• 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

Marine-RX179 said:
Nobody can say for sure until we see some solid pricing on the Freesync monitor. But for Gsync, the AOC practically same 1920 monitor with and without Gsync have something like £180-£200 price difference...people can get a 2nd hand 290 with that kind of money.

People with for example a GTX660 paying that cost would just be for enabling Gsync support, while they graphic card would still remain the same GTX660; if Freesync doesn't demanding a price premium like Gsync does, it could potentially mean spending same money, but people not only getting the sync feature, but an upgrade from GTX660/7870 to a 290 as well.
Click to expand...

If they can all get second hand 290s for £200.
Surely we also need to see some more GSync monitors with and without?
I believe there are also £500 4K Gsync monitors, which seems close to other 4K monitors, but since there doesn't seem to be a non-GSync version it's hard to tell if it would be ~ £300. ~£300 for a non-GSync 4K monitor still seems like a good price. You can probably find non-GSync 1440p monitors for that sort of money.
 
GoogalyMoogaly said:
If they can all get second hand 290s for £200.
Surely we also need to see some more GSync monitors with and without?
I believe there are also £500 4K Gsync monitors, which seems close to other 4K monitors, but since there doesn't seem to be a non-GSync version it's hard to tell if it would be ~ £300. ~£300 for a non-GSync 4K monitor still seems like a good price. You can probably find non-GSync 1440p monitors for that sort of money.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt that the £500 Acer Gsync monitors is good value in a sense (for people with or prepared to pay for multiple high-end Nvidia cards), but realistically it is a mis-match for mid-range cards users, as mid-range card won't have the muscle to drive 4K, and they'd end up running 1920 res with Gsync. So they still end-up paying £500 for 1920 res G-sysc, and doesn't add value for them.

Yea you might say with the 4K, the owner would even get the benefit and value eventually when he upgrade Graphic card powerful enough to drive 4K, but with current high-end up lag quite behind and far from properly pushing 4K (need 3 of them and tonnes of vram), even with £600+ worth of graphic cards. By the time that two £200 graphic card can drive 4K with all the bows and whistles, Nvidia would probably already have released Gsync 2.0 monitors and graphic card by then, similar to how Nvidia 3D was.
 
Last edited:
You can't compare something that isn't here in prices, or even at a manufacturing stage. Sure G-Sync adds cost but the guys buying know this and happy to pay this. And i am sure Freesync will be a cheaper option but G-Sync is here and Freesync isn't. Not really a choice is there?
 
Will freesync capable monitors be cheaper then Gsync on launch ? Answer .We dont know until they are released . Like any New tech i expect early adopters to pay a premium
 
Martini1991 said:
There's still far more Nvidia cards which support g sync than there is amd cards that support freesync.
Click to expand...

Really? Will there be much difference? you forget that all GCN APUs support freesync. people using Nvidia 5xx series cards and older will have to upgrade if they want Gsync.
 
melmac said:
Really? Will there be much difference? you forget that all GCN APUs support freesync. people using Nvidia 5xx series cards and older will have to upgrade if they want Gsync.
Click to expand...

Serious gamers who are actually interested in say Freesync and resolutions like 1080p and upwards are very unlikely to be gaming with a Kaveri. Besides, it's very obvious we're talking discrete GPU's. Although, looking at FM2+ boards, there doesn't appear to be many (If any, I didn't look at them all) which even has display port, so the kaveri supporting it is rendered moot.

Nvidia has Gsync support from their more gamer orientated offerings from Q1/Q2 2012, whereas from AMD it's the highest 2 offerings in Q4 2013 and a lower mid range part, AMD are soon to bolster the capable line up, but still.

How many capable AMD GPU's were bought in that time frame compared to capable Nvidia GPU's? Logic would dictate it's Nvidia who have far more market share in Gsync capable cards than AMD has Freesync capable cards.
 
Last edited:
Some older AMD cards like the 7000 series iirc are compatible with freesync for watching movies etc,, Not gaming, Gaming is the newer ones only, Thats how they got around saying what cards were supported, pretty sure thats what i read but i'm sure someone will confirm/deny
 
I'm just baffled as to why this was not done so much earlier. It just seems like such an obvious thing do, that is variable refresh rates governed by the graphics card. Instead we've had to put up with screen tearing and vsync all these years. I even mentioned this very idea many years ago and people were ridiculing me, as if it was inconceivable .
 
Last edited:
titaniumx3 said:
I'm just baffled as to why this was not done so much earlier. It just seems like such an obvious thing do, that is variable refresh rates governed by the graphics card. Instead we've had to put up with screen tearing and vsync all these years. I even mentioned this very idea many years ago and people were ridiculing me, as if it was inconceivable .
Click to expand...

Same here.
 
titaniumx3 said:
I'm just baffled as to why this was not done so much earlier. It just seems like such an obvious thing do, that is variable refresh rates governed by the graphics card. Instead we've had to put up with screen tearing and vsync all these years. I even mentioned this very idea many years ago and people were ridiculing me, as if it was inconceivable .
Click to expand...

NVidia put research and investment into a hardware solution after already offering adaptive v-sync via their drivers.

AMD had no choice but to come up with their own version of it but as usual it's all a bit unrefined and ghetto on their side.
 
mmj_uk said:
NVidia put research and investment into a hardware solution after already offering adaptive v-sync via their drivers.

AMD had no choice but to come up with their own version of it but as usual it's all a bit unrefined and ghetto on their side.
Click to expand...

lol having it built into the displayport standard is not "unrefined" or "ghetto"
crazy!

if it turns out not as good as g-sync, then you can call it unrefined i guess :)
 
shankly1985 said:
You sure about that? Because the 60hz version will work from 9-60hz who will be playing at less than 9fps?
Click to expand...

I'm as sure as anyone can be when there getting the info from someone else, I'm simply quoting Richard Huddy from the PC per interview where he said the cheaper monitors will have a smaller range he gave an example as one monitor may have a working range of 20-30 fps meaning it will work as long as the fps stays between 30 and 60. I gave the source in the post your replying too,
Theoretically 60hz monitors can have a max range of between 9 and 60 hz/fps but not every monitor will have the full range it will depend on the monitor's quality and cost.
He said it not me. If you doubt what I'm saying go and watch the interview. As you just quoted there potential ranges and from what he said it seems that the best 60hz monitors may have the capability to use it from 9 to 60 but cheaper 60 hz monitors won't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom