Who will be getting a Vega card and why?

[DragonQ]

I'd be very surprised if nVidia didn't have VESA Adaptive-Sync working internally. There's no reason they can't still promote GSync as a "premium" product, or even a certification, whilst still supporting Adaptive-Sync (although now that FreeSync supports LFC I don't know if there is any difference between the two any more).

I understand their business model and that they want it to be seen as an exclusive, premium product, but at the same time they're shutting out many potential customers who refuse to pay an extra £200 or who already have a FreeSync monitor and thus are currently stuck with AMD. Eventually it'll become counter-productive to not support Adaptive-Sync.

 

[llamadal]

I think some of you are missing the point that nvidia run a business and not a charity, why should they help the competition? Is this what you would do in a competitive market?

Yes it sucks that a gsync monitor is more expensive, it's also better, but regardless of that opinion - £200 or so over the lifetime of a monitor is not exactly the end of the world and no-one is locked it, an inconvenience nothing more. (That monitor can be had cheaper btw)

If AMD released something amazing, at the right price point, i'd sell my stuff and give it a go. As it stands, i see a fair few people wanting more power for 1440p - they need to do better.

Like Greg pointed out, many people had gsync a long time before freesync was even available, i only regret I didn't swap to it earlier as I let my dislike of asus restrict my options.

 

[TNA]

Do Nvidia not already support Freesync aka Adaptive sync in laptops already? Therefore it seems to me they can if they want to.

As for the business side of things. Not sure why people keep bringing this up, as it is obvious. This is why they will keep doing what they are doing until enough people make a fuss about it for it to become unattractive to their bottom line. Do you remember the backlash Microsoft got for Xbox One? They changed things really quick didn't they after that

If we however say, oh, but Nvidia make lots of money, they are smart, therefore I will pay the G-Sync tax with pleasure and go out of my way to defend it, then little will change, at least in the short term anyway

 

[old gamer]

I think some of you are missing the point that nvidia run a business and not a charity, why should they help the competition? Is this what you would do in a competitive market?

Yes it sucks that a gsync monitor is more expensive, it's also better, but regardless of that opinion - £200 or so over the lifetime of a monitor is not exactly the end of the world and no-one is locked it, an inconvenience nothing more. (That monitor can be had cheaper btw)

If AMD released something amazing, at the right price point, i'd sell my stuff and give it a go. As it stands, i see a fair few people wanting more power for 1440p - they need to do better.

Like Greg pointed out, many people had gsync a long time before freesync was even available, i only regret I didn't swap to it earlier as I let my dislike of asus restrict my options.

i dont think by supporting frresync they would be helping the competition, ive stated before if nvidia supported freesync then i would have bought a 1080 so thats 500 quid lost in sales from just me, now how many are there like me im guessing quite a lot so a fair bit of revenue lost

 

[gupsterg]

@OP

Possibly will go Vega. Depends on a) performance gain b) what loss I make selling current GPU. As Fury X with FreeSync screen is serving my gaming needs well, not really in a big rush to upgrade though.

 

[Pyr0m@nI@]{]

I'll probably pick one up as I need an upgrade for this old 980

 

[old gamer]

Of course and it does pain me when I look at moni prices. When GSync was first spoken about, the module was supposed to cost no more than $20 (if my ailing memory serves correct) but the massive premium on GSync doesn't make it look that way. Might well be vendors gouging or NVidia (no idea) but I am surprised NVidia haven't turned to Adaptive by now and still keeping the modules for those who might feel GSync is better.

this would also give nvidia an advantage with people knowing if they bought nvidia cards they could use any monitor

 

[tommybhoy]

As for the business side of things. Not sure why people keep bringing this up, as it is obvious.

Being a G-Sync user myself we like apologetic excuses that helps self feed our ego/snobbery a lot of the time.

You can rest assured we will also take agrievance when NV's simply trying to run a business making money and they are painted the bad apple in regards to monetising ASync.

Even though AMD are in business making making money too, it's pretty outrageous that AMD gets the 'good guy' plaudits just because they don't charge for their proprietary FreeSync implementation that's fully compatible with any open standard Async capable panel.

That's just not on.

 

[melmac]

Not that I will be getting into "what is better GSync or Freesync" but you have to remember and credit NVidia for seeing this tech and bringing it out. No idea if things have changed but I would assume not but when GSync was first released, NVidia GPUs didn't have the ability to run Adaptive Sync because of the lack of hardware on the GPU and hence why they have to use a module on the monitor. Things might have changed since but I don't think they still have the ability on the GPU or if they did, they could well support Adaptive Sync as well as GSync and it would be a win win for NVidia.

Nvidia released the tech first, but I am not so sure they were first to come up with the idea though. I guess first to market with new sync tech is what is always going to be remembered.

I know people will argue with me, and It doesn't really matter in the long run, but, I think AMD came up with the idea first. Nvidia, with their nearly unlimited resources, managed to get Gysnc out first. Why do I think this way? two main reasons,

1. AMD works with APU's and have done for years. Sync tech is based on a power saving feature that's part of the embedded display port specification. Embedded display ports are used in APUs. So isn't it more likely that the company working with both GPU's and APU's came up with the idea for sync tech first?

of course reason 1 wouldn't mean anything by itself.

2. AMD released the 260x, 290, all the second generation GCN cards, with support for a display port specification that didn't exist. Functionality that had no use on discrete graphic cards unless you were planning to connect to laptop monitor. Some might say that the Gysnc demo in October was what gave AMD the idea, but, that can't be the case as the 260x was released in August, 2 months before the Gsync demo.

So the evidence is there that AMD were thinking of variable refresh rates for at least as long as they were designing the 2nd generation GCN cards.

But, typical AMD, whether because of Resources or whatever reason, they were too slow and Nvidia will forever receive the plaudits for bringing variable refresh rates to the people.

 

[IainR]

Yes.

Fury pro owner, has served me very well and more than happy with it still, but more power at 1440p 144hz can never be a bad thing. Plus Freesync.

 

[Radox-0]

It is on the cards (see the pun hahah, okay not that funny ) to pick one up at some point. I am hoping the PCB is small enough to replace my R9 Nano in a HTPC. Always like to have cards from either stable to compare drivers and what not, but Nano can't cut it for 4k and annoyingly lacks HDMI 2.0.

 

[RSR]

If its quicker than my 1080 ill pick one up and put it under water.

If not ill pick up another 1080.

 

[melmac]

this would also give nvidia an advantage with people knowing if they bought nvidia cards they could use any monitor

I don't see downside to Nvidia supporting adaptive sync. Look how many people haven't bought Nvidia cards because they have a freesync monitor?

They could still have a premium brand of monitors with their Gsync module.

 

[Steampunk]

Most likely, depending on prices. I've been waiting for something as a worthy upgrade from a 290.

 

[Gregster]

Nvidia released the tech first, but I am not so sure they were first to come up with the idea though. I guess first to market with new sync tech is what is always going to be remembered.

I know people will argue with me, and It doesn't really matter in the long run, but, I think AMD came up with the idea first. Nvidia, with their nearly unlimited resources, managed to get Gysnc out first. Why do I think this way? two main reasons,

1. AMD works with APU's and have done for years. Sync tech is based on a power saving feature that's part of the embedded display port specification. Embedded display ports are used in APUs. So isn't it more likely that the company working with both GPU's and APU's came up with the idea for sync tech first?

of course reason 1 wouldn't mean anything by itself.

2. AMD released the 260x, 290, all the second generation GCN cards, with support for a display port specification that didn't exist. Functionality that had no use on discrete graphic cards unless you were planning to connect to laptop monitor. Some might say that the Gysnc demo in October was what gave AMD the idea, but, that can't be the case as the 260x was released in August, 2 months before the Gsync demo.

So the evidence is there that AMD were thinking of variable refresh rates for at least as long as they were designing the 2nd generation GCN cards.

But, typical AMD, whether because of Resources or whatever reason, they were too slow and Nvidia will forever receive the plaudits for bringing variable refresh rates to the people.

Yer, not something I agree with or disagree with in truth. You might well be right and no idea but NVidia did have it out a year in advance of AMD and I jumped on the ROG Swift at a very high price of £7xx with the assumption of "if I don't see this amazing tech work, I am sending it back".... Roll on a few years and I am still using the ROG Swift, so for me it was well worth it. If AMD did come up with it first, then really they should have been quicker. I do remember them showing off at one of the big shows a Freesync panel that was capable of running Adaptive Sync but not sure if it was before GSync was released or not.

I do stand by it being a shame that vendor tie ins like Screens, effects etc split the PC community but the bottom line is business and love or hate NVidia, they are bloody good at it. However, saying that, I do see a lot of people fed up of the sky high prices and looking to AMD with Ryzen and Vega and like so many other people, I really do hope they can pull it out the bag and turn a tidy profit. Intel and NVidia as sole distributors is a scary thought and none of us should want that at all (even die hard NVidia fans).

I don't see downside to Nvidia supporting adaptive sync. Look how many people haven't bought Nvidia cards because they have a freesync monitor?

They could still have a premium brand of monitors with their Gsync module.

Indeed - Asus have the ROG branding, so NVidia could call the Adaptive Sync something else and refer to G-Sync as the premium brand if they so wished. Tom Peterson did say "Never say never" when asked about supporting Adaptive Sync.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

I'll be getting the biggest baddest Vega card they have.

I've been extremely impressed with AMD's tech lately, and now have a Freesync monitor as well.
Hoping it's a good jump in performance over the Fury X.

 

[JediFragger]

Hoping it's a good jump in performance over the Fury X.

Yup, I'm hoping for around a 50% increase myself...

 

[TNA]

Being a G-Sync user myself we like apologetic excuses that helps self feed our ego/snobbery a lot of the time.

You can rest assured we will also take agrievance when NV's simply trying to run a business making money and they are painted the bad apple in regards to monetising ASync.

Even though AMD are in business making making money too, it's pretty outrageous that AMD gets the 'good guy' plaudits just because they don't charge for their proprietary FreeSync implementation that's fully compatible with any open standard Async capable panel.

That's just not on.

lol

Not too bothered with the good guy bad guy stuff. All I and probably a lot of people want to see is AMD getting stronger so they can compete with Nvidia so we all benefit from that when it comes to prices.

As for people who already purchased G-Sync in the past, I think it made sense at the time as not only was it around first, but it was the better tech for a good while. This is not the case any more so G-Sync has gone from awesome unique tech to something used to milk people and lock them in. As you said "That's just not on"

Going forward as long as AMD bring it with performance, I see no reason to go for G-Sync over Freesync. But if they cannot, then it will leave many who need the extra performance with no choice.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

I won't be, i dont play the latest games, so don't need to upgrade yet, my Fury does fine.

 

[TNA]

I won't be, i dont play the latest games, so don't need to upgrade yet, my Fury does fine.

Yea. And when one is not enough, you can always enable your second card to super charge your performance!