Intel plans to support FreeSync.

[SeanDrake]

Free sync isn't AMDs name for adaptive sync, it is AMD's proprietary software solution that implements adaptive sync on certain AMD hardware.

But but but AMD are the benevolent champions of open source they would not use proprietry solutions only the evil Nvidia do that.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

I using DP that come with my monitor and has worked perfectly without a single issue.. I very doubt its a high priced one.

Its the same with all the Monster cables they way over priced! Too me a Digital cable is a Digital cable they do the same thing..

Maybe the issue some having here is using wrong spec cable? Like HDMI 1.4 on GPU with HDMI 2.0 and then complain when 60hz 4k dont work?
Same with DP 1.x etc

Pretty sure my Startech said it was 1.2. I think AMDMatt linked a website that listed DP 1.2 cables and I think it was on there.
To be fair I only tried it with AMD cards, maybe it would've worked with Nvidia.

But yes, the cables that come with monitors have worked for me, it's when I want to connect additional computers to the monitors that I find issues as very few monitors come with enough cables for all their ports (although my 4K did, one was a DP-to-miniDP cable).

 

[fs123]

But but but AMD are the benevolent champions of open source they would not use proprietry solutions only the evil Nvidia do that.

I see no Nvidia fan wants Freesync to succeed. Freesync is the 'name' for the software implementation that enables AMD cards to use Adaptive sync. I'm pretty sure every gpu makers will write the code to activate the open standard adaptive sync differently. It's hardly rocket science to understand this mate.

This is the same as how Nvidia will write code to use HDMI for their cards and AMD will write their own code. No one is stopping Nvidia/Intel from using this technology and is not proprietary like for example how Physx or G-sync is for Nvidia GPU's.

 

[melmac]

But but but AMD are the benevolent champions of open source they would not use proprietry solutions only the evil Nvidia do that.

Wow, that terrible joke shows how completely you misunderstand Freesync/adaptive sync.

There is nothing stopping Nvidia from making cards to connect to an Adaptive sync monitor, except Nvidia themselves.

 

[melmac]

Pretty sure my Startech said it was 1.2. I think AMDMatt linked a website that listed DP 1.2 cables and I think it was on there.
To be fair I only tried it with AMD cards, maybe it would've worked with Nvidia.

But yes, the cables that come with monitors have worked for me, it's when I want to connect additional computers to the monitors that I find issues as very few monitors come with enough cables for all their ports (although my 4K did, one was a DP-to-miniDP cable).

Display port is currently going through the same troubles as HDMI in the first few years of it's release. Cables not working with certain hardware, some hardware not handshaking at all etc. etc.

 

[D.P.]

Wow, that terrible joke shows how completely you misunderstand Freesync/adaptive sync.

There is nothing stopping Nvidia from making cards to connect to an Adaptive sync monitor, except Nvidia themselves.

No, but AMD's solution in proprietary and closed source.

It doesn't matter at all though. I do t know why some people get so hung up on closed source software when they happily use closed source windows, closed source DX API and play closed source games on a computer where almost the entire hardware is closed source.

I'm a big advocate of open source software and use it whenever possible, , hence I won't touch DX or window for example. But I will happily use closed source software if need b and it works, such as Adobe products.

Im a sofa re engineer and I will always look for an open source solution but invariably our commercial products end up with a proprietary closed solution solution because lone source products invariably suck in comparison.

 

[melmac]

No, but AMD's solution in proprietary and closed source.

It doesn't matter at all though. I do t know why some people get so hung up on closed source software when they happily use closed source windows, closed source DX API and play closed source games on a computer where almost the entire hardware is closed source.

I'm a big advocate of open source software and use it whenever possible, , hence I won't touch DX or window for example. But I will happily use closed source software if need b and it works, such as Adobe products.

Im a sofa re engineer and I will always look for an open source solution but invariably our commercial products end up with a proprietary closed solution solution because lone source products invariably suck in comparison.

lol, of course AMD's method of connecting to an adaptive sync monitor is closed and proprietary. What good would it do anyone else? It's like complaining that AMD's drivers are closed. It's a daft argument, and my point still stand, stupid joke and there is nothing stopping Nvidia of supporting the open standard except Nvidia.

 

[ubersonic]

There is nothing stopping Nvidia from making cards to connect to an Adaptive sync monitor, except Nvidia themselves.

Nvidia's current lineup isn't compatible with Freesync/adaptive sync, they were actually the first ones to look into it but decided it would be better to go the G-Sync route as it would allow compatibility with the GTX650 and newer/higher cards plus the overall experience would be better.

 

[melmac]

Nvidia's current lineup isn't compatible with Freesync/adaptive sync, they were actually the first ones to look into it but decided it would be better to go the G-Sync route as it would allow compatibility with the GTX650 and newer/higher cards plus the overall experience would be better.

I know Nvidia's line up isn't compatible at the moment. They don't have the hardware necessary. And I don't know who was first to look into it. Adaptive sync was coming, AMD had prepared their cards by putting it the appropriate hardware into their 290 series cards, this was before Gsync was even released.

So you can go two routes, one Nvidia thought of sync tech first and AMD got wind of it, realised they couldn't match it and came up with the proposal for VESA

or

AMD thought of it first, Nvidia got wind of it, realised that that their cards weren't suitable and that there was money to made so came up with their own solution.

You could argue that AMD came up with the idea first as they have much more experience with eDP through their APU's. Why else would the have put the hardware not needed by any desktop monitor into their Hawaii cards, this would have had to be in the plans long before the 290 cards were released.

You can argue the other way too. But, personally I think AMD came up with the idea but because they have no resources had to go the slow route and Nvidia beat them to the punch.

And of course it's entirely possible that both companies had come up with the idea separately after eDP 1.3 was released.

 

[layte]

Nobody at all was even making any noises about using the eDP protocol in discreet displays until well after Nvidia launched G-Sync. Said protocol having existed for years prior to G-Sync. AMD got lucky obviously having a single display output design they used in both mobile and desktop GPUs, and being mobile having to support the embedded DP spec. Said spec obviously needed some work as AMD's older cards only have very limited support for Freesync.

 

[melmac]

Nobody at all was even making any noises about using the eDP protocol in discreet displays until well after Nvidia launched G-Sync. Said protocol having existed for years prior to G-Sync. AMD got lucky obviously having a single display output design they used in both mobile and desktop GPUs, and being mobile having to support the embedded DP spec. Said spec obviously needed some work as AMD's older cards only have very limited support for Freesync.

AMD had to be thinking about it as they put hardware totally unnecessary to connect to desktop monitors into their 290 series, But hardware that's needed to connect to adaptive sync displays, which they only submitted the proposal for in November 2013.

I know we all like to think AMD have no clue but there is no way AMD could have redone the whole GPU between the Gsync announcement and the release of the 290 series cards.

The eDP specification has been around for years but its only since the release of the eDP 1.3 that the panel self refresh feature came into play which you need the framebuffer for.

So Two years later in 2013 and in the same month Nvidia announce Gsync And AMD release cards with a framebuffer needed for adaptive sync.

So the evidence is that that AMD were considering Sync technology before Gsync was announced. So who thought of the idea first? I am just offering the opinion that it isn't there a good chance that the company who worked most with eDP would have thought of it first?

I don't know for sure, all I do know is that it's obvious that both companies had been thinking of sync technologies before Gsync.

 

[andybird123]

All GPU's have framebuffers, go look up triple buffering
Its more likely that the hardware used by AMD for freesync is related to their frame pacing which they improved between the 7970 and 290X

If they thought of it first why was it months after the gsync reveal before they said anything

 

[Howling]

If they thought of it first why was it months after the gsync reveal before they said anything

It wasn't ready?

 

[Martini1991]

It wasn't ready?

And then it took another year to be ready?

 

[bru]

AMD had to be thinking about it as they put hardware totally unnecessary to connect to desktop monitors into their 290 series, But hardware that's needed to connect to adaptive sync displays, which they only submitted the proposal for in November 2013.

I know we all like to think AMD have no clue but there is no way AMD could have redone the whole GPU between the Gsync announcement and the release of the 290 series cards.

The eDP specification has been around for years but its only since the release of the eDP 1.3 that the panel self refresh feature came into play which you need the framebuffer for.

So Two years later in 2013 and in the same month Nvidia announce Gsync And AMD release cards with a framebuffer needed for adaptive sync.

So the evidence is that that AMD were considering Sync technology before Gsync was announced. So who thought of the idea first? I am just offering the opinion that it isn't there a good chance that the company who worked most with eDP would have thought of it first?

I don't know for sure, all I do know is that it's obvious that both companies had been thinking of sync technologies before Gsync.

Interesting theory.

I submit that the hardware was not placed into the 290/x first, as it was the hardware in all GCN 1.1 cards, the first of which was the 7790 back in march 2013 and APU's in Jan 2014.
Personally I don't think AMD were looking at a variable refresh rate system at all.
When NVidia showed everyone GSync, some very clever boffins at AMD said hey hold on a minute we could do something similar with the circuitry we placed in the chips for EDP purposes, thus freesync was born, originally shown on those laptops, that had the EDP spec panels.

Again with the earlier GCN 1.0 parts that are only Freesync capable for video playback, if they placed this circuitry in the chips deliberately for Freesync, why not do it right straight form the off. I feel this again lends credence to the idea that they found they could do a similar thing with existing circuitry.

I take nothing away from AMD for coming up with a innovative way of doing a similar thing to GSync, with existing tech.

Of course as with all these things we will probably never know.

 

[Gregster]

If AMD did think of it first, someone should be sacked for taking this length of time to get it to market and a year after Nvidia.

 

[Dicehunter]

If AMD did think of it first, someone should be sacked for taking this length of time to get it to market and a year after Nvidia.

Well it came out later than G-Sync mainly due to the fact that it had to become a VESA standard first as to avoid licensing costs etc...

The only reason Nvidia came out with it first is because they made their own scaler instead of waiting for it to become a VESA standard.

 

[Stanners]

If AMD did think of it first, someone should be sacked for taking this length of time to get it to market and a year after Nvidia.

Well it came out later than G-Sync mainly due to the fact that it had to become a VESA standard first as to avoid licensing costs etc...

The only reason Nvidia came out with it first is because they made their own scaler instead of waiting for it to become a VESA standard.

I can not remember now but was Feesync working in the driver ready for when the first compatible monitor was available.

 

[andybird123]

I can not remember now but was Feesync working in the driver ready for when the first compatible monitor was available.

. Nope.

 

[Marine-RX179]

I can not remember now but was Feesync working in the driver ready for when the first compatible monitor was available.

OcUK already came out and said that they have put the BenQ Freesync monitor on the shelf and started selling it too soon by mistake (whereas other retailers didn't), but some people simply don't care and like to continue to blame it on AMD for not having driver ready for their own convenience.