Yeap, I have been saying that for ages now, the range it works at depends on the monitor manufacturer.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
AMD: FAQ for Project FreeSync is up
- Thread starter Warsam71
- Start date
Yeap, I have been saying that for ages now, the range it works at depends on the monitor manufacturer.
Gsync has the same issue, once you go above or below the range it stops working. Some games are also locked at 60 fps so you have use a frame rate limiter for those too.
Its less about the monitor manufacturer, and more about the actual panel.
Most panels cant cycle the pixels that slow without severe ghosting so there is a hard limit on the low end. The individual cells can only stay energized for so long without a voltage refresh before they start to fade.
This is why gsync has the same limitation.
The panel makers will have to invest in more R&D to get it lower.
Last edited:
Are you sure? I think it depends on the scaler the monitor manufacturer chooses to use and that scalers have limited range. As there is no point in using a 60Hz scaler in a 144Hz monitor. That's why there are different ranges, 144-30, 120-17 and 60-9. That's 3 difference scalers, one for 144Hz, one for 120Hz and one for 60Hz
Yes, im sure
With the low range limit, its strictly technology limitation with the panels.
They just cant refresh that slowly. Thats why Nvidia says There is no lower limit with gsync, its up to the manufacturers.
They are being disingenuous. There is a hard limit by the panels themselves of 30hz. Im sure they could cherry pick panels and find ones that can go lower, but for mass production theve set it at 30hz.
The same hold true for freesync, there is no technical limitation, just the limitation of the panel.
for the upper limit, some of the same limitations exsist.
True IPS cant cycle the pixels fast enough to hit 144hz, so they are stuck at 60hz/75hz. if they can get the GTG response times down to TN levels (1ms) then they can go higher.
AHVA can as its for lack of a better phrase an "enhanced IPS", so you can assume any "IPS" panels with 144hz are AHVA
Im not too sure about PLS however.
With the low range limit, its strictly technology limitation with the panels.
They just cant refresh that slowly. Thats why Nvidia says There is no lower limit with gsync, its up to the manufacturers.
They are being disingenuous. There is a hard limit by the panels themselves of 30hz. Im sure they could cherry pick panels and find ones that can go lower, but for mass production theve set it at 30hz.
The same hold true for freesync, there is no technical limitation, just the limitation of the panel.
for the upper limit, some of the same limitations exsist.
True IPS cant cycle the pixels fast enough to hit 144hz, so they are stuck at 60hz/75hz. if they can get the GTG response times down to TN levels (1ms) then they can go higher.
AHVA can as its for lack of a better phrase an "enhanced IPS", so you can assume any "IPS" panels with 144hz are AHVA
Im not too sure about PLS however.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 23,543
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 23,543
Interesting article why the PC industry is ready for the FreeSync technology now. I read the .pdf on the page. 
http://www.moorinsightsstrategy.com/research-note-why-the-industry-needs-technologies-like-freesync/
http://www.moorinsightsstrategy.com/research-note-why-the-industry-needs-technologies-like-freesync/
Thanks for the link. I understood the concept, but it is nice to see FreeSync in action.
Sorry!! I don't agree. I am pretty certain it depends on the scaler used.
And I know about AHVA, I explained it to you a couple of days ago. Of course the panel has to support the higher refresh rates but the frequency used by Gsync and Freesync is determined by the scaler.
And what do you mean monitor panels can't refresh under 30hz? LOL that's news to me. I can set my monitor to run at 23Hz in the AMD control panel. And I remember when I had my 680 I set a custom resolution of 12Hz once, just to see what it would look like.
So yeah I disagree with you big time!!
Interesting article why the PC industry is ready for the FreeSync technology now. I read the .pdf on the page.
http://www.moorinsightsstrategy.com/research-note-why-the-industry-needs-technologies-like-freesync/
haha, they must have invested in Freesync
Interesting read all the same.Sorry!! I don't agree. I am pretty certain it depends on the scaler used.
And I know about AHVA, I explained it to you a couple of days ago. Of course the panel has to support the higher refresh rates but the frequency used by Gsync and Freesync is determined by the scaler.
And what do you mean monitor panels can't refresh under 30hz? LOL that's news to me. I can set my monitor to run at 23Hz in the AMD control panel. And I remember when I had my 680 I set a custom resolution of 12Hz once, just to see what it would look like.
So yeah I disagree with you big time!!
You explained nothing to me a few days ago. I already know everything you attemped to explain, and much much more i assure you.
I can guarantee you your panel is NOT refreshing an LCD at those low refresh rates, regardless of what you think you set.
If anything, the scaler is upscaling the refresh to a compatable rate (120hz for 24hz for example)
LCDs CANNOT (currently) refresh at those low rates, the physics of the technology does not allow it.
Of course the scaler has to support whatever refreshes you are going to use, but you are limited by the technological constraints of panel technology itself wich is currenlty 30hz minimum.
Its pointless to create a scaler capable of 20hz, when there isnt a panel to pair it with than can do that rate without ghosting. Even if the scler was capable of it, they would lock out those rates anyway, as they arent viable.
I believe AMD has been messing around and got it down to 23hz and some change, but thats with special hardware.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 10,225
The problem I have is that historically, mainstream monitors haven't really improved outside of two factors: energy efficiency and size. Seven years ago, most people owned a 21" 60hz DVI/VGA1080p TN LCD with a fluorescent backlight. Now people own a 24" 60hz DVI/VGA 1080p TN LCD with an LED backlight. YES, there are tons of other resolutions, LCD technologies, refresh rates and connections, but because they cost more than the cheap-cheap, they are not pushed into the mainstream. Realistically, my guess is that a 1080p IPS panel probably costs ~$7 more to manufacture than a 1080p TN panel (I'm completely in the dark about any actual raw goods pricing, I'm just basing this off of my own business sense.) yet they are priced much higher because reasons. As soon as something costs $0.01 more to manufacture, it becomes a premium product, and gets a premium price. A "$10" increase to the raw price will translate to a premium product pricing, and most people won't really know what the heck this 'premium' feature even does, so there isn going to be a huge cry from the mainstream market to have this feature standardised...
I dunno, I'm just losing faith in the FreeSync thing after all the CES announcements...
This is from the Guy that swore blind the AHVA panel was a VA panel. You even claimed it was Vertical alignment when challenged.
Can you please link some evidence about panels not been able to refresh lower than 30Hz.
AMD special hardware? First I have heard of that too, well both Intel and Nvida must have that "Special hardware" too because I have used them all at 23Hz and 24Hz on various monitors. I use it for syncing the film material I am watching with the monitors refresh rate to get rid of judder.
Seriously, I am interested to find out. This lower refresh rate on panels is all news to me!!
Last edited:
it's a bit difficult to give you a link to my brain, and my degree in electrical engineering, but I will attempt to find you something
Edit: hardly authoratative, but here is someone sayin something similar:http://www.nag.co.za/2015/01/07/ces-2015-freesync-hands-on-by-pc-perspective/
I'll keep looking.
Last edited:
LOL A lot of ways to reply to this post went through my head, but I think I will just do the mature thing and leave. So I am out.
Don't bother looking anymore, would rather do the research myself.
I thought LCDs could basically go to zero. Once the voltage is there to move the crystal to block or not block light there is nothing to refresh, if none of the pixels need to change. The faster it can change from on to off, the higher your refresh rate. If nothing is changing then you just have the frequency of the backlight.
I just don’t think anyone bothered to make a LCD driver chip to sync lower than 24 or 30Hz. Why would any video card need to send updates out slower than that? Even if the computer is to slow update anything, be it a static desktop or a graphic app that is to slow to have more than 24 or 30 new frames per second. Who would have thought we’d have supper powerful graphics cards for gaming that can’t time a finished frame in sync with the display without side effects?
I just don’t think anyone bothered to make a LCD driver chip to sync lower than 24 or 30Hz. Why would any video card need to send updates out slower than that? Even if the computer is to slow update anything, be it a static desktop or a graphic app that is to slow to have more than 24 or 30 new frames per second. Who would have thought we’d have supper powerful graphics cards for gaming that can’t time a finished frame in sync with the display without side effects?
Last edited:
This has been known since the beginning. The card polls the EDID info and sets the min and max from the monitors specs. Some people are just grasping at straws to try and put a negative spin on freesync. (Not you, of course.
)durquavian
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 756
It seems there are other factors that might later come into play. AMDs DFR that is to come out soon. Raptr (I know there is a lot of hate for this but it doesn't really bother me) that could technically help set up the parameters for each game to ensure the game runs within the Adaptive sync refresh rates. It looks as though AMD is attempting to create the environment others wanted.
This looks like one of the earlier contenders for a sweet spot monitor.
http://www.pcper.com/news/Displays/...2560x1440-IPS-120-Hz-Variable-Refresh-Monitor
http://www.pcper.com/news/Displays/...2560x1440-IPS-120-Hz-Variable-Refresh-Monitor
It's funny how FreeSync is making minimum refresh rates as important as maximum refresh rates almost overnight.
Is there a technical reason that minimum refresh rates typically only go down to 40Hz/30Hz or is it simply because there was no need for lower rates until now? If panel makers can go lower than 30Hz, what is theoretical realistic lower limit?
its the same with gsync.
I just dont think most of the nvidia people understand the ramifications. Ive read a few things that have said gsync in the 30-40hz range isnt very good.
Its a limitation of the physical panels. LCD technology wasnt really developed with ultra low refreshes in mind. Theoretically they could get lower, but the monitor lower limits are set with volume production constancy in mind. kinda how GPU factory OCs are set. Some can go higher, but the amount isnt consistent over the whole production run soo they set it at a level they know they can all do.
TN panels can get to to 30, its the IPS panels that are struggling.
24hz would be ideal. That would cover video, and anything lower for a game would most likely be a slide show anyway.
I assume they will get it lower over time if VRR demand takes off.
Also, im sure some industrious coders will figure out how to manipulate the EDID to get lower limits (assuming the scalers can handle it - im willing to bet they are overengineered for just this reason) like they have with pixel overclocking for higher refresh rates.
Its kind of ironic really; Every one has been screaming and yelling for higher refresh monitors for years, and now everyone is going to be yelling for lower VRR rates.
lol
I just dont think most of the nvidia people understand the ramifications. Ive read a few things that have said gsync in the 30-40hz range isnt very good.
Its a limitation of the physical panels. LCD technology wasnt really developed with ultra low refreshes in mind. Theoretically they could get lower, but the monitor lower limits are set with volume production constancy in mind. kinda how GPU factory OCs are set. Some can go higher, but the amount isnt consistent over the whole production run soo they set it at a level they know they can all do.
TN panels can get to to 30, its the IPS panels that are struggling.
24hz would be ideal. That would cover video, and anything lower for a game would most likely be a slide show anyway.
I assume they will get it lower over time if VRR demand takes off.
Also, im sure some industrious coders will figure out how to manipulate the EDID to get lower limits (assuming the scalers can handle it - im willing to bet they are overengineered for just this reason) like they have with pixel overclocking for higher refresh rates.
Its kind of ironic really; Every one has been screaming and yelling for higher refresh monitors for years, and now everyone is going to be yelling for lower VRR rates.
lol
Last edited:
http://hothardware.com/news/amd-at-ces-freesync-carrizo-front-and-center
It's not a review, but first impressions appear to be favorable for FreeSync. Bring on the reviews!
With regards to Gsync, its not really an ASIC (Application Specific Integated Circuit), its FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array).
Thats one of the reasons why its so expensive. Asics require manufacturing and design but are cheaper, FPGAs are just programmed general purpose chips and are expensive..
I assume they went that route to get it out the door as fast as possible.
They may have got the ASICs up and running by now, dunno, but initially at least they were FPGA
Thats one of the reasons why its so expensive. Asics require manufacturing and design but are cheaper, FPGAs are just programmed general purpose chips and are expensive..
I assume they went that route to get it out the door as fast as possible.
They may have got the ASICs up and running by now, dunno, but initially at least they were FPGA
Last edited:
I dunno. They would need big volume to go the ASIC route and with AMD tilting their hand submitting AdaptiveSync to VESA, I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia decided to wait.
> Completely stopping the panel refresh would result in all TN pixels bleeding towards white, so G-Sync has a built-in failsafe to prevent this by forcing a redraw every ~33 msec. What you are seeing are the pixels intermittently bleeding towards white and periodically being pulled back down to the appropriate brightness by a scan.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/Look-Reported-G-Sync-Display-Flickering
Sorry, I completely missed this part of your question.
As I said there is no such thing as a panel that refreshes at those rates. What you are seeing is one of two things: 3:2 pull down if your monitor is 60 Hertz max, or 5:5 pull down if you have a 120 Hertz monitor.
3:2 pull down basically pads the signal with runt frames in order to match 60 Hertz. This introduces jutter which you can clearly see in panning scenes. this is also called telecine
5:5 pull down basically repeats each frame 5 times in order to get a perfect 24p playback (120/24=5)
Also 10:10 pull down for 240 Hertz.
There are some TVs/Monitors that can multisync at 48hz, 72hz, or 96hz however they are mostly obsolete with the advent of 120hz devices. Either way, they are still displaying multiple frames to sync 24p content.
this is all handled seamlessly by the graphics card, or by your TV in the case of a Blu ray player
.
Last edited:
if he compares it to gsync on his first impression then it's good news