G-Sync is a con?

Andygully · 3 Feb 2015 at 07:23

Is it a surprise gsync works on a laptop without the module? well not to me because that's what amd showed off as freesync. But would have nvidia claimed it used a module on a laptop to up the price? pretty sure they would as its a business.

andybird123 · 3 Feb 2015 at 08:23

humbug said:
They should never have developed the G-Sync Module in the first place, there is a way without that cost. they way AMD are doing it.

By spending r&d in developing products you cant monetise.
That is the very definition of crazy. Companies are not charities.

The only reason AMD have done that with adaptive sync and mantle is to try to compete and because they hope it will improve their gpu sales. Not because of any altruistic belief, pure necessity.

Monitor/scaler makers were never going to bear that cost without impetus. Thanks to nvidia, AMD and scaler makers were forced to.

Nvidia have market share, they can get away with developing supporting products and charging for them. AMD dont have market share so if they went to anyone with a fee structure they would laugh in their face. But at the same time they cant just ignore gsync so they are forced to do r&d and give away the benefit of that cost.

kedge · 3 Feb 2015 at 08:49

G-SYNC 2 when?, oh wait that is nvidia quadro g-sync 2 cards.

humbug · 3 Feb 2015 at 09:29

andybird123 said:
By spending r&d in developing products you cant monetise.
That is the very definition of crazy. Companies are not charities.

The only reason AMD have done that with adaptive sync and mantle is to try to compete and because they hope it will improve their gpu sales. Not because of any altruistic belief, pure necessity.

Monitor/scaler makers were never going to bear that cost without impetus. Thanks to nvidia, AMD and scaler makers were forced to.

Nvidia have market share, they can get away with developing supporting products and charging for them. AMD dont have market share so if they went to anyone with a fee structure they would laugh in their face. But at the same time they cant just ignore gsync so they are forced to do r&d and give away the benefit of that cost.

The G-Sync Module isn't needed, and less R&D mean's nothing. AMD kicked Intel's #### with the Athlon XP and a fraction of R&D to develop it.

They came up with the Hawaii card's to beat the GTX Titan in 6 months or so with a fraction of Nvidia's R&D It's faster per core/clock and more efficient than Tahiti, it's looks like they are about to do it again with Fiji.

The sole purpose of the G-Sync Module was to genarate more income from Partners and it's user base, IMO it has no real necessity.

Martini1991 · 3 Feb 2015 at 09:59

humbug said:
You are trying to establish facts that you don't have, as usual, you know nothing about what you just cited as fact.

Did you just insult yourself? This is your signature tactic.

Mei · 3 Feb 2015 at 10:19

i think if the driver worked without the screen blanking out at low fps it would have been a better story

personally im interested in what extra gsync features they are working on, could be some cool stuff, the fear is tho that some new features wont be available without a new module, and if thats the case that would mean new screens again! lol
i hope it doesnt go that way

triss · 3 Feb 2015 at 10:29

humbug said:
The G-Sync Module isn't needed, and less R&D mean's nothing. AMD kicked Intel's #### with the Athlon XP and a fraction of R&D to develop it.

They came up with the Hawaii card's to beat the GTX Titan in 6 months or so with a fraction of Nvidia's R&D It's faster per core/clock and more efficient than Tahiti, it's looks like they are about to do it again with Fiji.

The sole purpose of the G-Sync Module was to genarate more income from Partners and it's user base, IMO it has no real necessity.

You are trying to establish facts that you don't have, as usual, you know nothing about what you just cited as fact

So gsync doesnt actually work then i take it as thats not its purpose... :rolleyes:

When one of these reviewers get it to work as gysnc currently works (not gysnc mobile) on a desktop with a current monitor then yes the module can be stated its not needed until then just because you dont wish it to be so doesnt make it a fact.

Personally i hope long term they drop the module and get on board with the optional DP standard so users arent tied to either vendor

humbug · 3 Feb 2015 at 10:31

triss said:
So gsync doesnt actually work then i take it as thats not its purpose...

That's not what i said

Gregster · 3 Feb 2015 at 10:33

humbug said:
You are trying to establish facts that you don't have, as usual, you know nothing about what you just cited as fact.

I certainly have facts and have seen where Freesync is at, I have seen what AMD's R&D is and kudos to nVidia for taking the bull by the horns and getting this tech out.

Don't be so rude either Humbug. Clearly I know a bit of what I am talking about and...

The mistake that people like you always make is that you think a discussion about what a vendor is doing is an attack on you, because you bought the product in question or because you are a fan of the company.

No, actually it's not about what you buy and just because someone call's into question something a company has done or the way in which it conducts its self is not a reflect upon you, it's just a company, not your favourite grand mother.

It's not about you, no body cares what you do, Don't be so vain.

triss · 3 Feb 2015 at 10:34

humbug said:
That's not what i said

The sole purpose of the G-Sync Module was to genarate more income from Partners and it's user base << It has no other purpose thats exactly what you said

Are you now trying to say it working was a side effect?

Gregster · 3 Feb 2015 at 10:36

Andygully said:
Is it a surprise gsync works on a laptop without the module? well not to me because that's what amd showed off as freesync. But would have nvidia claimed it used a module on a laptop to up the price? pretty sure they would as its a business.

nVidia don't make the laptop, Asus do and it is an nVidia GPU in the laptop only. nVidia will charge for the GPU but they have nothing to do with what Asus decide to charge.

humbug · 3 Feb 2015 at 10:40

Gregster said:
I certainly have facts and have seen where Freesync is at.

Lets go back to what you actually said.

Gregster said:
If nVidia followed AMD's **** poor R&D, we would still be waiting for A-Sync and would not of had it available to us for well over a year.

So when did Nvidia start development on G-Sync and when did AMD start development on Free-Sync?

You don't know.

triss said:
The sole purpose of the G-Sync Module was to genarate more income from Partners and it's user base << It has no other purpose thats exactly what you said

Are you now trying to say it working was a side effect?

You need to go back and read the rest of the thread.

humbug said:
The question is do Nvidia need the G-Sync Module, answer = not a resounding no given the connection compatibility issue that AMD + VESA have/are fixing.

My point is Nvidia could have done it in the same way, instead they went down the extra Hardware + licensing fee's rout. it results in extra costs for the end user, costs that ultimately end in Nvidis's pocket.

Screen vendors now know the module is not needed (Given it was one of Asus's own guy's who did this) Nvidia may be forced to take up Free-Sync, that can only be a good thing.

Martini1991 · 3 Feb 2015 at 10:41

Just sounds like Nvidia are supporting AS where applicable. That doesn't then mean that the g sync module is pointless, or that g sync is just a sync, or even that current desktop gpus can support a sync on their own.

humbug · 3 Feb 2015 at 10:47

Martini1991 said:
Just sounds like Nvidia are supporting AS where applicable. That doesn't then mean that the g sync module is pointless, or that g sync is just a sync, or even that current desktop gpus can support a sync on their own.

IMO just where they can't fit the Module, like Laptop's, with the VESA Standard i don't think the Module is necessary.

MOOGLEYS · 3 Feb 2015 at 10:47

Mei said:
i think if the driver worked without the screen blanking out at low fps it would have been a better story

I have only had that a couple of times, mainly on benchmark loading screens. It happens so quick it's not that bad tbh. I was playing dying light for a good 3 hours last night and it did not happen once even at low fps.

Gregster · 3 Feb 2015 at 10:54

humbug said:
Lets go back to what you actually said.

So when did Nvidia start development on G-Sync and when did AMD start development on Free-Sync?

You don't know.

Why are you taking it personal? I don't care when nVidia started development on the kit but the fact is, it has been out for well over a year. You make these sweeping statements and ask some seriously daft questions and then start having a pop at people.

Stop it!

humbug · 3 Feb 2015 at 10:56

Gregster said:
Why are you taking it personal?

As i said before, it's just a debate. if anyone is taking it personally it's you.

triss · 3 Feb 2015 at 10:57

humbug said:
Lets go back to what you actually said.

So when did Nvidia start development on G-Sync and when did AMD start development on Free-Sync?

You don't know.

You need to go back and read the rest of the thread.

The thread doesnt show Gsync working on a desktop with a desktop gpu it shows a Mobile gsync

Here's the facts: NVIDIA will release G-Sync on mobile devices without the requirement of a G-Sync module, but the company claims that there will be experience differences between desktop and mobile iterations of the technology

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...ed-Leaked-Alpha-Driver/Drawbacks-and-Conclusi

What you mean is you made a statement based on how you think it should have been done and cited it as a fact.

You are trying to establish facts that you don't have, as usual, you know nothing about what you just cited as fact

Yes one day it might not need the module If it decides to go for the Vesa standard way but atm we dont know if thats even possible with the range of GPU's gysnc currently supports

You dont Know what the sole purpose of it is your only going on about on what you feel about it.
Unless you happen to be on the Nvidia board your only guessing just like you have just told greg he doesnt know when AMD started working on Free sync.
Which i agree he doesnt , Well unless hes on AMD's dev team or board but i doubt he is

Going to agree to disagree with ya humbug enjoy your day

Gregster · 3 Feb 2015 at 11:00

humbug said:
As i said before, it's just a debate. if anyone is taking it personally it's you.

A debate is good. Sweeping statements of idiocy are not.

MOOGLEYS · 3 Feb 2015 at 11:00

humbug said:
IMO just where they can't fit the Module, like Laptop's, with the VESA Standard i don't think the Module is necessary.

The module is only necessary if the display is not connected with eDP. The G751 uses eDP hence why you can use G-Sync.

eDP V1.4 supports frame time synchronisation through the data channel which is what makes this possible. This is pretty much what the Nvidia G-Sync module adds to a regular display port signal.

If desktop monitors start using eDP V1.4 then there will be no need for a separate G-Sync module although if it uses the G-Sync name Nvidia will charge a premium for it.