Soldato
Problem is, gsync adds £250 to the price 
I find the lack of G-Sync Monitors, Disturbing
- Thread starter PaulW
- Start date
Nvidia started acting that way already before you joined this forum and possibly even before you started PC hobby.
And talking about disservices why closed proprietary standards pushed by Nvidia aren't worrying you?
Nvidia basically copied embeddedDP's variable refresh rate feature, making closed version of it instead of advocating it as addition to DP.
(that's why G-sync originally worked only over DP)
nVidia's implementation is a bit different - the FPGA gives the possibility of a wider range of features than adaptive sync with current hardware and easier to implement things like windowed modes and non-conventional refresh rate configurations, etc. "G-Sync" using eDP (mostly just laptops) has a more limited feature set. While it is based off basically ripping off eDP VRR the funny thing is it was born out of the lack of interest from any other party including AMD to push such a technology to mainstream desktop monitor use - strangely enough once nVidia got it up and running suddenly everyone wants on the bandwagon.
The DP limitation is a limitation of the Altera FPGA used by G-Sync and while some monitors you can now connect a HDMI source to them you don't get functioning G-Sync over HDMI only DP.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,865
Everyone forgets this too easily, without nVidia pushing this tech then we may never even have it! Having used both Freesync and Gsync then I'm firmly in the Gsync camp for preference
(see sig!)
Associate
Personally I'm just frustrated that you're locked into 1 camp or the other. I'll happily jump between Intel and AMD, Nvidia and AMD if one brand offers more bang for buck...
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Jan 2015
- Posts
- 1,547
You can probably add me to that list in the near future. I am hoping soon to upgrade my 1080p 34" screen to a 1440p, and to that end, I will be needing a new GPU. Given the huge price difference, and the fact I don't really care whether I use Nvidia or AMD, then the price difference will probably see me going AMD for my next card, despite the fact I use Nvidia at the moment and always have.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Jan 2015
- Posts
- 1,547
Yes I can see digging a little further (its been a while) that you either pay through the nose for the monitor, and have a choice of better GPUs, or save on the monitor and spend a small fortune on a Vega 56 which is only really comparable to a 1070.
So I wonder, what is the sweet spot these days for performance to price for a 1440p superwide / GPU ?
Quite honestly at the minute I could be tempted to just get a high refresh curved 1080P and at least it solves 2 out of 3 of my "issues" presently (currently using a flat 34" 60Hz 1080P screen).
Soldato
I have wound up buying an Aoc AG322QCX as an upgrade from my Acer XB27HU. I do use the word upgrade lightly as I'm actually losing my g-sync module but I've had it long enough and I'm moving to a bigger (and curved) display and certainly not prepared to pay the g-sync premium. I was lucky to pick my Acer up for £440 second hand locally a couple of years ago but the g-sync prices right now are just silly. I got the Aoc for £400. I'm happiest to be keeping the high refresh rate and hopefully I won't miss the g-sync. I'm on a 1080 so easily hitting 120-144 fps in most of my games.
Associate
Disturbing indeed. Then again, the price, can you not blame the market for avoiding the thing?
Hopefully this lack of interest in G-SYNC will force team green to re-think their marketing on it.
Hopefully this lack of interest in G-SYNC will force team green to re-think their marketing on it.
At the moment.
But monitor should be really bought for more like five year upgrade schedule.
And situation might be the other way by then.
Also if Intel starts to truly invest into discrete GPUs they have resources to do lot.
That's why open standards are better.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,375
prices aren't dropping which means nvidia/manufacturers are happy with sales volumes, that alone tells you gsync isn't going anywhere
lots of "freesync" capable screens might be being sold, but with the low % AMD holds in the GPU market it is fair to say that a lot of freesync capable screens are not actually being used for freesync
lots of "freesync" capable screens might be being sold, but with the low % AMD holds in the GPU market it is fair to say that a lot of freesync capable screens are not actually being used for freesync
No, you can't draw an equality like that from A to B, and then to C. Prices not dropping is more probably because they are already making them at low margins, and can't sell cheaper.
I would consider the following facts to be more indicative of the paradigm change:
1) In 2016, there were 83 FreeSync monitors introduced, whereas there were only 18 G-Sync monitors
2) In 2017, the same numbers thus far are 107 vs. 16
For every G-Sync model, there were 4.61 FreeSync models in 2016. In 2017, the same ratio is 6.69, which makes it a 45% improvement, in favor of FreeSync.
Now, consider this thought: AMD/FreeSync were already getting an order of magnitude more design wins from monitor manufacturers in 2016, and they're still improving that ratio. And now AMD is stepping up their game in both CPUs and GPUs, as well. They're also strong on the console market. FreeSync is also supported by XBoneX, driving the pressure into TVs, as well. What's the likelihood of G-Sync being supported, by comparison?
I'm quite certain there are people at nVidia who have done these same calculations. nVidia would have to fight tooth-and-nail to get the design wins for the next console generation. Unless, of course, they succumb to supporting FreeSync / Adaptive Sync, thus leveling the playing field.
And that's precisely what nVidia is afraid of. With FreeSync's zero price premium, this will increasingly default to both manufacturers and consumers choosing FreeSync over G-Sync. And indeed, FreeSync monitors are taking over the market share rapidly. Now imagine what happens in two years, when people start upgrading their GPUs, and they realize they already have a FreeSync-capable monitor. If AMD is at that point at least semi-competitive in the GPU side, how much persuasion do you think consumers will need to tip over to AMD GPUs?
Personal opinion / summarizing thoughts:
When taking all of this into perspective, it is increasingly more evident that nVidia will simply have to start supporting FreeSync / Adaptive Sync at some point. After that, the incentive to purchase a G-Sync monitor is quite slim, and customer demand drops. When this happens, monitor manufacturers will lean even further towards FreeSync. Thus nVidia's source of cash flow for G-Sync research stops, and they can't justify continuing the project.
With the way things are now, G-Sync IS going to lose the standard war, and it will disappear. It's not a question of IF, it is indeed a question of WHEN. It won't happen in a year. Maybe not even in two years. But hopefully in five years, we won't be even talking about G-Sync, let alone consider it as a worthwhile option.
(or better yet, hopefully they'll come up with a new generation of G-Sync that actually brings something new and worthwhile to the table, something that justifies the price premium)
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,375
Missing the point. Consumers are not choosing freesync, they are buying cheap screens because they are cheap and then buying Nvidia GPU's to go with them.
Lol at gsync monitors being low margin.
Lol at gsync monitors being low margin.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 10,613
I didn't buy a Nvidia GPU because I know G-sync monitors cost more. If G-Sync had freesync, then I might have looked into Nvidia GPU. But they don't so I didn't. In effect Nvidia have lost a past and future customer- as my next monitor will be freesync as I wouldn't want to spend an extra £200 for it. Plus there isn't much choice in G-Sync monitors.
£200 for 32" 1440p, 75hz, VA freesync- bargain.
How much would the Gsync version cost?
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,375
congratulations in being part of the 30%, one case of anecdotal evidence doesn't trump actual real sales figures though, sorry
people have been saying "gsync is dead" since day one, however it is still here, no big price drops and more monitors announced to be released
there isn't a gsync version of a 75hz VA monitor though because they aren't throwing gsync in to every monitor just for the sake of it - even the HDR gsync models have been delayed due to the panels not being up to spec - gsync is going for the premium market and keeping to specs instead of just throwing it in to everything just because
if people want to get freesync over and above having a consistent experience then there is a market for that, its not the market nvidia are aiming at though
I find it really funny that someone can accuse gsync of having low margins and then the next person comes up with a £200 monitor as proof that freesync is thriving
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 10,613
How is g-sync "premium" oh yeah because it costs more?
Well done. lol
Also I know someone with Nvidia GPU. He won't be buying a G-Sync monitor, instead he'll just get a freesync 144hz monitor as it costs less. And maybe his next GPU will be AMD?
Stupid business decision, Nvidia should support freesync and then have G-sync ontop for "advanced" features where people don't mind paying a "premium" for, for things Freesync lacks.
He means they are fussy what Panels they match it too, some of the cheap panels with F-Sync and poor ranges are basically too cheap and not good spec wise.
If you ever watched the videos with Tom Petersen he states this and that Panels had to be scrutinised.
If you ever watched the videos with Tom Petersen he states this and that Panels had to be scrutinised.