NVIDIA Responds To AMD's Free Sync Demo

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
NVIDIA had a few things to say about AMD's Free Sync demo at CES yesterday. Head on over to Tech Report for the complete rundown.

That said, Nvidia won't enable G-Sync for competing graphics chips because it has invested real time and effort in building a good solution and doesn't intend to "do the work for everyone." If the competition wants to have a similar feature in its products, Petersen said, "They have to do the work. They have to hire the guys to figure it out."
 
So monitor manufacturers will have to keep multiple stocks of the same basic monitor for those with compatible G-Sync cards and those without? Like the dueling 3D standards we have now?
 
Same concept with AMD's Mantle. Not sure why everyone poops on a particular company for doing it when every company does it...
 
We need more standardization, not less. No way I'd ever buy a GPU specific monitor...
 
Same concept with AMD's Mantle. Not sure why everyone poops on a particular company for doing it when every company does it...

Well a lot of people simply poop on whichever company is currently trying to screw over the consumer for their own benefit.

The best thing I can say about NVidia in this situation is at least they didn't pull a Rambus and get gsync included in the dp1.3 standard and then wait a couple years and then sue everyone that adopted it.
 
Oh and DisplayPort 1.3 supports variable refresh rate.

It's hard to say what it does and does not support; 1.3 won't be finalized until the second half of 2014.

Not sure why people are getting aggravated over Nvidia's statement. They invested R&D time and money and deserve a return on their investment. This is how improvements are made. Notice that AMD did nothing about graphical tearing until Nvidia did. If it's as easy as FreeSync, why wait until after Nvidia announced G-Sync? Because lack of competition.

Anyway, let Nvidia and AMD fight. The end result is improved technology for us.
 
Yay another reason why not to buy NVIDIA cards.

Because AMD hasn't said the exact same thing about Mantle and making Nvidia do the work themselves?

Fanboi alert! Only selfish acts by Nvidia will be criticized!! All hail benevolent AMD.

Sheesh.

You do realize these are for-profit businesses competing directly against each other?
 
So monitor manufacturers will have to keep multiple stocks of the same basic monitor for those with compatible G-Sync cards and those without? Like the dueling 3D standards we have now?

The more things change the more they stay the same...
 
So armed with a little more knowledge now, am I at all right in saying that nVidia has basically released a Display Port 1.3 function a head of time and put a brand name (G-Sync) to it? That's really what I'm walking away with here.
 
Because AMD hasn't said the exact same thing about Mantle and making Nvidia do the work themselves?

Fanboi alert! Only selfish acts by Nvidia will be criticized!! All hail benevolent AMD.

Sheesh.

You do realize these are for-profit businesses competing directly against each other?

Mantle is open, NVIDIA can implement it if they want and get a speed boost.
 
So armed with a little more knowledge now, am I at all right in saying that nVidia has basically released a Display Port 1.3 function a head of time and put a brand name (G-Sync) to it? That's really what I'm walking away with here.

Pretty similar to what they did with PhysX, and CUDA, both things that later were able to be done through OpenCL, but now we have fragmented proprietary standards instead.

It's annoying that this happens. I'd prefer we had only open standards, and the GPU manufacturers instead compete on their performance characteristics. Fragmentation like this just hurts the customer.
 
So armed with a little more knowledge now, am I at all right in saying that nVidia has basically released a Display Port 1.3 function a head of time and put a brand name (G-Sync) to it? That's really what I'm walking away with here.

eDP? Yea, it has dynamic framerate switching. Rumored to be standard in DP 1.3.
 
We don't know what G-Sync is under the hood. It could just be eDP with proprietary switches, which would be shameful for the green team.
 
Because AMD hasn't said the exact same thing about Mantle and making Nvidia do the work themselves?

Fanboi alert! Only selfish acts by Nvidia will be criticized!! All hail benevolent AMD.

Sheesh.

You do realize these are for-profit businesses competing directly against each other?

I'm no fanboi, for either company, but I view this as being totally different then Mantle because it's a piece of hardware that is totally separate from other hardware.

I have no problem with Nvidia making money off the g-sync module, let them sell it to as many LCD makers are they can, but they shouldn't limit the ability of others to use it.

As things sit now we could be headed toward even more fracturing of the PC ecosystem then ever before. Do we really want monitors features are tied to a specific company's GPU?
 
Ideally, PhysX would die, CUDA would die, and now G-Sync would die, and instead be replaced by OpenCL and DisplayPort 1.3.


Having fragmented standards makes about as much sense as having to subscribe to different services to get different music/shows/movies, rather than having one service for them all.

Could you imagine if HD DVD were still around competing with bluray, and movies were exclusive to one standard or the other. You would have to buy multiple players for some in order to play all movies. It would be insanity.

It's annoying and pisses me off.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not hailing AMD as being any better. They would likely do the same thing if they had more resources to make proprietary versions of everything...

I would support legislation to ban any and all proprietary formats, standards, protocols and connectors in computing, forcing only open standards, but that's just me.
 
Mantle is open, NVIDIA can implement it if they want and get a speed boost.

In fact, it is not. Mantle has never been open and there are no plans by AMD to make it open. In fact, only current gen AMD cards will be able to use it, so not even AMD's older cards can use it. AMD made the same comments about their Mantle solution that Nvidia used for their PhysX solution. In that, if the competition would like to make their own drivers and tech to use it, AMD would not immediately turn them down...

I think it's funny how many people try to make it seem like AMD is some entirely benevolent organization and Nvidia is some completely evil corporation. They are both for profit companies trying to find more ways to gain an edge over one another. After all, AMD is the company that stole technology to even get started.
 
So armed with a little more knowledge now, am I at all right in saying that nVidia has basically released a Display Port 1.3 function a head of time and put a brand name (G-Sync) to it? That's really what I'm walking away with here.

Not quite. They took an existing standard and tweaked it. When they got finished they decided to make it proprietary because of the tweaks. Which would be fine on something like the XBOX One where every last one of them is the same. But on the PC you end up with the afore mentioned Rambus standards debacle, and IBM's infamous Micro Channel Architecture. Imagine if USB was proprietary. Or PCI Express. Or heck the standard keyboard layouts.

If I were consulting the monitor manufacturers, I would wait until 2015 to ratify the new Displayport 1.3 to make sure that everything that needs to be in it is included. Not because I hate Nvidia, Intel, or AMD. But because I want consumers to go to the store to buy the best monitor that they are comfortable with.

The salesman shouldn't have to explain that this one works with Hewlett Packard Nvidia systems, but this one works with most other computers. Heck I don't want to have to skip the Asus 120 Hz 1440p monitor because it's incompatible with my system. Likewise it's silly for Asus to have to make 2 different models and waste valuable warehouse space storing them. Does Best Buy showcase the Nvidia or AMD compatible monitor on their limited shelf space?

The reason we have VESA standards is to avoid situations like this.
 
So monitor manufacturers will have to keep multiple stocks of the same basic monitor for those with compatible G-Sync cards and those without? Like the dueling 3D standards we have now?
Why? If the card doesn't support G-Sync, the monitor will just work like a normal monitor. You know, the way if a motherboard doesn't support CrossFireX, graphics cards still work in it. G-Sync will be another "Feature" to distinguish higher-end models.
 
A lot of green fan bois in here.
It's becoming [H]ard to find neutral informed posts on these forums.
Everyone without something to say, seems to bash some other group in lieu of acknowledging valid concerns regarding proprietary tech. Infantile world views.
 
Why? If the card doesn't support G-Sync, the monitor will just work like a normal monitor. You know, the way if a motherboard doesn't support CrossFireX, graphics cards still work in it. G-Sync will be another "Feature" to distinguish higher-end models.

G-Sync adds $275 to the monitors price, who wants to pay an extra $275 for a feature they cannot use?

So their will either have to keep multiple SKUs or they will lose customers.
 
So armed with a little more knowledge now, am I at all right in saying that nVidia has basically released a Display Port 1.3 function a head of time and put a brand name (G-Sync) to it? That's really what I'm walking away with here.

LOL i wasn't quite sure if that is what the Nvidia rep was saying because it just didn't make sense..

Nvidia said:
When asked about a potential VESA standard to enable dynamic refresh rates, Petersen had something very interesting to say: he doesn't think it's necessary, because DisplayPort already supports "everything required" for dynamic refresh rates via the extension of the vblank interval.


I don't understand, first he says it won't work with desktop monitors, then he says its now a standard.. i'm just all all in a ball of confusion over his comments..
 
Mantle is open, NVIDIA can implement it if they want and get a speed boost.

Mantle is not open. It MAY become open in the future but that is meaningless at this point. It would be like me declaring I am a millionaire now because I might win Sat's lotto.

As of now is it proprietary to AMD.

Mantle requires 3 things:

- A driver within the AMD Catalyst™ software suite that allows applications to speak directly to the Graphics Core Next architecture
- A Graphics Core Next GPU, like the AMD Radeon™ R9 Series, R7 Series or HD 7000 Series GPUs
- An application or game engine written to use the Mantle SDK

Considering 2 of the 3 are completely proprietary its not open.

As of now and the foreseeable future Mantle is just like G-Sync and PhysX. Proprietary to one GPU tech.

If I missed the announcement please show me one definitive statement or press release from AMD saying they are going to allow NV GPU's to work with Mantle. Not rumors or maybe's but a declarative statement.
 
Can't they just charge AMD royalties for support of the tech on their cards?
 
Can't they just charge AMD royalties for support of the tech on their cards?

Nvidia tried to do that with PhysX, and ATI/AMD said no way.

And then when somebody came up with a way to run PhysX on an AMD card, Nvidia immediately shut them up.

Now, if I had the time and want to make it work, I would work on it myself and then release the source once it was fully working. Not a word would get out before that.

Not much Nvidia could do about it if and open source program was out there.

And then there is the fact that Nvidia purposely gimped the CPU version of the PhysX library to only use slow x87 code.
 
Mantle is not open. It MAY become open in the future but that is meaningless at this point. It would be like me declaring I am a millionaire now because I might win Sat's lotto.

As of now is it proprietary to AMD.

Mantle requires 3 things:

- A driver within the AMD Catalyst™ software suite that allows applications to speak directly to the Graphics Core Next architecture
- A Graphics Core Next GPU, like the AMD Radeon™ R9 Series, R7 Series or HD 7000 Series GPUs
- An application or game engine written to use the Mantle SDK

Considering 2 of the 3 are completely proprietary its not open.

As of now and the foreseeable future Mantle is just like G-Sync and PhysX. Proprietary to one GPU tech.

If I missed the announcement please show me one definitive statement or press release from AMD saying they are going to allow NV GPU's to work with Mantle. Not rumors or maybe's but a declarative statement.
AMD have explicitly said that its not tied to GCN, but they won't port it to older architectures, and if the software protocol is open (which has been stated), then any hardware vendor can implement the necessary pieces in their driver. So no, its not "completely proprietary" as long as the software standard is open. It may be up to the hardware vendors to implement in drivers and hardware, but thats not the same thing as "proprietary". You can say its unlikely it is that nVidia implements Mantle which therefore fragments the industry, but that is a different issue.

This is in complete contrast to CUDA, G-Sync and PhysX, all of which are explicitly proprietary. AMD couldn't implement even if they wanted to because nV isn't coughing up the goods.
 
G-Sync adds $275 to the monitors price, who wants to pay an extra $275 for a feature they cannot use?

So their will either have to keep multiple SKUs or they will lose customers.

It's up to $275 now? Went up $100 in a week, must be awesome tech.
 
oh look -- nvidia being a whiney greedy piece of crap again, what's new?

they can keep their hardware and their software locked down tight as they want, it won't ever make me want to change where I spend my money.

We have all seen what stingy and proprietary does in the electronics industry. AMD is making cool shit, and then saying "here ya go, run with it, figure it out and make it work for your application" Nvidia is basically saying "fuck you pay me"
 
Because AMD hasn't said the exact same thing about Mantle and making Nvidia do the work themselves?

Fanboi alert! Only selfish acts by Nvidia will be criticized!! All hail benevolent AMD.

Sheesh.

You do realize these are for-profit businesses competing directly against each other?


You know AMD said themselves nVidia can use Mantle if they desire? Obviously some work will be required, but its a "NO" like nVidia is doing with G-Sync.
 
I own my first ATI card now.. I guess I should start shit talking about nVidia.. /eyeroll.
 
So monitor manufacturers will have to keep multiple stocks of the same basic monitor for those with compatible G-Sync cards and those without? Like the dueling 3D standards we have now?
If you clicked the link, the demo was showing that some panels/monitors already support variable refresh rate (a "regular" and variable refresh enabled laptop were compared). AMD stated its last 3 generations of GPUs already support variable refresh rate functionality.

The issue is that the proposed VESA standard is not yet finalized, and Nvidia is jumping the gun to make one that works with its video cards. It would be possible for monitor makers to advertise which of their LCD models support it, and whether it's compatible with either Nvidia's or AMD's variable refresh rate methods. It's just a mess right now because there's not a ratified standard, and when there is one whether the current LCDs with variable refresh capabilities will be compatible with that standard.

I really don't get what all the drama is about. If some people want to pay more for monitors with an extra feature that tied to one brand of video cards, it's their money and their choice.
 
And then when somebody came up with a way to run PhysX on an AMD card, Nvidia immediately shut them up.

Now, if I had the time and want to make it work, I would work on it myself and then release the source once it was fully working. Not a word would get out before that.

Not much Nvidia could do about it if and open source program was out there.

You'd get shut down in days, dude. Advising people not to buy snake oil can be dangerous for your anus.

And why would waste your time on a piece of shit such as physx?
 
You'd get shut down in days, dude. Advising people not to buy snake oil can be dangerous for your anus.

And why would waste your time on a piece of shit such as physx?

His point was simply that once the fully working application is released stopping him from continuing to offer it would be meaningless since it's would already be making the rounds of the internet.

It happens on a semi-regular basis X piece of code comes out, and the government or a company in some way stop the developer from offering it anymore, but the developer no longer needs to since hundreds and/or thousands of other sites already have it available on them.
 
His point was simply that once the fully working application is released stopping him from continuing to offer it would be meaningless since it's would already be making the rounds of the internet.

It happens on a semi-regular basis X piece of code comes out, and the government or a company in some way stop the developer from offering it anymore, but the developer no longer needs to since hundreds and/or thousands of other sites already have it available on them.

I agree, though possible law suits come to mind. Hence my concern for his rectum :D
 
If you invented something that is unique and could make you money, would you give it away for the good of the people or would you patent it and make money off of it? What's the difference with this? Lots of hypocrisy in this thread.

Now you if want to argue that the tech is a pos and not worth the cost, well, that's a completely different topic.
 
Back
Top