Quick question about Gsync/Freesync

Brumboy · 31 Mar 2015 at 14:40

From what I understand about this technology is that it can allow games to look really smooth at low frame rates because it's syncing the GPU with the monitor?

So for example it could make games running at 30fps look as good as games running at 60fps on regular monitors?

Am I right in thinking that a GPU running 4k @ 30fps-40fps on ultra settings with a gsync/freesync monitor would be very playable and a good experience?

I'm buying components for a new build and wanted to see about buying a new monitor. But forgot about this technology. If this is the case I could get away with a Sapphire Radeon R9 290X Tri-X OC 8192MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card for 4k gaming for the next 1/2 years?

Here is a review of the card http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7037/sapphire-radeon-r9-290x-8gb-tri-video-card-review/index9.html

As you can see it seems to handle 4k on high/ultra settings at a steady 40fps-60fps.

So this coupled with a freesync monitor should fit me well. I think anyway :confused:

andybird123 · 31 Mar 2015 at 19:13

The freesync monitors announced so far only go down to 40fps, Gsync ones go down to 30fps, but then you'll need an Nvidia card

Phixsator · 1 Apr 2015 at 19:33

From personal experience with gsync i do not like sub 45fps. I will say that i think 45-60 is the golden zone for gsync. Many on this forum will disagree with me so my advice would be to hit up a store/friend and experience it for yourself and if you can try different Fps scenarios like below 30, between 30 and 45 or 60 and so on. At the end of the day we all experience things a little bit different so what may not work for me may actually work perfectly for you or the other way around

. One thing is sure though when talking about below 60 gaming, its better with gsync/freesync than without imho as long as you stay within supported fps ranges ofcourse..

mz/x · 1 Apr 2015 at 19:54

Regardless the differences in the actual usage of the 2 solutions, it depends when you want to use your nice new investment/equipment. That is because you can only buy (right now) 1 freesync monitor. Yes, if you look at OcUK's offers 1 Benq is available and everything else is on Pre-order. Forget about 4K because nobody knows when Freesync and 4K will hit the masses. I started a thread about the only 4K freesync option in which I was fuming about the lack of information. (Let's not continue here....)

Even though AMD has been banging its chest like King Kong on the top of the building shouting that "we have 11 monitors with freesync", in reality it is rubbish. The best part is that all these "supporting" manufacturers announced the crap 6 months ago. There is no variety that has been tested. The fact is that nobody knows when Freesync will be available because what we have today is nothing but promises made and deadlines missed.

Frankly, what makes me concerned is that 4K freesync has not been demonstrated, period. We need to see reputable reviews of this tech. (PCM2 has great reviews on his site and he mentioned that he has no clue about what is going on.) In summary, at the moment Freesync monitors are fairy tales. Forget about them.

Ayahuasca · 1 Apr 2015 at 19:59

If you drop below 40fps regularly then go for GSYNC or wait for FreeSync monitors that have lower minimums.

mz/x · 1 Apr 2015 at 20:28

Ayahuasca said:
If you drop below 40fps regularly then go for GSYNC or wait for FreeSync monitors that have lower minimums.

You're absolutely right. Fingers crossed that it can be addressed by software/driver otherwise the GSYNC camp won't be able stop laughing. :eek:

I wonder how can AMD come out with that half-baked solution. Didn't they get the memo that fps can drop? :rolleyes:

I mean they've been talking about this Freesync since Jan 2014 (or maybe before). I have a feeling that this is the main issue why we have the massive delay and quietness around 4K and Freesync. Maybe AMD's iteration is not as good as should be under all circumstances (at the moment)? :confused:

jigger · 1 Apr 2015 at 22:41

From what I've read FreeSync can go as low or high as the panel can run. I don't think drivers have anything to do with refresh rate as everything is pre negotiated between the the card and the screen beforehand. From how I understand it the screen lets the graphics card know what range frames can be accepted then the card pushes the best possible rates within that range to keep the frame constant.

I agree with the other chap about Gsync, sub 45 frames is choppy. Infact I would say 45 FPS feels worse that having the screen locked at 60Hz.

Panos · 1 Apr 2015 at 23:07

I will agree with jigger.

I am waiting for a Freesync 4K or 3400x1440 monitor that can do ~30 as minimum (they can go as low as 20 i believe). For the high end, 60 will do for me.

That way the damned WoT, WoWs, TESO, TW going to be playable.
(3 do not support CF the fourth has crap engine).

mz/x · 1 Apr 2015 at 23:11

jigger said:
From what I've read FreeSync can go as low or high as the panel can run. I don't think drivers have anything to do with refresh rate as everything is pre negotiated between the the card and the screen beforehand. From how I understand it the screen lets the graphics card know what range frames can be accepted then the card pushes the best possible rates within that range to keep the frame constant.

I agree with the other chap about Gsync, sub 45 frames is choppy. Infact I would say 45 FPS feels worse that having the screen locked at 60Hz.

The point I was referring to is well documented in various threads here. (e.g., here) The first point is that GSync apparently better handles those circumstances, hence at the moment GSYNC appears to provide better user experience than Freesync does. My second point was that we know Freesync can possibly be improved/fixed via driver/software update. (I am not an expert here so made an assumpion). My third point was that AMD came out with a half-baked solution. Make it worse, you only have 1 display with Freesync you can buy. The initial post asked about 4K and Freesync. My conclusion is that forget about it. There must be a reason that no 4K freesync exists. It was promised but no reasonable person will believe anymore in AMD and the others' bedtime stories. I will believe in them when I see those super-duper fancy 4K freesync working and tested. Until that point I think this Freesync with 4K is rubbish. So the OP really has 2 options: a) risk buying into a system that may turn out to be crap (we do not know right now) OR b) buying into the working Gsync right now.

jigger · 2 Apr 2015 at 11:10

If you are paying all this money for a screen expecting to game smoothly at 40Hz/FPS then I think you are wasting your money by spending it on a monitor and would be much better off with a GPU upgrade instead.

The rest of what you are saying is just AMD rage.

Panos · 2 Apr 2015 at 11:36

mz/x said:
The initial post asked about 4K and Freesync. My conclusion is that forget about it. There must be a reason that no 4K freesync exists. It was promised but no reasonable person will believe anymore in AMD and the others' bedtime stories. I will believe in them when I see those super-duper fancy 4K freesync working and tested. Until that point I think this Freesync with 4K is rubbish. So the OP really has 2 options: a) risk buying into a system that may turn out to be crap (we do not know right now) OR b) buying into the working Gsync right now.

A discussion about Freesync to turn it to GSYNC Bible preaching

I would like to point to you, how many months it took Acer to get the 4K GSync monitor out?
They announced it in May, pre-orders even started in July (I pre-ordered one) for delivery September but they had no actuall product until Novemeber.
By that time had upgraded to 295X2..... (from 780).

How many months (almost 9) was the rumour mill going from the announcement of the ROG Swift to the final product been on the market.

Brumboy · 2 Apr 2015 at 14:07

Thanks for the replies.

Many different answers. To be fair this technology seems to be quite new and I'm not always the one to be an early adopter, especially when there is bound to be advancements in this area.

Like someone said in this thread, it's probably worth spending the extra money on a better GPU than get one of these new monitors.

mz/x · 3 Apr 2015 at 00:41

jigger said:
If you are paying all this money for a screen expecting to game smoothly at 40Hz/FPS then I think you are wasting your money by spending it on a monitor and would be much better off with a GPU upgrade instead.

The rest of what you are saying is just AMD rage.

Did you answer the above to me. I do not care about AMD. As much as I play I am fine with the current. However, since it was announced and made available, if you need to shell out more for a good monitor then it is better to have it. The bottom line is that if the monitor has the capability then it is a plus. I tend to replace monitors less frequently.

mz/x · 3 Apr 2015 at 00:51

Panos said:
A discussion about Freesync to turn it to GSYNC Bible preaching

I would like to point to you, how many months it took Acer to get the 4K GSync monitor out?
They announced it in May, pre-orders even started in July (I pre-ordered one) for delivery September but they had no actuall product until Novemeber.
By that time had upgraded to 295X2..... (from 780).

How many months (almost 9) was the rumour mill going from the announcement of the ROG Swift to the final product been on the market.

You waited 9 months? Well, Freesync was demoed in Jan 2014. Then all kinds of announcements in Nov 2014 and Jan 2015...with March 2015 availability etc.

The conclusion is that all of these companies are crap at delivering on time as promised. I think this is simply bad management and should not happen regardless it is AMD or Nvidia. Ideally we would like to see kept promises, right.

Mark my word, sooner or later we will reach the "good enough" level where improvements will be really marginal. (I do not know when.) Think about it what is happening with compact digital cameras. The mobile phones completely wiped them out because today the mobile for most people is "good enough." If that happens then all these players won't be able to get away with the delays. Let's hope for this as this will only benefit us the consumers.

theMilitant · 3 Apr 2015 at 23:51

mz/x said:
You're absolutely right. Fingers crossed that it can be addressed by software/driver otherwise the GSYNC camp won't be able stop laughing.
I wonder how can AMD come out with that half-baked solution. Didn't they get the memo that fps can drop? I mean they've been talking about this Freesync since Jan 2014 (or maybe before). I have a feeling that this is the main issue why we have the massive delay and quietness around 4K and Freesync. Maybe AMD's iteration is not as good as should be under all circumstances (at the moment)?

The freesync standard supports refresh rates as low as 9Hz I believe. It is up to monitor manufacturers to decide on the lowest refresh rate a monitor will support though. AMD dont have a say in this. For instance, LG's choice to release the 34UM67 with a minimum refresh rate of 40Hz was their mistake, not AMD's.

andybird123 · 4 Apr 2015 at 10:17

All "Freesync" branded monitors are tested and approved by AMD, so it isn't really accurate to say they have no say in it. Most of the freesync monitors announced are using the same or very similar panels to current gsync models, yet gsync supports lower refreshes on the equivalent model. Either the "GPU" solution AMD have gone for is acting as a limitation, or the manufacturers are using inferior panels in their freesync monitors to cut costs. Either way its worth being aware of what the cost savings are before you make a purchasing decision.

mmj_uk · 4 Apr 2015 at 10:31

andybird123 said:
All "Freesync" branded monitors are tested and approved by AMD, so it isn't really accurate to say they have no say in it. Most of the freesync monitors announced are using the same or very similar panels to current gsync models, yet gsync supports lower refreshes on the equivalent model. Either the "GPU" solution AMD have gone for is acting as a limitation, or the manufacturers are using inferior panels in their freesync monitors to cut costs. Either way its worth being aware of what the cost savings are before you make a purchasing decision.

Isn't it down to the fact that the NVidia G-Sync module uses frame doubling at low refresh rates (ie. 25fps/25hz runs at 50fps/50hz with duplicated frames) whereas AMD don't thave the module to do that and thus at 25fps/25hz there will be flicker?

andybird123 · 4 Apr 2015 at 11:49

Gsync, on the current models, operates natively down to 30FPS. Because it replaces the monitors standard controller it has direct control of the panel so it can adjust voltages and prevent flickering.

Below 30hz, yes it uses frame doubling, but the difference in minimum range (30fps vs 40fps for example) is down to the actual panel driver being used, generic ones in freesync monitors vs. a dedicated one in gsync mnitors

jigger · 4 Apr 2015 at 14:35

mz/x said:
Did you answer the above to me. I do not care about AMD. As much as I play I am fine with the current. However, since it was announced and made available, if you need to shell out more for a good monitor then it is better to have it. The bottom line is that if the monitor has the capability then it is a plus. I tend to replace monitors less frequently.

Yeah it was in reply to your post. If you read back what you posted it's clear you are angry at AMD and don't understand how Freesync is used.

Your spam once more.

Regardless the differences in the actual usage of the 2 solutions, it depends when you want to use your nice new investment/equipment. That is because you can only buy (right now) 1 freesync monitor. Yes, if you look at OcUK's offers 1 Benq is available and everything else is on Pre-order. Forget about 4K because nobody knows when Freesync and 4K will hit the masses. I started a thread about the only 4K freesync option in which I was fuming about the lack of information. (Let's not continue here....)

Even though AMD has been banging its chest like King Kong on the top of the building shouting that "we have 11 monitors with freesync", in reality it is rubbish. The best part is that all these "supporting" manufacturers announced the crap 6 months ago. There is no variety that has been tested. The fact is that nobody knows when Freesync will be available because what we have today is nothing but promises made and deadlines missed.

Frankly, what makes me concerned is that 4K freesync has not been demonstrated, period. We need to see reputable reviews of this tech. (PCM2 has great reviews on his site and he mentioned that he has no clue about what is going on.) In summary, at the moment Freesync monitors are fairy tales. Forget about them.

mz/x · 4 Apr 2015 at 15:15

jigger said:
Yeah it was in reply to your post. If you read back what you posted it's clear you are angry at AMD and don't understand how Freesync is used.

Your spam once more.

And you're doing nothing else but trolling. What new information did you provide? I at least summarised the facts. I also explained that I am not an expert and pointed to the thread where the issues I described were discussed. Am I angry about AMD and Samsung? Oh yes. Why? Because they came out with a half-baked solution and did not keep their own promises. It is a fact that multiple times 4K freesync was announced with March availability. Jigger, can you buy these? No. Oh yes, you have to wait but they forgot to tell you how long. I wanted t replace my monitor in March and read about freesync last year. I waited 6 months and was under the impression that these companies keep their promises. Why I was angry because I cannot replace my old monitor with the one what I wanted and supposed to be available.

So, has 4K freesync been tested? Not by the public for sure. Can you buy 4K freesync? No. See, you need to put a little content and facts together.