• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

AMD FreeSync Versus Nvidia G-Sync

The Mac said:
They will lose sales if they dont.
Click to expand...

That's might be the funniest thing I read all day. I guess you missed the other thread where their GPU sales are up 51% since last year. How's AMD doing?

NVIDIA already stated they won't support something like Freesync because it's not as good as Gsync. The article we are discussing proves that they are right.

Freesync is HD DVD to Gsync's Blu-Ray.
 
PRIME1 said:
Freesync is HD DVD to Gsync's Blu-Ray.
Click to expand...

That is an incredibly stupid statement. Async will eventually become the standard. No matter how well Gsync does in the tiny niche high-end monitor market as soon as Intel jumps on the async train it won't matter.
 
Derangel said:
That is an incredibly stupid statement. Async will eventually become the standard. No matter how well Gsync does in the tiny niche high-end monitor market as soon as Intel jumps on the async train it won't matter.
Click to expand...

Why would someone with Intel graphics buy an expensive gaming monitor? :D

Second funniest thing I've read today.
 
You get what you pay for. Freesync is well...free. GSYNC is the premium experience done the right way IMO.

Realize that to be classified as a "Freesync" monitor all the manufacture has to do is make sure the panel has variable refresh rate. Like I said before some monitors only do 50-60Hz and that technically makes it a Freesync monitor.

Also GYSNC works below 30FPS where as Freesync can't unless something change. If it has please let me know!

GSYNC isn't going anywhere until Freesync can match its performance which right now it's not even close. It's showing up in more and more monitors and now its in laptop monitors as well.

I am rooting for AMD on this one believe me. GSYNC is expensive but if you ask me NVIDIA has a right. They are the ONLY one's offering this tech.
 
PRIME1 said:
Why would someone with Intel graphics buy an expensive gaming monitor? :D

Second funniest thing I've read today.
Click to expand...

Do you really think it will stay exclusively in gaming monitors once Intel jumps on board? Since it's simply part of the DP standard now at that point you'll see it in lower-end monitors as well. Right now it's all focused on the more expensive gaming monitors because that's where the GPU support for it is. Mind you, I'm not saying this will happen tomorrow but the transition to DP being the primary monitor input is happening and if Intel throws their support behind async that will simply be part of that transition.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
FrameBuffer said:
LOLOLOL..

nearly 400 bucks for a 16:9 1080 TN display,,,

hmm wheres as can get a ultra wide 21:9 1080 IPS with freesync for 279.99.. ie
freesynch + IPS (vs TN) + 33% more pixels for close to 30% less .. where is your nGod now ? /SMIRK
Click to expand...

What Freesync monitor is that?
 
damstr said:
...
Also GYSNC works below 30FPS where as Freesync can't unless something change. If it has please let me know!

...
Click to expand...

not entirely true..

Freesync is very capable of going below 30fps (30hz).. its a limitation of the scaler (hardware) used in current displays, where as adaptive sync (Freesync TM) can operate as low as 9hz.. it's up to the scaler manufacturers

What gSync does is simply frame doubling below the set range., and afaik, can be implemented in drivers if AMD chooses. The added bonus with freesync displays (again dependent upon hardware considerations) is the they allow for multiple inputs.. such as DP1.2a, mDP, Thunderbolt, DVI, DL-DVI, VGA, HDMI x4.. of course Freesync currently only works over DP/mDP(and thunderbolt). Gsync displays are limited to DP and maybe a monitor (xl2420g) or two that have added HDMI. For the most part limited to DP.

If I recall AMD has already submitted to VESA adaptive sync (Freesync) over HDMI..
 
damstr said:
You get what you pay for. Freesync is well...free. GSYNC is the premium experience done the right way IMO.

Realize that to be classified as a "Freesync" monitor all the manufacture has to do is make sure the panel has variable refresh rate. Like I said before some monitors only do 50-60Hz and that technically makes it a Freesync monitor.

Also GYSNC works below 30FPS where as Freesync can't unless something change. If it has please let me know!

GSYNC isn't going anywhere until Freesync can match its performance which right now it's not even close. It's showing up in more and more monitors and now its in laptop monitors as well.

I am rooting for AMD on this one believe me. GSYNC is expensive but if you ask me NVIDIA has a right. They are the ONLY one's offering this tech.
Click to expand...

The article points out that most people won't pay the difference between the two technologies, and 40% thought they were the same or amd was better before price was even brought up.
 
FrameBuffer said:
not entirely true..

Freesync is very capable of going below 30fps (30hz).. its a limitation of the scaler (hardware) used in current displays, where as adaptive sync (Freesync TM) can operate as low as 9hz.. it's up to the scaler manufacturers

What gSync does is simply frame doubling below the set range., and afaik, can be implemented in drivers if AMD chooses. The added bonus with freesync displays (again dependent upon hardware considerations) is the they allow for multiple inputs.. such as DP1.2a, mDP, Thunderbolt, DVI, DL-DVI, VGA, HDMI x4.. of course Freesync currently only works over DP/mDP(and thunderbolt). Gsync displays are limited to DP and maybe a monitor (xl2420g) or two that have added HDMI. For the most part limited to DP.

If I recall AMD has already submitted to VESA adaptive sync (Freesync) over HDMI..
Click to expand...
It's capable but can't at this time. Like I said the tech hasn't matured.

Take that new Asus monitor for example. I believe its the new Asus monitor IPS 1440P 144Hz Freesync. Freesync only works from 35Hz to 90Hz where as the Rog Swift GSYNC works from technically 1Hz to 141Hz. 141Hz is the limit of GSYNC.

Being limited to 1 DP on GSYNC monitors was something that annoyed me when I had my console on the same desk as my PC. Now I don't own any consoles so being limited to 1 DP doesn't bother me at all and I would venture as far as saying most people purchasing GSYNC monitors don't use it for anything other than their PC.

Still they should have multiple inputs regardless.
 
DracoNB said:
Might want to say $279 after code for people who aren't paying attention to context, seems to happen a lot in these threads.
Click to expand...

thanks.. will make a note of it.. :) I guess we should also start including tax as well ?
 
FrameBuffer said:
LG 29UM67P at the Egg @ $299.00 (code EMCAWAV23)
Click to expand...

So about $100 less than that Acer monitor but it's limited to 75Hz and the Freesync range is ONLY 48-75hz where as that Acer is GYSNC and 144Hz.

I think you have to see what monitor is best for you based on your needs and what you want to use it for. High resolution and better colors with less effective Freesync or high refresh rate worse colors and a much more effective GSYNC module. I can tell you that if you have the power to push 144Hz in your games it will be the better gaming experience over an ultra wide 75hz monitor.

I honestly prefer 144Hz over better color accuracy and better GSYNC but that's just! FYI I currently own a Dell S2340M IPS monitor and am looking to switch back to a GSYNC monitor. Most likely a used Rog Swift or something when I can grab it for around $500.
 
damstr said:
It's capable but can't at this time. Like I said the tech hasn't matured.

Take that new Asus monitor for example. I believe its the new Asus monitor IPS 1440P 144Hz Freesync. Freesync only works from 35Hz to 90Hz where as the Rog Swift GSYNC works from technically 1Hz to 141Hz. 141Hz is the limit of GSYNC.

Being limited to 1 DP on GSYNC monitors was something that annoyed me when I had my console on the same desk as my PC. Now I don't own any consoles so being limited to 1 DP doesn't bother me at all and I would venture as far as saying most people purchasing GSYNC monitors don't use it for anything other than their PC.

Still they should have multiple inputs regardless.
Click to expand...

..sorry for the back and forth..but ..
you are comparing a TN (Swift) to a IPS, using different tech panels..
a better comparison would be the BenQ XL2730 or the XG270HU, vs the Asus Swift..disregarding the quality issues with the sift and the initial firmware issue with the BenQ.. both are 2440x1440 TN panels, both are 144hz.. as already noted, sub 30hz (fps) gSync is using framedoubling .. (yet to see any proof of working sub 10hz, please feel free to provide a link). The BenQ operates within 40-144hz with freesync, personally i'd rather have 30-120 then at 121-144 have blur reduction. Another nicety with freesync is if you go outside the freeysync range you are not limited to vsync being forced on (as you are with gSync) .. ie lower mouse lag

seee TFT review: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/benq_xl2730z.htm

It's a great gaming screen right up there in performance with other fast gaming models we've tested like the Asus ROG Swift PG278Q.
Click to expand...
 
Derangel said:
Do you really think it will stay exclusively in gaming monitors once Intel jumps on board? Since it's simply part of the DP standard now at that point you'll see it in lower-end monitors as well. Right now it's all focused on the more expensive gaming monitors because that's where the GPU support for it is. Mind you, I'm not saying this will happen tomorrow but the transition to DP being the primary monitor input is happening and if Intel throws their support behind async that will simply be part of that transition.
Click to expand...

It's an optional part of the spec and requires additional hardware (an upgraded scaler).

So far Intel has not said anything about supporting it. So you are just talking fantasy.
 
KGBinUSA said:
Honestly, why not just invest into a 1ms 144Hz monitor and call it a day?
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity have you ever owned a GSYNC monitor? There is a huge difference between a regular 144Hz monitor and one with GSYNC.

I originally owned the Asus 144Hz monitor for a few months and then installed the GSYNC DIY module and the difference is night and day.
 
LigTasm said:
It made a huge difference for me. I ended up simply playing my games much more often without even worrying about overclocking or changing settings. Once you experience it you really don't want to go back despite how immature the tech is.
Click to expand...

See a lot of people as well as most review sites have said the same thing, but I really beg to differ. My own experience has been much closer to that of Eurogamers. I play a lot of shooters and quite a few Ubisoft games where even staring at a wall can cause the framerate to fluctuate, so I guess it makes sense that my experience hasn't exactly been earth shattering.

When the game operates in a 45-60fps "sweet spot", G-Sync gameplay is exceptional, but the variation in performance overall just didn't work for us when we moved out of this window. Turning TressFX off gave us a locked 60fps experience from start to finish in the same area, producing the optimal way to play the game - but not exactly the kind of G-Sync stress test we were hoping for.
Click to expand...

To be clear, the experience is clearly and noticeably better than running the game on standard v-sync, and vastly superior to putting up with screen-tear, but the notion that G-Sync approximates the kind of consistency we get from a locked 60fps frame-rate doesn't really hold true when the underlying frame-rate can vary so radically, so quickly. We move down to 2x MSAA to improve matters and end up turning off the multi-sampling altogether as we reach the end of the Shanghai shoot-out. Frame-rates stay closer to our target 60fps, and inevitable dips in performance appear far less noticeable - G-Sync irons out the inconsistencies nicely, providing just the kind of consistent presentation we want.

Again, our Battlefield 4 testing leaves us with the overall impression that G-Sync isn't a cure-all for massively variable frame-rates, but rather a technology that works best within a certain performance window. On Tomb Raider, 45-60fps looks really good, but the presentation of a twitch-style first-person shooter closes up that window - we were pleased with the gameplay at anything between 50-60fps, but below that, the effect - while preferable to the alternatives - isn't quite as magical.
Click to expand...

G-Sync definitely helps to improve Crysis 3 over the existing options, but again, ramping things up to the very high settings we crave simply causes the delta between lowest and highest frame-rates to expand, encompassing a range that sits outside of the window Nvidia's new tech works best within. The situation is perhaps best exemplified by the initial level, which sees the player moving between internal and external environments, the latter saturated in a taxing stormy weather effect that can see frame-rate halve - even on a graphics card as powerful as a GTX 780. The jump between frame-rates in this instance is just too jarring for the G-Sync effect to truly work its magic.
Click to expand...
 
another-user said:
how much of a difference does gsync really makes? im in the market for a new monitor, but there isnt a single gsync compatible monitor out there that fits what im looking for. ips/144/1440
Click to expand...

It's the godtier gaming upgrade. Period.
 
As far as the "test" in question goes, well out of sample size of 48,

Right off the bat, we found it interesting that 10 of 48 respondents believed they knew which system was which. Of those 10, nine were correct, though for a variety of reasons.
Click to expand...

When your sample size is this small, and nearly 20% already knew a priori which team their system belonged to, that's really going to skew the results.

Also the article makes no mention whether they tested the players with VRR off, and from the looks of it, the answer is probably no. That's a huge problem actually, because without knowing the players' preference before VRR was enabled, we can't actually draw any conclusion about Freesync vs G-Sync. It could very well be they would've preferred a certain setup regardless of VRR, in which case Freesync or G-Sync would've simply been a proxy variable that doesn't tell us anything. The proper way to do it would've been to run the tests with VRR off, record the results, then do a second round with VRR on, and compared the results from the first round to see if the preferences have changed.
 
screw all this. I want an 8K monitor like the new Macs are going to have. The pixel density on that is ridiculous.

10fps ftw... :(
 
damstr said:
You get what you pay for. Freesync is well...free. GSYNC is the premium experience done the right way IMO.

Realize that to be classified as a "Freesync" monitor all the manufacture has to do is make sure the panel has variable refresh rate. Like I said before some monitors only do 50-60Hz and that technically makes it a Freesync monitor.

Also GYSNC works below 30FPS where as Freesync can't unless something change. If it has please let me know!

GSYNC isn't going anywhere until Freesync can match its performance which right now it's not even close. It's showing up in more and more monitors and now its in laptop monitors as well.

I am rooting for AMD on this one believe me. GSYNC is expensive but if you ask me NVIDIA has a right. They are the ONLY one's offering this tech.
Click to expand...

You have a lot of things wrong in this post.

Gsync does not work below 30fps, neither does freesync. Both are limited by panel technology, 30hz is the lowest I think. When it goes below 30fps Gsync uses frame doubling technique to get the framerate above 30 and to keep it appearing smooth. Freesync doesn't have this yet, not sure they will implement it either, because it doesn't matter, sub 30FPS is still horrible to play.

As for laptops, Gsync in laptops is using adaptive sync. It's using the very tech that Nvidia say doesn't work. The variable refresh rate has been part of the embedded display port specification for a few years now as a power saving feature. It only became part of the desktop display port specification in the middle of last year after AMD made a proposal to VESA.

So just to make it simple Gsync in laptops is what freesync is in the desktop.
 
PRIME1 said:
Why would someone with Intel graphics buy an expensive gaming monitor? :D

Second funniest thing I've read today.
Click to expand...

You should read some of your own posts if you want to read something funny.

Lots of people have high end monitors that run intel graphics. Most are using IPS panels for work related stuff, some are just casual gamers.

Sync technology could be a god send for these people who have low end or integrated graphics cards.

And since most intel integrated graphics cards since sandy bridge support adaptive sync. They just need a driver update to connect to any Freesync monitor.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Intel do release support for these monitors after the dust settles. Remember, adaptive sync monitors are only out a few months.
 
reaper12 said:
You have a lot of things wrong in this post.

Gsync does not work below 30fps, neither does freesync. Both are limited by panel technology, 30hz is the lowest I think. When it goes below 30fps Gsync uses frame doubling technique to get the framerate above 30 and to keep it appearing smooth. Freesync doesn't have this yet, not sure they will implement it either, because it doesn't matter, sub 30FPS is still horrible to play.

As for laptops, Gsync in laptops is using adaptive sync. It's using the very tech that Nvidia say doesn't work. The variable refresh rate has been part of the embedded display port specification for a few years now as a power saving feature. It only became part of the desktop display port specification in the middle of last year after AMD made a proposal to VESA.

So just to make it simple Gsync in laptops is what freesync is in the desktop.
Click to expand...
GSYNC doesn't turn completely off like Freesync is what I was getting at. At least GSYNC is doing something. And yes I'm sure they will eventually implement it. Yes 30FPS blows.

Do you have a link confirming adaptive sync in GSYNC laptops? Genuinely curious.

You said I had a lot of things wrong but only mentioned 2. Was there more or did you just exaggerate?
 
Freesync will be useable over HDMI soon enough. I'm hoping one of our wizards can find some kind of hack to let nvidia use freesync over hdmi
 
damstr said:
GSYNC doesn't turn completely off like Freesync is what I was getting at. At least GSYNC is doing something. And yes I'm sure they will eventually implement it. Yes 30FPS blows.

Do you have a link confirming adaptive sync in GSYNC laptops? Genuinely curious.

You said I had a lot of things wrong but only mentioned 2. Was there more or did you just exaggerate?
Click to expand...

The phrase you used later was that Gsync works down to 1hz. It doesn't. It might be doing something but it's not sync'ing framerate.

Did you not see all fuss a while ago, that Nvidia were conning us by using hardware, the Gync module, in monitors when it wasn't needed. And that the proof was the use of gsync in laptops without any additional hardware. Gsync in laptops is using the eDP spec. Which is exactly what adaptive sync is. Here is a quote from an article on anandtech

With embedded DisplayPort (eDP) now being a common fixture in high-end notebooks these days, NVIDIA will be able to do away with the G-Sync module entirely and rely just on the variable timing and panel self-refresh functionality built in to current versions of eDP. eDP's variable timing functionality was of course the basis of desktop DisplayPort Adaptive-Sync (along with AMD's Freesync implementation), and while the technology is a bit different in laptops, the end result is quite similar. Which is to say that NVIDIA will be able to drive variable refresh laptops entirely with standardized eDP features, and will not be relying on proprietary features or hardware as they do with desktop G-Sync
Click to expand...
.


You said the performance isn't even close? but they are nearly the same, the only where you will notice the difference is sub 30. The Benq freesync monitor is just as good as the rog swift. But you compare the TN Rog Swift to the IPS Asus.

You said that Nvidia are the ONLY ones offering this tech. Last I checked AMD were offering a sync tech too.

And you say that they are releasing more monitors and that's a sign of how much better Gsync is. Gsync is out nearly two years now, Freesync is out about 4 months and look how many monitors are already available with more to come from AOC and Eizo.

So no I didn't exaggerate, I just focused on your two main points in my last post.
 
No doubt Freesync will win. Nvidia has a knack for cool things that don't get much implementation.
 
Tgrove said:
No doubt Freesync will win. Nvidia has a knack for cool things that don't get much implementation.
Click to expand...

I am not sure there is any "winning" in this. Nvidia will keep supplying Gsync monitors as long as there is a market for them. People will be less likely to switch if they have a monitor that only works with Nvidia cards.

I am not sure what your point is though. If you are saying Gsync will fail just because it's a cool thing that Nvidia came up with that won't get much implementation, then Freesync is going to fail as well.
 
No one said anything about anyone failing. Freesync will be more popular, used, widespread, with a wider array of monitors in the end (hence the win). The implementation is how many monitors skus gsync is out in. We already see how that's going so far. I highly doubt we will see 40+ inch ips gsync monitors anytime soon
 
Tgrove said:
No doubt Freesync will win. Nvidia has a knack for cool things that don't get much implementation.
Click to expand...

Until Freesync can match GSYNC performance then no it won't win. Just because they will be in more monitors because the Freesync standard is extremely low doesn't really mean anything.

GSYNC is here to stay but it will undoubtedly become more affordable as Freesync advances. That won't really be till there are more competitive Freesync monitors. The one's that aren't competition are the one's with a very limited frequency range.
 
damstr said:
Until Freesync can match GSYNC performance then no it won't win. Just because they will be in more monitors because the Freesync standard is extremely low doesn't really mean anything.

GSYNC is here to stay but it will undoubtedly become more affordable as Freesync advances. That won't really be till there are more competitive Freesync monitors. The one's that aren't competition are the one's with a very limited frequency range.
Click to expand...

I don't know about becoming "more affordable", this is Nvidia we are talking about.
 
damstr said:
Until Freesync can match GSYNC performance then no it won't win. Just because they will be in more monitors because the Freesync standard is extremely low doesn't really mean anything.

GSYNC is here to stay but it will undoubtedly become more affordable as Freesync advances. That won't really be till there are more competitive Freesync monitors. The one's that aren't competition are the one's with a very limited frequency range.
Click to expand...

Gsync requires extra hardware to function and requires a Nvidia GPU. If the market segment of Nvidia stays the same you are not getting affordable GSync any time soon.

On top of that people have to produce hardware with Nvidia hardware on top, the last time this happened was with Motherboards and we all know how that ended up.

Giving that this is a niche market production of monitors which requires extra cost and are in no way selling to mass markets means that Nvidia would in the end pay for it itself. Where Freesync does not require such things.
 
Gsync is supported by around 80% of the video cards currently being sold. It's pretty much the standard.
 
PRIME1 said:
Gsync is supported by around 80% of the video cards currently being sold. It's pretty much the standard.
Click to expand...

Yeah isn't that weird so many videocards sold and yet there is Freesync and OEM make monitors that support Freesync even if Nvidia is selling so many videocards. What standard is that exactly is it your standard or do you just like to say things which make no sense and put some spin on it which makes it clear that you pretty much don't have a clue what a standard is.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Yeah isn't that weird so many videocards sold and yet there is Freesync and OEM make monitors that support Freesync even if Nvidia is selling so many videocards. What standard is that exactly is it your standard or do you just like to say things which make no sense and put some spin on it which makes it clear that you pretty much don't have a clue what a standard is.
Click to expand...

Your post made no sense what so ever.
 
PRIME1 said:
Gsync is supported by around 80% of the video cards currently being sold. It's pretty much the standard.
Click to expand...

Support ≠ sales. Since there are already more Adaptive-Sync models on the market in its first year than G-sync could manage in two years, Adaptive-sync is obviously the standard here.
 
This article is somewhat misleading.

The weakness is the article is NOT the implementation by AMD or NVIDIA, BUT the monitor and choice of graphics cards.

Technically speaking once Frame syncing is engaged there should be ZERO difference between the two other then frame rate.

1) Toms should have used a Fury X card. While it is slower then a 980ti setup, it would have had overall higher frame rates.

2) The fault with the monitor is the implementation of the frame syncing. The floor rate of the syncing if 40 fps. After that you get tearing. But the floor rate is defined by the monitor hardware, not the video card.

3) It is possible to have the hardware scaler automatically frame double using free sync. But no one is doing this.

So it's not AMD's fault. It's just there are no monitors that support a quality free sync with gsync that would have made this test an even match.

Overall this test was SEVERELY flawed and not up to snuff.

Don't get me wrong. I think nvidia has a superior top range product right now. But I don't believe freesync is inferior. That's unfair given the test constraints.
 
Creig said:
Support ≠ sales. Since there are already more Adaptive-Sync models on the market in its first year than G-sync could manage in two years, Adaptive-sync is obviously the standard here.
Click to expand...

The amount of Freeync displays has grown nearly 4x as fast as Gsync displays.
Gsync had 4 displays out within it's 1st year and grown to 12 present and upcoming.
Freesync has gone from 2 to 20+ (25) in the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top