I swore 7000 got video free-sync; but not game as 7000 series could only do video where as newer gnc could do it all. I'm at work so I can't really look it up and I need more coffee
-
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 Polaris architecture – GCN 4.0
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
I swore 7000 got video free-sync; but not game as 7000 series could only do video where as newer gnc could do it all. I'm at work so I can't really look it up and I need more coffee
Even though it has been said before God knows how many times, it is not NVidia that set the monitor prices, they sell the module for a set price and the monitor manufacturers then decide how much to sell the monitor for. Moan at ASUS and the others for the GSYNC tax, it is not NVIDIA'S fault.
Exactly but Nvidia
Check the Dell price compared to the Freesync equivalent model and they are pretty much on par. ROG tax and all that makes the mark up mental!
Edit:
Apologies, the BenQ is £45 cheaper.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,207
If Nvidia sell it to them for $100. This is just a number i don't know the real price then it stands to reason G-Sync monitors will come in with a hefty price premium compared to Freesync or non sync monitors so Nvidia do have a hand in it.
For all we know Nvidia could be charging through the nose for it compared to the cost price.
Milk being module, cream being premium for the rest.
Take away the milk, you only have to pay for cream.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,495
They don't even need to, the altera FPGA costs much less than what appears to be the current markup on some of these (Acer/Asus) monitors. In fact it isn't vastly higher than what Richard Huddy guessed would be the cost of switching to a Freesync scaler. If they really wanted to they probably could get the actual cost price of a gsync monitor to within $20 of the cost of producing a Freesync monitor... The problem is, as we can clearly see, retail price is set based on demand, so the monitor in most demand is always going to have a higher retail price. The LG 34 wide monitors, the older non-freesync version actually sells for higher than the now discounted freesync version bizarely.
No I am just saying that before yet another thread descends into a let's **** of NVidia for something that isn't actually their fault.
The module cost is no where near the markup on some of these monitors, it is just the monitor companies selling at the price point the market will sustain.
So you're the man to ask how much these G-Sync modules cost, so what is it?
Its every screen vendors fault, nothing to do with Nvidia, it just so happens that all G-Sync screens cost significantly more because screen vendors are greedy, ignore the fact the the same screen from the same vendors on the Free-Sync side don't cost much if anything more than standard screens. Maybe AMD have so much power over them they can make them sit on the naughty step if they gouge Free-Sync screens to line their own pockets.
Doesn't wash.
Last edited:
Guys, be fair and tell me what were Nvidia supposed to do? They found a way to allow their GPUs to have Adaptive Sync tech but needed a scaler in the monitor for it to work, they make the scaler, they sell it to the Moni Manu's and we buy it. They had this tech out for a year before the competition and AMD only moved once they saw what Nvidia could do.
Should they have updated their GPUs (requiring new hardware at user level) or waited for Pascal before jumping on A-Sync? This works as far back as the 6 series GPUs as well, which is a massive plus.
Sure my monitor cost a lot but I had that months and months before AMD were ready to market Freesync.
I applaud Nvidia for it personally and without them doing it, AMD wouldn't have A-Sync screens either, so AMD users with the tech should also applaud them and AMD users can be grateful it is cheaper for them.... Happy days no?
Edit:
Geeeeez, I moan about off topic and here I am off topic. Sorry guys
Should they have updated their GPUs (requiring new hardware at user level) or waited for Pascal before jumping on A-Sync? This works as far back as the 6 series GPUs as well, which is a massive plus.
Sure my monitor cost a lot but I had that months and months before AMD were ready to market Freesync.
I applaud Nvidia for it personally and without them doing it, AMD wouldn't have A-Sync screens either, so AMD users with the tech should also applaud them and AMD users can be grateful it is cheaper for them.... Happy days no?
Edit:
Geeeeez, I moan about off topic and here I am off topic. Sorry guys
Last edited:
No body is saying Nvidia introducing the tech was a bad thing, i also applaud it.
But its becoming apparent that AMD's solution is cheaper and more practical. Lets not pretend Nvidia don't make any money from selling the G-Sync modules, that its only a small insignificant cost to vendors, that its all just screen vendors profiteering.
Last edited:
Go for the cheaper and more practical solution then is my advice Bug. You could sell your 970 and grab a 290X and save a few squid or add a little and get a 390. No biggie and I would indeed expect Nvidia to make money from it. If I came up with it, I would want some recompense as well.
When it comes to Adaptive Screens G-Sync is already not on my list, so i may have to switch back to AMD if Nvidia refuse to switch. (i don't care whose cards i use)
But my money is on Nvidia supporting it eventually, they will have no choice because pretty soon they will be alone with their own version of a conmen technology that on their side is expensive, impractical for users and manufactures and will ultimately fade into obscurity.
Nvidia will be the ones who need to ask Screen vendors to make screens separately from mainstream for them, or they have no compatible screens.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,495
Yes Humbug, all topics are completely binary, it is all Nvidia's fault, or if not it must be entirely monitor makers fault, there is absolutely no chance that NVIDIA charge an amount much less than the markups we see on monitors that are selling really well /sarcasm
So AMD gives us Mantle/Dx12/Vulkan and now HDR enhanced games both with speed and color and contrast beyond dreams.
Its true, Polaris is a brighter future with AMD HDR for gaming
You want locked down technology you pay more for like PhysX?
You want a ceo to lie on stage for everyone buying their stuff?
whats your rationalization for that?
Its true, Polaris is a brighter future with AMD HDR for gaming
You want locked down technology you pay more for like PhysX?
You want a ceo to lie on stage for everyone buying their stuff?
whats your rationalization for that?
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2014
- Posts
- 776
- Location
- Peterboghorror
I just want a brighter future but don't know who will provide such a thing...
Well they could be, they could also be holding a gun to monitor manufacturers head to make them sell at such a high price, maybe they are subsidising the Freesync monitors to make the Gsync stuff look more expensive.
Who knows, just remember kids NVidia = bad
