-
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.
AOC launches range of Freesync monitors starting from £99
- Thread starter CAT-THE-FIFTH
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 2,597
Ahh, so realistically Nvidia would have to build support into their module, or perhaps they could do it on, or mostly on the software level.
I do wonder if a better implementation of the technology would just be a removable module that the end user would buy and plug into compatible monitors, user could simply take the module/s with them as they upgrade monitors, given the £100+ premium on each monitor, that would strike me as an attractive feature.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,363
Again, not practical, the gsync controller needs to be directly electrically connected to the panel to be able to control it properly - hence why gsync monitors have a wider range than freesync monitors (that are using off the shelf controllers with minor tweaks rather than full proper ground up variable refresh controllers)
Monitor makers aren't going to sell a monitor with no controller
Monitor makers aren't going to sell a monitor with no controller
Soldato
So with a top end of 76Hz, does that mean the monitors have a refresh rate of 76Hz @ 1080p or are they 100/120/144Hz?
Otherwise it seems like 16Hz of it's 28Hz range won't be useable. So people would effectively have a 12Hz range.
I actually find myself agreeing with r7slayer on this one (which makes me think I'm wrong
).
It seems like the number of people that bounce around the 48-60fps range will be quite small. I'd have though at 1080p people will either be bouncing off the 60Hz limit (which I've been told largely negates any benefit of freesync) or could spend time under 48fps.
Otherwise it seems like 16Hz of it's 28Hz range won't be useable. So people would effectively have a 12Hz range.
I actually find myself agreeing with r7slayer on this one (which makes me think I'm wrong
).It seems like the number of people that bounce around the 48-60fps range will be quite small. I'd have though at 1080p people will either be bouncing off the 60Hz limit (which I've been told largely negates any benefit of freesync) or could spend time under 48fps.
Associate
For a small but specific range of cheaper Freesync compatible AMD card owners it is going to be a great way of getting smooth gaming cheaply, which has got to be great for those that cant afford a 290 and above or those that cant splash out £350-£500+ on a Freesync monitor.
What with DX12, Intel coming in to adaptive sync and now cheaper Freesync monitors it seems that things may just turn a corner for AMD. It certainly seems that it could capture the cheaper end of the market for variable refresh and boost its revenue a little.
We can't all have CF/SLI 980Ti/FuryX rigs running on £500+ monitors. If AMD can grab the lower tier VRR customers then this could mean good things for them in the long run.
I think someone at AMD may just have been looking at the bigger picture for the future. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out and if it sparks a wave of cheaper Freesync Monitors. I hope so.
What with DX12, Intel coming in to adaptive sync and now cheaper Freesync monitors it seems that things may just turn a corner for AMD. It certainly seems that it could capture the cheaper end of the market for variable refresh and boost its revenue a little.
We can't all have CF/SLI 980Ti/FuryX rigs running on £500+ monitors. If AMD can grab the lower tier VRR customers then this could mean good things for them in the long run.
I think someone at AMD may just have been looking at the bigger picture for the future. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out and if it sparks a wave of cheaper Freesync Monitors. I hope so.
Soldato
For a small but specific range of cheaper Freesync compatible AMD card owners it is going to be a great way of getting smooth gaming cheaply, which has got to be great for those that cant afford a 290 and above or those that cant splash out £350-£500+ on a Freesync monitor.
What with DX12, Intel coming in to adaptive sync and now cheaper Freesync monitors it seems that things may just turn a corner for AMD. It certainly seems that it could capture the cheaper end of the market for variable refresh and boost its revenue a little.
We can't all have CF/SLI 980Ti/FuryX rigs running on £500+ monitors. If AMD can grab the lower tier VRR customers then this could mean good things for them in the long run.
I think someone at AMD may just have been looking at the bigger picture for the future. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out and if it sparks a wave of cheaper Freesync Monitors. I hope so.
We are also talking about the people that game, have bought an AMD card recently enough to have a Freesync compatible card and either have a lower than 1080p monitor and want to upgrade to 1080p or already have a 1080p monitor and think (despite not spending much on their PC) that £100 is worthwhile just to get Freesync.
For a small but specific range of cheaper Freesync compatible AMD card owners it is going to be a great way of getting smooth gaming cheaply, which has got to be great for those that cant afford a 290 and above or those that cant splash out £350-£500+ on a Freesync monitor.
What with DX12, Intel coming in to adaptive sync and now cheaper Freesync monitors it seems that things may just turn a corner for AMD. It certainly seems that it could capture the cheaper end of the market for variable refresh and boost its revenue a little.
We can't all have CF/SLI 980Ti/FuryX rigs running on £500+ monitors. If AMD can grab the lower tier VRR customers then this could mean good things for them in the long run.
I think someone at AMD may just have been looking at the bigger picture for the future. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out and if it sparks a wave of cheaper Freesync Monitors. I hope so.
Amd don't want to be branded as cheaper anymore so tbh I doubt amd will like these cheapo monitors.
Intel is not a concern of Nvidia in the enthusiast PC market, which is what these monitors are geared towards.
The point is that Freesync will not be all over the place until it stops being proprietary to AMD. It is not actually 'free' despite the naming AMD have given it. It is extra cost to display makers and manufacturers. And it will only be available to a smaller segment of the userbase, since only AMD GPU owners can take advantage of it.
It's a crappy situation and I think it's naïve to think it's just going to sort itself out soon. Nvidia are in a position of power with the marketshare and they wont give up their Gsync battle without a fight.
Which sucks for us consumers.
Soldato
Associate
I dont believe that AMD will think that cheaper Freesync monitors are a bad thing at all. Widening your market isn't cheapening your brand, surely.
It certainly won't hurt AMD to corner the lower end of VRR and get some needed cash into their coffers.
it's not exactly whining, its discussing which is what forums are for. If you don't like discussions then go head for the door! I just said i don't really see the point of freesync with that sort of range. you have a 28Hz range. But for the price i agree with everyone its fantastic. Kinda aimed at low end gamers so that range still has me questioning it.
Permabanned
280 quid for the 27" is very tempting, It sounds like a great monitor. My current benq is a 1080p 27" 2ms 60hz TN panel and I spent 200 on that a few years back.
Associate
But surely bringing down the cost of these monitors will make them become more mainstream....and with Intel Chips supporting Async (Freesync is just a brand of Async) then I think Nvidia would be a little foolish not to be concerned. Freesync may not be totally 'free' but its a damn sight more 'free' than G-Sync ever will be.
If it was that much of an extra cost to display manufacturers then this thread would never have been created in the first place, as AOC wouldnt be charging £99 for a Freesync monitor.
I mean, that is the whole point of this thread right? Cheaper Freesync monitors!!
Like I said above....not everyone can afford the big dollars to buy the top of the range GFX cards and Monitors (That's us nutters on these threads - We are the enthusiast market). The mainstream market (where those monitors are aimed at) can now have a taste of variable refresh gaming without having to fork out an arm and a leg for it. They will either go AMD (extremely likely at the moment) or in the future have the choice of Intel as well.
One of two things will have to happen in the future. Either Nvidia have to support Async/Freesync Tech or they stick to G-Sync and only cater for the top end enthusiast market.
Number three would have been for Nvidia to lower the cost of the G-Sync tech to manufacturers to enable them to bring out cheaper variable refresh monitors based on G-Sync....but I cant see that happening as they are way too greedy to do so.
Cheaper Freesync monitors creating a cheap way into VRR gaming can only spell good things for AMD. If Nvidia dont look to the future and just concentrate on G-Sync as it is now then things could look very different in 4 to 6 years time.
Last edited:
Associate
Well i don't have to "believe" in anything.
Pure logic. If every new monitor will come with freesync (as its a VESA standard) with no added cost, gsync will be a very rare and pricey phenomenon.
Few people may still buy it if they believe its so much better, but eventually nv won't have a choice and need to support it.
Gsync could stay afloat as a premium addition, but it cannot stand up in the lower segments, as ppl with 100£ gpus will not buy gsync monitors for 3-400£.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2014
- Posts
- 1,070
The prices on these monitors seem to be very good for what they are. Whilst I doubt many gamers will be buying these, it's nice to see freesync becoming mainstream and it lends hope that within a few years it will become a prevalent feature on all new monitors/ TVs, even cheap ones.
Associate
Not sure why 'Gamers' wouldnt buy them. 3 of those 24 inchers would make a reasonable Eyefinity setup for under £400. Gamers come with pockets of different sizes and depths. Younger gamers could afford a 24" freesync monitor (I'm 47 and older than most on these types of forums) and I think that's a great thing.
In fact I can see my lad wanting one of these and a new GFX card, so I better keep it quiet until at least Xmas.
Soldato
But surely bringing down the cost of these monitors will make them become more mainstream....and with Intel Chips supporting Async (Freesync is just a brand of Async) then I think Nvidia would be a little foolish not to be concerned. Freesync may not be totally 'free' but its a damn sight more 'free' than G-Sync ever will be.
If it was that much of an extra cost to display manufacturers then this thread would never have been created in the first place, as AOC wouldnt be charging £99 for a Freesync monitor.
I mean, that is the whole point of this thread right? Cheaper Freesync monitors!!
Like I said above....not everyone can afford the big dollars to buy the top of the range GFX cards and Monitors (That's us nutters on these threads - We are the enthusiast market). The mainstream market (where those monitors are aimed at) can now have a taste of variable refresh gaming without having to fork out an arm and a leg for it. They will either go AMD (extremely likely at the moment) or in the future have the choice of Intel as well.
One of two things will have to happen in the future. Either Nvidia have to support Async/Freesync Tech or they stick to G-Sync and only cater for the top end enthusiast market.
Number three would have been for Nvidia to lower the cost of the G-Sync tech to manufacturers to enable them to bring out cheaper variable refresh monitors based on G-Sync....but I cant see that happening as they are way too greedy to do so.
Cheaper Freesync monitors creating a cheap way into VRR gaming can only spell good things for AMD. If Nvidia dont look to the future and just concentrate on G-Sync as it is now then things could look very different in 4 to 6 years time.
Not sure why 'Gamers' wouldnt buy them. 3 of those 24 inchers would make a reasonable Eyefinity setup for under £400. Gamers come with pockets of different sizes and depths. Younger gamers could afford a 24" freesync monitor (I'm 47 and older than most on these types of forums) and I think that's a great thing.
In fact I can see my lad wanting one of these and a new GFX card, so I better keep it quiet until at least Xmas.
The thing is, these monitors still cost £100.
For someone that's not an enthusiast that's a lot of money for a new monitor that may not do a lot more than their current monitor.
And for this to work they have to own an AMD card (currently). It seem a lot more people own Nvidia cards. Sure you can include AMD APUs (and soon possibly Intel iGPUs) but can those run games at 1080p and not dip below 48fps? I'm sure they can in some games, but surely we'll be talking about The Witcher 3 and GTA V for most casual gamers, they'll just do the big fancy games.
Also, you talk about casual gamers, how many of them actually know about Freesync? Surely GSync/Freesync are fairly enthusiast bits of tech, at least for a while. Most casual gamers are more likely to be interested in VR I'd have thought. I wonder how many console gamers know what Freesync is?
So you need them to be a casual gamer, without a monitor that is enthusiastic enough to want Freesync. I wonder what percentage of the market that is?
My logic tells me that even 30% of Nvidia owners buying Gsync is more than 100% of AMD owners buying Freesync. So even if every single one of you buy a freesync monitor, you still wont come anywhere near close to the sales Gsync will create. Have a think about it.
Adaptive-sync which is the feature/spec these monitors support is not proprietary. Freesync is just the AMD brand/tech name for their support of the feature in their GPU's and drivers.
While not definitive, having the chief graphics software architect at Intel say they plan to support the feature is an additional step towards wider market adoption. It wouldn't be a big deal to them from a manufacturing pov, a trivial amount die space and they already dedicate the majority to the GPU. However I am sure they are in no rush and who knows how they will implement it, they love their product segmentation.
Userbase is somewhat irrelevant to cost, it will be the volume of scalers shipped that matters, the more the better and the above helps. In fact a £99 screen is pretty indicative that inexpensive scalers are getting out there and that manufacturers in the supply chain are willing to absorb the initial extra cost. While not an incentive, with VGA being dropped it is also not a bad time for scaler manufacturers to start thinking to the future. Cheap monitors need connectivity. Thin laptops with miniDP, upcoming display port over usb.
These are positives. I wouldn't let an Nvidia's centric narrative dictate how you perceive variable refresh display tech. It is not only an enthusiast feature and Nvidia have the smaller market share in comparison to Intel/AMD. It's by no means set in stone or just going to sort itself out but it is looking promising.