Well thats just it.. Freesync does work below 40 fps.. Its the panels that they offer right now that cannot handle it. Important distinction imho.
-
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.
Nvidia Explains Why Their G-Sync Display Tech Is Superior To AMD's FreeSync
- Thread starter Gregster
- Start date
Well thats just it.. Freesync does work below 40 fps.. Its the panels that they offer right now that cannot handle it. Important distinction imho.
Soldato
Its surprising how such details goes over some peoples head when its been stated from the get go..
Kind of a moot point however. You are playing with the monitor, not the FreeSync paper spec.
I've yet to see a FreeSync monitor with FreeSync support throughout the entire panels available refresh rate range?
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,375
AMD made a massive deal about "possible ranges for freesync monitors" going as low as 9fps. They generated interest in freesync supporting wider ranges than gsync. Nvidia pointed out that gsync simply supports whatever panels are capable of and everyone laughed, saying that freesync monitors would be coming and they would support wider ranges than gsync.
Now that freesync is here and every monitor actually has a narrower band than equivalent gsync monitors, it isn't at all surprising to see people asking questions about why gsync monitors can do 30, but the equivalent freesync monitor can only do 40.
AMD put it out there that freesync would be better than gsync and are now reaping what they have sewn
This and the ghosting issue show the advantage of having a dedicated module that can be tuned to the panel, instead of just hacking variable refresh on to a generic controller designed for fixed refresh.
It can be overcome but will need a completely new design of ASIC to incorporate these controls for variable refresh rates.
No one is blaming AMD or attacking them, but there are currently advantages to nvidia's variable refresh implementation that the current adaptive sync monitors lack.
IMO a dumb decision for them to release panels that offer a pretty crap range of freesync support. These monitors were meant to show sometime late last year and when they do eventually show the support they offer is lacking to say the least. Yes its down to the panels but at the same time you would have thought for all the noise amd made about the wide array of rates it was capable of supporting that they would have had tried to push for some panel manufacturers to get some better ones for the launch. First impressions and all that.
Soldato
Im personally not surprised that the first batch of freesync monitors have a narrower band and have teething issues.
Soldato
IMO a dumb decision for them to release panels that offer a pretty crap range of freesync support. These monitors were meant to show sometime late last year and when they do eventually show the support they offer is lacking to say the least. Yes its down to the panels but at the same time you would have thought for all the noise amd made about the wide array of rates it was capable of supporting that they would have had tried to push for some panel manufacturers to get some better ones for the launch. First impressions and all that.
AMD and NV are in no position to push panel manufacturers to do anything unless they are talking with cash and seeing as Adaptive Sync is VESA how well its implemented is down to the panel and monitor manufacturers, when was the last time that any new TV/Monitor tech came out of the gate the best it could ever be.
The only reason why panel and monitor manufacturers are bothering with any of this is because its a new feature to stick on the box which will entice people to upgrade sooner.
Last edited:
Soldato
FreeSync Pros :
– Easier to integrate into a wider range of monitors due to lack of any additional hardware.
– Significantly less expensive than G-Sync, no licensing fees.
– Enables all the usual monitor features and display outputs.
– Gives you the option of V-Sync on or Off.
FreeSync Cons :
– Doesn’t work below the minimum refresh rate, amplifying the tearing and input-lag issues at low FPS.
– Currently limited to six graphics cards and six APUs.
G-Sync Pros :
– Offers a better experience than FreeSync below the minimum refresh rate of the monitor.
– Compatible with a wider range of graphics cards.
G-Sync Cons :
– Requires dedicated hardware in the monitor and demands licensing fees.
– Limits monitor features, sound and display output options.
– Measurably more expensive than FreeSync.
– Currently doesn’t give you the option to disable V-Sync above the maximum refresh rate of the monitor.
Read more: http://wccftech.com/amd-freesync-nvidia-gsync-verdict/#ixzz3VRQkwAqH
– Easier to integrate into a wider range of monitors due to lack of any additional hardware.
– Significantly less expensive than G-Sync, no licensing fees.
– Enables all the usual monitor features and display outputs.
– Gives you the option of V-Sync on or Off.
FreeSync Cons :
– Doesn’t work below the minimum refresh rate, amplifying the tearing and input-lag issues at low FPS.
– Currently limited to six graphics cards and six APUs.
G-Sync Pros :
– Offers a better experience than FreeSync below the minimum refresh rate of the monitor.
– Compatible with a wider range of graphics cards.
G-Sync Cons :
– Requires dedicated hardware in the monitor and demands licensing fees.
– Limits monitor features, sound and display output options.
– Measurably more expensive than FreeSync.
– Currently doesn’t give you the option to disable V-Sync above the maximum refresh rate of the monitor.
Read more: http://wccftech.com/amd-freesync-nvidia-gsync-verdict/#ixzz3VRQkwAqH
Well considering how amd were pushing this as something that could be achieved with a firmware update on some screens already on the market the 48hz minimum rate is incredibly lacking to say the least.
There was a lot of bluster from amd about freesync over the past year and the launch had all the impact of a wet fart. No crossfire support, people had the monitors before they could get the drivers, and it seems that online stores are reluctant to post the freesync working rates in the monitor description as the low end of them is pretty abysmal, and the low end is something you'd expect to be much better as thats where games get choppy and that's one of the points of gsync\freesync.
The best it ever could be is meant to be from 9-240hz, i doubt many expected that on launch, i think plenty expected a low end starting around 20 or 30hz though as it would be very useful for games that tanked that low in fps.
Waiting game i suppose, not all that impressive since AMD were saying review sites would probably have freesync monitors in September of last year.
Caporegime
You dont get it, The GPU controles the Screens Refresh Rate just as the G-Sync Module controls the Screens Refresh Rate.
In that they are the same thing.
Soldato
Well considering how amd were pushing this as something that could be achieved with a firmware update on some screens already on the market the 48hz minimum rate is incredibly lacking to say the least.
There was a lot of bluster from amd about freesync over the past year and the launch had all the impact of a wet fart. No crossfire support, people had the monitors before they could get the drivers, and it seems that online stores are reluctant to post the freesync working rates in the monitor description as the low end of them is pretty abysmal, and the low end is something you'd expect to be much better as thats where games get choppy and that's one of the points of gsync\freesync.
The best it ever could be is meant to be from 9-240hz, i doubt many expected that on launch, i think plenty expected a low end starting around 20 or 30hz though as it would be very useful for games that tanked that low in fps.
Waiting game i suppose, not all that impressive since AMD were saying review sites would probably have freesync monitors in September of last year.
AMD stated the potential of the tech and not that people would be getting that on day one seeing as that's not upto them, people assumed the rest.
FPS shooters will be choppy/laggy at 30 not matter what as its the ms delay between frames that makes it so and not the tearing, getting rid of tearing just gets rid of one negative aspect.
Last edited:
People may have assumed but amd could have provided clarification. Considering the delay you'd think they would have partnered with some manufacturers to get a better range of rates supported for launch.
Right now its just the standard amd "roll out" procedure, when eyefinity was introduced crossfire users had to wait, when frame pacing came along crossfire users had to wait, now crossfire users have to wait on support for freesync and there's more waiting on top of that for a better range of rates to be on some panels, AND to see if the ghosting is a panel issue or not.
They've been talking about freesync for a year, I expected more on launch for all the talk and I imagine I'm not in the minority.
Soldato
People may have assumed but amd could have provided clarification. Considering the delay you'd think they would have partnered with some manufacturers to get a better range of rates supported for launch.
Right now its just the standard amd "roll out" procedure, when eyefinity was introduced crossfire users had to wait, when frame pacing came along crossfire users had to wait, now crossfire users have to wait on support for freesync and there's more waiting on top of that for a better range of rates to be on some panels, AND to see if the ghosting is a panel issue or not.
They've been talking about freesync for a year, I expected more on launch for all the talk and I imagine I'm not in the minority.
Nothing that you have suggesting when it comes to manufacturers to get a better range of rates supported for launch would get done without monetary incentives from AMD, AMD is obliged to make sure that the drivers works with the monitors and nothing else as Adaptive sync is not AMDs tech so they cant dictate the ranges without throwing money around.
GSync users also had to wait for SLI support.
GSync had flicker issue.
Nv users had to wait for SLI surpport for DSR
Nv users had to wait before they could do 3 screen surround on a single card without the Triplehead.
Both sides have/had there issues with whatever they bring to the table and with that historic trend peoples expectations should be more realistic.
Last edited:
Permabanned
I kept mentioning concerns about the range width of Freesync on this forum after Huddy gave his PCper interview early last year and the responses I got were that I was wrong and I didn't know what I'm talking about blah blah blah.
Now it turns out to not only be right but Huddy saying that it would only be the cheaper lower quality monitors with the smaller range widths isn't the case unless 500 pound monitors are the cheap ones and if that is the case it's no longer free because in order to get an acceptable range a lot of us will need to spend a lot more on a monitor to get it than originally planned.
At this point in time I'm very glad I haven't made a purchase that locks me down for either brand yet.
I hope AMD solve it but as it stands I'm probably going with G-sync and I wasn't expecting that.
I'll be very interested to see the 21:9 G-sync monitors range when it finally turns up.
Now it turns out to not only be right but Huddy saying that it would only be the cheaper lower quality monitors with the smaller range widths isn't the case unless 500 pound monitors are the cheap ones and if that is the case it's no longer free because in order to get an acceptable range a lot of us will need to spend a lot more on a monitor to get it than originally planned.
At this point in time I'm very glad I haven't made a purchase that locks me down for either brand yet.
I hope AMD solve it but as it stands I'm probably going with G-sync and I wasn't expecting that.
I'll be very interested to see the 21:9 G-sync monitors range when it finally turns up.
Caporegime
Last edited:
Soldato
Free is in no license fee does not change no mater what something costs or what assumptions were made.
Last edited:
100% this.
In the many Freesync threads, it was repeatedly reported about the really low ranges and how this would be epic and was even told that G-Sync wouldn't go that low (which was debunked but ignored). 9Hz was repeatedly said but no common sense on the actual logic of 9Hz gaming.
Now when you look at Freesync on its big late release, all the hype Huddy was bigging up just lets people down. This just makes nVidia's G-Sync price look even better, as I would rather pay more for something that makes my experience better and not some horrible ghosting experience or some pathetic 27Hz window for the actual tech to work.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,375
Right, but without direct voltage control of the panel, the AMD GPU cant effectively combat flickering or ghosting, which means Gsync currently has better control of the panel resulting in a wider control range and less ghosting.
That is the purchasing choice currently available.