I'm sure Nvidia would license Gsync. Good reasons why AMD might not want to mind.
-
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.
Intel back Free Sync and Vulkan, G-Sync meeting its deserved end.
- Thread starter humbug
- Start date
I'm sure Nvidia would license Gsync. Good reasons why AMD might not want to mind.
Nvidia have said they would just like they would with PhysX, however the flaw with the argument is that Nvidia could use Freesync for free if they wanted to support it (like Intel) wheras Intel would want fees for licensing out G-Sync.
That would be really rather silly, having to pay nVidia to use a technology that makes identical screen's vastly more expensive than AMD's own solution.
Why would AMD pay money to NVidia for something they have identical for free and more than PC support it?
Yes referring to current (Xbone S & X) and future (PS5 & Xbox) consoles, in addition to few dozen million Apple Macs at peoples homes already.
The above shows that AMD is looking for long term game, either forcing Nvidia to admit defeat on that front or become irrelevant err "exclusive" according to Jensen's own words.
But the elephant in the room is why Nvidia is marketing Gsync on laptops when clearly is using the Vesa open standard tech and not their proprietary module?
It would be weird if AMD licenced g-sync. Would make little business sense considering Nvidia are not even supporting FreeSync which they don’t have to pay a penny in licence fee.
Nvidia are not consumer friendly, they will do what they can to screw us as much as they can, that is why their marketing team do that. Not saying this is exclusive to nvidia by the way, but they do get away with a lot due to their mindshare unfortunately. I never forget how people got so upset at what nvidia did to them with the 970. What did most those people do? They returned the 970 and rewarded Nvidia with even more money for the privilege by buying a 980. Lol.
Yeah. Also to add Gsync on laptops is crap. It doesn't work properly. I have such laptop (Predator X15), and there is tearing etc. And the main issue is that there is no driver cap to force the FPS within the monitor refresh rate, without using vsync which adds input lag.
But does anyone bothers raising those issue? Pray to the soul of the poor man, because pitchforks, torches and ropes are out demanding his head.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,617
- Location
- Cornwall
I only asked if AMD could adopt G-Sync because it was them that introduced the 2nd technology to the market and created the divide with 2 technologies.
So while Nvidia could support Adaptive Sync it seems AMD could support G-Sync too, if they wanted to. They could keep Freesync too. Then anyone with a Freesync or G-Sync monitor could use a AMD card, where an Nvidia card would be limited to just G-Sync. Then when the next gen of GPUs is out Freesync owners would have to go AMD and G-Sync owners could go AMD or Nvidia. Maybe it could be a driver DLC where you buy the G-Sync add-on (to cover licencing costs).
Of course, using a technology controlled by your main rival seems like a bad idea. Which is the same reason I didn't think Nvidia should touch Mantle with a barge pole. That ultimately worked out well for us when it became Vulkan and stopped being a proprietary closed project.
I think due to market share Nvidia might be able to keep G-Sync going longer than AMD could with Mantle. If Nvidia can use their control of G-Sync to keep improving it and make it worthwhile I think they'll be able to keep it going. If all it does is what Freesync does but at a larger cost (I say larger as we don't know that Freesync is free to us unless we can compare monitors where the only difference is Freesync) I think it could struggle long term, unless Nvidia GPUs are so far ahead of AMDs that there's not really a way to justify an AMD GPU.
So while Nvidia could support Adaptive Sync it seems AMD could support G-Sync too, if they wanted to. They could keep Freesync too. Then anyone with a Freesync or G-Sync monitor could use a AMD card, where an Nvidia card would be limited to just G-Sync. Then when the next gen of GPUs is out Freesync owners would have to go AMD and G-Sync owners could go AMD or Nvidia. Maybe it could be a driver DLC where you buy the G-Sync add-on (to cover licencing costs).
Of course, using a technology controlled by your main rival seems like a bad idea. Which is the same reason I didn't think Nvidia should touch Mantle with a barge pole. That ultimately worked out well for us when it became Vulkan and stopped being a proprietary closed project.
I think due to market share Nvidia might be able to keep G-Sync going longer than AMD could with Mantle. If Nvidia can use their control of G-Sync to keep improving it and make it worthwhile I think they'll be able to keep it going. If all it does is what Freesync does but at a larger cost (I say larger as we don't know that Freesync is free to us unless we can compare monitors where the only difference is Freesync) I think it could struggle long term, unless Nvidia GPUs are so far ahead of AMDs that there's not really a way to justify an AMD GPU.
Nvidia will drop Gsync the second they think it is not increasing their profits. The fact that gsync is still around clearly means the people complaining about it are a minority.
Gsync's future will depend on how well they can market the advantages of a dedicated hardware module and buffer. Currently Gsync works a little better, but perhaps not sufficiently better to justify costs. In the future Nvidia could develop new functionality that improves experience even more. Or the opposite might happen and their tech become obsolete and unable to keep up with HDR 4K 144HZ screens etc.
At the Moment a consumer can price up a Vega 64 + Freesync screen or a 1080 and Gsync screen. They are a simlar price, and I expect the gsync + 1080 is going to be marginally better. Then you have the high end gamers, AMD literally has nothing to offer.
At this point in time if you have gone the Freesync route then you definitely had the worst consumer options. FuryX was later, hard to get bold of, more expensive, slower and quickly went EOL with 50% less VRAm. With Vega the same freesync owners would have to wait way longer and pay far more money, and not even have the choice of a top end GPU to compete with the 1080ti/Titan. By all accounts Nvidia will be releasing the 1180 Turing cards soon, with nothing from AMD.
However much of a price premium Gsync has, or how much better an open Vesa standard is (freesync isn't open it is a proprietary driver solution from AMD), if you purchased a gsync screen a few years back you are reaping huge benefits. If you had purchased a freesync screen, then a good chance you bought a Nvidia GPU anyway, or had to pay more money for a Vega 64, or had to forego buying a 1080ti competitor and settled for an overpriced Vega 64.
I am not a big fan of proprietary technology, Gsync clearly has some downside and costs associated with it, and I think Nvidia have some long term issues keeping gsync viable. But in the here and now, Gsync owners won out (as did people who purchased cheap freesync screen and had no intention of upgrading to high end GPUs).
Gsync's future will depend on how well they can market the advantages of a dedicated hardware module and buffer. Currently Gsync works a little better, but perhaps not sufficiently better to justify costs. In the future Nvidia could develop new functionality that improves experience even more. Or the opposite might happen and their tech become obsolete and unable to keep up with HDR 4K 144HZ screens etc.
At the Moment a consumer can price up a Vega 64 + Freesync screen or a 1080 and Gsync screen. They are a simlar price, and I expect the gsync + 1080 is going to be marginally better. Then you have the high end gamers, AMD literally has nothing to offer.
At this point in time if you have gone the Freesync route then you definitely had the worst consumer options. FuryX was later, hard to get bold of, more expensive, slower and quickly went EOL with 50% less VRAm. With Vega the same freesync owners would have to wait way longer and pay far more money, and not even have the choice of a top end GPU to compete with the 1080ti/Titan. By all accounts Nvidia will be releasing the 1180 Turing cards soon, with nothing from AMD.
However much of a price premium Gsync has, or how much better an open Vesa standard is (freesync isn't open it is a proprietary driver solution from AMD), if you purchased a gsync screen a few years back you are reaping huge benefits. If you had purchased a freesync screen, then a good chance you bought a Nvidia GPU anyway, or had to pay more money for a Vega 64, or had to forego buying a 1080ti competitor and settled for an overpriced Vega 64.
I am not a big fan of proprietary technology, Gsync clearly has some downside and costs associated with it, and I think Nvidia have some long term issues keeping gsync viable. But in the here and now, Gsync owners won out (as did people who purchased cheap freesync screen and had no intention of upgrading to high end GPUs).
The only advantage g-sync has is having a better range. It is one of the reasons I have a G-Sync monitor as the best 4K Freesync monitor as far as I can see only does 40-60fps range, which is decent, but not good enough. Also obviously they have cards that can drive the latest games at 4K and soon should have mid range parts that can too. AMD on the other hand is stuck with VEGA for another year.
Some games I play can drop to around 30fps range and it is still smooth for me on my monitor which is great. Obviously that does not apply to all games, some run like crap no matter what under 60fps.
Right now though I am very happy with my setup. Even though Nvidia annoy me with a lot of their business practices, until there are options I will be buying their products as I do like their hardware. I would guess I will be buying at least 2 more graphics cards for this monitor. One soon in the form of a 1170/80 then another when 7nm xx80Ti hits.
Some games I play can drop to around 30fps range and it is still smooth for me on my monitor which is great. Obviously that does not apply to all games, some run like crap no matter what under 60fps.
Right now though I am very happy with my setup. Even though Nvidia annoy me with a lot of their business practices, until there are options I will be buying their products as I do like their hardware. I would guess I will be buying at least 2 more graphics cards for this monitor. One soon in the form of a 1170/80 then another when 7nm xx80Ti hits.
My screen is a £160 75Hz screen, it had a factory range of 48 to 75Hz, a firmware update made it 36Hz to 75Hz, Free-Sync also has a feature called (Low Frame Rate Compensation) which brings the working range to 2.5x the screens maximum range, in my case that brings the lowest frame rate at what Free-Sync works to 30Hz.
So the Free-Sync range of my £160 screen is 30 to 75Hz.
They made the same screen G-Sync, tho that one is now out of production, it cost near £300. on the Free-Sync side its still available, now at £140
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/aoc-...descreen-led-monitor-black-red-mo-035-ao.html
It is true in the early days of Free-Sync vs G-Sync G-Sync had a broader range and G-Sync generally went lower, i don't think thats the case now and a lot of the older Free-Sync screens, like mine, have available firmware patches to bring the minimums down, ontop of that AMD's LFC as a direct result of this complaint bring the minimums down even more.
So my old £160 screen with a range of 30 to 75Hz i think is perfectly good.
Another fakery some people like to point at is latency, input lag.... this is what Toms Hardware (who are respected Screen reviewers) has to say about that with my screen.
https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/aoc-g2460pqu-144-hz-gaming-monitor,review-32991-9.html
Not bad for a £160 screen.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,617
- Location
- Cornwall
A 1080p screen? *moves barge-pole well away from it* 
With a 1080p screen wouldn't you find yourself hitting the fps cap a lot of the time, mostly nullifying any benefit gained by either technology?
With a 1080p screen wouldn't you find yourself hitting the fps cap a lot of the time, mostly nullifying any benefit gained by either technology?
A 1080p screen? *moves barge-pole well away from it*
With a 1080p screen wouldn't you find yourself hitting the fps cap a lot of the time, mostly nullifying any benefit gained by either technology?
Well, if like me you have a high end card, most people with sub £200 screens don't.
People with sub 200 screens Cant afford NV 1070 +Gpus anyway so they have 580 + freesync
but its 144hz screen so hitting fps cap with 1070 in many new games wont happen not on ultra settingsA 1080p screen? *moves barge-pole well away from it*
With a 1080p screen wouldn't you find yourself hitting the fps cap a lot of the time, mostly nullifying any benefit gained by either technology?
People with sub 200 screens Cant afford NV 1070 +Gpus anyway so they have 580 + freesync
So that's good...
but its 144hz screen so hitting fps cap with 1070 in many new games wont happen not on ultra settings
Actually mine is a 75Hz screen, the one Toms reviewed is the 144Hz version of it.
Dinner time
My screen is a £160 75Hz screen, it had a factory range of 48 to 75Hz, a firmware update made it 36Hz to 75Hz, Free-Sync also has a feature called (Low Frame Rate Compensation) which brings the working range to 2.5x the screens maximum range, in my case that brings the lowest frame rate at what Free-Sync works to 30Hz.
So the Free-Sync range of my £160 screen is 30 to 75Hz.
They made the same screen G-Sync, tho that one is now out of production, it cost near £300. on the Free-Sync side its still available, now at £140
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/aoc-...descreen-led-monitor-black-red-mo-035-ao.html
It is true in the early days of Free-Sync vs G-Sync G-Sync had a broader range and G-Sync generally went lower, i don't think thats the case now and a lot of the older Free-Sync screens, like mine, have available firmware patches to bring the minimums down, ontop of that AMD's LFC as a direct result of this complaint bring the minimums down even more.
So my old £160 screen with a range of 30 to 75Hz i think is perfectly good.
Another fakery some people like to point at is latency, input lag.... this is what Toms Hardware (who are respected Screen reviewers) has to say about that with my screen.
https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/aoc-g2460pqu-144-hz-gaming-monitor,review-32991-9.html
Not bad for a £160 screen.
But I was talking about a 4K monitor mate
For anything lower there are great choices for Freesync to be fair
Personally I can't stand 1080p now that I have been on 4K for over 4 years, I can see the pixels very clearly. Screen door effect on a monitor? No thanks
It doesn't matter. Most will still buy it if they want it. Until AMD are competitive Nvidia can continue to sell their proprietary stuff.
Good for business, not good for us. But hey they came to market first.
What's this thread about again? I can't remember.
Bloody Hell go back and read my opening post...
You're in the top 0.5% of gamers. We are a tiny fraction, of a percent, compared to the actual market for gamers. They make more money from the other 99+% than they do from us.But I was talking about a 4K monitor mate
For anything lower there are great choices for Freesync to be fair
Personally I can't stand 1080p now that I have been on 4K for over 4 years, I can see the pixels very clearly. Screen door effect on a monitor? No thanks