• 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

Martini1991 said:
Did you read the quote? The cost would be to the manufacturer, how is that imposed by the screen vendor? The cost to a UK customer would likely be around 25-30 quid (Dodgy conversion etc).

Gsync has nothing to do about Freesync not being free, lets not pretend it is.

For months all we've had is "HA, AMD ARE DOING GSYNC FOR FREE". And Huddy (AKA AMD God) says otherwise now.
Click to expand...

The quote is unclear, AMD said they would not be charging Screen Vendors, that begs the question who is charging Screen Vendors for what?

If AMD are charging Screen Vendors then yes they lied, the text in the way its written throws up more questions, as it is not clear on who is imposing that charge and for what.

It needs to be cleared up.
 
Last edited:
AMD don't need to charge the vendor for production costs to raise, the quote doesn't need clearing up, it's logic. Ignoring the fact that this isn't AMD tech, their implementation is, but to get the feature in the first place, you're paying the extra from the extra manufacturing costs.

And I'm pretty sure you're going to try and swindle this your way now.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
AMD don't need to charge the vendor for production costs to raise, the quote doesn't need clearing up, it's logic.
Click to expand...

Well, If for example Screen Vendors are choosing to pass on a cost for using more upto date Display ports then it is them who are imposing extra costs.

While it maybe perfectly reasonable for Screen Vendors to do that its hardly AMD's responsibility or fault.
 
humbug said:
Well, If for example Screen Vendors are choosing to pass on a cost for using more upto date Display ports then it is them who are imposing extra costs.

While it maybe perfectly reasonable for Screen Vendors to do that its hardly AMD's responsibility or fault.
Click to expand...

The potential manufacturing cost has been mentioned since the middle of June ;

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=26472663&postcount=16

The 1.3 part costing more due to the stock of 1.2's, or 1.3's costing more to manufacturer.

Either way, I'd reiterated the point last month and nothing was said.

The argument has been "At no extra cost", there is an added cost, it's pretty black and white.
 
Is it not always the case when new Monitor Technology comes around you pay more for it. I assume when Dp 1.2 came around you were paying more for it than a similar model with Dp 1.1. Now when Dp 1.3 comes around forgetting anything about Free-sync would you expect to pay more for a monitor using it compared to the same monitor with 1.2. It would seem to me the cost's being talked about are more about Dp 1.3 compared to 1.2.

Now what happens when it's a dp 1.3 monitor and there's a G-Sync version. The added cost of the G-Sync version is where part of the free comes in. I assume everyone in here wants monitor tech to move on to Dp 1.3 even if Free-Sync never existed as i assume it has other benefits where Sync is not involved.
 
Martini1991 said:
The potential manufacturing cost has been mentioned since the middle of June ;

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=26472663&postcount=16

The 1.3 part costing more due to the stock of 1.2's, or 1.3's costing more to manufacturer.

Either way, I'd reiterated the point last month and nothing was said.

The argument has been "At no extra cost", there is an added cost, it's pretty black and white.
Click to expand...

The added cost is technology moving on whether Free-Sync was involved or not. If you take the Sync away Dp 1.3 was always going to cost more as is the way this market works.
 
TheRealDeal said:
Now what happens when it's a dp 1.3 monitor and there's a G-Sync version. The added cost of the G-Sync version is where part of the free comes in. I assume everyone in here wants monitor tech to move on to Dp 1.3 even if Free-Sync never existed as i assume it has other benefits where Sync is not involved.
Click to expand...

That's an assumption though (It may not be incorrect, but that doesn't mean one can act like there's any weight behind it yet) there's 2 monitors in circulation that are like for like the same, exception 1 Gsync, 1 not Gsync and they're the same price.
 
humbug said:
So where did AMD lie?
Click to expand...

Sorry, it's typical AMD fashion, it's not an out and out lie, it's just a statement that's portrayed as something else.

More a half truth, they're clever at that.

AMD were banging on about no added cost, there's an added cost (In one hand it's a lie, if you take another perspective, it's not a lie. But it's certainly not the whole truth)
 
pgi947 said:
As pointed out before those are different specced monitors outside of gsync. The cheaper doesn't come with ulmb or 3dvision.

I'm not defending AOC's pricing of it, but you would have a better point comparing it against another 3dvision 2.0 monitor.
Click to expand...

Ulmb is part of Gsync no?

If it isn't native 3D it doesn't count as a feature-it's another added cost.:p

Isn't any 120hz+ non native 3D panel monitor 3Dvision capable if Nvidia give the thumbs up due to the gpu outputting twin 60Hz signals?
 
Martini1991 said:
That's an assumption though (It may not be incorrect, but that doesn't mean one can act like there's any weight behind it yet) there's 2 monitors in circulation that are like for like the same, exception 1 Gsync, 1 not Gsync and they're the same price.
Click to expand...

Show me these 2 monitor's. If they don't have the same name ie Asus v Acer then it's not comparable. One see's themselves as a premium Brand and the other not. My Tv is an Lg and was Specced higher than most Samsung's yet Samsung decided there name plastered on the Tv was worth a few hundred extra. From what i have read Lg and Samsung use the same Panels on some of there model's.
 
TheRealDeal said:
Show me these 2 monitor's. If they don't have the same name ie Asus v Acer then it's not comparable. One see's themselves as a premium Brand and the other not. My Tv is an Lg and was Specced higher than most Samsung's yet Samsung decided there name plastered on the Tv was worth a few hundred extra. From what i have read Lg and Samsung use the same Panels on some of there model's.
Click to expand...

They don't need to have the same name to be comparable, having just checked OCUK, all the none Gsync 4K's have lowered.

So, there's now anywhere between costing 70 pound more than the same panel none Gsync, to costing 40 quid less than the same panel none Gsync.

But at the time the Gsync one lowered, the pricing was at a parity.
 
Martini1991 said:
Sorry, it's typical AMD fashion, it's not an out and out lie, it's just a statement that's portrayed as something else.

More a half truth, they're clever at that.

AMD were banging on about no added cost, there's an added cost (In one hand it's a lie, if you take another perspective, it's not a lie. But it's certainly not the whole truth)
Click to expand...

That's kind of a broad statement.

Its £20 for technology evolution, some vendors may even chose to reduce or not to pass on that cost of progression its so small.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom