• 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 Monitors Shipping in December – Will Cost $100 Less Than Nvidia G-Sync

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's the same reason why I wouldn't pick a 290x over 290 or a 980 over a 970..

You won't notice the difference in gaming.

So if I set out a target to keep frame rate over 120hz why pay more for nvidia when amd already give me what I need. That's one my reasons I use amd. It's not because I can't afford it, it's because am not stupid to buy into it.
 
Gregster said:
I think the thing is Marine, people portray AMD as the good guys and nVidia as the bad guys but AMD have their own proprietary tech, as do nVidia (PhysX/G-Sync/3DVision/Truaudio/Mantle/CSAA/TXAA/MLAA etc but because nVidia want to look after their own customers and their own interests, why does that make them bad?
Click to expand...

You failed to name anything AMD and proprietary.

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.
Click to expand...

AMD has categorically stated Nvidia, Intel, anyone is entirely free to make their own drivers and use Mantle in any way they like.

MLAA isn't AMD exclusive and Truaudio is AMD's version of tech they licensed from other people. However yes, pretty much all of the things you listed that are Nvidia based are locked in, charged, and generally attempts to corner the market and lock in their own customers as well as lock out other customers. Some are licensed which when they are, are overpriced and ridiculous, like SLI chipset pricing, 3dvision pricing, g-sync pricing.

Most/all of these things are things the industry does but Nvidia has hurt the industry but trying to jump ahead of incoming industry standards and in doing so split the market. Rather than everyone using a single 3d tech and it being done by games(the best way) they jumped the gun, increased costs and made game makers need to support more than one 3d method as such making most game makers not bother doing it officially. G-sync, AMD have been pushing to get this standard included to the main Display port standard for a long time now, the entire industry would have known what AMD was trying to do and adaptive refresh rate was already widely used(for mostly alternative purposes) on mobile devices.

IE the entire industry knew this was coming in 18-24 months(that is how long these things take) so as per usual Nvidia decided to ignore standards, make a stupidly basic scalar, jump the industry standard and massively overcharge their own customers for it.

Do you know why Nvidia users consistently have to post to say "everyone says AMD are the good guys..... I'm going to post a bunch of incorrect reasons why they are JUST AS BAD AS NVIDIA".... and don't see the irony.

You're wrong about all the proprietary AMD things and you're trying to make them seem as bad as Nvidia, rather than going hang on a minute, if Nvidia wasn't working against the industry all the time all gamers would be having a better time of it.
 
shankly1985 said:
It's the same reason why I wouldn't pick a 290x over 290 or a 980 over a 970..

You won't notice the difference in gaming.

So if I set out a target to keep frame rate over 120hz why pay more for nvidia when amd already give me what I need. That's one my reasons I use amd. It's not because I can't afford it, it's because am not stupid to buy into it.
Click to expand...

So anyone buying an nvidia sli over amd xfire equivalent is stupid? Harsh!
 
Threepwood said:
Do you play any games that really shine when using an intel cpu though?
Click to expand...

Intel cpu is what you really need for multi GPUs amd not looked into there latest releases but at time of me building. Intel was the only choice, plus recording and editing.. So for that you pay the extra because you need it.
 
drunkenmaster said:
You failed to name anything AMD and proprietary.



AMD has categorically stated Nvidia, Intel, anyone is entirely free to make their own drivers and use Mantle in any way they like.

MLAA isn't AMD exclusive and Truaudio is AMD's version of tech they licensed from other people. However yes, pretty much all of the things you listed that are Nvidia based are locked in, charged, and generally attempts to corner the market and lock in their own customers as well as lock out other customers. Some are licensed which when they are, are overpriced and ridiculous, like SLI chipset pricing, 3dvision pricing, g-sync pricing.

Most/all of these things are things the industry does but Nvidia has hurt the industry but trying to jump ahead of incoming industry standards and in doing so split the market. Rather than everyone using a single 3d tech and it being done by games(the best way) they jumped the gun, increased costs and made game makers need to support more than one 3d method as such making most game makers not bother doing it officially. G-sync, AMD have been pushing to get this standard included to the main Display port standard for a long time now, the entire industry would have known what AMD was trying to do and adaptive refresh rate was already widely used(for mostly alternative purposes) on mobile devices.

IE the entire industry knew this was coming in 18-24 months(that is how long these things take) so as per usual Nvidia decided to ignore standards, make a stupidly basic scalar, jump the industry standard and massively overcharge their own customers for it.

Do you know why Nvidia users consistently have to post to say "everyone says AMD are the good guys..... I'm going to post a bunch of incorrect reasons why they are JUST AS BAD AS NVIDIA".... and don't see the irony.

You're wrong about all the proprietary AMD things and you're trying to make them seem as bad as Nvidia, rather than going hang on a minute, if Nvidia wasn't working against the industry all the time all gamers would be having a better time of it.
Click to expand...

It's an industry driven market, this in itself hurts consumers half the time. If a company wants to jump ahead as you so well put it in order to give end users the opportunity to try new products before anyone else, then, the only people that are hurt are those who have a reason, personal or not to not use Nvidia products. Which evidently is not many given statistics.

In other words, quit hitting yourself, quit hitting yourself, quit hitting yourself.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Marine-RX179 said:
You are clearly missing the point.

The same people thinks Mantle sucks because it only benefit AMD users, and directx 12 would be much better because both AMD and Nvidia user can use it; flip it over...with the same principle, Gsync only benefit Nvidia users so if "Freesync" turn out good, and both AMD and Nvidia users can use it so it should be better option than Gsync like how directx12 is gonna be?

But clearly that isn't the case, cause anything that AMD users can use which Nvidia users cannot automatically suck, and things that only Nvidia users can use which AMD users cannot are awesome :rolleyes:

Double-standard at the finest :p

Bottom line is that if directx12 turn out good enough, then Mantle wouldn't (really) be needed; if Freesync turn out good enough, then Gsync wouldn't be needed- same principle. Users would then be able to choose whatever graphic card they want without things holding them back.
Click to expand...

I think the difference (or at least a difference) is that DirectX is supported by Nvidia, AMD and probably Intel. I'm not sure if it's been confirmed that Nvidia will support 'Adaptive Sync' (or Intel, but frankly from a gamin GPU perspective they're less important). So if only AMD support Freesync and only Nvidia support GSync then I don't think it's like DirectX 12.

I'm not really sure why Nvidia would want to support 'Adaptive Sync' as it would surely hurt sales of their GSync solution if there was one that was 'universal'.

Maybe the market will force them to support it and this may lead to a massive decline in GSync sales, but it may be their only choice. Much like DX12 may all but eliminate the need for Mantle except for the few developers that want to support it at their own cost (I don't want to see games being any more expensive just so developers can cover their cost of adding in an optional API).

You could argue that Mantle and GSync are good as they at least force the hand of Microsoft and VESA/AMD. Both can probably move forward at a quicker development rate and push through changes that will take much longer with the generic/universal solutions.

I don't think fragmenting the market is such a bad thing as it can help to push things forward.
It's the differences that make things interesting, if AMD and Nvidia had to make the same graphics cards so that one didn't have an edge over the other and possibly split the market then it would be silly.
 
Last edited:
Oh for gods sake how many times does it have to be said.

Nvidia will not support FreeSync, they might support Adaptive Sync which is part of (optionally I believe) the Vesa standard 1.2a. But FreeSync is the currant term AMD are using for their proprietary tech that is in their graphics cards that allow them to interact with the monitor scalers that use Adaptive Sync.
If Nvidia want to add tech that can interact with Adaptive Sync capable scalers to their future graphics cards, (or maybe they already have but haven't said anything yet) then they are free to do so.
 
bru said:
Oh for gods sake how many times does it have to be said.

Nvidia will not support FreeSync, they might support Adaptive Sync which is part of (optionally I believe) the Vesa standard 1.2a. But FreeSync is the currant term AMD are using for their proprietary tech that is in their graphics cards that allow them to interact with the monitor scalers that use Adaptive Sync.
If Nvidia want to add tech that can interact with Adaptive Sync capable scalers to their future graphics cards, (or maybe they already have but haven't said anything yet) then they are free to do so.
Click to expand...

the 1.2 DP support Nvidia added instead of 1.2a says it all.
 
nVidia won't support Freesync, simple as and going from one of Tom Peterson's last interviews, they are working on further enhancements for G-Sync.
 
The fact it still needs work puts me off, I mean how many versions of the module are they gonna flog? We're up to 3 already including the FPGA, ASIC and the one in the works.
 
bru said:
Nvidia will not support FreeSync
Click to expand...

Gregster said:
nVidia won't support Freesync, simple as
Click to expand...

Nvidia isn't going to kill Gsync sales and say 'yes we will support Freesync'.

Short term they won't, long term I think they will.

When the PC makes an even bigger transition to the living room, are Nvidia going to sit back and give AMD the lions share?

I don't envisage Samsung/LG/Sony(the big TV players) adding costly modules/licence fees when it can be implemented for free(natural tech progression shall surpass the initial added updated display controller cost-if there is one before I get hit with that excuse:p), there's a market to be had right there and Nvidia aren't going to miss out on sales.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom