I find the lack of G-Sync Monitors, Disturbing

Associate
Joined
6 Apr 2011
Posts
710
Location
Finland
Again, no evidence to back up any of your claims
As far as I can tell, so far you've only presented the "nVidia sells more GPUs" -mantra. I'm at least presenting you logical causations, and even provide links that explain them and how they've come to be. You've done no such thing.

showing a massive disregard for basic business sense, all the indicators prove the opposite.
Please elaborate, at which point does my logic falter? And please tell me what indicators? If there are many, then surely you should be able to dish out some?

The only thing your ratio proves is that freesync is cheap to implement and AMD are happy to devalue their trademark by slapping it on any old tat. Like allowing manufacturers to slap freesync-HDR on monitors that arent.
No, it actually doesn't PROVE that FreeSync is cheap, it only indicates it. There is naturally still some non-zero engineering cost for the manufacturer. It's just in a different league when compared to G-Sync, because it doesn't require a separate module. But it DOES prove that manufacturers are more keen on implementing FreeSync over G-Sync. Unless we include the fringe possibility of an unknown force behind the scenes that coerces all the manufacturers to do so, or something of similar nature.

Also, "happy to devalue their trademark"? Please elaborate. Yes, they want it to be implemented on monitors that support their tech. And they are indeed branding it as an inexpensive alternative to the overpriced G-Sync. As for HDR: AMD have set the minimum requirements for the different FreeSync categories, and manufacturers play ball with it. G-Sync has its own requirements, and manufacturers play ball with it, as well, but on a smaller scale. It's called differentiation.

Its a bit difficult to actually be condescending when the indicatirs all point in the opposite direction.
Again, please do elaborate what you mean by all the indicators.

But good luck in whatever you choose to do, just hope it isnt business as you dont appear to be able to read the market, prices, shipments and draw any kind of realistic conclusion.
Thanks. I already am. I think the difference between us is that you only see the market, prices and shipments in a small scope, from an adjacent market, and draw your conclusions from them, without even taking any of the other stuff into account. Then again, you shouldn't take my statements as God's words, either. They're just forecasts based on my own interpretations. If I was always 100% right, I would make a fortune in the stock market.

Retailers havent "cut" prices, there is a £100 spread on one of the monitors you chose, without discounts, which means the 3-4 retailers have deliberately chosen different price points from release. So one of those retailers is making £100 more by choice, it doesnt prove gsync is low margin, it proves the opposite. The one with the highest price is the one that claims to have the best links direct to manufacturers, so as close to no supply chain as you can get.
I already commented on the price differences on the end of my previous message, please read it again. Ok wait, I'll give you an example, so we can put this to rest:
Store A (you) has debt they have to pay back to their investors, and rent to pay, and three slacking employees that you need to pay wages to.
Store B (someone else) is next door, and it owns the property it's in (no rent), is free from debt, and only has one cheap but skillful trainee handling the inventory and sales.

These factors (among others) mandate the stores' profit margins. Store A has more liabilities, so even if you get the same monitor for the same price as Store B, you have to set the prices higher to stay profitable. So the £300 monitor you both received from the manufacturer or the middleman, you'll have to set the price for £500, whereas Store B can sell it for £400. Now you have a different price between the stores, and Store B might still make even more profit than you.

Let's expand it to the price cuts:
If the said monitor is starting to lose interest among the customer base, and you have LOADS of them at the warehouse, you have to decide whether to sell them now at a small loss, or at a bigger loss a year from now. Or even worse, in five years get stuck with a merchandise that nobody wants, anymore, potentially having to PAY to send them to scrap yard.

So your example of a store that sells the monitor for a different price is an anecdotal evidence, at best. And I think someone already said something about those, as well...

In general, your message was avoiding all the questions and requests for clarifications. All your message basically says, is: "Nuh-uh, nuh-uh! YOU are!"
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2016
Posts
9,441
"any old tat"

Clearly you're a Nvidia fanboy.

Also when there is a Freesync and G-Sync version of the EXACT SAME MONITOR- how is the Freesync version "any old tat"

The only thing your ratio proves is that freesync is cheap to implement

Is FLAC "cheap to implement" too, or would you rather pay royalities for using licensed closed audio codec? And how is a free, open source "cheap and nasty" which you are implying (it isn't)

Sure you'll get low end monitors with Freesync, but who cares, don't buy it. Just like you wouldn't buy a 6 bit TN G-Sync panel if you're a professional photo editor.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Nov 2011
Posts
11,370
"any old tat"

Clearly you're a Nvidia fanboy.

Also when there is a Freesync and G-Sync version of the EXACT SAME MONITOR- how is the Freesync version "any old tat"



Is FLAC "cheap to implement" too, or would you rather pay royalities for using licensed closed audio codec? And how is a free, open source "cheap and nasty" which you are implying (it isn't)

Sure you'll get low end monitors with Freesync, but who cares, don't buy it. Just like you wouldn't buy a 6 bit TN G-Sync panel if you're a professional photo editor.

I'm not having a go at freesync, on a decent monitor it works well. The problem is AMD have taken a stance of doing no QC of their own on monitors that use the logo. Case in point nvidia have specified hdr needs 1000nits, so theyve been delayed, meanwhile freesync "hdr" monitirs are out and people are struggling to tell if HDR is on or not. Freesync monitor reviews are rife with similar problems. That isnt freesync's fault, it the individual monitors and a complete lack of control over the brand which devalues the entire brand.

I personally dont see the value to a gamer of going from a 60hz monitor to 75hz, but freesync does tick that box where gsync doesnt. I dont see that as a lost sale for gsync and it in no way proves that gsync is dying off. People will buy cheap monitors because they are cheap, it doesnt prove they are buying it to make use of freesync - GPU sales point in the opposite direction, pricing (big discounts on freesync monitors) points in the opposite direction, new gsync monitors being announced for 2018 says gsync isnt going to die off in 2018 either.

The same tired tropes about freesync killing gsync have been going since before freesync was released, still hasnt happened after 3 years. Hasnt even done AMD any favours on the GPU front.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Nov 2011
Posts
11,370
Seriously? You are proud of Nvidia Gsync monitors QC then? How many X34As it take to find a good one? Because thats what you wrote.

You're absolutely right, setting minimum specifications for a something-sync panel and a particular monitor manufacturer not checking every individual product at manufacturing is totally the same thing.

If you think thats what I wrote then you really need some help with reading and comprehension.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
19,325
Location
Somewhere in the middle.
There is a huge difference between the motion clarity of a 100+Hz "gaming" monitor and those overclocked Korean, etc. panels though and that doesn't come cheap and some of them had quite high input latency (though some where quite good).

And so there should be. In about five years 1440p monitors have just gained some improved motion and responsiveness. The result is they demand £600+ for Gsync IPS.

I couldn't go back to gaming at 60hz but it's a shame we need to bend over and take it from manufacturers who produce average displays for above average prices.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2009
Posts
13,252
Location
Under the hot sun.
You're absolutely right, setting minimum specifications for a something-sync panel and a particular monitor manufacturer not checking every individual product at manufacturing is totally the same thing.

If you think thats what I wrote then you really need some help with reading and comprehension.

AMD has set up the same minimum specifications but you are so blind writing the most vile anti AMD posts in this very forum to the point that you miss what you write yourself.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Nov 2011
Posts
11,370
AMD has set up the same minimum specifications but you are so blind writing the most vile anti AMD posts in this very forum to the point that you miss what you write yourself.

So AMD allowing a 400cd/m2 panel to be used as HDR is the exact same spec as Nvidia forcing manufacturers to delay their gsync monitors until the panels allow 1000cd/m2

I thought 1000 was quite a bit more than 400, but I stand corrected.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2016
Posts
9,441
So AMD allowing a 400cd/m2 panel to be used as HDR is the exact same spec as Nvidia forcing manufacturers to delay their gsync monitors until the panels allow 1000cd/m2

I thought 1000 was quite a bit more than 400, but I stand corrected.

Can AMD or Nvidia halt production of a "fake HDR monitor" I doubt it. Also how come you're not whinging about certain TV's that don't provide enought NITS of HDR output?

You're just basically a Nvidia extremist.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,824
Can AMD or Nvidia halt production of a "fake HDR monitor" I doubt it. Also how come you're not whinging about certain TV's that don't provide enought NITS of HDR output?

You're just basically a Nvidia extremist.

Yes - nVidia exert some control over the use of G-Sync in monitors.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Nov 2011
Posts
11,370
Can AMD or Nvidia halt production of a "fake HDR monitor" I doubt it. Also how come you're not whinging about certain TV's that don't provide enought NITS of HDR output?

You're just basically a Nvidia extremist.

Nvidia have specified gsync HDR needs to use panels capable of 1000cd/m2... AMD haven't. Gsync HDR monitors were announced in May for release before the end of this year, but have been delayed because of this spec, so yes it appears they can. My HDR TV is capable of peak of about 1400nits, but this isn't a TV/HDR thread so there's no point discussing it here.

If having correct information makes me an nvidia extremist, then so be it, lol.
 
Associate
Joined
1 Dec 2015
Posts
1,194
Seems like a strange stance from Nvidia.

I can understand that they want to make sure that Gsync works properly and that the other components used are suitable for Gsync.

But they shouldn't be interested in brightness, picture quality or anything.

I would like to buy a gsync 144hz 1080p screen but Gsync is £400 and Freesync £200.
I only really want it for counterstrike so image quality isn't important.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2016
Posts
9,441
Seems like a strange stance from Nvidia.

I can understand that they want to make sure that Gsync works properly and that the other components used are suitable for Gsync.

But they shouldn't be interested in brightness, picture quality or anything.

I would like to buy a gsync 144hz 1080p screen but Gsync is £400 and Freesync £200.
I only really want it for counterstrike so image quality isn't important.

I guess the only similar analogy would be with THX Ultra spec audio gear, to be appoved it has to pass specific tests, otherwise it's not THX Ultra.

But it's like there are THX Ultra spec amps, or none at all, you would need another brand amps which won't work at all with THX Ultra speakers.

lol
 
Associate
Joined
1 Dec 2015
Posts
1,194
I guess the only similar analogy would be with THX Ultra spec audio gear, to be appoved it has to pass specific tests, otherwise it's not THX Ultra.

But it's like there are THX Ultra spec amps, or none at all, you would need another brand amps which won't work at all with THX Ultra speakers.

lol

I'm only interested in the Gsync.

Couldn't care a less about the audio :(
 
Associate
Joined
6 Apr 2011
Posts
710
Location
Finland
I'm not having a go at freesync, on a decent monitor it works well. The problem is AMD have taken a stance of doing no QC of their own on monitors that use the logo. Case in point nvidia have specified hdr needs 1000nits, so theyve been delayed, meanwhile freesync "hdr" monitirs are out and people are struggling to tell if HDR is on or not. Freesync monitor reviews are rife with similar problems. That isnt freesync's fault, it the individual monitors and a complete lack of control over the brand which devalues the entire brand.

Here are my answers from previous messages:
"Now, this would otherwise be a sound argument, except FreeSync can be found in high-end, mid-end AND low-end. More choice is a good thing. Surely we're not giving G-Sync extra credit for LIMITED selection?"
"Yes, they want it to be implemented on monitors that support their tech. And they are indeed branding it as an inexpensive alternative to the overpriced G-Sync. As for HDR: AMD have set the minimum requirements for the different FreeSync categories, and manufacturers play ball with it. G-Sync has its own requirements, and manufacturers play ball with it, as well, but on a smaller scale. It's called differentiation."

An example: If Skoda wants to set a specific requirement of 5.1 surround sound system for all their cars, should we lambaste Renault for not doing the same, but only sticking to the regular 2+2 sound system requirement? No, they both differentiate their products to how they see fit. Some people simply don't want to pay extra for the 5.1 surround, so there is no reason to make a portfolio-wide requirement for it, either.

Additionally on HDR and its problems: could you open up that bit? I haven't paid much attention to HDR, as I feel it's an unnecessary gimmick, but from what I've gathered, there are currently only three FreeSync 2 monitors on the market (note: there are no HDR requirements on the first gen FreeSync):
Samsung C27HG70
Samsung C32HG70
Samsung C49HG90

Has there been problems with them? Furthermore, from what I picked up from
https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-freesync-2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KjIPAJXxNM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgBzpYTn_8c

... the HDR in TVs seems to be a whole different beast when compared to PC HDR functionality (nVidia included). It also seems that HDR is still quite limited and in its infancy, at the moment. So before we judge any HDR to one way or another, I would
a) let other manufacturers bring their counterparts to the market, as well
b) give it a little more time.

I personally dont see the value to a gamer of going from a 60hz monitor to 75hz, but freesync does tick that box where gsync doesnt.
Well, 75Hz is still a +25% improvement over 60Hz. But anyway, you can consider both 60Hz and 75Hz FreeSync monitors as oriented more towards casual gamers, whereas 100Hz+ FreeSyncs are more oriented towards serious gamers. With G-Sync, you just don't have this choice, in the first place.

I dont see that as a lost sale for gsync and it in no way proves that gsync is dying off.
Like said before, after people purchase the FreeSync monitor, they won't purchase a second monitor, just for G-Sync. Ok, let me try to open it up:
Customer goes to a store, wants to purchase a new monitor. He finds four (/five) interesting models:
A) G-Sync 24" TN 180Hz 1080p
B) G-Sync 27" IPS 165Hz 1440p
C) G-Sync 32" VA 144Hz 1080p
D) FreeSync 32" IPS 75Hz 1440p
E) <you can give your own alternative here, if you like>

... and compares which one to buy. Then he looks at the price tags (£400, £690, £750, £250, £XYZ), and weighs in the features. Then he ignores the G-Sync models, and purchases the FreeSync model. Now he has a monitor. He doesn't need another one now.

So in the start, there was a potential sale for G-Sync to be grabbed. But that sale went to FreeSync, instead. Effectively, G-Sync lost the sale.

But you are correct, that part by itself doesn't PROVE G-Sync is dying off -- then again, I don't think anyone even said that. But it is indeed a contributing factor to it.

People will buy cheap monitors because they are cheap, it doesnt prove they are buying it to make use of freesync
Again, nobody claimed otherwise. I just said that at the next GPU upgrade, the red team suddenly starts to make more sense, when the customers already have a FreeSync monitor.

GPU sales point in the opposite direction, pricing (big discounts on freesync monitors) points in the opposite direction
nVidia has been selling more GPUs for a very long time, yet manufacturers still increasingly flock towards FreeSync. So FreeSync must be doing something right, then. Also, what big discounts? You do know there was/is a Black Friday sale just now?

new gsync monitors being announced for 2018 says gsync isnt going to die off in 2018 either.
True, but I don't think anyone claimed that it WOULD die in 2018. Nevertheless, if by comparison there are still an order of magnitude more FreeSync monitors announced against them, then it shows the direction they're headed.

The same tired tropes about freesync killing gsync have been going since before freesync was released, still hasnt happened after 3 years. Hasnt even done AMD any favours on the GPU front.
I think G-Sync having one year head-start, yet FreeSync coming from the underdog position and going straight past them, is quite an achievement. And again: "what you consider as "hasn't even done..."... And remember, they did indeed still manage to increase their sales.

Side note: now it seems like you are making up claims that others are supposedly putting forward, but nobody is. Let me try, too: nVidia selling more GPUs doesn't prove that 9/11 was an inside job. And G-Sync having a "G" in its name doesn't prove it was made in Germany.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Nov 2011
Posts
11,370
More word salad, nom nom nom.

Still banging on the "models proves it" trope. Which still proves nothing except how cheap it is to implement freesync, not how well it is selling. Freesync monitors have had to have big discounts all over the place, not just this weekend. Yawn.

Nice to see you finally admit that your conclusions are completely made up though.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2016
Posts
9,441
More word salad, nom nom nom.

Still banging on the "models proves it" trope. Which still proves nothing except how cheap it is to implement freesync, not how well it is selling. Freesync monitors have had to have big discounts all over the place, not just this weekend. Yawn.

And that is good thing. Which you can't get your head around..

More freesynx monitors is a good thing, more choice, not less. And more affordable.

Once TVs become freesynx I think that would be end of gsync. Nvidia will drop gysnc and use a sync system.
 
Back
Top Bottom