Will the rog swift get a free sync update?
- Thread starter Mr. May
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,376
No.
Realtek (who are making freesync scalers) say the first tranche of freesync monitors will be 1080p up to 144hz and 4K up to 60hz, no mention of 1440 above 60hz as of yet.
Gsync modules wont support freesync so no the ROG swift wont be getting a freesync update.
Realtek (who are making freesync scalers) say the first tranche of freesync monitors will be 1080p up to 144hz and 4K up to 60hz, no mention of 1440 above 60hz as of yet.
Gsync modules wont support freesync so no the ROG swift wont be getting a freesync update.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,376
non-existent
either gsync will maintain market share and freesync won't, in which case no need to support freesync, or the other way round, freesync will become standard and gsync modules will stop being produced/sold, I can't see any reason why nvidia would bother to add freesync support to a gsync monitor
Well you would think so as long as logical thinking exists. That said, I'm finding the world makes a little less sense to me everyday.
Would it not be possible for either one to simply remain unused while the other is used (depending on which gfx card you have)?
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,376
I
The gsync module completely replaces the monitor's controller, it would require some pretty major re-engineering by the monitor manufacturer to add another controller alongside and I would imagine nvidia's licencing of the gsync module would prevent that
You're assuming that sales of freesync monitors will be high enough and will affect gsync sales... Nvidia had 72% market share in GPU's last quarter and generally have 64%, gsync is supported by 6/7/9 series, freesync only 2 series so the target audience for freesync is currently much much smaller, so for freesync to really take off it needs to either be added to every single monitor (unlikely if there is a cost involved) or people start buying AMD GPU's specifically to get freesync which also seems unlikely looking at the buying patterns of the last few years,
The cost of the actual gsync hardware is negligible compared with what AMD have said the cost of adding support for freesync is, so when/if freesync monitors affect gsync sales then they can just cut prices.
The gsync module completely replaces the monitor's controller, it would require some pretty major re-engineering by the monitor manufacturer to add another controller alongside and I would imagine nvidia's licencing of the gsync module would prevent that
You're assuming that sales of freesync monitors will be high enough and will affect gsync sales... Nvidia had 72% market share in GPU's last quarter and generally have 64%, gsync is supported by 6/7/9 series, freesync only 2 series so the target audience for freesync is currently much much smaller, so for freesync to really take off it needs to either be added to every single monitor (unlikely if there is a cost involved) or people start buying AMD GPU's specifically to get freesync which also seems unlikely looking at the buying patterns of the last few years,
The cost of the actual gsync hardware is negligible compared with what AMD have said the cost of adding support for freesync is, so when/if freesync monitors affect gsync sales then they can just cut prices.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,376
It is optional, so no, no one has to support it.
It isnt adding £200, unless you are talking about the rog swift, which is currently the only official 120/144hz 1440p screen available, the price of the rog is because it is niche and unique, when other hi res hi refresh monitors are released then the price will come down to compete
Pricing is always a case of supply and demand, if a product is in high demand then prices are higher
Last edited:
Soldato
Free sync will go the way of HD-DVD's within 18 months!
It has been added to DP 1.3 (and 1.2a). So eventually all monitors with DP 1.3 connectivity will potentially support freesync as standard. Essentially the cost of adding freesync compatibility could be zero, because the DP 1.3 scaler will have it already.
The success of freesync does not rely upon AMD GPU sales, it relies upon DP1.3 becoming a standard... oops
Ignore GPU sales and look at the number of monitors that support gsync compared to "standard" monitors with just a simple DP port. Eventually those "standard" monitors will be replaced by ones with DP 1.3, which means freesync as standard. Ask yourself this, how many monitors are being sold with the 1st iteration of displayport? They inevitably move to the next available standard as it is made available and when that happens (which it will, 100% guaranteed) DP 1.3 will be the standard in future.
Let me save you the hassle of comparing numbers of gysnc vs "standard" monitors. There are 6 types of gsync monitors for sale here on OCUK, compared to well over 100 "standard" ones. Eventually every one of those "standard" models will get replaced by a new model with DP 1.2a or DP 1.3. And that means freesync capability.
If Gsync was such a resounding success (as implied by the usual suspects) why are there only 6 gysnc capable monitors after almost a year since the first one went on sale?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,376
Adaptive sync is optional in DP1.3, so no it does not mean that all monitors will eventually support freesync, AMD have said it costs an extra $20 to support freesync, monitor makers are not going to automatically pay an extra $20 in manufacturing costs on monitors that retail for $150-200, it is only going to be premium/gamer ones
The number of gsync models on sale only goes to show how niche this technology is, even with nvidia having the commanding market share.
The number of gsync models on sale only goes to show how niche this technology is, even with nvidia having the commanding market share.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure that a gsync monitor could be made to run with freesync by using a software update.
All gsync monitors can be made to run without gsync enabled so I'm not exactly sure the normal controller is missing but rather disabled if you switch on gsync.
Pure speculation.
I think it ultimately comes down to pricing and performance. If freesync works without the bugs of gsync (display flickering/strobe effect at 0 fps) and costs less for identical specification monitors then you can expect gsync to die out.
Either way I think freesync will cause NVidia to rethink their crazy mark up price on the gsync module itself. People will pay £20 extra put £100 isn't going to fly with freesync about.
It's a bit of a crazy market where you have to buy a monitor to match your GPU and if you want to switch GPU you now have to start thinking about switching monitor as well.
All gsync monitors can be made to run without gsync enabled so I'm not exactly sure the normal controller is missing but rather disabled if you switch on gsync.
Pure speculation.
I think it ultimately comes down to pricing and performance. If freesync works without the bugs of gsync (display flickering/strobe effect at 0 fps) and costs less for identical specification monitors then you can expect gsync to die out.
Either way I think freesync will cause NVidia to rethink their crazy mark up price on the gsync module itself. People will pay £20 extra put £100 isn't going to fly with freesync about.
It's a bit of a crazy market where you have to buy a monitor to match your GPU and if you want to switch GPU you now have to start thinking about switching monitor as well.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,376
The gsync module totally replaces the monitors controller board, the gsync module supports nongsync, ulmb, 3d as well as gsync, it does not support freesync, it probably could as it is an FPGA, but nvidia would be suicidal to do it
The "bug" is because you are at the limit of what the monitor panel can support, the image is starting bleed to white because it is being held for too long, the only way to "fix" it is to reduce the range that gsync/freesync works at, but if anything AMD have been pushing the idea that freesync will support a wider range of refreshes
Huddy didn't say it would cost $20, he said he would be surprised if it cost a manufacturer more than $10 - $20 total on the bill of materials. That is still significantly less than adding a gsync module. This is a small amount and would be much easier to pass that price to the consumer.
Time will tell how the monitor manufacturers react but it's clear gsync has not taken off as intended due to the fact the costs are prohibitive. The difference in price between a standard and gysnc version of the same monitor is prohibitive all things considered it is not worth the ~£100 extra to the majority. Now if you add a similar capability for an extra £10 it will be a lot more attractive.
I could imagine a scenario where Nvidia simply use the new Adpative Sync standard in DP 1.2a/1.3 and call it Gsync 2 or gsync+. They will still have their gsync brand but it will be more widely available due to the fact the majority (or all) existing monitors support the standard. Those very same monitors will also support AMDs freesnyc. This is no different than eyefinity and Nvidia surround, similar tech, same result, different names.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,376
The gsync module is an altera FPGA with 768mb of Ram, cost in bulk is about $25
If nvidia/manufacturer reduced the price difference to say $50 (£30), would that sway you?
I'm not sure how many models you were expecting, they have all the main gamer resolutions and refresh rates covered, with 2 more models announced but not yet released. The rog swift alone has been one of the fastest selling gamer monitors. Ocuk have sold something like a million quids worth of swift's, that is one retailer in one country, and a niche of a niche product, 1080p monitors being far more prevalent. Nvidia only signing deals with a few makers means they are not diluting the market any sooner than they need to, the lack of competiton keeps the prices higher which is good for profits. That is what responsible companies do. That is how they make money and keep paying their employees instead of firing thousands of people in the run up to Christmas.
When there is competition prices will drop. Nvidia could even go as far as subsidising gsync modules if they wanted to/needed.
Youve already paid £200-300 more for your GPU than you could have for equivalent performance, you could have paid ~£250 on a 970 and then gsync would have been "free" (the same overall cost), and you'd have ended up with a better experience overall.
If nvidia/manufacturer reduced the price difference to say $50 (£30), would that sway you?
I'm not sure how many models you were expecting, they have all the main gamer resolutions and refresh rates covered, with 2 more models announced but not yet released. The rog swift alone has been one of the fastest selling gamer monitors. Ocuk have sold something like a million quids worth of swift's, that is one retailer in one country, and a niche of a niche product, 1080p monitors being far more prevalent. Nvidia only signing deals with a few makers means they are not diluting the market any sooner than they need to, the lack of competiton keeps the prices higher which is good for profits. That is what responsible companies do. That is how they make money and keep paying their employees instead of firing thousands of people in the run up to Christmas.
When there is competition prices will drop. Nvidia could even go as far as subsidising gsync modules if they wanted to/needed.
Youve already paid £200-300 more for your GPU than you could have for equivalent performance, you could have paid ~£250 on a 970 and then gsync would have been "free" (the same overall cost), and you'd have ended up with a better experience overall.
Last edited: