• 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 VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1

Status
Not open for further replies.
N19h7m4r3 said:
It's coming lads! Not long now! ;)
05346b97c23544a78283c0925e7711a3.png


54a121219005443c8e8795c276e2040d.png
Click to expand...
Haha. Nice try.
 
D.P. said:
The Gsync hardware and license cost is pretty minimal though, $30 or so. The main price difference between Gsync and Freesyn is mostly market deman differences and vlaue propsoiton. People are happy to pay more for Gsync, manufacturers charge more.
Click to expand...

That is complete false information!!!

This is a more plausible reasoning, All about Design BenQ for example can have one High End design split into other designs by just removing some features to bring the cost down for mid or lower end.. Gsync Design is Premium to that line up and adds cost to manufacture = Higher Price + Licence to Nvidia
Design costs
Some display makers say Nvidia’s module requires more room inside the monitor enclosure. While that may not seem like a big deal, creating a custom product design for one type of monitor raises development costs considerably, says Minhee Kim, a leader of LG’s PC and monitor marketing and communications. By comparison, Kim says, AMD’s approach is more open, in that monitor makers can include the technology in their existing designs.

“Set makers could adopt their technology at much cheaper cost with no need to change design,” Kim says. “This makes it easier to spread models not only for serious gaming monitors but also for mid-range models.”
Even if monitor makers proceed with the necessary research and development, the resulting product will be more expensive, which inevitably means it will sell in lower volumes. That, in turn, means it’s harder for monitor makers to recoup those up-front development costs, says Jeffry Pettinga, the sales director for monitor maker Iiyama.

“You might think, oh 10,000 sales, that’s a nice number. But maybe as a manufacturer you need 100,000 units to pay back the development costs,” Pettinga says.

Meanwhile, he says, monitors are constantly improving in other areas such as bezel size. As monitors shrink from wide bezels to slim bezels to edge-to-edge displays, the risk is that a slow-selling G-Sync will become outdated long before the investment pays off.

“Let’s say you introduced, last year, your product with G-Sync. Six months of development, and you have to change the panel. You haven’t paid off your development cost,” Pettinga says. “There’s a lot of things going on on the panel side.”

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3129...ia-g-sync-on-monitor-selection-and-price.html
 
I can image DP right now is frantically searching the web for something to back up what he said. Lol.
 
shankly1985 said:
That is complete false information!!!

This is a more plausible reasoning, All about Design BenQ for example can have one High End design split into other designs by just removing some features to bring the cost down for mid or lower end.. Gsync Design is Premium to that line up and adds cost to manufacture = Higher Price + Licence to Nvidia
Design costs
Some display makers say Nvidia’s module requires more room inside the monitor enclosure. While that may not seem like a big deal, creating a custom product design for one type of monitor raises development costs considerably, says Minhee Kim, a leader of LG’s PC and monitor marketing and communications. By comparison, Kim says, AMD’s approach is more open, in that monitor makers can include the technology in their existing designs.

“Set makers could adopt their technology at much cheaper cost with no need to change design,” Kim says. “This makes it easier to spread models not only for serious gaming monitors but also for mid-range models.”
Even if monitor makers proceed with the necessary research and development, the resulting product will be more expensive, which inevitably means it will sell in lower volumes. That, in turn, means it’s harder for monitor makers to recoup those up-front development costs, says Jeffry Pettinga, the sales director for monitor maker Iiyama.

“You might think, oh 10,000 sales, that’s a nice number. But maybe as a manufacturer you need 100,000 units to pay back the development costs,” Pettinga says.

Meanwhile, he says, monitors are constantly improving in other areas such as bezel size. As monitors shrink from wide bezels to slim bezels to edge-to-edge displays, the risk is that a slow-selling G-Sync will become outdated long before the investment pays off.

“Let’s say you introduced, last year, your product with G-Sync. Six months of development, and you have to change the panel. You haven’t paid off your development cost,” Pettinga says. “There’s a lot of things going on on the panel side.”

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3129...ia-g-sync-on-monitor-selection-and-price.html
Click to expand...

DP might well be right. $30ish might be the cost for the The Gsync hardware and license.
Costs to change the monitor to accommodate the chip etc are out of Nvidia's hands but will ramp up the price.
Gsync started this whole new sync thats a good thing overall for most of us , the module itself let Nvidia regulate the monitor industry as to what panels it went in which looking back AMD should have done somehow too. FS2 shows this as some of the crappy FS monitors just made it look bad due to terrible ranges.

I do wish we could have both techs in one monitor as it would stop a gpu vendor lock in for many peoples rigs
 
Yeah difference between what it costs for the manufacturer to license and obtain the hardware and then the extra costs that they have to include in the price to cover profit and their own r&d and design work, etc. to incorporate it.

Also he is right that the market will bear a higher cost for the g-sync feature or the price would come down.
 
triss said:
DP might well be right. $30ish might be the cost for the The Gsync hardware and license.
Costs to change the monitor to accommodate the chip etc are out of Nvidia's hands but will ramp up the price.
Gsync started this whole new sync thats a good thing overall for most of us , the module itself let Nvidia regulate the monitor industry as to what panels it went in which looking back AMD should have done somehow too. FS2 shows this as some of the crappy FS monitors just made it look bad due to terrible ranges.

I do wish we could have both techs in one monitor as it would stop a gpu vendor lock in for many peoples rigs
Click to expand...

I wasn't arguing the Price of Gsync Module matter of a fact I don't believe any of us on here even knows the cost we can all speculate.. I was pointing out that he very wrong about why he believes the higher cost. He thinks Manufacture over charge because users are willing to pay the extra LOL
 
shankly1985 said:
I wasn't arguing the Price of Gsync Module matter of a fact I don't believe any of us on here even knows the cost we can all speculate.. I was pointing out that he very wrong about why he believes the higher cost. He thinks Manufacture over charge because users are willing to pay the extra LOL
Click to expand...
D.P is often wrong, and he is extremly gulible to Nvidia's PR, which is practically gospel to him :D.
the price of gsync monitors is high not because of extra value or quality, it's simply cost, ppl are not Happy to buy more expensive stuff, but what if they have no choice but that ?
users with low mid-range Nvidia GPU, have nothing for their price bracket, like if they do not exist, thats not offering better experience for their users, thats just milking away the sheeple like, Nvidia could very well allow their GPUs to handle adaptive sync for the low-mid range owners, since they practically have no low resolution/refresh gsync monitor reasonably priced compared to the competition, if it was really about experience and value, adap sync would considerably improve them on a segment where there is nothing.
but that does not happen, because adding it equates to killing off Gsync.
 
Last edited:
Burr said:
*As i understand it* it's about the chip and issues around the chip. This link explains it better than i could. http://www.pcworld.com/article/3129...ia-g-sync-on-monitor-selection-and-price.html
Click to expand...

For those reasons, Petersen says any price disparity between comparable G-Sync and FreeSync monitors is not due to the module, whose cost he says is “relatively minor,” but due to monitor makers' decision to charge more.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving me right.
 
shankly1985 said:
I wasn't arguing the Price of Gsync Module matter of a fact I don't believe any of us on here even knows the cost we can all speculate.. I was pointing out that he very wrong about why he believes the higher cost. He thinks Manufacture over charge because users are willing to pay the extra LOL
Click to expand...


Nope, Burr kindly proved a link to prove I was right.
 
triss said:
DP might well be right. $30ish might be the cost for the The Gsync hardware and license.
Costs to change the monitor to accommodate the chip etc are out of Nvidia's hands but will ramp up the price.
Gsync started this whole new sync thats a good thing overall for most of us , the module itself let Nvidia regulate the monitor industry as to what panels it went in which looking back AMD should have done somehow too. FS2 shows this as some of the crappy FS monitors just made it look bad due to terrible ranges.

I do wish we could have both techs in one monitor as it would stop a gpu vendor lock in for many peoples rigs
Click to expand...
Rroff said:
Yeah difference between what it costs for the manufacturer to license and obtain the hardware and then the extra costs that they have to include in the price to cover profit and their own r&d and design work, etc. to incorporate it.

Also he is right that the market will bear a higher cost for the g-sync feature or the price would come down.
Click to expand...

I think you two need to go read what DP said again. He is saying the cost difference between g-sync and freesync is about $30, and the main difference in price comes from people being happy to pay more for g-sync...

Well that is clearly not true if you read the quotes shanks posted about development costs. Therefore he is wrong. That is how I see it anyway. But it could be because it is late.
 
D.P. said:
Thanks for proving me right.
Click to expand...

I think you've misunderstood. My original point was "FS2 monitors will likely not cost as much as GSYNC HDR for the fact there is no dedicated hardware chip" - IE: because there is a proprietary GSYNC chip, regardless of direct or indirect costs, Freesync2 will likely be cheaper.
 
pff less than 2 months from vega's release and we are talking about gsync module :D, where are the rumors when you need them, it's a complete drought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom