• 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 plans to support FreeSync.

fs123 said:
Like I said previously, Freesync is a brand name like Gsync to make adaptive sync sound interesting and stand out. Anyone is able to use Freesync if they so wish...
Intel may call their implementation something else but I bet their gpu's will work with Freesync monitors, no matter what the Nvidia hardcore say...
In fact monitor makers will simply advertise the monitors as Freesync/Intelsync capable.
Click to expand...

You don't have a clue what Freesync is.
 
Mauller said:
Sorry to be pedantic, but Blu-Ray was superior to HD-DVD :P And yeah, sadly VHS only gained the same quality as Betamax when S-VHS came out. But support for S-VHS was far and in between.

Then there was also Laserdisc, but let's not talk about LP sized CD's :D
Click to expand...

I had a laserdisc player and to be honest the less said about it the better. ;)
 
queamin said:
I got a mini disk player some where and I brought a CD32 and spent a load on memory and expansion box and hard drive my god should have just brought a A1200 or kept my A500.
Click to expand...

God dam Amiga fanbois, Atari FTW. :D:p:D


(and you people thought AMD vs NVidia was bad.)
 
Mauller said:
Sorry to be pedantic, but Blu-Ray was superior to HD-DVD :P
Click to expand...

It was a superior storage format, housing an inferior video format. The advantage of HD-DVD was because it used the better codec it didn't need as much space anyway. (This has now been improved on in modern BR discs).
 
Hail to the king, baby.

maxresdefault.jpg


Imagine the storage on a bluray that big XD. And that thing stored less than a cd, although saying that. I took a picture of a HDD Platter at CERN in January that is larger than that and only stored 10Mb. My Student union card for Scale. Also a standard 3.5in drive next to it.
8aAVa0I.jpg.png

IS an awesome place CERN.

IBM Multicore processor :P
dUtsequ.jpg.png

AND all three generations of storage drive next to eachother, the large one i thin is either an 8 or 10in hdd.

VbGwomv.jpg.png
 
Mauller said:
Hail to the king, baby.

maxresdefault.jpg


Imagine the storage on a bluray that big XD. And that thing stored less than a cd, although saying that. I took a picture of a HDD Platter at CERN in January that is larger than that and only stored 10Mb. My Student union card for Scale. Also a standard 3.5in drive next to it.
8aAVa0I.jpg.png

IS an awesome place CERN.

IBM Multicore processor :P
dUtsequ.jpg.png

AND all three generations of storage drive next to eachother, the large one i thin is either an 8 or 10in hdd.

VbGwomv.jpg.png
Click to expand...


Woarrrr look at those Dustbin Lids, awesome :D
 
Marine-RX179 said:
If Nvidia doesn't support adaptive-sync in their future products, it could well be the case of turning people away that wish to go Nvidia but have a set budget.
Click to expand...

This was one of the reasons I went for the fury x over the 980ti.

I got a 2550 x 1440, 144hz freesync monitor, but for the same price the I could only get a 1920 x 1080, 144hz g-sync. £400-500 was a little more than i was comfortable paying for a monitor as it was, so £600+ wasn't for me.

I'm all for open standards so if Nvidia gave the option for both I may consider them again. Hopefully with Intel backing adaptive sync they might end up doing it.
 
humbug said:
Right ^^ Intel will run any Free-Sync Monitor.

Intel may brand their software something else and have Free-Sync Screen Vendors print it on their panels alongside the Free-Sync branding.

Or not, or AMD are licensing their Software to Intel and it may remain Free-Sync.
Click to expand...

It probably will, personally I don't think Intel would but they COULD insist on charging a licensing fee for certification and blacklist non certified screens. AMD is not doing this hence the no cost increase. Nvidia is doing this and has done it for years on motherboards/monitors that don't pay up which is why driver 'hacks' worked to enable SLI on motherboards that weren't branded compatible.

There are really two options, Intel want to charge monitor makers to licence it and will blacklist monitors that haven't paid from the drivers, in which case current freesync screens wouldn't work and in the future only those monitors which paid would work. Intel could go the other way and provide certification for free and not blacklist anything, in which case I would expect their apus to work with any adaptive sync screen as AMDs do. I think it's significantly more likely that Intel will do the latter and not charge for it.
 
Marine-RX179 said:
The pass and present is done and dusted...what I want to know is what Nvidia will do for future Nvidia users that wish to use Adaptive-sync monitor instead of Gsync monitor?

I mean if I was to upgrade my graphic card now, I would most likely take a 980Ti over a Fury X...but I'm not happy with having to pay £150 extra for using sync. If Nvidia doesn't support adaptive-sync in their future products, it could well be the case of turning people away that wish to go Nvidia but have a set budget.
Click to expand...

Just buy a Fury X and a Freesync monitor then? I am just telling you how it is and how it was. I am more than happy with my monitor, so unless AMD have something that has the 'Wow' factor, I will stick with Nvidia for my main system. Nvidia might well be introducing something in Pascal to support Adaptive Sync monitors for all any of us know but the current Nvidia cards don't have the ability to support A-Sync monitors.

Good news that Intel are getting on board but I would be surprised if any Intel gamers would be interested.
 
drunkenmaster said:
It probably will, personally I don't think Intel would but they COULD insist on charging a licensing fee for certification and blacklist non certified screens. AMD is not doing this hence the no cost increase. Nvidia is doing this and has done it for years on motherboards/monitors that don't pay up which is why driver 'hacks' worked to enable SLI on motherboards that weren't branded compatible.

There are really two options, Intel want to charge monitor makers to licence it and will blacklist monitors that haven't paid from the drivers, in which case current freesync screens wouldn't work and in the future only those monitors which paid would work. Intel could go the other way and provide certification for free and not blacklist anything, in which case I would expect their apus to work with any adaptive sync screen as AMDs do. I think it's significantly more likely that Intel will do the latter and not charge for it.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt Intel will go the Nvidia route. Their igpu's will not benefit from more sales just because people are forced to use their brand of monitor. Any serious gamers will go for Gsync or Freesync. Intel will most likely stick with free, open licensing allowing their gpu's to work with a readily available selection of monitors straight away.
 
drunkenmaster said:
It probably will, personally I don't think Intel would but they COULD insist on charging a licensing fee for certification and blacklist non certified screens. AMD is not doing this hence the no cost increase. Nvidia is doing this and has done it for years on motherboards/monitors that don't pay up which is why driver 'hacks' worked to enable SLI on motherboards that weren't branded compatible.

There are really two options, Intel want to charge monitor makers to licence it and will blacklist monitors that haven't paid from the drivers, in which case current freesync screens wouldn't work and in the future only those monitors which paid would work. Intel could go the other way and provide certification for free and not blacklist anything, in which case I would expect their apus to work with any adaptive sync screen as AMDs do. I think it's significantly more likely that Intel will do the latter and not charge for it.
Click to expand...

As i understand it you can only profit from Open Standards in an (Added Value) format, so you can chage pepole for the Added Value your software brings but must also remain open for the Vendor to implement their own.

So Intel cannot block vendors implementing Adaptive Sync on their GPU's and calling it what they like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom