Intel To Support FreeSync With Future GPUs

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
It seems that Intel is throwing their support behind AMD’s solution for eliminating tearing and stutter. This is kind of a big deal due to Intel’s clout and integrated graphics that continue to grow in capability. As we all know, the alternative is Nvidia’s G-Sync, which isn’t really ideal due to its proprietary nature.

Dwindling shipments of low-end discrete GPUs in mobile and desktop have given the CPU titan an ever-larger share of the GPU market, which means that any standard Intel chooses to back has a much greater chance of becoming a de facto standard across the market. This doesn’t prevent Nvidia from continuing to market G-Sync as its own solution, but if Adaptive-Sync starts to ship standard on monitors, it won’t be a choice just between AMD and Nvidia — it’ll be AMD and Intel backing a standard that consumers can expect as default on most displays, while Nvidia backs a proprietary solution that only functions with its own hardware.
 
Having to pay extra for Nvidia's solution was a ridiculous proposition to begin with. Nvidia needs to throw in the towel and just adopt Free Sync now. Or they can just waste money and resources and still lose the standards fight in a few short years like Betamax, HD dvds, etc.
 
Freesync monitors are dirt cheap compared to the Nvidia Gsync counterparts.
Lots of people jsut have APU graphics and try running Steam Games with success or without.
 
Because gamers running Intel integrated graphics are totally NVidia's target audience :rolleyes:. If you're too cheap to buy a dedicated graphics card, you're definitely not going to see the value in a monitor with high refresh rates or other gaming features (Freesync or GSync).

GSync isn't going away any time soon.
 
OK this is getting weirder

First, intel has like 66% market share for GPU's because they are built in. I have no idea how many are used for games, since its as easy to get a non gpu intel as it is to get a factory ubuntu-ish notebook.

Second nvidia has over 80% market share of the rest of the gpu pie.

Third no intel silicon can support free sync. So that means that first free sync intels will start showing up 4thq 2016 / 1st q 2017. So we have a solid year before this even matters.

Forth, who is going to buy a $200-300 monitor to game on, and buy a brand new rig but use on board graphics?


The only way i could see this thing rockin, is if at the end of 2016 we had refresh rate free notebooks/tablets for less than $500. And that doesnt help AMD or Nvidia. At worst its going to hurt AMD, since now they can get an intel with freesync and not need to buy the bottom of the barrel apu solution from AMD. Because for some reason the only AMD hardware retailers sell are low end.
 
Intel stated that it will support "VESA Adaptive Sync", which has been a standard since 2009. It was added to external displays in 2014 as a request by AMD. FreeSync uses Adaptive Sync protocols, but it's inaccurate to confuse the much older Adaptive Sync with AMD's marketing name for a combination of AMD GPU + DP Adaptive Sync monitor.

But I guess this headline is more click-bait-y. :p
 
nightanole said:
WUT?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...97&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...98&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30

Other than open boxes, they both look neck and neck for rez/size/panel.
Click to expand...
From your links:

24" Gsync TN panel = $350
24" Freesync IPS panel = $190

27" Asus Gsync TN panel = $670
27" Asus Freesync TN panel = $500


You absolutely pay a premium for Gsync. I just wish more than one company made IPS Gsync panels and they weren't a lottery for distorted color or dead pixels.
 
tetris42 said:
From your links:

24" Gsync TN panel = $350
24" Freesync IPS panel = $190

27" Asus Gsync TN panel = $670
27" Asus Freesync TN panel = $500


You absolutely pay a premium for Gsync. I just wish more than one company made IPS Gsync panels and they weren't a lottery for distorted color or dead pixels.
Click to expand...

that Acer KN242HYL ips is not freesync ( go ahead and find the manual).


It still stands that the entry level is still 24" for $350 for both techs.

for the gsync camps we have this as the cheapest:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00NUCRBCU/?tag=extension-kb-20

For the free sync camp we have uhhhh, honestly i cant find any that are less than $600ish and normal. Feel free to list them please.

http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/technologies-gaming/freesync
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Drakenfeng said:
Because gamers running Intel integrated graphics are totally NVidia's target audience :rolleyes:. If you're too cheap to buy a dedicated graphics card, you're definitely not going to see the value in a monitor with high refresh rates or other gaming features (Freesync or GSync).

GSync isn't going away any time soon.
Click to expand...

This. Anyone running integrated Intel graphics is hardly going to be on the cutting edge of gaming, so why would anyone care?
 
I'd also like to know why something is automatically bad or "not ideal" because it's proprietary? Sure, we all want stuff for free but what's so wrong with paying somebody for something that they invented or added to their product? Did the entire planet become a bunch of self-entitled moochers while I wasn't looking?
 
nightanole said:
that Acer KN242HYL ips is not freesync ( go ahead and find the manual).


It still stands that the entry level is still 24" for $350 for both techs.

for the gsync camps we have this as the cheapest:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00NUCRBCU/?tag=extension-kb-20

For the free sync camp we have uhhhh, honestly i cant find any that are less than $600ish and normal. Feel free to list them please.

http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/technologies-gaming/freesync
Click to expand...
The link you sent is for a 1080p 27" panel, I don't know if there's an equivalent freesync one at that resolution, better to look at 1440p for that size:

For 27" 1440p you have this for Freesync at $450

For the same specs on G-sync, this is the cheapest I can find for non-open box at $670


Also once you get to IPS panels, currently the cheapest G-sync you can get is $800. You're looking at around a $200 premium over anything comparable on Freesync.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Cobalt35 said:
I'd also like to know why something is automatically bad or "not ideal" because it's proprietary? Sure, we all want stuff for free but what's so wrong with paying somebody for something that they invented or added to their product? Did the entire planet become a bunch of self-entitled moochers while I wasn't looking?
Click to expand...


When proprietary wants to become industry standard, the customer loses. We could have had some kick ass floppy drives waaaaay before cd burners if sony opened up the minidisc standard. Same with apple and firewire. Remember RDram?

If "some" sync becomes a standard, and everyone has to pay $20 in order to use the interface, well thats going raise some eye brows.

The customer and manufacturers will win once the sync wars are over.
 
tetris42 said:
The link you sent is for a 1080p 27" panel, I don't know if there's an equivalent freesync one at that resolution, better to look at 1440p for that size:

For 27" 1440p you have this for Freesync at $450

For the same specs on G-sync, this is the cheapest I can find for non-open box at $670


Also once you get to IPS panels, currently the cheapest G-sync you can get is $800. You're looking at around a $200 premium over anything comparable on Freesync.
Click to expand...


yea i think they are doing this on purpose. All the non insane freesyncs are the 27" 1440p, and all the non insane gsyncs are 24" 1080p. Its like buying mattresses, they make it impossible to compare apples to apples.

Yes i still want that ip 1440p for $800, yes im only willing to spend $500, since thats $200 more than my current ips 1440p non "somthing" sync monitor.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
nightanole said:
When proprietary wants to become industry standard, the customer loses. We could have had some kick ass floppy drives waaaaay before cd burners if sony opened up the minidisc standard. Same with apple and firewire. Remember RDram?

If "some" sync becomes a standard, and everyone has to pay $20 in order to use the interface, well thats going raise some eye brows.

The customer and manufacturers will win once the sync wars are over.
Click to expand...
It's already fetching much more than a $20 premium on higher end. Again, the cheapest G-sync IPS monitor you can get is $800 and it's known to be a dice toss whether you get one with problems or not.

Also let's not forget, if you want frame syncing, now you have to commit to some brands, but not others, because it has to match your videocard. That used to not be an issue.
 
nightanole said:
yea i think they are doing this on purpose. All the non insane freesyncs are the 27" 1440p, and all the non insane gsyncs are 24" 1080p. Its like buying mattresses, they make it impossible to compare apples to apples.

Yes i still want that ip 1440p for $800, yes im only willing to spend $500, since thats $200 more than my current ips 1440p non "somthing" sync monitor.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's killing me since I've been wanting G-sync ever since it was announced almost 2 years ago, but no way I can give up IPS. Like you said, that Acer IPS one is damn high, plus there are way too many reports of people getting defective panels. I would kill for a 1080p IPS Gsync panel, or just an IPS one lower than $800.
 
Chunder said:
Having to pay extra for Nvidia's solution was a ridiculous proposition to begin with. Nvidia needs to throw in the towel and just adopt Free Sync now. Or they can just waste money and resources and still lose the standards fight in a few short years like Betamax, HD dvds, etc.
Click to expand...

Nope.

G-Sync means you can't have an integrated GPU in the same computer as an NVIDIA GPU. Which means no Optimess.

I'm perfectly fine with that. Intel GPUs suck and need to die.
 
jwcalla said:
But those GPUs are mostly just for desktop display, right? Does adaptive sync really benefit there?

I mean looking at the GPU gaming market, Intel isn't as big.
Click to expand...
Watching video still get tearing from time to time but that's the players fault most of the time.
 
jwcalla said:
But those GPUs are mostly just for desktop display, right? Does adaptive sync really benefit there?

I mean looking at the GPU gaming market, Intel isn't as big.
Click to expand...

I would argue it could benefit Intel immensely more than others exactly because their generally underpowered GPUs - except maybe Iros Pro based ones which are halfway decent - need the framerate smoothing the most to compensate for their performance levels.

A game running at 20-30 fps would likely benefit more from hiding the GPU's weakness vs one that runs the game between 30-40 fps.

Curious to see what this could also mean for entry level discrete gaming products if Intel's lowly offerings can hide their weaknesses better this way. We'll perhaps see in a couple years I guess.
 
Wierdo said:
I would argue it could benefit Intel immensely more than others exactly because their generally underpowered GPUs
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But I'm not sure that that supports the argument that Intel has 75% of the target market and therefore sets the standard.

I guess I count towards that 75% even though I've never even enabled my IGP.
 
jwcalla said:
Perhaps. But I'm not sure that that supports the argument that Intel has 75% of the target market and therefore sets the standard.

I guess I count towards that 75% even though I've never even enabled my IGP.
Click to expand...

In terms of sheet momentum, I can see this announcement pushing monitor manufacturers toward concentrating their efforts around FreeSync to get that valuable checkbox covered.

From a business perspective, it's fairly easy and cheap to add that support. It's also too risky not include when competing for those valuable and relatively massive OEM contracts etc.

It's not just Intel that'll put pressure on the market, it's the army of Dells and HPs that want to make their newer models stand out in their next fancy sales pitch.

This should hopefully mean rapidly dropping prices for FreeSync enabled products, they'll probably become a commodity much sooner if this happens.
 
Good. I'm sick of proprietary BS making it impossible to allow me to just buy what I want and upgrade to what I want when I want to do it.
 
HockeyJon said:
Good. I'm sick of proprietary BS making it impossible to allow me to just buy what I want and upgrade to what I want when I want to do it.
Click to expand...
This.

Nvidia has been consistently doing the proprietary ours that only works on some things vs everyone else's that will have a much more universal, useful install base.

For now, this is all buzz to me though. Tech to smooth things out, cool. But I don't particularly register much visual jarring effects from tearing when I play twitch FPS games. So I'm not about to drop $500+ on a good adaptive sync display to shave milliseconds off my response times, or fix something that's almost a nonissue to me. It's just min/maxing, optimizing. In a few years when everything is adaptive sync and there's not a price premium, and I'm shopping for a new display, then yeah I'll use it.
 
Wierdo said:
I would argue it could benefit Intel immensely more than others exactly because their generally underpowered GPUs - except maybe Iros Pro based ones which are halfway decent - need the framerate smoothing the most to compensate for their performance levels.

A game running at 20-30 fps would likely benefit more from hiding the GPU's weakness vs one that runs the game between 30-40 fps.

Curious to see what this could also mean for entry level discrete gaming products if Intel's lowly offerings can hide their weaknesses better this way. We'll perhaps see in a couple years I guess.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, FreeSync's current implementation doesn't work at all at an fps below the monitor's minimum refresh rate. The physical minimum refresh rate can even be above the monitor's minimum advertised specs. In the case of the 144Hz monitors pcper tested, that minimum was 40fps before screen tearing and judder all goes to hell. 60Hz monitors probably aren't much better because as they explained, you have to stay above about 40Hz to prevent panel flicker. AMD probably could fix this driver side, but testing and implementing a driver fix for each monitor probably produces an unfavorable budget. But until they fix this, Freesync is currently worthless tech and I say this hoping that they do fix it and become the next thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkrJU5d2RfA
 
-PK- said:
Unfortunately, FreeSync's current implementation doesn't work at all at an fps below the monitor's minimum refresh rate.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true.

There is nothing preventing the panel from frame doubling automatically just like nvidia's g-sync. It's just nobody does it now. It doesn't mean it's not possible. Nor is it impossible to design a monitor with a lower native refresh rate.

This is why I had issues with Tom's comparison of g-sync to free sync. It wasn't an apple to apples comparison to be honest because it is impossible to find to apples to compare that are exactly the same. This is not the fault of the technology (g-sync, freesync) but the manufactures choices in design.

That said, this is genius for Intel. Adaptive refresh rate monitors really benefit those with low frame rates the most. The is especially true of Intel solutions as they run at a slower rate. This could be a real boon to laptops where there are integrated graphics.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
Both are unnecessary if people would just set up their shit properly.
Click to expand...
Sort of. If you have a 60Hz monitor, G-sync isn't going to give you anything extra if your framerate NEVER dips below 60 and you have vsync enabled. Thing is, at least for my eyes, games still look pretty good at around 45fps and gsync / freesync can make sure that remains a smooth experience rather than having screen tearing all over the place. Sometimes people (like me) simply can't run some games at 60+ fps, but can reliably hit 40-50fps, G-sync is perfect for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top