Nvidia Explains Why Their G-Sync Display Tech Is Superior To AMD's FreeSync

[SiDeards73]

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.

Greg while i agree with you, i have a couple of points to make, the majority of people buying G-Sync / Freesync know what they are buying and why they are buying it, these type of people are running mid to high end hardware, 9hz or even 27hz is not an issue, no one games with fps at that low end of the spectrum.

While i do not like Nvidia gouging people with propriety tech, and i applaud AMD trying to use an open standard, i do feel its well too early in the tech to really see what its capable of. Plus monitor manufacturers cant be blameless in this, im pretty sure theres a margin of gouging going on by labelling something as Freesync as well, while not on the scale of Nvidia gouging, i bet its there, its pure business sense to charge a little more for new features anyhow until they become a standard.

My point is, if i buy a 1440p 144hz Freesync screen and expect to run at 27hz then im clearly not meant to be a pc enthuisast, anyone buying that type of hardware is going to be packing enough GPU grunt to fire all the bells and whistles with it, and sub 60fps is not normally acceptable for most people in that scenario, so really as long as the Freesync range is say 30hz+ its all good really.

Im looking at buying a 1440p 144hz screen this year, i know if its Freesync im going to need to retire my Tri-X and hope the 390X is enough to power it at full tilt, if not then its going to be a G-Sync screen and whatever Nvidia have to offer (except TitanX i refuse to pay for that junk)

 

[mmj_uk]

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.

Exactly and although the AMD fanboys are attempting to put all of the blame/responsibility onto monitor manufacturers who have followed the VESA specification that AMD requested to the dot, the simple fact is that either AMD need to fix this themselves for their customers in the now or this generation of DP1.3a monitors will eventually be obsolete, assuming AMD spend the next 18mths lobbying for the VESA specification to be further modified and waiting on monitor manufacturers to catch up. Remember, all AMD lobbied for was adaptive sync which VESA/monitor manufacturers have delivered, if increased ghosting is a byproduct of VRR then that's a bigger problem for AMD and Freesync than it is for monitor manufacturers.

 

[triss]

Greg while i agree with you, i have a couple of points to make, the majority of people buying G-Sync / Freesync know what they are buying and why they are buying it, these type of people are running mid to high end hardware, 9hz or even 27hz is not an issue, no one games with fps at that low end of the spectrum.

While i do not like Nvidia gouging people with propriety tech, and i applaud AMD trying to use an open standard, i do feel its well too early in the tech to really see what its capable of. Plus monitor manufacturers cant be blameless in this, im pretty sure theres a margin of gouging going on by labelling something as Freesync as well, while not on the scale of Nvidia gouging, i bet its there, its pure business sense to charge a little more for new features anyhow until they become a standard.

My point is, if i buy a 1440p 144hz Freesync screen and expect to run at 27hz then im clearly not meant to be a pc enthuisast, anyone buying that type of hardware is going to be packing enough GPU grunt to fire all the bells and whistles with it, and sub 60fps is not normally acceptable for most people in that scenario, so really as long as the Freesync range is say 30hz+ its all good really.

Im looking at buying a 1440p 144hz screen this year, i know if its Freesync im going to need to retire my Tri-X and hope the 390X is enough to power it at full tilt, if not then its going to be a G-Sync screen and whatever Nvidia have to offer (except TitanX i refuse to pay for that junk)

LG Electronics,29UM67 29" 2560X1080 (UltraWide FHD) 21:9 48Hz -75Hz(min/max refresh rate) << thats the 27hz band in which freesync works for that screen iirc. Not that your trying to run the game at 27hz. Varies from monitor to monitor some have a larger range than others.

 

[africanos23]

I think most people are missing what Gsync/Freesync monitors are for. The point is to have acceptable min dips (in intense scenes) not playing at sub 30 FPS.

 

[Gregster]

Sorry, too much happening today and mind not on it

Thanks Triss and that was my point. 48Hz to 75Hz is where Freesync works and that is a very small window for that monitor. I applaud the tech and it is something I would detest being without now but AMD seem to be too keen to pronounce this and that, rubbish this and that from nVidia and then release a driver "After" the monitor has been released and then blame everyone else except themselves. AMD seem too quick to do that and seems everything they do is everyone elses fault except them.

Man up ffs. If you let people down, don't keep pointing the finger.

 

[SiDeards73]

I do agree the Freesync range on that particular screen is absolute pap, its a joke to be fair, although i blame the manufacturer for labelling it Freesync to sell a few more units, i wouldnt have mentioned it personally, as it will probably deter more buyers than attract them.

 

[Sgt_Pepper]

The question shouldn't be whether Gsync is better than Freesync, or Freesync better than Gsync. The only question that matters is are both technologies better than what we currently use.
If the answer is yes then everyone is a winner.

 

[andybird123]

The question shouldn't be whether Gsync is better than Freesync, or Freesync better than Gsync. The only question that matters is are both technologies better than what we currently use.
If the answer is yes then everyone is a winner.

Yes, except it is also important people looking to buy get to make an informed decision and know what the drawbacks are.

 

[africanos23]

Yes, except it is also important people looking to buy get to make an informed decision and know what the drawbacks are.

If the range was 27-75+ for a Freesync monitor I would easily give a recommendation. Sadly though it's a no from me because that's the range the FPS - HZ synchronization will be needed most (on dips).

 

[Marine-RX179]

Yes, except it is also important people looking to buy get to make an informed decision and know what the drawbacks are.

An "informed decision" should not be based on claims or statements made from someone who has interest or stake on the subject or matter that's being discussed, as bias will ALWAYS been involved.

I buy products not base on what the brands/manufactuers claim they are good, what their competitions are not as good, telling me exactly what I want to hear, but instead base on independent reviewers that actually know their stuff has done extensive review and would bluntly point out the good and bad of the said product objectively.

 

[Ayahuasca]

We don't need a reviewer to point out that so far from the freesync panels on sale the lowest working rate is 40hz.

If future screens come out below this then good but at the moment we have to compare between what's available from both sides.

 

[Marine-RX179]

We don't need a reviewer to point out that so far from the freesync panels on sale the lowest working rate is 40hz.

If future screens come out below this then good but at the moment we have to compare between what's available from both sides.

Of course.

But my point was...it is "ok" to read what both Nvidia and AMD has to say, as long as people are sensible enough to put up a filter and not taking everything they say as "facts". Unfortunately, there are always people who would pass what companies says around as "gospel".

There's no denying that Freesync is certain underwhelming with the current narrow dynamic range (I wouldn't even buy the LG 29UM67 that I waited for so long now because of its pitiful 48-75Hz range), but that doesn't mean people should hang onto every word what someone at Nvida says about why Gsync is awesome and why Freesync sucks, which is clearly a marketing move.

 

[tommybhoy]

Jason Evangelho, is that the same guy that was ripped a new one when he backed Joel Hruska GW's libraries expose?

-edit- Yes he was that guy.

Why 'Watch Dogs' Is Bad News For AMD Users -- And Potentially The Entire PC Gaming Ecosystem

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...d-potentially-the-entire-pc-gaming-ecosystem/


Wasn't he an<insert expletive> for posting negative GW's and his words should be dismissed as PR or does that indiscretion not count now he's supplied a path to bash the other team?



Nvidia discussing how their tech is the bees knees and the opposition is flawed, not that Nvidia don't lie about hardware specs or anything and should be taken as gospel.

An "informed decision" should not be based on claims or statements made from someone who has interest or stake on the subject or matter that's being discussed, as bias will ALWAYS been involved.

I buy products not base on what the brands/manufactuers claim they are good, what their competitions are not as good, telling me exactly what I want to hear, but instead base on independent reviewers that actually know their stuff has done extensive review and would bluntly point out the good and bad of the said product objectively.

+1

Considering no one here knows how the tech works exactly for either(considering tech sites don't even know yet), I'll be waiting for BB/TFTC etc for proper analysis rather than coming to a guestimate conclusion by listening to forum experts laying down the word despite not having a clue.

 

[mmj_uk]

Of course.

But my point was...it is "ok" to read what both Nvidia and AMD has to say, as long as people are sensible enough to put up a filter and not taking everything they say as "facts". Unfortunately, there are always people who would pass what companies says around as "gospel".

It's not just what AMD and NVidia said though is it? there are multiple articles now stating that their Freesync monitor ghosted more than G-Sync.

The ROG Swift animates at 45 FPS without any noticeable ghosting at all. The BenQ actually has a very prominent frame ghost though the image still remains sharp and in focus. The LG 34UM67 shows multiple ghost frames and causes the blade to appear smudgy and muddled a bit.

For its part, AMD says that ghosting is an issue it is hoping to lessen on FreeSync monitors by helping partners pick the right components (Tcon, scalars, etc.) and to drive a “fast evolution” in this area.

Assuming it's possible to reduce it with higher quality components then good luck getting monitor manufacturers to use them and reduce their already small profit margins. Not to mention, who would buy a Freesync monitor now when (according to PCPER) AMD have admitted that the current batch of Freesync monitors are using unsatisfactory components - YAY non proprietary.

That said, thanks to how Freesync works, at lower frame rates there's a more noticeable judder when the panel is working at 40Hz, amplifying the effects of V-Sync on or off. There's also some ghosting on the Freesync monitors I tested (you can see a little of it in the video above), that doesn't affect a G-Sync screen. Indeed, Nvidia's on the offensive at the moment mentioning that very fact. Still, it's not a total deal breaker by any means, and for the most part, games will be running far above that threshold anyway.

Note to readers: I have seen this firsthand on the Acer FreeSync monitor I’m reviewing, and PC Perspective noticed it with 2 additional FreeSync monitors, the BenQ XL2730Z and LG 34UM67. To illustrate the problem they recorded the aforementioned monitors running AMD’s Windmill demo, as well as the same demo running on a G-Sync enabled Asus ROG Swift. Ignore the stuttering you see (this is a result of recording at high speed) and pay attention to the trailing lines, or ghosting. I agree that it’s jarring by comparison.

 

[Phixsator]

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?

I dont see it as being a moot point. We have all these people pointing fingers at AMD/Freesync saying its failing because ghosting and its AMDs fault a screen is ghosting. Yet nobody stops to think about the logic in all of it. What is controlling the panel itself... the scaler... what does does GPU do, inform the scaler at what Hertz it should be running leaving it upto the scaler to do the rest since its the only link in the chain that has all the info needed on that specific panel its driving.

Of course this is my train of thought, my theory and i may be wrong but i find it unlikely that its on AMDs side to control voltage regulation on the panels since the only thing AMD is supporting is the open standard not directly the panels themselves. If AMD had to support the panels themselves we would not see that 120hz 1440p ips not freesync branded monitor from asus being compatible with freesync. Therefor i find it logically correct, again i may be wrong, to rule that its the scaler that has the sole responsibility to control voltage and whatever else is needed to make the panel work as it should.

We can always entertain the thought that perhaps AMD did not put enough pressure on the panel manufactors to produce a near flawless monitor from the start but we also have to consider that AMD may not hold as much weight compared to nVidia due to the solution that is used which is an open standard. They are free to do with that standard as they wish and do not answer to AMD if they scr*w up but it does affect AMD in a bad way everytime they do scr*w up cause it makes the experience on AMD hardware seem worse.

"Bad AMD, you pushed for an open standard and now we are getting these bad monitors because of it, must be your fault since your clearly the evil mastermind behind the panel manufactors putting out bad/mediocre products so you can hurt your own profit margin and look bad while doing it.. wait what??!?!?!"

EDIT:Bold has been edited

 

[Marine-RX179]

It's not just what AMD and NVidia said though is it? there are multiple articles now stating that their Freesync monitor ghosted more than G-Sync.



Assuming it's possible to reduce it with higher quality components then good luck getting monitor manufacturers to use them and reduce their already small profit margins. Not to mention, who would buy a Freesync monitor now when (according to PCPER) AMD have admitted that the current batch of Freesync monitors are using unsatisfactory components - YAY non proprietary.

That's the problem...those reviewers don't really know monitors enough (it's not the area of speciality) to pinpoint the cause some of the problems, and it is easy to blame it on Freesync, just because of the problem just so happen does not happen on the Gsync monitors they tested. I would rather not jump to conclusion, until I see more indepth review from dedicated monitor reviewers such as tftcentral etc, same as if I want accurate and reliable audio review, I would not count on PC hardware reviews sites...at most, I would only use them as one of the reference for information.

As far as I see, there are two types of people on this thread:
a) people that generality want to know if the issues of the Freesync monitors REALLY is caused by Freesync
and
b) people that have no interest in the above (because their minds are already made up Freesync is to blame for everything), and only interested in passing on information that suit their view to for the sole purpose of stomping down Freesync and glorifying Gsync

 

[Stanners]

Deleted, Misread it

I think we all hope it is just down to teething problems as no matter which side(Gysnc or Freesync) we all want it to work as it is in my opinion a worthwhile technology.

 

[LambChop]

Finally, we know the reasons why there were never any review monitors.

 

[nashathedog]

29" 21:9 Free-Sync screen here for £280

Your focusing on the wrong point. Regardless of the fact that there is a smaller 29" for cheaper the point is the larger more expensive panel does not have a decent range. So how expensive must we go to get full coverage?

 

[Phixsator]

And c) People defending AMD/glorifying freesync.

Keep it balanced

That would be 2 catagories right there. Theres nothing wrong with "defending" something if you dont believe it deserves the bashing it gets as long as you can justify said defending with proper arguments and valid points, it doesn't make you a fanboy either just a rational human being. Nobody is glorifying freesync but some of us are just seperating freesync from what we believe is the actual cause. Again important distinction. It doesnt mean we are right but so fare i have seen no proper evidence to say we are wrong either. We have only seen observations of the symptoms not the cause.


EDIT: I see you changed your post