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

Silent_Scone · 8 Dec 2014 at 13:43

http://www.amd.com/Documents/FreeSync-Whitepaper.pdf

AMDs FreeSync white paper elaborates a little bit more.

Oh.

Uncle Petey · 8 Dec 2014 at 13:48

Reminds me of when I was in primary school and we were asked to write a story as homework.
I ended up just copying a published short story and thought nobody would notice if I just changed a few words

GoogalyMoogaly · 8 Dec 2014 at 13:50

andybird123 said:
by not releasing the freesync drivers to spite them

It'd stop FreeSync working, wouldn't stop them releasing a monitor with the DisplayPort 1.2a spec, including Adaptive-sync though. At least they'd have Adaptive-Sync monitors in homes for when Freesync launched.

nitram100 said:
MM is going to be flooded with 120hz screens over the next few months.

I cannot wait to get a FreeSync monitor

You think that many people will change?
Did that many Nvidia owners change when GSync came out?

Personally it doesn't interest me that much that'd I'd buy a new monitor just for it. It'd be nice to have on the next monitor I do buy (Adaptive-Sync or GSync), but I'll be wanting more from the monitor than just GSync/Freesync compatibility.
For example if they bring out a decent 4K IPS monitor that does 120/144Hz or more and it happens to have GSync/Freesync then great, but if they released my current monitor with no changes except Adaptive-sync then I wouldn't rush out and get it.

Uncle Petey · 8 Dec 2014 at 13:54

The only reason I'm interested is because I'm waiting for more 3440 screens to come out anyway. If they have Freesync, then hey, good timing.

Silent_Scone · 8 Dec 2014 at 13:58

Looking again it does give credit to Shane Parfitt. I've spoken to him a few times, he actually rang me a few months ago with the AOC timing issue. Nice bloke but wet as a fish.

if anything that's a sight into just how small a division it is up in Canada working on this

drunkenmaster · 8 Dec 2014 at 14:23

Did people fail to notice the Vesa document is dated MAY 2013. Thus AMD was working on this with Vesa to the point they produced this document what 6-7 months before Nvidia launched g-sync. We can presume that AMD/Vesa were working on this way before that document was made. Who copied who, who came up with it and pushed the idea and then who jumped the gun making a non industry standard version to pretend like they came up with the idea... seems fairly clear to me.

andybird123 · 8 Dec 2014 at 14:23

GoogalyMoogaly said:
It'd stop FreeSync working, wouldn't stop them releasing a monitor with the DisplayPort 1.2a spec, including Adaptive-sync though. At least they'd have Adaptive-Sync monitors in homes for when Freesync launched.

What I meant was that presumably AMD have asked them not to announce anything, allowing Samsung to beat them to the punch... if the other manufacturers ignored the request then AMD could still monitor-block them by not releasing the freesync drivers - I'm sure most people will be waiting for reviews before buying one, so no drivers, no reviews, few sales anyway... benq and viewsonic have very little to gain by ignoring AMD's request to allow Samsung to launch first (if they have)

andybird123 · 8 Dec 2014 at 14:24

drunkenmaster said:
Did people fail to notice the Vesa document is dated MAY 2013. Thus AMD was working on this with Vesa to the point they produced this document what 6-7 months before Nvidia launched g-sync. We can presume that AMD/Vesa were working on this way before that document was made. Who copied who, who came up with it and pushed the idea and then who jumped the gun making a non industry standard version to pretend like they came up with the idea... seems fairly clear to me.

actually, the document is dated *MARCH 2014* on the first page, if they can't even get matching dates through the document that I'd doubt the veracity of such a claim
if you download the file and look in the properties within a pdf viewer the created/modified date is 02/07/14 - July 2014

the date on AMD's white paper is March 2014, so it seems pretty clear that VESA took AMD's document and put VESA on it and published it later - in July - they just screwed up changing the date from March 2014 to May 2013 instead of 2014 when they started editing it

drunkenmaster · 8 Dec 2014 at 14:32

Yes, it's likely the first page was updated, there is no reason for the 2013/may to be there, can you misspell May as March easily even if you hit a 3 instead of a 4.

Again don't forget this tech and the standard involved has been used in eDP for like 4+ years, that it would get pushed into desktop displays was pretty much inevitable.

shankly1985 · 8 Dec 2014 at 14:34

andybird123 said:
actually, the document is dated *MARCH 2014* on the first page, if they can't even get matching dates through the document that I'd doubt the veracity of such a claim
if you download the file and look in the properties within a pdf viewer the created/modified date is 02/07/14 - July 2014

the date on AMD's white paper is March 2014, so it seems pretty clear that VESA took AMD's document and put VESA on it and published it later - in July - they just screwed up changing the date from March 2014 to May 2013 instead of 2014

Might want to look again

Very doubt you can miss spell March with May.

andybird123 · 8 Dec 2014 at 14:38

shankly1985 said:
Might want to look again

Very doubt you can miss spell March with May.

it is the 2013 that is a typo

drunkenmaster · 8 Dec 2014 at 14:42

Ah, it should read July 2014, but accidentally got typed May 2013. When the document was put together in a PDF and when they wrote it are different things.

Considering you generally put together such presentation things to be submitted for approval and considering it can take a stupid amount of time to get people to agree to new standards they ratify/verify/test such things, it's very likely AMD and Vesa were working on this a pretty damn long time ago.

It should you know also be a hint that it's called FINAL in the title, suggestion, you know, previous versions that have since been amended.

Orangey · 8 Dec 2014 at 14:45

It's a wash.

Gregster · 8 Dec 2014 at 14:48

Too funny

andybird123 · 8 Dec 2014 at 14:52

Look at the time line... AMD create a white paper in March 2014... VESA publish the same white paper in July 2014... what are the chances that either document was actually created in May 2013?

We already know that AMD didn't send their request to VESA until February 2014 and it was accepted in April 2014... All of this happened AFTER gsync :rolleyes:

you keep on digging that hole charlie, I'm sure you'll get to australia eventually

Silent_Scone · 8 Dec 2014 at 14:53

drunkenmaster said:
Did people fail to notice the Vesa document is dated MAY 2013. Thus AMD was working on this with Vesa to the point they produced this document what 6-7 months before Nvidia launched g-sync. We can presume that AMD/Vesa were working on this way before that document was made. Who copied who, who came up with it and pushed the idea and then who jumped the gun making a non industry standard version to pretend like they came up with the idea... seems fairly clear to me.

Don't get your knickers in a twist. Both documents are written by the same people, which include Shane Parfitt from AMD.

drunkenmaster · 8 Dec 2014 at 14:54

Oh and PS, AMD came up with the Displayport 1.3 standard(so we can get some 120hz 4k, single cable loving) and submitted that well, it was reported in October 2013 so either happened at that time or earlier and was then reported. We know that AMD have been going out of their way to try and get adaptive sync added to 1.2a to get it to consumers earlier... would they submit it at the same time or after submitting dp 1.3, or way before it? Answer is pretty obvious.

Again for the record, why are we going to get 120hz 4k screens which Asus amongst others have stated they will produce but are waiting on DP 1.3 to do it... AMD. Standards push us forwards. 4k was eventually made because there was no big push on from 1080p because there was no official standard, cable, nothing beyond 1080p. There were 2560x1600 screens and the like but these used tiling methods, there was no official standard to push the industry towards. 4k was the answer to that yet no one actually came up with a proper cabling standard for it... seemingly because everyone involved is stupid.

Silent_Scone · 8 Dec 2014 at 14:55

Too late his knickers are beyond repair

shankly1985 · 8 Dec 2014 at 14:58

Ok will they also miss type when listing it under 2013 docs??

http://www.vesa.org/displayport-developer/presentations/

andybird123 · 8 Dec 2014 at 15:00

drunkenmaster said:
Oh and PS, AMD came up with the Displayport 1.3 standard(so we can get some 120hz 4k, single cable loving) and submitted that well, it was reported in October 2013 so either happened at that time or earlier and was then reported. We know that AMD have been going out of their way to try and get adaptive sync added to 1.2a to get it to consumers earlier... would they submit it at the same time or after submitting dp 1.3, or way before it? Answer is pretty obvious.

Again for the record, why are we going to get 120hz 4k screens which Asus amongst others have stated they will produce but are waiting on DP 1.3 to do it... AMD. Standards push us forwards. 4k was eventually made because there was no big push on from 1080p because there was no official standard, cable, nothing beyond 1080p. There were 2560x1600 screens and the like but these used tiling methods, there was no official standard to push the industry towards. 4k was the answer to that yet no one actually came up with a proper cabling standard for it... seemingly because everyone involved is stupid.

er, wut? nothing beyond 1080p?
then how come DP1.2 supports 2560x1440 and 4K via SST, not MST as you are trying to claim, wow bizaro world, lets just make stuff up to try and look clever and claim AMD invented everything
the first few 4K monitors used MST because there were no SCALERS that supported greater than 2560x1600, so they had to cobble two SCALERS together to get 4K working, not 2 cables... the newer 4K monitors use a SINGLE SCALER so they use a SINGLE CABLE and SINGLE TILE... they are DP1.2 NOT DP1.3

DP1.3 wasn't finalised till September 2014, seems pretty obvious that something from April 2014 could have been updated and included in DP1.3 in the intervening 6 months :rolleyes:

shankly1985 said:
Ok will they also miss type when listing it under 2013 docs??

http://www.vesa.org/displayport-developer/presentations/

LMAO, look at the size of the headings, the 2013 documents are a sub heading of Presentations, the White Papers section is a completely new section without year headings

Silent_Scone said:
Too late his knickers are beyond repair

quite, this is hilarious