When/Will we see a platform agnostic Vsync monitor solution?
- Thread starter Gimpymoo
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 14 May 2012
- Posts
- 1,288
But G-sync supports a wider range of refresh rates than adaptive sync
If nVidia joined in with a-sync then how long do you think it would take to be superior to G-sync? My guess is not long.
That isn't relevant to the OP. nVidia ARE avoiding supporting it. Adaptive Sync IS platform agnostic, Intel will be supporting it.
I think it is relevant. If Adaptive Sync is of the same calibre as G-Sync, then NVIDIA's position is pointless.
But if NVIDIA have determined that a module is necessary to get the best performance, and Intel and AMD take the approach that you don't need a module, and instead they prefer the cheaper solution of using options that already exist in DP spec, then that's a big hurdle to get over.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 May 2012
- Posts
- 1,288
But why would you support a "worse" format when your own proprietary format is "better".
The same could be said for why Apple don't support Android applications.
Well it's dubious as to whether a module IS actually necessary. However, the current implementation is "worse" but specs wise, Adaptive Sync supports a wider range of refresh rates than the current monitors on the market.
what?
Associate
- Joined
- 14 May 2012
- Posts
- 1,288
Apple iOS is a proprietary OS which is specific to their devices. They don't support anything else; where Android is written to be more platform agnostic.
NVidia believe that their solution is the best solution (why wouldn't they). Thus there is no reason for them to support a "platform agnostic" solution.
Why don't AMD support G-sync and make it the platform agnostic solution?
NVidia believe that their solution is the best solution (why wouldn't they). Thus there is no reason for them to support a "platform agnostic" solution.
Why don't AMD support G-sync and make it the platform agnostic solution?
Yeah, no.
As things stand the FPGA does provide the superior solution as the extra hardware buffers it allows for (which can't be supported by a "passive" scaler) allows for enhanced handling of low and varied framerate situations and until there is some kind of OS level integration some limited Windowed mode support. No amount of nVidia supporting the current a-sync implementation would change that.
Whether with nVidia behind it in the long term the a-sync standard itself would evolve faster with changes at the hardware level or not is another matter.
Nvidia will never offer AMD their gsync tech. They are too stubborn and just love closed source tech. There is absolutely nothing stopping nvidia from supporting adaptive sync, sure their current lot of cards can't make use of it but I'm sure the next lot will be able to support AS.
I wouldn't say that the GS range is much better than the AS/FS range, it all comes down to the scaler that the monitor manufacturer uses, we have plenty of FS/AS monitors out there with a 40-144hz range, the ones that support crap ranges like 48-75 is down to said manufacturer using a cheap scaler... sure the low end isn't as good as gsync but if you are hitting sub 40 fps then I would highly suggest that you look at upgrading your gpu or lowering certain settings....
Aside from the slightly wider range and possibly allowing a higher overclock, GS doesn't offer anything extra over AD/FS, well at least it certainly doesn't demand the extra £150+ price tag imo anyway.
Hopefully Dell's upcoming GS monitor is just a one-off and the only ones who will remain highly infested in GS will be acer and asus.
Considering that GS has been out for over a year longer than FS and we have more choice of not just the monitor brand but also the types of panels/monitors for the FS side + them being quite a bit cheaper than the GS equivalents, I would say it is only a matter of time until nvidia have no choice but to support AS.
I wouldn't say that the GS range is much better than the AS/FS range, it all comes down to the scaler that the monitor manufacturer uses, we have plenty of FS/AS monitors out there with a 40-144hz range, the ones that support crap ranges like 48-75 is down to said manufacturer using a cheap scaler... sure the low end isn't as good as gsync but if you are hitting sub 40 fps then I would highly suggest that you look at upgrading your gpu or lowering certain settings....
Aside from the slightly wider range and possibly allowing a higher overclock, GS doesn't offer anything extra over AD/FS, well at least it certainly doesn't demand the extra £150+ price tag imo anyway.
Hopefully Dell's upcoming GS monitor is just a one-off and the only ones who will remain highly infested in GS will be acer and asus.
Considering that GS has been out for over a year longer than FS and we have more choice of not just the monitor brand but also the types of panels/monitors for the FS side + them being quite a bit cheaper than the GS equivalents, I would say it is only a matter of time until nvidia have no choice but to support AS.
Last edited:
The newer updates to G-Sync handle low framerate situations better including double refresh re-rating in low fps situations using duplicate frames so that its able to quickly react to a new frame of data becoming available.
Sounds good that and it will be interesting to see how it performs in actual usage. Is this new gsync module used in any of the current/upcoming monitors? What about pricing?
As gsync progresses, I'm sure freesync will as well, however, as mentioned in my post, it will all come down to the scaler advances/improvements too.
As gsync progresses, I'm sure freesync will as well, however, as mentioned in my post, it will all come down to the scaler advances/improvements too.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 May 2012
- Posts
- 1,288
Also AMD Freesync is based on the industry standard Display Port Adaptive-Sync technology.
Intel is going to support Adaptive-Sync not freesync they are different.
However this method needs to be constantly updated in the firmware & drivers for the video cards in question to be able to support the range of enabled monitors.
With G-sync it is the other way around, the G-sync module needs to support the monitor it's sitting it and send communicate with the driver / graphics card in a set way.
Intel is going to support Adaptive-Sync not freesync they are different.
However this method needs to be constantly updated in the firmware & drivers for the video cards in question to be able to support the range of enabled monitors.
With G-sync it is the other way around, the G-sync module needs to support the monitor it's sitting it and send communicate with the driver / graphics card in a set way.
No one has said freesync and adaptive sync are the same. I've been saying that Adaptive Sync is platform agnostic. Freesync is irrelevant, it's AMD's branding of the method they use to get their graphics cards to interface with Adaptive Sync enabled monitors.
No one said Intel are going to use that. Why do you keep saying odd things and responding to things no one has said?