Nvidia and freesync, hypothetical.

[ubersonic]

That's what he would have you believe but, no, he didn't.

?

Yeah, yeah he did, he came up with it, had LtMatt pass it on to the higher ups at AMD and AMD liked it so ran with it. Was like one of the coolest things that ever happened on this forum hehe.

 

[melmac]

Have to say I'm pretty unimpressed given that what I've seen of HDR via these kind of solutions I personally found distinctly lacking - at first it seems quite nice but after awhile I couldn't un-notice how much trickery was being used making it a bit of a joke given the price for something that isn't a complete solution.

Couldn't agree with you more.

 

[melmac]

?

Yeah, yeah he did, he came up with it, had LtMatt pass it on to the higher ups at AMD and AMD liked it so ran with it. Was like one of the coolest things that ever happened on this forum hehe.

Did he? That's news to me. I seem to remember that been some kind of joke.

Sorry, should add to this, totally cool if it's true

 

[bru]

Isn't it the case that Gsync will sync at lower frame rates than Adaptive Sync / Freesync? In which case there would still be market (albeit smaller) for those wanting that capability.

I think that used to be the case, but now AMD's Freesync system with their current software solution ( ie: LFC etc) seems to work every bit as well as NVIDIA'S Gsync.

 

[IT Troll]

Nope they both can go as low a slideshow as you like in theory, and in practise both go to panel min then start frame doubling.

On first release adaptive sync didn't frame double surprisingly, but that's long since resolved.

I think that used to be the case, but now AMD's Freesync system with their current software solution ( ie: LFC etc) seems to work every bit as well as NVIDIA'S Gsync.

Perhaps it is the panel capabilities that I am thinking of. The spec on quite a few of the Adaptive Sync monitors has a fairly narrow range, whilst the Gsync ones tend to have a slightly wider range. I thought perhaps the Gsync module was making this possible, otherwise what purpose does it serve?

 

[Panos]

Perhaps it is the panel capabilities that I am thinking of. The spec on quite a few of the Adaptive Sync monitors has a fairly narrow range, whilst the Gsync ones tend to have a slightly wider range. I thought perhaps the Gsync module was making this possible, otherwise what purpose does it serve?

Gsync doesn't improve the panel refresh range, it is the panel.
Also if someone spent 5 minutes could find the same panels found in Gsync monitors on Freesync monitors, with the same wide ranges.

But because of many manufacturers were cutting corners with their Freesync monitors, we have Freesync 2, which is more strict like gsync.
And now we finding out that the gsync module is a limitation. Look at the LG32GK850F and compared it to the LG32GK850G. Or their 3440x1440 upcoming siblings. The Freesync 2 version of those monitors is far superior to the gsync one even if they are the same panel.

 

[melmac]

Perhaps it is the panel capabilities that I am thinking of. The spec on quite a few of the Adaptive Sync monitors has a fairly narrow range, whilst the Gsync ones tend to have a slightly wider range. I thought perhaps the Gsync module was making this possible, otherwise what purpose does it serve?

You are kind of correct in your thinking. It is the Gsync module making it possible. You see the sync range depends on both the scaler and panel used in a monitor. In a Gsync monitor, the module is the scaler, whereas in a Freesync monitor the scaler is whatever one the manufactured ordered.