FreeSync 2.0

Archaea

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
11,826
Don't do it AMD --- don't segregate your Freesync market like that --- You have a REALLY good thing going with Freesync right now - 5:1 availability in new monitors over Gsync options --- and $200-$300 cheaper for Freesync for otherwise identical displays.


Don't fragment your customer base. You had a great thing going for you in lining up the future for potential customers who upgraded their monitors now to a freesync monitor but currently have an Nvidia card --- those enthusiasts might have considered an AMD GPU next generation if the freesync they had on their monitor was relevant. If you fragment your base AMD you are going to give less incentive for potential customers to go Red Team at next GPU upgrade.

Aren't these updates (fullscreen borderless window, and LFC) just software driver updates anyway? HDR isn't - but HDR alone isn't a reason to call it FreeSync 2.0 I hope AMD allows for 2.0 updates to existing GPUs and monitors where possible --- if they go this route --- otherwise BAD decision AMD.


http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-announces-freesync-2-with-enhanced-features.html


PS -- Nvidia - you could really make a wave if you announced support for freesync at this years CES. More than a wave - you could really positively effect your bottom line. Gsync lost the war. It's time to adopt freesync. Consumers don't want to pay $200-$300 extra for a proprietary Gsync chip to get pretty much the same overall adaptive sync experience.
 
First, curse you for posting just before me, and second... AMD do not listen to this guy, PUSH ONWARDS !!!!!!


More freesync 2 will further entrench the dominance of the amd approach and make it more likely that the benefits of gsync will be even less relevant (tighter controls over refresh range? woops freesync 2 does that already).

The real question is whether nvidia will be able to take advantage of the freesync 2 implementation, I suspect they would, but not sure.
 
I'm not telling AMD to stop innovating.
:rolleyes:

I'm hoping AMD doesn't fragment FreeSync. I truly viewed Freesync as the method AMD would use to garner back significant market share in the consumer gaming segment. People are starting to buy new monitors as premium monitor prices drop. Folk are moving from from 22" and 24" monitors to 27" 32", 34" etc --- typically with Freesync --- this will beget future GPU purchases. You see this type of foretelling on the forums everywhere. Posts like "I have an NVidia card now, but I'll consider a AMD card next upgrade because I want to try adaptive sync and my new monitor only supports Freesync".

--------------

I don't want to get into a situation where there is FreeSync, FreeSync 2, Freesync 3, and Freesync 4 etc --- I don't want to upgrade my monitors every time I upgrade my GPU. I expect a person's monitor upgrade cycle should be on a much longer schedule than their GPU refresh. The whole blessed detail about Freesync was that it was software/driver related, and thus free to the consumer. What sense does it make to limit that function artificially (if that's what they are doing?)

I'll be sorely disappointed if FreeSync becomes a annual money grab marketing ploy. Sounds like something Nvidia would do, not AMD. Their Fine Wine story is all about delivering value over the long haul to the customer. AMD, if you are listening - bring whatever updates you can to your previous gen AMD cards, encourage manufactorers to update their existing displays with LFC (if it's possible) --- assuming this is all driver related (with the exception of HDR) there should be no reason why it can't be done, and that's how you can really build your Fine Wine story and customer satisfaction legacy --- by uniting your customer bass --- not fragmenting.
 
Last edited:
If you don't want to have a need for repeated upgrades than just get a decent display and sit tight, the display world is very fluid right now and far from settled as it related to HDR, and even after we start getting more HDR displays, it will be a steady march for wider color gamuts and higher peak brightness levels for years to come with new iterations of displays.


As for not wanting freesync 2/3/4, remember, all freesync 2 does is enhance the handling of hdr content and lower the latency, it older freesync capable monitors will still be usable for the spec they were designed with. And the tighter control for freesync 2 refresh ranges just implies that the default ranges of freesync 2 capable displays will be larger to be considered part of that spec, else they will be standard freesync displays. One of the complaints with current freesync displays was that it seemed like a low rent free for all when it came to vrr standards with super low ranges. Now there will be more of a reason for display makers to shoot higher to get labeled with the more advanced spec support. And gamers will be likely to pay a bit more of a premium, though not too much more... hopefully.
 
From what I got from Anantech's article, Freesync 2 sounds like a better, more stringent, high quality upgrade from v1. Here is a section from the article I think sums it up well:

FreeSync 2: Tighter Standards for Variable Refresh
Earlier I mentioned that FreeSync 2 is really a collection of several idea/features, and while HDR is certainly the marquee feature of FreeSync 2, it’s not the only feature. With FreeSync 2 AMD will also be tightening the standards for what variable refresh functionality that approved monitors need to support.

The open nature of FreeSync has led to a large number of monitors that support the technology across a wide range of prices, but it has also led to a wide variety in how useful their FreeSync implementations are. A number of basic monitors on the market only support a range of 30Hz to 60Hz, for example. And while this is still useful, such a narrow range means that these monitors don’t deliver a very good experience below their minimum refresh rate. These monitors can’t support FreeSync’s Low Framerate Compensation (LFC) technology, which requires the maximum framerate to be at least 2.5x the minimum framerate (or 75Hz for our 30Hz monitor).

As a result, AMD has tightened the standards for FreeSync 2. All FreeSync 2 certified monitors will be required to support LFC, which in turn means they’ll need to support a wide enough range of refresh rates to meet the technology’s requirements. Consequently, anyone who buys a FreeSync 2 monitor will be guaranteed to get the best variable refresh experience on an AMD setup, as opposed to the less consistent presence of LFC on today’s FreeSync monitors.

Similar to this and AMD’s HDR efforts with FreeSync 2, AMD will also be mandating a general low latency requirement for the new standard. It’s not fully clear just what this will entail, but at a high-level AMD is going to require that monitors be low latency in SDR mode as well as HDR.
Click to expand...

Now, where the parallelism with Freesync v1 comes in, is addressed in this section:

FreeSync 2: A Focus on the High-End
The final shift in FreeSync 2 – and really what makes it a parallel effort as opposed to a replacement for FreeSync 1 – is how AMD will be approaching the market. The costs of meeting the HDR and variable refresh requirements for FreeSync 2 means that this is very much a play at the high-end monitor market. Budget monitors won’t be able to meet these requirements (at least not right away), so AMD’s focus is going to be on the high-end of the market.

The significance, besides the parallel standards, is that it will impact how AMD goes about certifying monitors, and potentially how “free” FreeSync 2 ends up being. The additional requirements mean that AMD will need to run a more complex certification program. They will need to bring in monitors to profile their native color space and confirm they meet the latency & refresh requirements. All of which cost time and money for AMD.

As a result, when questioned on the matter, AMD is not currently commenting on the subject of FreeSync 2 royalties. Presumably, AMD is pondering the idea of charging royalties on FreeSync 2 hardware.

The subject of royalties on gaming hardware is not a very happy subject, nor is it one that too many companies like to talk about. NVIDIA for their part does charge manufacturers a form of royalties on their G-Sync technology – this being part of the impetus for AMD calling their variable refresh implementation FreeSync – and while no one will go on record to confirm the numbers, what rumblings I’ve heard is that G-Sync is “not cheap.” But numbers aside, at the end of the day this makes variable refresh a value add feature for NVIDIA just as much as it does their monitor manufacturer partners, as they profit from the sale of G-Sync monitors. At the same time it also means that the ongoing development of G-Sync is self-sustaining, as the program can now be funded from G-Sync royalties.

There are a number of assumptions in here, but ultimately the fact that AMD isn’t immediately rejecting the idea of royalties could prove to be a very important one. Royalties at a minimum would help fund the certification program, and taken to the same extent as NVIDIA could become another revenue stream entirely. And since FreeSync 2 is aimed at high-end monitors, it would allow AMD to claim a piece of the pie on their own value add feature, as high-end monitors can fetch a significant profit of their own. Negatively however, it would also likely push FreeSync 2 monitor prices up, making them less affordable.

At any rate, while AMD is pondering royalties on FreeSync 2, they won’t be giving up on the free-as-in-speech aspects of FreeSync 2. AMD tells us they will still be pushing for technological openness so that everyone can see how FreeSync 2 works, even if ultimately AMD decides to charge monitor manufacturers to make it work with their video cards. Ultimately, where exactly we’ll end up remains to be seen, as AMD is very much still in the early stages of planning with FreeSync 2.
Click to expand...

Personally, Freesync 2 sounds like it might be more expensive but it also comes with tightening standards, and improvements. Also, gsync serves Nvidia's own high end market value place, for example, while Freesync monitors are aplenty, they do have varying degrees of quality, and besides, with Nvidia's strong marketshare, high-end cards, Gsync adds good value for someone looking at computing at the high end. Until Vega, AMD's high-end has been absent, and Freesync isn't worth much without a 1440p or 4K card to go along for people with the cash and need for it.

As the author of the Anandtech article points out,

Budget monitors won’t be able to meet these requirements (at least not right away), so AMD’s focus is going to be on the high-end of the market.
Click to expand...

AMD needs to challenge Nvidia for the high end market, Vega cards, and a Freesync v2 monitor with HDR, with parity with Gsync will be something for people to consider when looking at Nvidia's offerings.

Edit: PCWorld's article has a pretty concise quote:

FreeSync 2 monitors will be damn good monitors, it sounds like—premium options that more closely rival Nvidia’s costly G-Sync panels than the masses of standard FreeSync displays.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
With the offloading of tone mapping freesync 2 goes beyond what gsync ever intended. Also, whatever increase in cost we'll see will likely have much more to do with the higher quality panels and refresh ranges supported rather than some expensive fpga module built into the displays as an add on cost. From a hardware perspective, one a freesync 2 display ought to cost no more than a non freesync 2 display with similar specs and dynamic range, it'll just be better.
 
If RTG isn't retarded, they should keep the cost of Freesync 2 low with no royalties, just like Freesync 1, and it should be adopted really well and quick. I'm sure Nvidia is already coming up with its own solution, but to kill Gsync, AMD needs Vega out now and lower monitor costs compared to Gsync.
 
Archaea said:
...

I'm hoping AMD doesn't fragment FreeSync. I truly viewed Freesync as the method AMD would use to garner back significant market share in the consumer gaming segment. People are starting to buy new monitors as premium monitor prices drop. Folk are moving from from 22" and 24" monitors to 27" 32", 34" etc --- typically with Freesync --- this will beget future GPU purchases. You see this type of foretelling on the forums everywhere. Posts like "I have an NVidia card now, but I'll consider a AMD card next upgrade because I want to try adaptive sync and my new monitor only supports Freesync".
...
Click to expand...


Forgot to note on the display sizes, I realize most gamers probably do not want to go higher than the 30s in size, which is fine. I still want more 27-34 inch models released, but there are plenty of people like me who DO want to go larger, and ideally we'd have more options than relying on televisions to get there or stripped down korean panels without the feature sets we want, and tvs without the inputs and refresh ranges we want. The entire market needs more options. I still want more lost souls in the small display ghetto to behold the glory of having a larger display before them, but if even more want to stay smaller so be it.
 
FreeSync 2 is a superset of FreeSync 1 according to one of the videos on AMD's youtube channel. Therefore, if a display supports FS1 and a card supports FS2 (or vice versa), the FS1 features will still work. So it doesn't hurt anyone with a FS1 monitor or card. It just means that more features will be available in the future.
 
I am one of those people who is planning to transition from 1440P and buy a new 4K monitor (27" or larger) relatively soon. I've greatly applauded FreeSync for a number of reasons, with its openness, ease of implementation, and cost chiefly among them. It seems emblematic of the reasons I want to support AMD these days instead of Nvidia - AMD is the only one making serious moves toward open source and open standards/spec, from the new Linux driver stack to support for OpenCL, Vulkan and FreeSync. Nvidia on the other hand is about making things as proprietary as possible from PhysX to Gameworks to GSync. Where FreeSync has been basically integrated more or less into adaptive sync Display Port standards and is easy to roll out into a multitude of monitors, GSync requires a particular hardware board which doesn't provide a notably better experience. In looking for a monitor, I've found that the vast majority of GSync monitors are much more expensive, but not necessarily any better - especially when it comes to panel quality. In fact, if I limited myself to only GSync monitor because "Nvidia means high end", I'd give up some of the best quality panels for in some cases overpriced TN garbage where refresh rate is the only thing going for it! Honestly, I too think that Nvidia should pretty much just start supporting FreeSync panels as well. THey clearly backed the wrong horse, and if they don't want their customers to feel "Hey, I just picked up this new FreeSync monitor but I can't use it because Nvidia won't let me" they should grit their teeth and deal with it.

FreeSync 2.0 as an idea described here seems reasonable (provided that all features hardware supported will be available in original FreeSync, such as those listed in posts except for HDR which clearly requires differing monitor hardware), but I do think the naming scheme could be better. Its hard to get people to see it as a compliment instead of another version when you literally incremented it with a bigger number. They could have called it something like FreeSync Prime Certified (or Platinum Certified), whereas monitors bearing its seal were AMD approved and would be an instant identifier of having certain (ideally open) specs and features. As ofthers have said, AMD did so well with FreeSync by having low costs/royalties and certainly no special hardware requirement purchase (ie GSync control boards), so they'll need to repeat this as I am sure NV will be pushing back with something to try and reclaim some ground. Make the licensing costs relatively low and license it an an open manner, get what you can integrated into existing open standards etc... and watch FreeSync continue to leave GSync in the dust. Sure, make a little money by having the Certified 2.0 (or wahtever they call it) monitors pay a reasonable little fee to display that, but make it worth these companies time and money to do so. Oh and be sure that users feel that their existing FreeSync complaint video cards and monitors are still going strong and ideally getting new features whenever technically possible - if it seems like a hardware treadmill then people will be less likely to feel their investments are going to pay off in the long run, if as soon as the next model comes up they'll be missing big features.

I will generally support AMD as long as they favor openness against proprietary lockdown, all other things being equal. They can't afford to stumble right now and one of the worst stumbling would be to act "more like Nvidia" and start limiting and licensing FreeSync in such a manner, giving up all the momentum they've built so far. I'll be watching very closely and I really hope that Vega, Ryzen and FreeSync will be winners in terms of performance, openness, and value.
 
Xaeos said:
I am one of those people who is planning to transition from 1440P and buy a new 4K monitor (27" or larger) relatively soon.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping to go from 1080 to 1440 this year hah! I'm wanting to go 3440x1440 at at least 75Hz tho, too demanding for my current hardware
 
SighTurtle said:
AMD needs to challenge Nvidia for the high end market, Vega cards, and a Freesync v2 monitor with HDR, with parity with Gsync will be something for people to consider when looking at Nvidia's offerings.
Click to expand...

No they don't need to challenge nvidia for the high end market. That's a fiscal drop in the bucket. The vast vast majority of the gaming market is playing on 960 or less hardware. Lots and lots of people according to Steam hardware charts. A rock solid card with no glaring faults (pci-e power issues anyone?) that is silent under load, ~50% faster than a 970, that supports freesync, that supports the newest hdcp and hdmi standards, that supports crossfire, would be a huge win for AMD at $199.99 MSRP when coupled with the super affordable and plentiful freesync monitors that currently exist.

A HUGE win.
 
Last edited:
Archaea said:
Aren't these updates (fullscreen borderless window, and LFC) just software driver updates anyway? HDR isn't - but HDR alone isn't a reason to call it FreeSync 2.0 I hope AMD allows for 2.0 updates to existing GPUs and monitors where possible --- if they go this route --- otherwise BAD decision AMD.
Click to expand...
It's also a new logo, certification process, and minimum requirements. From that standpoint the 2.0 makes sense just for labeling and compliance.
 
It's the same shit but with HDR support. Nothing is segregated by AMD themselves, as HDR displays is a big mess right now.
 
Archaea said:
No they don't need to challenge nvidia for the high end market. That's a fiscal drop in the bucket. The vast vast majority of the gaming market is playing on 960 or less hardware. Lots and lots of people according to Steam hardware charts. A rock solid card with no glaring faults (pci-e power issues anyone?) that is silent under load, ~50% faster than a 970, that supports freesync, that supports the newest hdcp and hdmi standards, that supports crossfire, would be a huge win for AMD at $199.99 MSRP when coupled with the super affordable and plentiful freesync monitors that currently exist.

A HUGE win.
Click to expand...

First off, AMD can produce high-end cards and low-end cards, same as Nvidia and same as in previous generations, there is no reason why they shouldn't (makes you wonder about Polaris vs. Pascal, was it bad architecture, did cost cutting hurt them that bad, bad direction when Polaris was conceived?), Second, high end graphics cards produce lots of income compared to costs and low-end cards, Third, the enthusiast PC gaming market (one seeing growth while general PCs continue to slow down) requires good marketing, part of which includes the performance crown and seeking the best, Fourth, the low-end graphics market is increasingly taken up with Intel iGPUs, and Fifth, Nvidia can produce low-end cards as well (1050, 1050Ti, 1060) there is no reason why Nvidia wouldn't seek to sap away remaining AMD marketshare.

But back to it, there is no reason why AMD can't produce high-end and low-end cards, and too many reasons not to cede the market high-end. Also, everything you said in support, its nothing too hard for AMD to do. AMD can produce a card with no glaring issues, more silent than previous gen, with monitor tech, newest standards, (no one cares about crossfire or sli anymore, it does not work well, and developers basically don't care anymore). Guess who else can do that? Nvidia, who has marketshare, dominant advertising, and is gradually taking away marketshare from AMD. Plus, AMD is making bids to join Nvidia in the HPC (high performance computing) market (growing), and if I'm not mistaken, that requires high-end graphics.
 
All of your points are upside down.

1. Don't know
2. But there is more money still in volume and the vast majority of the PC gamers are the volume and that vast majority does not buy flagship cards. The fine wine story appeals to the masses who are looking for long lasting bang for buck, not a flash in the pan.
3. Disagreed. I don't care that much that there is a Ford Mach V when all I can afford is a mustang.
4. Intel integrated gpus aren't part of this conversation because they are so far behinds something like a 970 or a rx480 that they aren't even worth discussion.
5. They can, but they haven't. AMD owns the sub $200 bracket now. Seal the deal. Advance the runners. Earn runs. Swinging for the fences won't win. Let's say AMD spent 50% more on R&D and came out with a faster flagship than nvidia next round. Very few customers are going to switch. The flagship customer base is tiny. Average joe is not going to buy a rx580 because the Fury 2 is faster than the 1080ti. Average joe will buy the rx580 in mass because it is the best value sub $200, supports freesync on his new $250 monitor and has the ability to be crossfire for more performance down the line.

Nvidia has stated they want the customers who are willing to pay for the premium experience. In pursuing such they shut out the customers that can't afford it --- to a degree - by their attention to that message. For instance, nvidia removed SLI support from the 1060, released a neutered 1050 and in the $200 range AMD currently beats nvidia. While nvidia is courting the elite l. AMD could make up for profit margins in sales volume. AMD should continue to support crossfire and make sure dual AMD cards work great with game makers in dx12. Don't tell me crossfire doesnt help. That's nonsense. Make it better! In dx12 make sure dual cards are strong and optimized even if not using traditional crossfire.

Crossfire allows a good card to be that much better with the addition of a second cheaper one down the line - there is that fine wine theme again. Crossfire is already ahead of SLI. Strengthen your strengths. AMD isn't able to compete with nvidia on the flagship, that's fine. Chevy doesn't have to make a direct competitor to Ferrari to sell a corvette.


Example of crossfire strength!
http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...re-triple-4k-eyefinity-11-520x2160/index.html
 
Archaea said:
All of your points are upside down.

2. But there is more money still in volume and the vast majority of the PC gamers are the volume and that vast majority does not buy flagship cards. The fine wine story appeals to the masses who are looking for long lasting bang for buck, not a flash in the pan.

I wouldn't disagree with that, but the majority does buy Nvidia. The Steam Hardware Survey shows that AMD marketshare (thanks Shintai) is declining bit by bit every month while Nvidia and Intel are gaining. We're seeing adoption of the mainstream AMD and Nvidia cards (470, 460, 480, 1060, 1050/Ti) but Nvidia dominates that adoption despite AMD offering near parity in the mainstream on price/performance. (except for 460 vs 1050/Ti). I would also note that the masses don't encounter AMD that much. Here is the thing, on enthusiast forums, everyone knows who AMD is, but in the mainstream PC gaming market, AMD struggles to compete with Nvidia marketing in the growing segments that drive PC gaming. E-Sports, Twitch, Youtube is dominated by Green, in OEMs and builders (ex. Origin PC) Nvidia cards are used the vast majority of the time (many not even bothering to offer AMD cards), in gaming laptops and prebuilts oriented for gaming, Nvidia cards feature in the majority of them.

3. Disagreed. I don't care that much that there is a Ford Mach V when all I can afford is a mustang.

I don't know anything about cars but brand is important especially when AMD vs Nvidia isn't something like the RX 480 vs GTX 1080 at their price points, no its the RX 480 vs GTX 1060 within $50 of each other, at that point, brand, perception, marketing come into play. Nvidia's brand is stronger, Nvidia's name recognition is stronger, Nvidia's perception is stronger than AMD.

5. They can, but they haven't. AMD owns the sub $200 bracket now. Seal the deal. Advance the runners. Earn runs. Swinging for the fences won't win. Let's say AMD spent 50% more on R&D and came out with a faster flagship than nvidia next round. Very few customers are going to switch. The flagship customer base is tiny. Average joe is not going to buy a rx580 because the Fury 2 is faster than the 1080ti. Average joe will buy the rx580 in mass because it is the best value sub $200, supports freesync on his new $250 monitor and has the ability to be crossfire for more performance down the line.

Like I noted with the Steam Hardware Survey and the Anandtech article, both AMD and Nvidia are shipping cards, but Nvidia is shipping more than AMD, and like you said, the majority don't buy flagships, but I assert the majority of cards being sold are Nvidia's mainstream. AMD does not own anything. I'm skipping the comment on flagships influencing mainstream buying purhases cause I've already mentioned brand, name recognition and market placement, Average joe won't buy the RX 480 beacuse he'll buy the 1050ti or gtx 1060, but you have a point with Freesync vs. Gsync, here is a article that is saying what your saying, Nvidia is targeting premium value vs cheaper Freesync. But I want to take note of these statements from Tom Petersen in the article,

But to Nvidia, that’s okay, because G-Sync is supposed to be a premium product. The company points to several ways in which G-Sync is superior to FreeSync, including its ability to handle any drop in refresh rate—FreeSync only works within a specified range—and Nvidia’s complete control over things like monitor color and motion blur, which Petersen argues are superior to what monitor makers are offering outside the module.

“I’m worried that by just throwing it out there, we could be delivering the same less-than-awesome experience that FreeSync does today,” he says, “and that’s just not our strategy.”
Click to expand...

Freesync 2 directly addresses Gsync's strength by tightening and requiring LFC (Low Framerate Compensation), and oversteps Gsync by offering HDR support for those monitors and their tech about to hit the market within the next year. (I'm sure Nvidia is preparing their own stuff) You talk about "Fine Wine" but Freesync 2 will work with any existing AMD card supporting Freesync v1, which is a great move.


Nvidia has stated they want the customers who are willing to pay for the premium experience. In pursuing such they shut out the customers that can't afford it --- to a degree - by their attention to that message. For instance, nvidia removed SLI support from the 1060, released a neutered 1050 and in the $200 range AMD currently beats nvidia. While nvidia is courting the elite l. AMD could make up for profit margins in sales volume. AMD should continue to support crossfire and make sure dual AMD cards work great with game makers in dx12. Don't tell me crossfire doesnt help. That's nonsense. Make it better! In dx12 make sure dual cards are strong and optimized even if not using traditional crossfire.

Crossfire does not work that well, requires game developers to work on it, and requires AMD to offer as much support as possible, but how many people crossfire? Do you really think people in the mainstream market would crossfire? Crossfire and SLI remain inconsistent in their execution, and the few people buying flagships, I bet outnumber way more the number of people on multi-gpu systems.

Crossfire allows a good card to be that much better with the addition of a second cheaper one down the line - there is that fine wine theme again. Crossfire is already ahead of SLI. Strengthen your strengths. AMD isn't able to compete with nvidia on the flagship, that's fine. Chevy doesn't have to make a direct competitor to Ferrari to sell a corvette.

But Ferrari is selling a competitor to Chevy's corvettes, and its selling well.
Click to expand...

Regardless, at the end of the day, RTG is clear on its path, its attempting to challenge Nvidia in the HPC space, and there AMD will need high performance hardware and architecture, and I may be wrong in how GPU chips are used, but AMD is going to have to make high-end chips to compete in that space, and it seems AMD has no intention on ceding the flagship race just yet. (But who knows if they can?)
 
I appreciate AMD pushing for PC HDR standardization, where there currently isn't any.

I also appreciate them enforcing near feature-parity with G-Sync; aside from Nvidia running the mid-range market on up, G-Sync got variable v-sync right, the first time, while AMD's knee-jerk halfassedness has been an issue. Freesync 2.0 rectifies that, on paper.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I appreciate AMD pushing for PC HDR standardization, where there currently isn't any.

I also appreciate them enforcing near feature-parity with G-Sync; aside from Nvidia running the mid-range market on up, G-Sync got variable v-sync right, the first time, while AMD's knee-jerk halfassedness has been an issue. Freesync 2.0 rectifies that, on paper.
Click to expand...
FreeSync works great for me, even being limited to 35hz-60hz. Unfortunately Nvidia refuses to support the Adaptive Sync Standard that is in the Display Port standard. Also glad that a better standard is coming out which future monitors I may buy will have. I would like a FreeSync 5K ultra wide HDR monitor 21:9 ratio - 34"-36" - 5120 x 2160 resolution - at least 75hz but could live with 60hz. It will probably be a couple of years or more for something like that to be reasonable and available.
 
Here's Charlie's take on Freesymc 2 [FS2]...
http://semiaccurate.com/2017/01/03/amds-freesync-2-changes-display-game/

In particular, this bit...

"Best of all it takes a huge whack out of latency....

This may not sound important either unless you game a lot but if you use VR, it will matter and matter a lot. Display latency like this was a large part of lag and the queasy effects it brought on and there was nothing a developer could do about this portion. With Freesync 2 it is gone, poof. If VR headsets don’t adopt FS2 in very short order, I will be surprised, it will be a major step in the user experience for less cost than the old way."

If VR head sets incorporate FS2 then don't nVidia gpus have to be FS2 compatible also? Then surely nVidia would need to put a device recognition block on the gpu to stop it working with monitors or see gsync go the way of Betamax!?
 
fingerbob69 said:
Here's Charlie's take on Freesymc 2 [FS2]...
http://semiaccurate.com/2017/01/03/amds-freesync-2-changes-display-game/

In particular, this bit...

"Best of all it takes a huge whack out of latency....

This may not sound important either unless you game a lot but if you use VR, it will matter and matter a lot. Display latency like this was a large part of lag and the queasy effects it brought on and there was nothing a developer could do about this portion. With Freesync 2 it is gone, poof. If VR headsets don’t adopt FS2 in very short order, I will be surprised, it will be a major step in the user experience for less cost than the old way."

If VR head sets incorporate FS2 then don't nVidia gpus have to be FS2 compatible also? Then surely nVidia would need to put a device recognition block on the gpu to stop it working with monitors or see gsync go the way of Betamax!?
Click to expand...

Nvidia could support FreeSync and GSYNC at the same time if they wanted to.
 
cageymaru said:
Nvidia could support FreeSync and GSYNC at the same time if they wanted to.
Click to expand...
In this case AMD is doing much more for the gamers then Nvidia has with their proprietary stuff that to me is not significantly better for the $. Freesync 2 does sound like a winner and good for gamers alike. Will Nvidia support something other then their licensing, extra hardware, restricted to Nvidia users only methods?
 
Seems Freesync 2 requires validation from AMD due to very mixed Freesync experience. This is good.

However it also seems, unlike G-SYNC HDR, that it requires a game API when reading the AT article. So extra developer work to support Freesync 2. That's not so good.

However to make all of this work, AMD will need to bring together both display manufacturers and game developers, and this is likely to be the trickiest part of AMD’s plan for FreeSync 2. Under the hood, AMD makes this shortened display pipeline work by having games tone map directly to a monitor’s native space, but to do so games need to know what the specific capabilities are of the attached monitor; what color space it can render to, and over what brightness range. This isn’t something Windows’ APIs currently support, and that means AMD has to provide a FreeSync 2 API instead. And that means AMD needs to get developers on-board.

The good news for AMD (and developers) is that the actual implementation of FreeSync 2 should be quite simple since most games are already rendering in HDR and tone mapping to at least SDR to begin with. Game developers only need to query for the API, tone map to the specifications AMD provides, and then from there it’s AMD and the monitor’s problem. But counting on developers to do anything extra for PC games is always a risk, one that has hurt initiatives in the past. For their part, AMD will be doing what they can: focus on the upstream engines and developer relations/evangelism. By getting FreeSync 2 support added to major engines like Unreal Engine and Unity, AMD makes it much easier for downstream developers to adopt FreeSync 2. Beyond that, it’s about convincing developers that supporting FreeSync 2 will be worth their while, both in terms of sales and improving the customer experience.
Click to expand...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10967...improving-ease-lowering-latency-of-hdr-gaming
 
Shintai said:
Seems Freesync 2 requires validation from AMD due to very mixed Freesync experience. This is good.

However it also seems, unlike G-SYNC HDR, that it requires a game API when reading the AT article. So extra developer work to support Freesync 2. That's not so good.



http://www.anandtech.com/show/10967...improving-ease-lowering-latency-of-hdr-gaming
Click to expand...
This isn’t something Windows’ APIs currently support, and that means AMD has to provide a FreeSync 2 API instead. And that means AMD needs to get developers on-board.
Look how well that is working out for everyone on DX12.

Beyond that, it’s about convincing developers that supporting FreeSync 2 will be worth their while, both in terms of sales and improving the customer experience.
Good luck with that while having only 25% of the market, a number which includes hardware that won't support Freesync 2.
 
noko said:
In this case AMD is doing much more for the gamers then Nvidia has with their proprietary stuff that to me is not significantly better for the $. Freesync 2 does sound like a winner and good for gamers alike. Will Nvidia support something other then their licensing, extra hardware, restricted to Nvidia users only methods?
Click to expand...

When you own almost 80% of the market you can do things like NV is doing. AMD better start taking market share and better start competing on the high end.
 
DooKey said:
When you own almost 80% of the market you can do things like NV is doing. AMD better start taking market share and better start competing on the high end.
Click to expand...

So as consumers we're supposed to be OK with anti-competitive, anti-consumer behavior, or even reward such behavior?
 
DooKey said:
When you own almost 80% of the market you can do things like NV is doing. AMD better start taking market share and better start competing on the high end.
Click to expand...


If AMD is able to get microsoft to add freesync 2 support for xbox scorpio... they win, even without nvidias pc marketshare. You will get all the triple a game devs that do cross platform being able to offer the feature by default, and presumably just be able to port the same display code to the pc side without much needing to be changed. If this is as easy as they say for display makers to add, they will follow suit as well, and there will be another feature added for consideration for tvs with heavy console as part of the use mix.
 
buzzbomb said:
So as consumers we're supposed to be OK with anti-competitive, anti-consumer behavior, or even reward such behavior?
Click to expand...


The consumers already have spoken based on their graphics card purchases. But saying that it goes both ways too. People that bought freesync monitors are looking for AMD cards too, So it comes down to total price vs. performance. Which one wins out? What is AMD left with and what is nV left with?
 
tybert7 said:
If AMD is able to get microsoft to add freesync 2 support for xbox scorpio... they win, even without nvidias pc marketshare. You will get all the triple a game devs that do cross platform being able to offer the feature by default, and presumably just be able to port the same display code to the pc side without much needing to be changed. If this is as easy as they say for display makers to add, they will follow suit as well, and there will be another feature added for consideration for tvs with heavy console as part of the use mix.
Click to expand...


Big if right? You want another company to support you in the PC world where that other company has to think about another company that has 75% of the viable marketshare of a specific market they are also interested in? That is a gamble on MS....... MS doesn't gamble unless they have full control and push what they feel will work for them.

And we have seen this time and time again, they want to maintain status quo as long as they are in control. So going freesync is advantage to them, only because its makes a mess for others, In this case there is no MESS, cause there is one company that has demanding leading.
 
buzzbomb said:
So as consumers we're supposed to be OK with anti-competitive, anti-consumer behavior, or even reward such behavior?
Click to expand...

Have there ever not been? So the answer is yes, both Nvidia and AMD buyers support this behavior.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I'm fine with Nvidia providing a superior experience and charging for it, and I'm interested in seeing how this Freesync update and G-Sync HDR reshape the market.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I'll be looking forward to the new reviews comparing FreeSync 2 and G-Sync HDR.
 
razor1 said:
The consumers already have spoken based on their graphics card purchases. But saying that it goes both ways too. People that bought freesync monitors are looking for AMD cards too, So it comes down to total price vs. performance. Which one wins out? What is AMD left with and what is nV left with?
Click to expand...
Not in regards to free sync and g sync.
Hell i sold my gsync monitor because at the end of the day I'd take resolution over the negligible benefit it gave. I'm much more interested in free sync because i feel the technology barely improves my gaming in a way substantial enough for me to want to pay out the ass for it and the gaudy monitors that are sold with gsync.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
Not in regards to free sync and g sync.
Hell i sold my gsync monitor because at the end of the day I'd take resolution over the negligible benefit it gave. I'm much more interested in free sync because i feel the technology barely improves my gaming in a way substantial enough for me to want to pay out the ass for it and the gaudy monitors that are sold with gsync.
Click to expand...


well people that are buying certain video cards are going to buy the tech that works for those cards. You and I actually are the few that haven't done that yet. I'm waiting for HDR monitors to come out at reasonable prices, and if AMD doesn't have a card that is as good as nV at the top end I'm going with G-sync. When spending 1.5k on a monitor I don't mind spending 200 bucks for it. Yeah G-sync isn't on my top priority list of must haves, but it is what it is.
 
free sync 2 or HDR?

Dell just got an HDR monitor at 2k for 4k HDR lol, kinda expensive, been thinking about it lol, but I can wait 6 months till others come out to drop the price a bit.
 
The only reason I'm waiting for Vega at this point is because I bought a Freesync monitor. Honestly in the GPU world it's all AMD's got going for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top