• 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.

Proprietary vs open standard nearly 4 years on

  • Thread starter Thread starter bru
  • Start date Start date

bru

bru

bru

Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
7,361
Location
kent
Ok firstly I will apologise for starting what will probably be quite a controversial thread.

Over the last couple of months I have noticed a increasing number of people make comments like

Ill Have to Stick with Nvidia as recently bought an Gsync monitor.
Click to expand...

Now we all know that GSync is proprietary to NVidia and Freesync is based on the open standard Adaptive-Sync.
We all know that Generally GSync monitors cost a lot more than their Freesync counterparts.
We all know that some freesync monitors only just qualify and have really poor sync ranges.

But even with saying all that, both systems work really well nowadays and can give very good results.

So the crux of the matter is, until Intel or somebody else enters the market and takes up either of the technologies(and yes I know that Intel have said they intend to use Adaptive-Sync) both systems are essentially locking you into that manufacturers GPU's, as far as Variable refresh rate gaming is concerned.

Now of course one thing that is often over looked, is that both systems still work as monitors with the others cards, just not with the variable refresh rate tech.

So nearly four years down the line for Freesync, has it really liberated the Gaming monitor market, or just locked you into a differently named ecosystem?
 
Who said it was going to liberate the gaming market?

Both do the same thing

One costs considerably more than the other

The cheaper one has some drawbacks with adaptive sync ranges

Soon a 3rd entity will join the arena and use the same cheaper tech as the 2nd company.

That still leaves the more expensive version locked to.1 manufacturers cards.

In an ideal world all 3 would use adaptive sync and all gamers would benefit, 2 of the 3 obviously see this benefit, the more.expensive other company surprisingly does not.

I think the real question here is "With 1 company already using adaptive sync, and a 2nd about to enter the market, why is a 3rd company using a proprietary solution that does prettp much the exact same thing but charging a massive premium for it? Why haven't they adopted the cheaper alternative to give something back to their loyal user base"

I think we all know the answer to my question, and I think recent prices of said vendors hardware illustrates this perfectly
 
Finally some sensible discussion on the matter.

I hear it too often on these forums that Freesync is comparable to Gysnc when its not for the reasons mentioned above.

But then it comes down to the individual and budget. I can see how a cheap screen WITH Freesync is great for those on a budget. But I prefer to pay a bit more for the guarantees that Gsync gives me.
 
bru said:
So nearly four years down the line for Freesync, has it really liberated the Gaming monitor market, or just locked you into a differently named ecosystem?
Click to expand...
G-Sync screen: Nvidia card.

Freesync screen: AMD card, Nvidia card (with workaround), Xbox, Playstation, Intel card (next year).

Looks pretty good to me, the argument can be made that Intel's support is on paper only at this point and that the Nvidia workaround requires effort, but even if it hasn't liberated gaming "yet" then it will next year for sure.
 
I have not used either a G-Sync or Freesync monitor.

What I never had I will never miss.

I started gaming back in the MS-DOS days when graphics were terrible but for me it has always been about gameplay.
 
Last edited:
opethdisciple said:
Finally some sensible discussion on the matter.

I hear it too often on these forums that Freesync is comparable to Gysnc when its not for the reasons mentioned above.

But then it comes down to the individual and budget. I can see how a cheap screen WITH Freesync is great for those on a budget. But I prefer to pay a bit more for the guarantees that Gsync gives me.
Click to expand...


I don't understand this post at all. Sure there are cheap freesync monitors and there are freesync monitors with small ranges, but, there are plenty of Freesync monitors with the full range and they work just as well as Gsync monitors do for a lot cheaper.
 
all the people commenting on freesync lower ranges compared to gsync, its not that freesync has a lower range; its range is higher infact. however the limitation is in the panel itself, which nvidia bypass with a module.
 
melmac said:
I don't understand this post at all. Sure there are cheap freesync monitors and there are freesync monitors with small ranges, but, there are plenty of Freesync monitors with the full range and they work just as well as Gsync monitors do for a lot cheaper.
Click to expand...

The confusion.

Reread what you just wrote. The fact it needs explaining is the issue.

Gsync is the Ronseal of variable refresh technology. It does what did t says on the tin.

I'm sure there are some great Freesync monitors. But it's too fragmented.
 
opethdisciple said:
The confusion.

Reread what you just wrote. The fact it needs explaining is the issue.

Gsync is the Ronseal of variable refresh technology. It does what did t says on the tin.

I'm sure there are some great Freesync monitors. But it's too fragmented.
Click to expand...
thats the idea behind freesync 2, to try and remove the min frame cap. amongst other things.
 
opethdisciple said:
The confusion.

Reread what you just wrote. The fact it needs explaining is the issue.

Gsync is the Ronseal of variable refresh technology. It does what did t says on the tin.

I'm sure there are some great Freesync monitors. But it's too fragmented.
Click to expand...

What confusion? It's no more confusing than picking between any of the numerous features that monitors have. Resolution, refresh rate, Panel type, the size. You look at the specs check the freesync range, if not suitable move on.
 
melmac said:
What confusion? It's no more confusing than picking between any of the numerous features that monitors have. Resolution, refresh rate, Panel type, the size. You look at the specs check the freesync range, if not suitable move on.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a personal attack.

I was just put off Freesync over Gsync because with Gsync you know exactly what your getting whichever Gsync panel you buy.

With FreeSync a lot more homework needs to be done. As not all Freesync panels are the same.

It needs to be standardised. I know this was the idea behind FreeSync 2.
 
I do think that Freesync was a stroke of genius for AMD.
Ok it was a bit rocky at first, but nowadays it works really well and it is generally a good bit cheaper.
I do agree that Freesync requires a bit of homework to find out what sort of range the panel in question uses, as most of the cheap screens don't list the ranges at all, but most of the decent panels give very good results.

Freesync 2, great idea to alleviate the worry of really bad ranges and whatnot, but how many Freesync 2 panels do OCUK sell. nearly two years old and not really had much effect.

GSync, well for a change, 'it just works' but yes you do have to pay through the nose for it.

The point is until Intel do bring a discrete GPU to market some time in 2020, buying into either red or green camp locks you down some what.


Kaapstad said:
I have used either a G-Sync or Freesync monitor.

What I never had I will never miss.

I started gaming back in the MS-DOS days when graphics were terrible but for me it has always been about gameplay.
Click to expand...


I assume you mean you 'haven't' used either.
 
opethdisciple said:
Has it achieved this since it launched?
Click to expand...
not 100% as good as perhaps what it will be in a few more years, however the ranges are much broader on freesync 2 across all panels for example 48-144 is the smallest range i could find, 1 samsung panels does 36-144, so the ranges are getting bigger. compared to freesync 1 where the ranges can vary a lot more and generally are much smaller. so in answer to your question yes, however it will probably take a bit longer to remove the lower limits altogether.
 
opethdisciple said:
Finally some sensible discussion on the matter.

I hear it too often on these forums that Freesync is comparable to Gysnc when its not for the reasons mentioned above.

But then it comes down to the individual and budget. I can see how a cheap screen WITH Freesync is great for those on a budget. But I prefer to pay a bit more for the guarantees that Gsync gives me.
Click to expand...

It's down to the buyer doing his homework to make sure he gets a monitor with the required features, If he buy's the right monitor it's comparable.

Here's the homework:

https://www.amd.com/en/products/freesync-monitors
 
Last edited:
You can sometimes lower the range on Freesync monitors to get a bigger range with a hack. The benefit of software over hardware :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom