AMD: FAQ for Project FreeSync is up

It means some stupid troll can't imagine why something is written down the way it is even tho it does not say the words or missing an additive it is clear, when you quote the part that is in error while disregarding what is written before it makes it looks like it makes no sense.
 
if u buy a 1080p monitor or 1440p you pay more. Freesync =0$ going to amd for licensing.

Nvidia is on the vesa board and pulled a Rambus cause their gpu video scaler wouldn't work with vblank and that's why they need the proprietary piece of silicon between the monitor and their gpu and same reason why they won't adopt Freesync unless they modify their future gpus (fat chance as now they get money from the gsync monitor makers in lincense fees).Who pays for those license fees ? compare a Gsync TN panel to its none Gsync counterpart and you get the picture.

amd users will have their version of adaptive vsync (maybe intel eventualy) and that's good for everyone.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
It means some stupid troll can't imagine why something is written down the way it is even tho it does not say the words or missing an additive it is clear, when you quote the part that is in error while disregarding what is written before it makes it looks like it makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Can anyone else parse this? I tried several times to make sense of it, but I think it's too far-gone.

maboblivion said:
...and same reason why they won't adopt Freesync unless they modify their future gpus
Click to expand...
NVIDIA is adopting FreeSync (more accurately, the adaptive sync standard). It will be supported by Maxwell GPUs (their current GPU architecture).

maboblivion said:
(fat chance as now they get money from the gsync monitor makers in lincense fees).Who pays for those license fees ?
Click to expand...
NVIDIA sells display vendors G-Sync modules. They do not license G-Sync to display vendors.
 
maboblivion said:
check the update bro lol
Click to expand...
I am not your "bro".

maboblivion said:
SO u believe that the monitor makers are just paying for the bill of materials on the gsync kit....
Click to expand...
No. As I said, they pay NVIDIA for G-Sync modules. Just because they're purchasing the modules does not they're paying BOM costs: they're paying for the support and R&D costs NVIDIA builds into the pricing of G-Sync modules, and for NVIDIA's profit margins on those units.

It may not have occurred to you (and may arrive as quite a shock to you) that businesses occasionally sell products to other businesses, and that they profit on the sales of these products and not on licensing fees. I assure you, however, that this happens.
 
Do you know how much money amd will make over freesync monitors 0$. Monitor with freesync will most likely cost a few dollars to offset the better scalers used.(insert your phrase bout profits here)

While we already know how much more G-sync cost for a tiny chip that holds ram on it when we compare the asus rog monitor with and without. Clearly if u believe the price is that high than your within the distortion field and no one will make you believe other wise.

I'll wait for the free freesync monitors next year, good day to you sir!
 
Freesync is going to be great. I don't think it's going to be 100% free though. Hopefully there is no huge price premium, I'm guessing there may be like $20-30 higher vs a non-freesync screen. Which would be totally acceptable to me.

maboblivion said:
While we already know how much more G-sync cost for a tiny chip that holds ram on it when we compare the asus rog monitor with and without.
Click to expand...

Do they make a version of the ROG Swift without Gsync? I know there was the add in module for the Asus VG248QE monitors that cost $200. I don't think all Gsync monitors are going to have that much of a premium over non-Gsync monitors though.
When comparing the ROG Swift to other 1440p screens, there is about a $200 difference. But you also get 144hz refresh rate and ULMB over most standard 1440p screens. So the premium didn't seem too bad to me.
 
DraginDime said:
Do they make a version of the ROG Swift without Gsync? I know there was the add in module for the Asus VG248QE monitors that cost $200. I don't think all Gsync monitors are going to have that much of a premium over non-Gsync monitors though.
When comparing the ROG Swift to other 1440p screens, there is about a $200 difference. But you also get 144hz refresh rate and ULMB over most standard 1440p screens. So the premium didn't seem too bad to me.
Click to expand...

The problem with Nvidia and GSync is that they are using FPGAs for the initial G-Sync capabilities. They are costly and have to be hand tuned for each product.

To get the cost down, they have to front a bunch of money and have an ASIC fabbed for them, wait about a year or so (for design and manufacture) while having to make sure it is compatible with all the different panels and their specifications.

Going the route of ASIC means they have to have a bunch of volume which G-Sync won't, it is a niche product and getting the cost down to entry level pricing and competing with 3 other scaler vendors means they need to move a significant amount per year, I don't know if that is feasible for Nvidia.
 
wonderfield said:
As I said, they pay NVIDIA for G-Sync modules. Just because they're purchasing the modules does not they're paying BOM costs: they're paying for the support and R&D costs NVIDIA builds into the pricing of G-Sync modules, and for NVIDIA's profit margins on those units.
Click to expand...

It is sad that you don't understand the basics in this matter. Nvidia did not do anything beside slapping some framebuffer ram on top of something that already existed.

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/g-sync/faq
Q: Does G-SYNC work with FCAT?

A: FCAT requires a video capture card to catch the output graphics stream going to a monitor. Since G-SYNC is DP only and G-SYNC manipulates DP in new ways, it is very unlikely that existing capture cards will work. Fortunately, FRAPS is now an accurate reflection of the performance of a G-SYNC enabled system, and FRAPS output can be directly read by FCAT for comparative processing.
Click to expand...

Yes new ways :) very special :)
 
Last edited:
What exactly does FCAT — which is a shader overlay and a tool that sucks up video and bounces out CSV files — have to do with G-Sync — which is a technology and a module for non-isochronous display refresh? More to the point, what the hell does FCAT have to do with the selling of and the pricing of G-Sync modules?
 
wonderfield said:
What exactly does FCAT — which is a shader overlay and a tool that sucks up video and bounces out CSV files — have to do with G-Sync — which is a technology and a module for non-isochronous display refresh? More to the point, what the hell does FCAT have to do with the selling of and the pricing of G-Sync modules?
Click to expand...

I totally forgot that you are limited in your comprehension of things that are quite obvious to me. I underlined and bold the stuff that matters.

DP = Display Port.
 
Alight. And what does DisplayPort have to do with NVIDIA's pricing of G-Sync modules?
 
I can almost guarantee thats a AUO AHVA panel reguardless of what Acer claims...
 
Which is IPS equvalent in everything except name due to IPS being trademark of LG.
 
No its not, its a VA panel, regardless of what they wish to call it.
 
Nothing in that article counters my assertion.

its a VA panel.
 
since its a vertical alignment panel, it absolutly does.

it has "Near IPS" performance.

Its still not an IPS regardless.

My Toyota can go just as fast as a Mercedes.

It doesnt make it a Mercedes however.

PLS (Samsung) panels also have near ips performance, but they are also not IPS panels.
 
Last edited:
The Mac said:
since its a vertical alignment panel, it absolutly does.

it has "Near IPS" performance.

Its still not an IPS regardless.

My Toyota can go just as fast as a Mercedes.

It doesnt make it a Mercedes however.

PLS (Samsung) panels also have near ips performance, but they are also not IPS panels.
Click to expand...

Sorry Mac, You are wrong about this, 100% wrong. Its not VA panel. Don't be confused by the name.

If LG produced this panel it would be called IPS.
 
Sorry, im not.

it is a VA variant, pure and simple.

And yes, i am aware the VA in AHVA stands for Viewing Angle not Vertical Alignment.

Not really the point, i was just pointing out that Acer calling it an IPS is misleading.
 
The Mac said:
Sorry, im not.

it is a VA variant, pure and simple.

And yes, i am aware the VA in AHVA stands for Viewing Angle not Vertical Alignment.

Not really the point, i was just pointing out that Acer calling it an IPS is misleading.
Click to expand...

Nope, sorry, it's not a VA panel.

It's an IPS panel, as near as makes no difference.

If you have some proof that shows its a VA panel please link it.

And it's not misleading because for all intents and purposes it is an IPS panel.
 
Whataver, not worth arguing about the technological and implementation differences, lets just call them "IPS-Like"

i was just pointing out its misleading...

IPS, S-IPS, AHVA, and PLS all perform about the same.

However AHVA is the only one i am aware of that is over 75hz without overclocking.
 
Last edited:
The Mac said:
In that case PLS is IPS too.

Whataver, not worth arguing about, i was just pointing out its misleading...

IPS, S-IPS, AHVA, and PLS all performa bout the same.
Click to expand...

Sorry, it's just that you said AHVA like it was a bad thing and stated twice that it was a VA panel.

I don't think it's misleading, it would be misleading if people took that it was a VA panel which probably why they refer to it as an IPS panel.

The AHVA panel has one characteristic that is better than IPS. It has better response time so it can be used in 120Hz and 144Hz monitors.
 
I never said it was bad, i said it was misleading.

Perhaps im being overly pedantic, but to me an AHVA is not an IPS panel, its an AHVA panel.

i know for a fact its a VA derivative, but im willing to concede the point in the interest of not perpetuating an OT argument.

And sorry, i ninjaed my post...

lol
 
Last edited:
Back on topic - some unanswered questions:

according to the AMD Faq, in order for freesync to run at this monitors native/highest refresh it would need to operate within the 21-144Hz range.

Is that sufficiently low for practical purposes?

if a game was running below 21fps, what effect would it have?

also, according to the faq there are 3 operational modes, can the refresh of the monitor be lowered to take advantage of a lower fps range? (ie use all 3 modes selectably)

or is it just one range per monitor?

is there any real advantage to freesync at this low of an FPS?
 
Last edited:
The range depends on the monitor.

If your frame rate goes over 144 or lower than 21 you lose the benefits of freesync. How much of an effect would that have? I don't know, guess it depends on how often it happens.
 
I think the biggest question of the bunch is wether it can support multiples refresh modes.

Being able to drop your fresh to 120hz to take advantage of a freesync lower limit threshold would be very useful.
 
Some games are capped at 60fps so a 60Hz mode would be even more usefull!!

I cant see why there wouldn't be because the controller is on the graphic card so as long as the monitor supports the refresh rate, then it shouldn't be a problem.
 
Ok, some more information trickling in:

According to a post by Peter Nixeus at overclock.net, the FreeSync demo monitor used at Computex was really a NX-VUE27D. Unfortunately, Nixeus will not provide a FreeSync firmware update for existing owners of the monitor.

In the same thread, he states that the NX-VUE24 will have a TN panel.
AMD's Roy Taylor tweets that the panel technology in the Benq XL2730Z according to is IPS.

One more interesting bit from the thread is that Mr. Nixeus confirmed that the Computex demo actually showed variable refresh rates. Which should put an end to people in denial about this (but it probably won't, sigh).

Peter Nixeus said:
The one at Computex was a real Freesync Demo with variable refresh rates - which journalists who have seen it in person can verify that Freesync is real and working.
Click to expand...
 
http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/CES-2015-AMD-Talks-Technical-about-FreeSync-Monitors

Watch this video for a good explanation of the VSYNC / FreeSync scalar technology limitations.

Interesting point made in the video is that it is up to the monitor manufacturer to decide what the minimum frame rate their monitor can handle and still enable FreeSync. It is NOT a byproduct of the GPU's ability to handle it. If the frame rate goes above or below this threshold then the option to enable VSYNC comes into play.

The LG 21:9 panels and 60Hz Samsung monitors have a minimum refresh rate of 40Hz. The Benq 144Hz monitor has a minimum limit of 30Hz which is closest to most of the GSYNC monitor specs as I remember. So it seems that monitor manufacturers are going to need to implement better scalars into their designs for the next round of monitors in my opinion.
 
So the number of "FreeSync" monitors that will be available at "launch" in Q1 '15 will out number the total number of monitors that Nvidia have been able to get G-Sync into over the last year...

That should tell you something.

As far as the V-sync on or off when above the refresh rate, why not go with a FPS limiter that would keep it within the FreeSync range?
Truth be told I never played around with a FPS limiter so I might be quite wrong but I thought it was an app/software/driver side limiter.
 
Last edited:
when a game renders at a frame rate above or below this VRR window, the V-Sync setting is enforced. That means on a 60 Hz panel, if your game runs at 70 FPS, then you will have the option to enable or disable V-Sync; you can either force a 60 FPS top limit or allow 70 FPS with screen tearing. If your game runs under the 40 Hz bottom limit, say at 30 FPS, you get the same option: V-Sync on or V-Sync off. With it off, you would get tearing but optimal input/display latency but with it off you would reintroduce frame judder when you cross between V-Sync steps.
Click to expand...

So either stick with Gysnc or wait for freesync 2.0 (if there will be one).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top