on a monitor Nvidia CAN lock out whoever they want from freesync.
Click to expand...

is it all getting a bit confusing for you?
 
Yeah pull him up on that he loves a bit of correction :D.

If people want to wait 6 to 12 months to see if DP1.3 can do this via a few hours of work from AMD's driver team (and a new monitor lol) then let them. Meanwhile I'll be seeing what Greg thinks of the working article.
 
LtMatt said:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...h-FreeSync-Could-Be-Alternative-NVIDIA-G-Sync
Click to expand...

A quote from a reader of that article

"Should we say "thank you Nvidia" for this one?

or should we just start shouting at Nvidia for not promoting something that it is there and free in cooperation with AMD and the monitor manufacturers, but trying to sell another proprietary technology for some extra cash out of something that it is/should be free?"

That's an interesting question. With both Nvidia and AMD pushing for an industry standard it could be pushed through faster and benefit the pc gaming industry which in the long term may have benefited Nvidia more than G-Sync. The PC needs all these new techs to keep it ahead of consoles and to differentiate itself from the consoles. I think in the short term G-Sync will do Nvidia no harm but if consoles keep eating away at the pc Nvidia may find themselves in harder times. There should be times where Amd and Nvidia work together for the bettering of there main platform which is the pc.
 
Last edited:
andybird123 said:
it is somewhere in the "gameworks usurps power" threadnought, though I'll be buggered if I can be bothered to go find it
Click to expand...

That's one of gregs 'we are open to other vendors'=we offered AMD PhysX posts, not one of the articles show any proof of specifically offering AMD PhysX and more importantly-what conditions had(if any) to be met.

You will not find evidence anywhere of the details as they were not made public.

What about this bit as you ignored the disabled PhysX on Nvidia gpu's that I addressed?

Hello JC,

I’ll explain why this function was disabled.

PhysX is an open software standard. Any company can freely develop hardware or software that supports it. NVIDIA supports GPU accelerated PhysX on NVIDIA GPUs while using NVIDIA GPUs for graphics. NVIDIA performs extensive Engineering, Development, and QA work that makes PhysX a great experience for customers. For a variety of reasons–some development expense some quality assurance and some business reasons–NVIDIA will not support GPU accelerated PhysX with NVIDIA GPUs while GPU rendering is happening on non-NVIDIA GPUs. I’m sorry for any inconvenience caused but I hope you can understand.

Best Regards,
Troy
NVIDIA Customer Care
Click to expand...

If I could be bothered, I would do a **** and scour the net for Manuel G's forum post that contains the same wording.
 
andybird123 said:
no, there was a link to an article where a third party dev tried to make a physx on AMD tool, they got help from nvidia but AMD told them to do one
Click to expand...

It got ignored/dismissed as per usual, as it didn't fit their arguments. Don't forget that nVidia are the bad guys and anything that makes them look decent will be dismissed. AMD Roy has claimed nobody wants PhysX, so there was not a hell's chance of AMD taking it on.

You only need to look at the GameWorks libraries and Nvidia are crippling performance on AMD hardware because of adding these effects to AMD cards. :o
 
tommybhoy said:
That's one of gregs 'we are open to other vendors'=we offered AMD PhysX posts, not one of the articles show any proof of specifically offering AMD PhysX and more importantly-what conditions had(if any) to be met.

You will not find evidence anywhere of the details as they were not made public.

What about this bit as you ignored the disabled PhysX on Nvidia gpu's that I addressed?



If I could be bothered, I would do a **** and scour the net for Manuel G's forum post that contains the same wording.
Click to expand...

Hello JC,

I’ll explain why this function was disabled.

PhysX is an open software standard. Any company can freely develop hardware or software that supports it. NVIDIA supports GPU accelerated PhysX on NVIDIA GPUs while using NVIDIA GPUs for graphics. NVIDIA performs extensive Engineering, Development, and QA work that makes PhysX a great experience for customers. For a variety of reasons–some development expense some quality assurance and some business reasons–NVIDIA will not support GPU accelerated PhysX with NVIDIA GPUs while GPU rendering is happening on non-NVIDIA GPUs. I’m sorry for any inconvenience caused but I hope you can understand.

Best Regards,
Troy
NVIDIA Customer Care
Click to expand...
Looks pretty straight forward to me. Nvidia offered up CPU PhysX and it was taken up, Nvidia did not offer up GPU PhysX.
 
tommybhoy said:
It's as simple as one is free, the other one must be paid for, I can't help it if certain users try to imply an open standard as proprietary tech.
Click to expand...

Pure and utter assumption.

One is 'Free'. Free how? Nobody knows yet!! Nobody knows hardware requirements, nobody knows how it will perform, if at all.

You cannot compare now. You cannot say, categorically "Freeysnc gives you G-Sync for free" because nobody even knows what Freesync is capable of, how it would compare to G-Sync and what the pros and cons of both are.

I think it's utterly ridiculous the opening and continued theme of this thread is "Freesync gives you G-Sync for free, screw nVidia!" At best it should have been speculation on what Freesync could offer, how and with what hardware.

Instead we get mostly worthless trash talking.
 
hehe wow angry thread!!

hm yes free-sync might not be free!
could just have a ironic name!?

i dont know how many will bother with £400+ for a tn screen
so it should make a lot of people happy IF it does compare! :) <3
 
humbug said:
Looks pretty straight forward to me.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows PhysX is locked out regardless whether it was offered or not.


Sin_Chase said:
Pure and utter assumption.
Click to expand...

If you are trying to put words in my mouth yes.

Facts

Freesync-FREE

Gsync-additional cost.

@Greg,

Is that it now?

Child like posting instead of positive discussion, your using the easy way out:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom