lol you jumped in with both feet, even jigger side stepped the obvious trap.
Will the rog swift get a free sync update?
- Thread starter Mr. May
- Start date
lol you jumped in with both feet, even jigger side stepped the obvious trap.
You getting desperate. I didn't believe Humbug was right, but you really do go to any lengths to win an argument.
Gsync, 3D, IPS, Adaptive sync, ULMB etc. etc. All features of Monitors.
3d and ULMB are not features of Gsync. Full stop, the END. You really can't argue against that statement. Stop trying to twist it. You came into the conversation about Gsync, it was up to you to keep up.
And I didn't misquote you once. LOL Really, really desperate.
Keep going Andy, you are getting really funny now.
This is going back to our other discussion about cost. I didn't claim that a Gsync monitor had two scalers, but, and I apologise for this, I honestly thought I read somewhere that the FPGA chip handled the frame syncing etc and output that to a separate scaler chip. I didn't realize that the FPGA chip was the scaler chip.
Well, truth be told, I did know, just forgot. So yes I was wrong about that but I still maintain that going by cost to the monitor manufacturer only, Gsync will always be more expensive than freesync unless Nvidia sell it at a loss.
Dunno how it will stack up to the hardware for adaptive sync but the costs of the gsync FPGA will be reducing over time - its an off the shelf board based around IIRC ARM Cortex core which doesn't depend on nVidia for sales (used in a broad range of applications by various companies).
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
I accept your apology, thank you.
I never said it was. I really don't know why you keep stating this over and over when I never said that it was. I made a statement regarding the gsync module and in response you also made statements about the gsync module that were in error.
You have misquoted me on numerous occasions in order to try and make it look like I made claims that I never did.
You said:
I actually said: "The gsync module already has 3d and ULMB on board, extra gsync module features dont neccessarily have to be sync related"
You also claimed:
What you actually said was;
"3d and ULMB Have nothing to do with the Gsync module."
You are deliberately re-editing things to try and portray what was said in the first exchange in order to put forward and alternate version in which you can claim you never made any mistakes.
what component of the monitor provides those features?
I never said it was. I really don't know why you keep stating this over and over when I never said that it was. I made a statement regarding the gsync module and in response you also made statements about the gsync module that were in error.
You have misquoted me on numerous occasions in order to try and make it look like I made claims that I never did.
You said:
I actually said: "The gsync module already has 3d and ULMB on board, extra gsync module features dont neccessarily have to be sync related"
You also claimed:
What you actually said was;
"3d and ULMB Have nothing to do with the Gsync module."
You are deliberately re-editing things to try and portray what was said in the first exchange in order to put forward and alternate version in which you can claim you never made any mistakes.
Last edited:
I believe its a fairly stock board based around an ARM Cortex core though so pretty generic and used in a lot of applications so prices will drop for the part over time.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
That is the cost of the main chip and board, it then has to be programmed and qualified for usage, there's several other costs involved in actually packaging a scaler in to a monitor (those costs are not unique to gsync though, freesync needs the same things in order to get a monitor on your desk and working)
Wafers cost about $5000 so say a titan chip costs around $53 (assuming perfect yield), and titan cards were sold for £800
The same chip goes in to Quadro cards and they sell for thousands
R&D is expensive.
A smartphone processor costs less than $20 and people pay £500 for those as well.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
right, how it works is, company A buys a thing and does something to it and sells it to company B and so on until it gets to the shops and someone puts a number on it which is how much you have to pay to take it home with you
when someone says "gsync costs more than freesync" they are talking about the price in the shop, not the manufacturing costs... what I've pointed out is that the manufacturing costs for a gsync scaler are not inherently much higher than for a freesync scaler... the price in the shops being higher is a function of supply and demand, currently supply is limited because there is no competition, and demand is high (high enough to keep the prices high anyway)
if there was an excess of supply (competition) then demand would drop and so would prices... prices can drop because COSTS are low enough to allow it
if a freesync scaler costs "$10" more than a normal scaler, and the absolute cost of the gsync scaler is $25, then the freesync and gsync scalers must have a comparable cost
Last edited:
I know a little about the way business works. But you do seem to put your opinions across as fact. How much is a Gsync board? If it's £16 and the kit has a RRP of £200 I will buy 10,000 pieces tomorrow at plus 40% and arrange for my own shipping.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
I never said YOU could buy a gsync board for £16
I said it costs £16 for Nvidia to buy the core board... what THEY sell it for to monitor manufacturers or end users for is their business (literally)
The point is, nvidia can drop the price of the gsync module any time they like, IF freesync is seen as competition and affecting sales
So Nvidia are making a killing on Gsync. Although I must say I'm very sceptical about your thoughts on the pricing, because if £16 is the manufacturing cost then the monitor industry would not be adopting FreeSync so aggressively, and Gysync monitors would be the same price as all the rest. Non of what your saying adds up TBH.
You could buy a big stack of the barebones boards, that isn't going to help you much. Infact right now depending on configuration and quantity ordered you can get the FPGA for as little as roughly $10 a unit.
Thats only a part of the costs of producing the product though.
As far as I read it's not a panel limitation - We already have a sea of monitor from various technologies that support up to 144Hz.
The limitation, at this time at least, appears to be in the 'Freesync' scaler hardware itself. Which is a real shame as any early adopters will be stuck choosing between refresh rate or resolution. I cannot help but feel AMD should have been pushing their hardware partners to get this out the door as a top tier product from day 1. That is, at LEAST comparable to G-SYNCS No1 offering of 2560x1440 and 144Hz.
Hell, even 2560x1440 at 120Hz would have been grand.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
Because price in the shops is not based on cost to produce, it is based on what profit they want to make (the maximum they think they can get away with)
If they want to sell more boxes, they can drop the price.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,505
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Well they need to make a return on the investment.
I can't imagine a single piece of electronics you'd buy that cost the same amount as it costs to manufacture.
How much do you think T-shirts cost to manufacture too while we're at it?
I can't imagine a single piece of electronics you'd buy that cost the same amount as it costs to manufacture.
How much do you think T-shirts cost to manufacture too while we're at it?
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
I'm not angry at all.
I would imagine they are making a profit on it yes. I would also think they could drop the price and still make a profit.. Not sure if you begrudge companies that make a profit?
I dont when the product they sell is entirely optional.
As I said R&D is expensive, I would much rather AMD and Nvidia made a profit so they can keep making new products than not.
When you pay £600 for a monitor or gpu, that money doesnt go to nvidia, it goes to the retailer, we have no idea how much of that actually trickles back to nvidia. The boards you were talking about were packaged by Asus and then sold and fitted by retailers.
I would imagine they are making a profit on it yes. I would also think they could drop the price and still make a profit.. Not sure if you begrudge companies that make a profit?
I dont when the product they sell is entirely optional.
As I said R&D is expensive, I would much rather AMD and Nvidia made a profit so they can keep making new products than not.
When you pay £600 for a monitor or gpu, that money doesnt go to nvidia, it goes to the retailer, we have no idea how much of that actually trickles back to nvidia. The boards you were talking about were packaged by Asus and then sold and fitted by retailers.
Last edited: