• 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 vs Nvidia G-Sync - the adaptive sync battle

Klo said:
I have a feeling it won't be major selling point, and will instead become a standard feature of middle to high end screens that people take for granted.
Click to expand...

Exactly, Gsync the must have experience that hardly anyone is taking the plunge, it's been out a year and no ones tripping over themselves to shout about it-apart from the pedantic fanboys.

Overall graphic market share Intel>AMD>Nvidia, Intel is going to be all over A-Sync, add in AMD leaving Nvidia on roughly 16% market share, that's a way higher potential captive audience which is clearly indicative by the amount of A-Sync panels inbound.

A-Sync monitors are aimed at 100% of the market, if you are in the market for a new monitor, next to no one is going to discount an A-Sync monitor in a specific targeted price point because they run Nvidia.

Difference being you are paying a royalty above and beyond the monitor cost with Gsync.
 
I might now instead of going with BenQ and go with ASUS gaming monitor 120+ IPS 1440p 27" Once its confirmed to support FreeSync.. Its what he is hinting at in this video.. 5ms response time that's fast for IPS..

Hard choice lol Thats the great thing about Freesync the selection you going to have on offer is just unmatched..

http://youtu.be/ki2pfUNqoZQ?t=6m23s
 
Gregster said:
I think nVidia know what is what and what they need to do. In fact, I would be surprised if they do adopt A-Sync, as they have a massive lead in the market on discrete GPUs and hold a 70/30 % favour. It is AMD who need to do something (and quickly) to try and win back some consumers.

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/41838...deo-card-market-share-gap-over-amd/index.html

The A-Sync monitors are aimed at 30% of the market and the G-Sync monitors are aimed at 70% of the market. Now of course not 70% of the market can use G-Sync, as some of the systems will be too old (pre 6 series cards) and the same goes for AMD and not 30% of the market will be able to use A-Sync monitors (again, hardware pre-R9 290).

Another point of interest is the amount of interest in this sync technology. Having seen multiple G-Sync and Freesync threads, there doesn't seem to be much interest in either and only the odd few stating "I will be getting it". That of course is just my reading and others will buy of course that don't post.

Anyways, I am sure Freesync will be good and hopefully it is as good as G-Sync and my AMD brothers can enjoy tear free and stutter free gaming like I do :)
Click to expand...

Come on Greg; you completely ignored the economics of what I pointed out and the 900 lbs of Intel; *they will adapt adaptive-sync as it will help them out a lot*

Thing is you're discounting also is this working with every new APU AMD sells;
this isn't just about dgpu; its about graphics. Who has bigger slices; Intel-AMD-Nvidia.....

which parts cost more.....industry standard scaler or Nvidia's scaler.......*econ 101* which monitors do you think will be priced lower? *econ 101* the ones that have standard scaler......

Which one do you think will have more monitors of? G-sync or Adaptive sync...? *again econ 101* we know Adaptive-sync will have at least 20 in this year......G-sync has been out for a year and just gotten 6-7......

Adaptive sync will have more adoption by shear fact numbers; more monitors with it; along with cheaper price that G-Sync means people will more likely pick them up over the G-Sync; specially if the features are the same and/if similar.....

You know this Grey - Nvidia; again wanted to milk the market; how much they did is something they could answer..
 
The only Intel gpu I own is the one on my 4790k, and tbh I wish they hadn't bothered with it. Cant run much and all it does is add more heat to an already toasty CPU. The sooner Intel stop putting an igpu on chips the better.
 
meldarthx said:
Come on Greg; you completely ignored the economics of what I pointed out and the 900 lbs of Intel; *they will adapt adaptive-sync as it will help them out a lot*
Click to expand...

Don't intel actually need to make a GPU that can exceed 60FPS before sync issue affect them? :P (I jest)



meldarthx said:
Adaptive sync will have more adoption by shear fact numbers; more monitors with it; along with cheaper price that G-Sync means people will more likely pick them up over the G-Sync; specially if the features are the same and/if similar.....
Click to expand...

The thing I don't get, and this isn't aimed at a knock on AMD, is that everyone seems to be expecting adaptive sync to offer equal quality/performance to G-Sync, and I really don't see that happening, if may be good but surely not as good.

The rational, is that Nvidia knew about vblank/etc, they actually considered adaptive sync themselves but decided to go the G-Sync route (they claim it was a better method), they would have known that AMD would take an interest in adaptive sync and find that route, so if it was just as good as G-Sync then Nvidia would have basically wasted money on research for nothing.
 
Why on earth would Intel adopt something that next to none of their customers can use.
I don't see that many motherboards that have a display port video output.

The price of the scalar' in reality will probably have little bearing on the end price of the monitor. The monitor manufacturer will charge whatever they think they can get away with and that is with out the earlier rumour that the cost to the monitor manufacturer for each scalar was only approximately £20-Adaptive Sync, £25-GSync.
 
Its a feature, unlikely to use much die space, and they do support DP output and their are Intel boards with DP. They sell APU's all over the place. Especially laptops (big market).Screen connects somehow. Many people want to fire up a game of some type. It can be used for 24fps video playback. Many reasons why they might look at implementing adaptive-sync.

It is of course no guarantee.
 
I love the ignoring of iGPUs, hilarious - I doubt ~15% market share really gives nVidia the position to dictate anything much. dGPUs gain less from adaptive sync than iGPUs anyway! Even if Intel don't bite AMD are still likely to, and that gives them as much market share as nVidia.
 
eddyr said:
I won't be voting for president Gregster, representative of the people, anytime soon :p
Click to expand...

:D

ubersonic said:
Don't intel actually need to make a GPU that can exceed 60FPS before sync issue affect them? :P (I jest)
Click to expand...

You might be jesting but it is a valid point. I can't see many Intel gamers reaching the dizzy heights of 60 fps on their IGPUs or even 30 fps for the bottom of the A-Sync monitors. (40 fps?).

Mind you, 'Hill climb racing' might be ok :D
 
ubersonic said:
The thing I don't get, and this isn't aimed at a knock on AMD, is that everyone seems to be expecting adaptive sync to offer equal quality/performance to G-Sync, and I really don't see that happening, if may be good but surely not as good.

The rational, is that Nvidia knew about vblank/etc, they actually considered adaptive sync themselves but decided to go the G-Sync route (they claim it was a better method), they would have known that AMD would take an interest in adaptive sync and find that route, so if it was just as good as G-Sync then Nvidia would have basically wasted money on research for nothing.
Click to expand...

They didn't waste their money on research, they are selling Gsync to monitor manufacturers. By staying with their own solution and not waiting for the adaptive sync standard they got their product out faster and with no competition.

The reason they didn't consider adaptive sync for themselves is that none of their cards are compatible.

In theory the freesync/adaptive sync combo should be better than Gsync. Lag is the main benefit, but, not sure it would be even noticeable though. But for syncing frame rate with the monitors refresh rate, I can't see any reason why one won't be just as good as the other.

The main problem with both Freesync and Gsync is the 30Hz lower limit. And this is a panel problem not a problem with freesync/gsync.
 
i think intel will support it if only just for the powersaving side of it
if it gives them 10% more battery life they all in for that :)
 
Gregster said:
You might be jesting but it is a valid point. I can't see many Intel gamers reaching the dizzy heights of 60 fps on their IGPUs or even 30 fps for the bottom of the A-Sync monitors. (40 fps?).
Click to expand...

Well, it's a funny point :) But, Think about this, AMD are going to be advertising all their GCN based APU's with having Freesync and smoother gaming, power saving etc. So it's something that Intel's IGPUs don't have.

Will it make a big difference in sales of AMD APUs? I don't know, but it might. And will Intel take that chance and leave adaptive sync alone? Especially since most of their latest IGPU's just need a driver update.

Power saving and video playback will be two things that appeal to some people. So it's not all about gaming either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom