AMD : FreeSync Monitors Shipping in December – Will Cost $100 Less Than Nvidia G-Sync

[drunkenmaster]

Did you fail to read what I said or are you just being petty in picking out what I said and then disagreeing but agreeing later on? Your post disagree's with me and then goes on to agree with me.

Strange post in truth.

No part of my post agreed with your post at all. You rattled off a list of 'proprietary' tech's, in which the list included Nvidia's proprietary tech and supposedly AMD's. You were saying both had them thus how can one guy be the bad guy and the other not... your premise was incorrect because the AMD tech's you listed aren't proprietary.

 

[drunkenmaster]

I bet as much money as you like, nVidia will never ever support Freesync.

They can't support freesync so well done on betting the impossible.

Adaptive sync is a industry standard, freesync is the AMD graphics card side of controlling the signal being sent to the screen. It's literally like saying I bet Nvidia won't support Catalyst drivers, or overdrive(a feature of the driver).

Nvidia absolutely, unquestionably will support adaptive sync now and it's almost certain moving into the future screen makers will no longer use a scalar provided by Nvidia. Nvidia will still be g-sync, they will just use the industry standard method to connect to and talk to the screen. The g-sync chip containing panels will stay around till the models are replaced at which point screens with a stupid expensive FPGA scalar will be a thing of the past.

It's almost certain that at that point the significant g-sync panel cost increase will reduce but being Nvidia and based on sli/3dvision/other techs licensing costs it is likely that g-sync certification will be required for screens which will likely cost the monitor maker anything from $5-50 a screen depending on what Nvidia think they can get away with. As with SLI or 3dvision, or anything else they want, they can lock out the driver side of g-sync from working on screens that though they have adaptive sync, aren't certified.

 

[tommybhoy]

It won't specifically be 'Freesync' adoption(was slack in my phrasing), they'll call it something else and drop the module/licence fee is what I meant, otherwise the competition will have the upper hand-unless Freesync tech is **** of course-then Nvidia wouldn't need to.

 

[humbug]

Watch Nvidia NOT support Free-Sync and continue to try and push G-Sync.

 

[tommybhoy]

You were saying both had them thus how can one guy be the bad guy and the other not... your premise was incorrect because the AMD tech's you listed aren't proprietary.

AMD's Gaming Evovled-ALL gfx features gpu vendor agnostic.

V

Game Works-ALL gfx features aren't gpu vendor agnostic.

Mantle-vendor agnostic upon final release-It still works with Nvidia gpu present in the system.

True Audio-Licensed-gpu vendor agnostic-It still works with Nvidia gpu present in the system.

V

PhysX-ALL gpu physics calculations are proprietary-Nvidia go as far as disabling gpu Physics on their own hardware with AMD gpu present in the system.

Nvidia 3D-Disabled on fully fledged native 3D panels-even if you purchase the 3D Vision kit.

I make that The Good The Bad and The Downright Ugly.

 

[MrMarvelous]

NVidia can try and push G-Sync as much as they want. I honestly think only the die-hard NVidia fans will put up with their BS. Really looking forward to FreeSync coming out and seeing how it performs.

 

[drunkenmaster]

DM in ignoring what proprietary means shocker. Mantle is entirely owned and developed by AMD, it is not an industry standard. DX is proprietary to Microsoft, it isnt run by a 3rd party. *IF* AMD hand off mantle entirely to a 3rd party then it could become an open standard, however it is not, it is proprietary, albeit with AMD claiming they will make it available licence free.

I did include the definition in the post but here is a little more

Proprietary software or closed source software is computer software licensed under exclusive legal right of the copyright holder with the intent that the licensee is given the right to use the software only under certain conditions, and restricted from other uses, such as modification, sharing, studying, redistribution, or reverse engineering.[1][2] Usually the source code of proprietary software is not made available.

Complementary terms include free software,[2][3] licensed by the owner under more permissive terms, and public domain software, which is not subject to copyright and can be used for any purpose. Proponents of free and open source software use proprietary or non-free to describe software that is not free or open source.[4][5]

By how proprietary is used in the software industry, Mantle, Trueaudio and MLAA aren't proprietary in any way regardless of what you think. AMD have said Mantle will be free for anyone to use as they wish. They have handed it over to OpenGL and said do what the hell you want with it, Nvidia are part of the Kronos group as are Intel, thus both have COMPLETE access to it and are free to do what they please with it. OpenGL might well be implementing the bulk of it in their low level implementation, by MANY industry sources DX is built on top of Mantle and again AMD are known to have simply said to MS here is Mantle, do what you like with it, copy it, use it in full or build your own using ideas from it. This is completely at odds with every single commonly used definition of proprietary software.

The general definition in software and maybe a little more loosely with hardware is something locked in that no one else can use or can be licensed without source code and with significant restrictions on it's use are proprietary. Software made available freely for use by anyone that wants to use it is not called proprietary by anyone sensible.

MLAA is used by multiple companies and many have their own implentation and Trueaudio is an AMD specific implementation of something they have licensed from another company, that dozens, maybe hundreds of other companies license also.

 

[Gregster]

Is Mantle "Open-Source"? Is "TrueAudio" open-source? Is "CSAA" open-source? Is "PhysX" open-source? Is "MLAA" open-source? These are all closed off to AMD/nVidia and anyone they wish to share with (including of course, NDA's). Stop making out that everything AMD do is open to all, when it clearly isn't.

nVidia said they would open up PhysX and even your man Roy said it when he was at nVidia but I guess so long as you keep putting nVidia in the Dog house and AMD in the Spotlight of enlightenment, you will only see it as you want.

Edit:

And they can claim Adaptive Sync is open source, because all they did was ask VESA to add it in the DP standard.

 

[andybird123]

pretty big leap there, group members are welcome to submit ideas and even code to khronos for consideration as well as vote on items for inclusion, however khronos does not distribute submitted source code to all members, there is absolutely nothing to say that AMD gave full mantle source code to khronos and that they in turn distributed it to both intel and nvidia

khronos would have course work on specs with nvidia and intel in the same way that MS do, but none of that means that either khronos or MS give out complete source code, they don't need to, they only need to give out implementation specs because OpenGL itself is not open source because OpenGL is a specification for an API, it is not the implementation of the spec

I didn't mention trueaudio, but since you brought it up; trueaudio is licenced from Cadence Tensilica and is proprietary to them, AMD have licenced it, by definition it is not an open standard, to be able to use it nvidia would also have to licence it

And they can claim Adaptive Sync is open source, because all they did was ask VESA to add it in the DP standard.

being a pedant, adaptive sync is part of an open standard, it isn't open source because there is no source code to give out

 

[tommybhoy]

Vendor agnostic is the term your'e looking for-Open source is freely modifiable and different to proprietary, didn't absorb what is locked out and who locks it out then or is it too hard to comprehend that Nvidia is the bad boy of gaming?

 

[humbug]

I think Greg has "Open Source" and "Open Standard" Mixed up.

"Open Source" is what it says on the tin, the Source Code is given away, anyone can do with it what they like, "Open Standard" means anyone can use it but they can't change the Source Code.

AMD gave the Source Code of Mantle to Khronos to do with what they like, (AMD themselves are a khronos member)

TressFX, Global Illumination, 3D Shadows.... are Open Standard via Microsoft Direct Compute. Anyone who has a Direct Compute capable GPU can use it.

Free-Sync is Open Standard, Anyone with a Free-Sync Capable GPU can use it. Free-Sync Capability is simply to comply with the VESA Standard.

 

[bru]

Unfortunately on these forums Nvidia will always be the bad and AMD the good, it is up to you to decide if you agree with that or not.

Myself, there are several things that Nvidia do that annoy me (lock down certain things like PhysX, Gsync). But having said that there a loads of things that AMD do that annoy me too ( make a big fuss over a new tech [FreeSync], tell everyone how open it is [ which it isn't, it is Adaptive Sync that is open] and how much cheaper it will be than the opposition) Of course if the monitors arrive at similar prices to the Gsync counterparts it will be the monitor manufacturers faults not AMD's.

Bottom line is that they are both as bad as each other, they will both tell you that they only want what is best for gamers, which in itself I find nonsense, else all gaming GPU would be £50 . But of course that is ridiculous to suggest as they wouldn't stay in business for long.
So it would be much better for them to say we want what is best for gamers providing we can still make money from it.

 

[bru]

Free-Sync is Open Standard, Anyone with a Free-Sync Capable GPU can use it. Free-Sync Capability is simply to comply with the VESA Standard.

GRRRRRRRRRR


Freesync is not open at all.


Adaptive Sync is the open bit, you know the part that is in the Vesa standard.

Freesync is the hardware bit on the AMD GPU's.

 

[Rroff]

People keep bleating on about open this and open that... but I can't seem to recall anywhere in the history of GPUs where something being an open standard has ever actually been an advantage and in fact in many cases seems to have held back progress of that technology more often than not.

 

[humbug]

Yeah sure ^^^ Direct Compute is obsolete, No developer uses it or anything that runs with it... no wait..... they all do, well i never

DirectX is also a none starter, oh...hang on....

GRRRRRRRRRR


Freesync is not open at all.


Adaptive Sync is the open bit, you know the part that is in the Vesa standard.

Freesync is the hardware bit on the AMD GPU's.

Fine is you want to be pedantic, Free-Sync is not the name of the tech anyway, i think its Adaptive-Sync, Nvidia, Intel, Qualcoom, ARM..... can all have "A-Sync" or whatever they want to call it, all they have to do is make their GPU's compatible with the VESA standard.

Other than AMD working with VESA to get those standards it has nothing to do with them, its now down to individual vendors.

 

[Rroff]

Yeah sure ^^^ Direct Compute is obsolete, No developer uses it or anything that runs with it... no wait..... they all do, well i never

DirectX is also a none starter, oh...hang on....

Aside from DX, I was really meaning anything done by nVidia or AMD though didn't really word it very well.

 

[humbug]

Aside from DX, I was really meaning anything done by nVidia or AMD though didn't really word it very well.

You may be surprised at how much "Open Standard" tech is actually used in Games.

Nvidia PhysX has found its way into quite a lot of games, there are really only two or three types of Open Standard Physics, Havok being another, you find a lot of it in BF4, a recent game with Nvidia Open Standard PhysX is Thief, an AMD title, go figure...

Gloabal Illumination and 3D Shadows was not just a flash in the Pan for Dirt Showdown (although really at the time that was a showcase game for the tech) it was found in other games of the time, Nexiuz 2012 springs to mind.

Later: FarCry 3, Crysis 3, BF4, Alien Isolation.... to name a few off the top of my head.

What you see there is not ladled as this and that, but it is there and without those technologies games wouldn't look half as good.

 

[andybird123]

DirectX isnt an open standard, it is proprietary to Microsoft and windows

 

[andybird123]

I think Greg has "Open Source" and "Open Standard" Mixed up.

"Open Source" is what it says on the tin, the Source Code is given away, anyone can do with it what they like, "Open Standard" means anyone can use it but they can't change the Source Code.

Considering how many times i've had to explain that to you over and over, i'm at least glad that it has finally sunk in, bit rich to pull greg up on it mind

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

Lots of arguing over the semantics of open-source, open-standards and propriety here. Does anyone really care that much about it, to the point where they talk with their wallet and don't buy something that uses propriety tech or is it just something to be used in arguments to take shots at each other when there's nothing new to argue about?