When/Will we see a platform agnostic Vsync monitor solution?

andybird123 · 15 Sep 2015 at 13:54

The thing with Nvidia supporting adaptive sync is that AMD have said their GPU's have specific hardware that has been tasked with this, intel have also said that broadwell / skylake won't have support so it'll be a future processor (maybe not even kabylake), so for all the criticism at nvidia over not supporting it, if it's a hardware issue it could be pascal before they even think about it

it really depends how far in to product development they were when (or in nvidia's case if) they decide to add support

I can't see nvidia supporting adaptive sync until gsync sales dry up... I'm hoping no one buys the Asus 3440x1440 monitor at £1200 as that is insane pricing... even the Acer pricing for both freesync and gsync is a bit confusing considering the AOC 3440x1440 monitor is £530 and LG's is around the same... even freesync seems to be adding £300 in that case

Howling · 15 Sep 2015 at 14:00

I think it's the curve adding the price on the Acer more so than freesync. Still too expensive for low quality acer products.

andybird123 · 15 Sep 2015 at 14:14

Howling said:
I think it's the curve adding the price on the Acer more so than freesync. Still too expensive for low quality acer products.

even then, the LG curved is £600-650

Deathjester · 15 Sep 2015 at 14:30

spoffle said:
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?

Actually Intel have said it's what they are going to use.
Intel interview

Intel Fellow and Chief Graphics Software Architect David Blythe indicated that Intel is positively inclined toward standards-based solutions like Adaptive-Sync, and he said Intel does indeed plan to support this optional extension to the DisplayPort spec. However, Blythe wasn't yet willing to commit to a timetable for Intel enabling Adaptive-Sync support in its products.

Anyway...
I said one odd thing as a comparative platform specific / platform agnostic comparison.
The other things have all been relevant to the discussion.

Nexus18 · 15 Sep 2015 at 14:33

AFAIK, freesync is just AMD's marketing term for adaptive sync, how they work etc. is exactly the same.

Regarding the prices, as said, the curve + the extra 15HZ and just being by acer will be adding the extra pricing, not FS/AS.

LG 34" 2560x1080 VS LG 34 2560x1080 75HZ and freesync is only £10 more

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-107-LG&groupid=17&catid=2898

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-127-LG&groupid=17&catid=2898

And LG's 29" freesync screen is quite a bit cheaper than all the other non freesync 29" monitors.

For some reason, acer seem to think that they can charge a premium for their monitors now despite their QC and CS being the worst out there...

Unfortunately the majority of monitors are a bit of a rip-off these days.

eddiew · 15 Sep 2015 at 15:50

Gimpymoo said:
I just cannot see myself purchasing a monitor which tethers me to one brand or another.

I quite agree... Buyers should remain free to choose the best GPU for their needs, not the best one that works with their specific monitor.

My current monitor has outlived four GPUs, from both camps and will probably go on for at least one more...

Jim99 · 15 Sep 2015 at 16:01

spoffle said:
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.

I saw a review a while back which suggested that one of the problems with Adaptive Sync was that it didn't do multiples of refresh rates, so if you went down to 30fps, rather than 30fps@120Hz, or 30fps @ 60Hz, you got 30 fps @ 30Hz. And thus 20fps @ 20Hz, which then gives you a problem if it speeds back up to 100fps, because you go from 20-100Hz in a spilt second, and the result is really jarring.

So theoretically it could do a wider range, but the effect would be horrific.

The one thing that I've found frustrating is that everyone seems so tight-lipped on exactly what is causing the narrow FreeSync ranges. Even AMD weren't sharing any kind of thorough explanation when I was trying to get the bottom of the MG279Q conundrum.

TheMorningStar · 15 Sep 2015 at 21:59

Nvidia could support adaptive sync whenever they wanted, they choose not to because they make much more money not doing so.

They sell a g-sync monitor to someone with a nvidia gfx card. Boom, next gfx upgrade for that user is going to be Nvidia. Boom, monitor upgrade time, well you gotta buy g-sync if you want your gfx card to support it. Boom, another gfx card upgrade, gotta be Nvidea again if you want to keep all those features, and around and around it goes, locked into a never ending product cycle unless you bite the bullet and replace all of your hardware at once, which is expensive.

PS, I know nvidia don't actually sell monitors, I just simplified it for the above example as they obviously make money on every monitor sale.

If nvidia chose to support adaptive sync, and they could at any time, they would loose market share It doesn't matter if it's bad for you the consumer, you are just a wallet.

The only thing stopping them supporting adaptive sync along side their proprietary g-sync is corporate greed. Nothing else is stopping them, literally nothing. Think about that before you invest with them.