![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
FreeSync vs. G-Sync Delay Analysis
- Thread starter Megalith
- Start date
Mugato
Muh Feelz!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
- Messages
- 933
Mugato
Muh Feelz!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
- Messages
- 933
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 32,990
Yep, FreeSync seems kinda half assed with the limited framerate window and loose standard. Gsync requires an addin board and licensing, but the premium is worth it. I'm on the same monitor you were on and was considering going for the 32 incher you grabbed, but I'm holding out for now for high refresh panels. I may break down sooner anyways, haha.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 32,990
LOL! You are killing it!
Drakensoul
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2004
- Messages
- 252
Didn't we just go through this with the most recent AMD VC release which was going to be better than the 980Ti for a whole lot less and where would our calculations go?
No where, because it never happened.
And didn't we just go through the same thing with Ryzen?
But yeah, the next 'insert fanboy architecture here' is totally going to obliterate the competition for less money, you just wait!
Probably you said the same crap about RyZen. You will be eating your words in a month. Polaris was never supposed to beat a 1080 . It was a mid priced transition to Vega. Though the latest tests on the 580 show it fairly consistently outing the latest iteration of the 1060. Vega is a totally new design from the ground up.It is not just HBM2 memory. It has a superior cache design , a has superior logic and a number of other improvements.
As far as gsync monitors are concerned they are the biggest ripoff in the world. Free sync does a more than adequate job in delivering a smooth gaming experience for littleextra expense to the consumer. I have a 28" 4k samsung free sync monitor and I have nad zero problems gaming and otherwise. I paid under $400 for mymonitor and the equivalent gsync monitor is almost $800. You are being fools going along with this Nvidia ripoff.
Last edited:
I'm not ignoring anything. All I am saying is a person has to make the best decision they can given their circumstances at the time they are buying. That, and that I think some people are quick to identify the cost difference between G-Sync and Fressync while ignoring the other factors I brought up.
Cards have gotten more efficient lately but they weren't so efficient previously. I never bought a 1KW+ PSU before so I don't have on on-hand. Someone else will so that part of the cost difference has already been paid for them. Some may already have a pair of AMD cards in Cross-fire, if so, this cost as well has been paid. I am not suggestion someone in this position is a good candidate for switching to G-Sync.
Just because the solution that I found was right for my situation doesn't mean that I am saying all of you should abandon all concerns and follow suite.
I bought my 1070 shortly after they first released. I forget how far back that was but I am not planning on buying it in how ever many months it takes for Vega to hit the streets.
I'm also not ignoring everyone's high hopes for the last products AMD released. I know some understood that these weren't going to be competitive with the 10 series NVidia cards but there were many who were very disappointed when they saw numbers below the previous AMD best cards.
I am ignoring Vega .... I upgraded to a 1070 while using a pair of 1080P monitors and really enjoyed the performance of the card. Then I bought an X34 and was delighted that this card drives the new monitor just fine at 3440x1440 with one of the 1080P monitors still on it for off-side apps like Teamspeak. As long as what I have works well for me and meets my demand, it doesn't matter how much better Vega becomes, or doesn't become.
You mistake my previous comments entirely.
This after I just said earlier "A long time ago it was AMD with the first Radeon card that was clearly the best engineered product available."
I'm not a fanboy, and you are too busy defending yourself or AMD or whatever to even consider what I am saying.
Then why spend so much defending anti-competitive behavior, and monopolistic pricing?
It pretty hard to see anyone but a fanboy consider these good things.
D
Deleted member 184142
Guest
Actually, no.
People assume that because of entry cost of FreeSync vs G-Sync monitors, but never consider panel quality when looking at the bottom price of either. It is often hard to compare as most of the nicer panels have G-Sync, and the lower range ones FreeSync, and even stepping down in range from the same mfg, the price between the two is less than $100, and when you consider the quality step down as well, far less than that. The reason for this has already been stated, FreeSync being an open standard, they are very open on the actual quality of a display, while NV has much more control on what has to be met to put a G-Sync sticker on it.
So if you move up in range, to monitors with the same build quality and panel quality, the price difference is actually very small.
I don't doubt that many people see it the way you do. But that doesn't make it so.
So tell me, how is it Anti-Competitive?
NVidia has far more financial power then AMD does. Let's flip it around, let's say NVidia licenses G-Sync for free and G-Sync Monitors are cheaper than Freesync Monitors. Now what shape is AMD in?
How many people would switch to NVidia, or stay with them, if G-Sync Monitors were cheaper than Freesync monitors?
Is there any video card made that supports both g-Sync and Freesync? If I understood correctly, some people here think NVidia should do this, but it isn't up to NVidia, it's up to the card maker and who says it's even possible.
You see NVidia's pricing as anti-competitive but I see AMD's pricing as "I have to give this stuff away cause if I can't keep things cheap I can't stay in business". (My words, not quoting anyone else)
The very fact that many people choose AMD over NVidia is proof that AMD remains competitive and I think it's NVidia's pricing that makes it possible. That's what competition is.
Samsung just released their new Quantum Dot monitors just before I bought my Acer X34. I really wanted their new monitor in G-Sync, but it isn't going to happen because Samsung decided to go with Freesync support first. This was a Samsung decision. Samsung chose to support an AMD technology over an NVidia technology. How is there not competition here? This is the epitome of competition.
That would be great. If NVidia opens G-Sync and it is free standard. Then AMD can just support that and there is no standard war.
You know, like how AMD make freesync open and anyone could use. NVidia could and that would also end the standard war.
NVidia could easily do either. But NVidia won't do either because their goal is to stifle the competition.
It's the very definition of anti-competetive behavior.
It will be interesting to see you rationalize NVidia not supporting HDMI 2.1 VRR.
You have a strange idea of what competition is. I think you look at it as if competition shouldn't effect your choices as a consumer. You want to choose whatever your heart desires and you think any company who offers alternatives that restrict your choice is anti-competitive. And so, you think NVidia should abandon their practice of offering competing technologies or just give it away for free.
If I buy a Dodge Challenger instead of a Ford Mustang, is it anti-competitive that I can't get my Challenger with a Boss 309 engine?
If I buy an AR-15 rifle is it anti-competitive that I can't use Ak-47 magazines?
Why can't I use K-Cups in my Mr. Coffee?
http://wccftech.com/amd-freesync-nvidia-gsync-verdict/
You can buy an AMD card and Freesync will take advantage of the DisplayPort Adaptive-Sync protocols option in a Freesync Monitor if you choose to buy one. Or you can buy an NVidia card and if you want Adaptive Sync, then you can buy a G-Sync monitor that includes the custom NVidia integrated display controller instead of the optional DisplayPort Adaptive-Sync protocols.
Unless you can show differently, I have no reason to believe that it isn't possible for a monitor to support both but that is up to the monitor manufacturers and not NVidia. Because a G-Sync monitor does not rely on the DisplayPort Adaptive-Sync protocols for operation I see no reason the two couldn't co-exist on the same monitor except that the monitor manufacturers see no need to spend money on a Display port 1.2a optional feature when a person buying a G-Sync capable monitor is most likely doing so because they intend to use G-Sync instead of Freesync. But this is in the monitor manufacturer's court, not AMD's.
If NVidia did make G-Sync free this would only reduce the cost of the monitors, it doesn't mean there is no costs associated with providing both technologies in the same monitor. You still might not get both together in the same display.
And I do not have to rationalize anything regarding new display specifications, businesses may do this regarding their market decisions. As a customer, I only have to rationalize my choices, and then, only to myself. I sure don't owe it to you just because you seem to think I do.
I will tell you this. I haven't knocked anyone for their choices and only supported each persons right to make those choices. Have you seen me try to tell anyone what to choose?
All I have said is that I think some people fail to consider all the options and focus too much on the price difference between G-Sync and Freesync while forgetting other costs that may impact their decision. For some reason you take that as support for NVidia and an attack on AMD. Accuse me of being a fan-boy, etc.
AMD did not actually make Freesync open at all. AMD actually suggested to the VESA Standards people that they should modify the Display Port standard so that Freesync would function and that is what happened. Now the Adaptive Sync Protocols didn't exist until AMD suggested to VESA to include them. So AMD had something included, as an option, into the standard to support their new technology. Now I am not saying this was a bad thing and AMD didn't try to charge for it. But although you think of Freesync as something that doesn't cost anything. Do you really think AMD was going to give away licensing of Freesync itself to NVidia? Remember it was AMD who developed the DisplayPort Adaptive-Sync protocols that were included into the VESA Standard and without Freesync to talk to those protocols, I'm thinking it would be damned hard to develop a competing version without infringing on AMD's IP.
Are you certain it's NVidia that was being anti-competitive regarding Adaptive Sync?
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2011
- Messages
- 7,505
Gsync wins for me, 6 Freesync and 4 Gsync monitors later and I have a pretty clear view of the tech. Freesync works great in AAA titles that have good support. I play a lot of games that it doesn't work at all in though (and actually causes artifacts and a very unpleasant gameplay experience) and Gsync wsorks fine in those. I also haven't found any 1440p 165hz Freesync monitors for $350 like I got my S2417DG.
You are the one with strange ideas and bad analogies. The engine is integral to the car. The Monitor is third party.
A more appropriate car analogy, is if Ford sponsored a special blend of Ford Gas, that didn't work in other cars. That is the kind of thing NVidia does. You know, creating gas/monitors their competitors can't make use of.
NVidia pushes Proprietary closed solutions over open standards. That is anti-competitive. It is designed specifically to stifle the competition.
Again. How will you rationalize/justify NVidia failing to support HDMI 2.1 VRR standard?
Pushing proprietary closed solution and not supporting open standards is the very definition of anti-competitive behavior.
And you have a point here, not many Freesync curved monitors at 3440x1440 and 100hz or better. I think Acer makes the only Freesync alternative to the X34 and as I said earlier, everyone has to make their own choices for their situation. I already had a 1070, I sure wasn't going to dump it for a pair of anything AMD makes and a new PSU to try and save the difference on the monitors.
Well I think it is the very heart of competition. And NVidia didn't make any monitors, NVidia licenses technology and until the 10 series cards, they didn't even make video cards. If no display company had decided to buy NVidia's G-Sync there wouldn't be a single G-Sync monitor out there and G-Sync would be dead, and Freesync would reign supreme. It's competition that did that.
Now I said earlier, agree to disagree. I can sleep with that but you are not going to sit here and hammer at me and make me cry uncle.
You really want me to talk about VRR so I had to go read up on it cause I didn't know anything about it.
NVidia licenses their display tech and now they even build computer video cards with the 10 series. Anyone own an NVidia monitor or TV? ..... No?
OK;
So other companies license G-Sync and build monitors because ...... they know that NVidia has a large part of the display card market share, and these monitors do sell.
Does anyone here use HDMI to connect their NVidia card to their G-Sync monitor? I suppose you can if the monitor supports G-Sync over that connection, but I know I use a DP capable.
So NVidia licenses tech and they make their own cards and their Adaptive Sync solution primarily relies on Display Port and not HDMI unless I am mistaken?
So why do they even need to support this new specification for their technology?
And although video card manufacturers like XFX and ASUS can license NVidias tech and produce their own cards, what stops them from making their cards support HDMI 2.1 VRR even if NVidia doesn't as it stands?
You have to understand how things work.
Drivers
nVidia may license cards (which they don't really, the chips are still designed completely by nVidia, and ordered by nVidia, but the end result chips are sent to the OEMs to be made into cards), but ultimately nVidia directly controls the drivers.
Even if specific manufacturers actually make their own modification and allow FreeSync at the hardware level, nVidia will only need to stop it via driver level, not to mention possible lawsuits.
So nVidia not supporting FreeSync, and supporting VRR over HDMI or not comes down to nVidia's decisions and not each of the IHV's.
That being said, nVidia is in a much better decision to support VRR via HDMI and FreeSync due to the fact that both are industry standards, so nVidis has a more likelihood of supporting it than letting AMD license G-Sync support, but I'd imagine that if nVidia, right here, right now, came out with a driver that supports all FreeSync monitors, there won't be many nails left in RTG's coffin. HDMI VRR, might hurt a bit, but TV as monitor users are still in relative minority compared to FreeSync monitors (no citations, purely a my hunch, so can be wildy off).
nVidia may license cards (which they don't really, the chips are still designed completely by nVidia, and ordered by nVidia, but the end result chips are sent to the OEMs to be made into cards), but ultimately nVidia directly controls the drivers.
Even if specific manufacturers actually make their own modification and allow FreeSync at the hardware level, nVidia will only need to stop it via driver level, not to mention possible lawsuits.
So nVidia not supporting FreeSync, and supporting VRR over HDMI or not comes down to nVidia's decisions and not each of the IHV's.
That being said, nVidia is in a much better decision to support VRR via HDMI and FreeSync due to the fact that both are industry standards, so nVidis has a more likelihood of supporting it than letting AMD license G-Sync support, but I'd imagine that if nVidia, right here, right now, came out with a driver that supports all FreeSync monitors, there won't be many nails left in RTG's coffin. HDMI VRR, might hurt a bit, but TV as monitor users are still in relative minority compared to FreeSync monitors (no citations, purely a my hunch, so can be wildy off).
That's an awful lot of work ignoring the question yet again.
When NVidia fails to support VRR, an industry display standard, how will you justify that?
The way you keep waffling and weasling around the answer, implies that you know it's a slimeball move to not support industry standards.
This is why I think you fall into the fanboy category. You pretend everything NVidia does is good, and keep making excuses for them.
If you really were unbiased, you would admit dirtbag behavior is just that, and move on, you wouldn't find it necessary to defend everything they do.
You sound just like Heatlesssun defending MS. Everything they do has to be defended, justified and rationalized.
I am not questioning your choice to use NV, just your endless defense of NV corporate behavior.
BTW I have an NV card and my next card may be NV. But there is big difference between buying what works for me, and needing to defend every move a company makes, like you have a personal stake in it.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,669
When Nvidia fails to support HDMI VRR? Are you serious, you're basing your argument on your own clearly biased forecast?
They're more likely to support it than not.
They're less likely to support FreeSync, but that's still entirely possible; and they're not very likely to support opening G-Sync, because they put in the energy to build a better solution than FreeSync (and they would know, as they use FreeSync on their mobile parts!).
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,669
Nvidia has superior technology because they put more effort into improving the whole gaming experience from the GPU (and now monitor) perspective. This is not disputable.
Nvidia saw the catch 22 of 'VSync results in lag and stuttering' and 'no VSync results in tearing', and found a solution- and AMD's only available response [read: response] was to halfassedly press into service an inferior solution based on the power-saving tech used in laptops. Nvidia identified and solved the problem from the beginning, going so far as to develop specific hardware for monitors to use; AMD is to this day still catching up.
Let's go back a little further: Nvidia saw the issue of frame time generation with multiple GPUs, and worked to fix it; a decade later, when TechReport dug into the issue, AMD's CFX halfassedness was brought to light. Still took them a few years to get it (mostly) under control.
-----------------------
We have long memories here. I won't discount that Nvidia has been almost as aggressive as Intel in terms of fighting for and defending market share, but I also give them their due where it's deserved.
They are very unlikely to support it, because it undermines their Proprietary solution.
Monitor builder could then build compatible monitors without paying NVidia.
AMD would no longer be locked out.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,669
The fucking hell is your partisan ass talking about? Go fanboi somewhere else.
Nvidia cannot do 'G-Sync over HDMI' as your retarded premise implies, because HDMI doesn't have the same capability to push a proprietary solution; further, even if they could, they'd have to get TV makers on board, and they have no leverage to do so (Nvidia's Shield console obviously isn't enough).
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,669
Yeah, because the cable is the real issue.
"Hi, I'm Snowdog, and I'm going to ignore all of the technical and economic aspects of the discussion because they wholly undermine my pedantic point"
We hear you loud and clear, bro.
You are the one caught up on a the irrelevant detail of cabling, like that keeps the options from competing with each other.
If a monitor manufacturer is building a gaming monitor and want to offer Variable frame rate option for NVidia gamers, in a mythical world where NVidia supports the HDMI 2.1 VRR standard:
They can do one of two things:
1: Pay NVidia a significant amount of money to be allowed to access proprietary support on NVidia cards via DP.
2: Pay NVidia nothing and can go with the HDMI VRR standard via HDMI.
It shouldn't take a genius to figure out, that the choice will be to pay NVidia nothing and support users via HDMI.
NVidia won't support the HDMI VRR standard, because then no one will pay them to use G-Sync anymore.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,669
You're hopeless. Literally an AMD troll, and completely unabashed in your bias.
DP != HDMI. Get it through your thick skull.
DP != HDMI. Get it through your thick skull.
Wow, you are really trying to live up to the first part of your username.
I am not saying anything like that.
Get some sleep and read again.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,669
That is literally your argument: that Nvidia will do with HDMI exactly what they did with DP with respect to VRR because Snowdog's feelz say so.
Not even close, my argument is literally:
NVidia won't support the HDMI 2.1 VRR standard.
Because it undermines G-Sync (for obvious reasons, but outlined in previous because obvious seems to escape you).
Not that I expect you be able to parse that, because I already wrote it before, and you got confused, and I am not sure how to make it more simple.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,669
Wait, so you can't even parse that G-Sync can't apply to HDMI?
Why are you even here if you're so uninformed?
/dev/null
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2001
- Messages
- 15,181
All of you guys championing for AMDs open implementation, you use OSS right? You avoid Windows & Mac...?
FWIW: I don't care who wins either way. I'm not paying extra for adaptive sync until somebody wins/becomes dominant and either camp's video car will support it.
FWIW: I don't care who wins either way. I'm not paying extra for adaptive sync until somebody wins/becomes dominant and either camp's video car will support it.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,669
I'm rolling G-Sync, but only because AMD has refused to release competitive high-performance GPUs in the last few years. I don't plan on keeping the monitor (it's too small), and want to move up to 4k120+ HDR in the next year or so, you know, if either company will produce a capable product and the monitors actually ship.
You better hope FreeSync wins then, because if G-Sync wins, chances are the prices will be more absurd.
As someone who works in the software world where open sourcing can create significant amounts of innovation, Nvidia's proprietary solutions are frustrating as a consumer. With that said, as a consumer I vote with my wallet for whatever suits my needs at the time. My history is a mix of AMD / Nvidia through the ages based on whatever I personally felt would meet my expectations based on the price.
My most recent build was a mini itx build in an Ncase M1, and that only gives me one slot for a GPU. I knew that I wanted G-Sync / FreeSync after trying it, but I also knew that I wanted the most powerful GPU that I could get. I wanted 3440x1440 at the highest refresh rate available and between those two things I wasn't really left with a choice.
Similar to IdiotInCharge, I had to go Nvidia because AMD has not remained competitive at the top end for quite a while, and all of the high end monitors at the time were G-Sync only. To this day, these two things have not changed that much with only some minimal movement on the monitor side.
Some people might be willing to sacrifice a better experience to support the underdog, and that should be respected. However, I try to stay away from brand allegiances / market considerations and just buy what meets my needs at the time.
Where do you get that idea? You have massive reading comprehension problems.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,669
Keep going in circles, your ignorance is on record.
Please keep telling us how Nvidia inventing G-Sync and using it exclusively over DP for VRR is going to absolutely prevent them from supporting VRR over HDMI. We'll keep laughing!
Already explained why they are unlikely to support the standard.
https://hardforum.com/threads/freesync-vs-g-sync-delay-analysis.1931546/page-2#post-1042988886
But, you are just too thick to get it. Or trolling. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,669
There's that circle again. Seems to revolve around one central point: your hatred toward Nvidia as a moneymaking enterprise has led you to an irrational conclusion.
Particularly so when you posit that Nvidia will avoid HDMI VRR because they won't get 'royalties' from G-Sync. Nvidia could only hope for such proliferation of HDMI VRR, and may very well support it alongside G-Sync in monitors!