I get what you're both saying and I agree. IMHO AMD pretty much screwed up with FreeSync for the reasons you both mentioned. I don't expect that to change tomorrow. One year from now however? It's precisely the fact that so few out of 400 FreeSync monitors made the cut that I think G-SYNC will become obsolete (except in the highest-end FALD market where G-SYNC has no competition). The G-SYNC-Compatible logo will identify those FreeSync monitors with a non-crappy VRR implementation. At that point, for most people, G-SYNC may still be viewed as the premium VRR experience, but in many cases it will actually be FreeSync that provides it. AMD has also started fixing this problem, because for FreeSync 2 they now also mandate a decent VRR range and some quality controls. I suspect most FreeSync 2 monitors will be natural candidates for a G-SYNC-Compatible certification. The gap is already closing and will continue to close. More importantly, nVidia's G-SYNC-Compatible certification allows monitor OEMs to serve both AMD and nVidia customers with a single monitor without anyone having to sacrifice VRR. That's just too much of a profitability/product improvement to ignore. I'd be surprised if not almost every FreeSync monitor currently in the planning phase is aiming to achieve that certification, and the viability/necessity of a separate G-SYNC model is being questioned. For G-SYNC not to become obsolete, a very substantial amount of nVidia GPU owners (far more than just us enthusiasts) would have to reject the notion that G-SYNC-Compatible VRR implementations are at least good enough VRR. The difference would have to remain obvious enough that for most people that additional $200 - $400 G-SYNC tax continues to sound like a reasonable proposition. Given how seriously nVidia apparently takes the G-SYNC-Compatible certification, I have a hard time imagining that's how this plays out.