• 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.

FreeSync vs. G-Sync Delay Analysis

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
YouTuber Battle(non)sense has released a comparison for the competing adaptive sync technologies. If you are interested in hearing about how the W10 Creators Update can break both or how NVIDIA’s solution may be more preferable, check this video out.

Today it's time for the ultimate showdown between AMD FreeSync and NVIDIA G-Sync. With provides the lowest delay? Does AMD's FRTC increase the input lag? Is border-less windowed mode really less responsive than fullscreen mode? Does the Windows 10 Game Mode affect the input lag at all? These are just some of the questions that I will answer in this video.
 
In the video, the only NVidia did better was the in game (done by the game itself instead of the NV/AMD utils) frame rate limiting and it was only tested in one game.

Everything else was pretty much identical.
 
Looks like a wash.

The one important point he brought up is how choice of monitor is an important consideration with Freesync as the standard is not as strict about how a monitor should perform in order to qualify, so make sure to do homework in case a monitor manufacturer tries to cut corners.
 
Wierdo said:
Looks like a wash.

The one important point he brought up is how choice of monitor is an important consideration with Freesync as the standard is not as strict about how a monitor should perform in order to qualify, so make sure to do homework in case a monitor manufacturer tries to cut corners.
Click to expand...

THIS. This was a really big sticking point with me when I was making my purchasing decision a few months back. I opted to go to the G-Sync side because the more I read the more clear it became to me how tightly Nvidia controls the specifications that earn the G-Sync badge. It says nothing about overall panel quality, but it seems to be the your Freesync experience can vary wildly due to its open nature, and G-Sync it pretty much the same experience no matter which monitor you choose. After picking up the having a great experience with an Acer 28 inch 4k TN panel with Gsync, I upgraded a few months ago to the Predator xb321hk. I like the experience so much that I can't go back.

That said Ive seen Freesync on a few monitors that looked awesome when it was working, but early models with some really bad judder if the FPS dropped below the target range.
 
Shmee said:
It is just a shame that they both can't come together to use the same tech. Creating lock-in for what monitors you buy is kind of bogus.
Click to expand...

Only one standard is proprietary with license fees.

I think the issue will solve itself if TVs start including VRR from the HDMI 2.1 spec.
http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_2_1/index.aspx
  • Game Mode VRR features variable refresh rate, which enables a 3D graphics processor to display the image at the moment it is rendered for more fluid and better detailed gameplay, and for reducing or eliminating lag, stutter, and frame tearing.

NVidia will be at a competitive disadvantage if it doesn't support that standard, and only AMD will work with VRR on TVs.
 
I blew $379 on an Asus ROG PG248Q and am pleased. You just have to really ask yourself how sensitive you are to input lag and/or screen tearing. If you consider both to be dealbreakers, then that chunk of change is worth it to you. I did have a 120hz Samsung panel 5 years ago or so and while it was definitely a leap over a 75hz panel, it still had horrible tearing with vsync off, and still some lag with v-sync on. Now I finally dont have to suffer either.
 
Snowdog said:
Only one standard is proprietary with license fees.

I think the issue will solve itself if TVs start including VRR from the HDMI 2.1 spec.
http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_2_1/index.aspx
  • Game Mode VRR features variable refresh rate, which enables a 3D graphics processor to display the image at the moment it is rendered for more fluid and better detailed gameplay, and for reducing or eliminating lag, stutter, and frame tearing.

NVidia will be at a competitive disadvantage if it doesn't support that standard, and only AMD will work with VRR on TVs.
Click to expand...
I look forward to TV displays having adaptive rates.
 
Taldren said:
Don't count on it. With consoles/TVs going FreeSync, expect it to become the standard.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that? The fact that AMD is providing GPUs for PS4/Xbox One? You are more likely to see an OPEN standard with HDMI 2.1's VRR than a proprietary solution from EITHER company becoming dominant in the TV space.
 
jnemesh said:
What makes you think that? The fact that AMD is providing GPUs for PS4/Xbox One? You are more likely to see an OPEN standard with HDMI 2.1's VRR than a proprietary solution from EITHER company becoming dominant in the TV space.
Click to expand...

AMDs solution is free and open.

I bet AMD will support VRR in a flash and NVidia will drag their feet.
 
Snowdog said:
AMDs solution is free and open.

I bet AMD will support VRR in a flash and NVidia will drag their feet.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make it attractive unless a manufacturer can find a way to charge more for it. I know, it sounds like a no brainer, but it is not. Look at it this way, Samsung decides to go with a "free and open" standard. But that standard still has to be supported when changes are driven by new developments. Who is now responsible for changing the free and open standard? Yes, now, in order to support some new development Samsung must jump in with both feet and adapt the free and open standard.

But if Samsung licenses a proprietary standard, they just use their market share to push this issue onto their chosen "partner".

Furthermore, delays and errors are on the other guy, and not in house. I'm not going to say one is definitely better than the other, but a free and open standard doesn't mean it's actually free, won't cost to impliment and support, and furthermore, who's on the blame line and what leverage do you have when it comes to life-cycle development.
 
lcpiper said:
That doesn't make it attractive unless a manufacturer can find a way to charge more for it. I know, it sounds like a no brainer, but it is not. Look at it this way, Samsung decides to go with a "free and open" standard. But that standard still has to be supported when changes are driven by new developments. Who is now responsible for changing the free and open standard? Yes, now, in order to support some new development Samsung must jump in with both feet and adapt the free and open standard.
Click to expand...

There are plent of Freesync monitors, they still have value add over monitors without freesync. The same will apply for VRR.

Really it looks like this is fairly trivial to implement. It is mainly NVidias unwillingness to support the open standard that creates a mess.

Even if you can't charge more for it, you can sell more monitors if you have the feature when it gets compared to competition without out.

Imagine the first companies to ship TVs with VRR. Gamers will be snapping them up, pretty soon VRR will be a must have feature for every company making TVs.

When that happens NVidia will really have no choice but to support VRR, and that should be the end of their proprietary bullshit.
 
Snowdog said:
There are plent of Freesync monitors, they still have value add over monitors without freesync. The same will apply for VRR.

Really it looks like this is fairly trivial to implement. It is mainly NVidias unwillingness to support the open standard that creates a mess.

Even if you can't charge more for it, you can sell more monitors if you have the feature when it gets compared to competition without out.

Imagine the first companies to ship TVs with VRR. Gamers will be snapping them up, pretty soon VRR will be a must have feature for every company making TVs.

When that happens NVidia will really have no choice but to support VRR, and that should be the end of their proprietary bullshit.
Click to expand...


I think you greatly overestimate the value NVidia places on TV displays for their video chipsets. TVs are a small fraction of the display market for computer displays. TVs rank high with consoles, but not with computer guys. Only some people are going to TVs over Monitors. I just spent $1000 on an X34 a couple months ago so a TV as a primary display hasn't won me over, nor has it won over any great number of people. Not in relation to the actual market as a whole.

NVidia knows exactly what they are doing. Continue with my example, I just bought a big new monitor that will probably outlast the video card I bought to drive it. When I buy a new video card to use with my G-Sync monitor, do you think I'll be looking for an AMD card?

Do you think I feel like I made a bad choice? I do not. I chose my card because it was a better engineered product period. It was more capable than the AMD competition while using less power and generating less heat. To match it I would have had to buy two AMD cards and a larger PSU and it would cost me more on my electric bill to power the devices and to air condition my home. These costs easily offset the difference in paying for a G-Sync monitor and I have the better performing product to enjoy.

So NVidia knows what they are doing. NVidia's stock price is proof of that. Not only do they have a large, (largest), part of the market in display tech, they are positioned to keep it. A few thousand people buying TVs instead of monitors for computer displays only points out that these people aren't gamers anyway so they are not buying the high end gaming cards and they don't need Adaptive Sync because if they did, then they would be buying Monitors that support adaptive sync instead of TVs.

Now I have no doubt all the people who feel that they are exceptions to my claim are going to come speak up now. But how many bought their 4K TV because it would support something they do that is more important to them than gaming. Maybe they write code, web development, whatever it is. These people may play games, they might want adaptive sync capability in their chosen display, but they chose their display for other reasons cause if adaptive sync was high on their list, it's what they would have bought.

NVidia markets display technologies to a broad range of customer profiles. Laptop display chipsets, desktops motherboard chipsets, and discrete dedicated graphics cards for work and for play. Adaptive sync is primarily a product for gamers and other 3D display users. The technology is not a priority for other markets.

Everyone has to make their own buying decisions and I am not going to knock anyone for their choices. I bought my 1070 before I decided on a new monitor and at the time I wasn't even considering or even researching Adaptive Sync. All I cared about was that I believed I was buying the best engineered product because I want my purchase to last awhile. At the time the NVidia cards kicked ass and did it using less power and made less heat and that is how I measure engineering superiority. A long time ago it was AMD with the first Radeon card that was clearly the best engineered product available. The point being, when it came to a new monitor, I decided I wanted a large 21:9 display. 3440 x 1440 takes some power to drive smoothly and I believed that I would need adaptive sync in order to enjoy such a large display. Yes it would cost me approximately $300 or more for G-Sync over Freesync, but I also reasoned that I would need two AMD cards in Crossfire to drive a Freesync monitor to the same resolution, and a larger power supply. My cost difference just went out the window. But it was a decision based on my current situation.

This is book enough for now.
 
The new Xbox Scorpio releasing this year has VRR, if it uses freesync I think nvidia is going to have to adapt.

I somehow ended up with a freesync and a gtx 1080. Yayyyy
 
lcpiper said:
I think you greatly overestimate the value NVidia places on TV displays for their video chipsets. TVs are a small fraction of the display market for computer displays. TVs rank high with consoles, but not with computer guys. Only some people are going to TVs over Monitors. I just spent $1000 on an X34 a couple months ago so a TV as a primary display hasn't won me over, nor has it won over any great number of people. Not in relation to the actual market as a whole.
Click to expand...

You have really only made a case for you personally.

More and more people are using TVs for gaming computers, and Scorpio with VRR is going drive more TV makers to include VRR, and once we see 4K 120 Hz TVs with VRR, that is only going to heat up the market for people hooking up game computers to these TVs.

NVidia will be shooting itself in the foot to continue with it's scummy behavior.
 
MavericK said:
If/when AMD ever gets back on top...then, maybe.
Click to expand...

It has little to do with AMD.

VRR is a not an AMD standard. It's an HDMI 2.1 standard. Scoprio is going to support it (PS5 as well I bet) and TVs will start supporting it, and AMD will Support it.

NVidia will eventually have to capitulate.
 
Snowdog said:
It has little to do with AMD.

VRR is a not an AMD standard. It's an HDMI 2.1 standard. Scoprio is going to support it (PS5 as well I bet) and TVs will start supporting it, and AMD will Support it.

NVidia will eventually have to capitulate.
Click to expand...

Not if they remain on top, they won't. That's kind of my point...I'm not defending them having a closed solution, at all, but they are not going to support FreeSync when they can force consumers to buy GSync monitors instead. Granted, GSync is also the better solution, but it does lock you into nVidia.
 
MavericK said:
Not if they remain on top, they won't. That's kind of my point...I'm not defending them having a closed solution, at all, but they are not going to support FreeSync when they can force consumers to buy GSync monitors instead. Granted, GSync is also the better solution, but it does lock you into nVidia.
Click to expand...

Not Freesync.

VRR, part of the HDMI 2.1.

You are saying NVidia won't support HDMI 2.1?
 
Snowdog said:
Not Freesync.

VRR, part of the HDMI 2.1.

You are saying NVidia won't support HDMI 2.1?
Click to expand...

The thread stated FreeSync and the quote in my post talked about FreeSync...

But okay, sure, there is another standard, but I guess we will have to wait and see how it compares to these two solutions.
 
MavericK said:
The thread stated FreeSync and the quote in my post talked about FreeSync...

But okay, sure, there is another standard, but I guess we will have to wait and see how it compares to these two solutions.
Click to expand...

Read my post which you quoted, it clearly stated VRR.

IMO NVidia will end up supporting VRR, though they will drag their feet until it becomes a sore spot with consumers, and NVidia can't claim, that it's from AMD.

It will just be NVidia refusing to support a industry standard, so they can lock people in and charge consumers more. It's really scummy and indefensible.
 
Snowdog said:
Read my post which you quoted, it clearly stated VRR.
Click to expand...

What happened was I thought you/we were still talking about FreeSync so that's what I kept talking about. Missed the random switch to a totally different standard.

It's fine, it just didn't really make sense. But I get what you're saying and I agree, though I think it depends on adoption rates for actual enthusiast monitors. If it's only in basic consumer monitors and TVs, I don't see a huge push for either company to support it.
 
MavericK said:
What happened was I thought you/we were still talking about FreeSync so that's what I kept talking about. Missed the random switch to a totally different standard.

It's fine, it just didn't really make sense. But I get what you're saying and I agree, though I think it depends on adoption rates for actual enthusiast monitors. If it's only in basic consumer monitors and TVs, I don't see a huge push for either company to support it.
Click to expand...

I agree it depends on adoption for NVidia support.

AMD will support it very early so they can point out they support the industry standard, while NVidia doesn't.

AMD support will likely be in the next year, NVidia will probably take 2 or 3 years.
 
Snowdog said:
You have really only made a case for you personally.

More and more people are using TVs for gaming computers, and Scorpio with VRR is going drive more TV makers to include VRR, and once we see 4K 120 Hz TVs with VRR, that is only going to heat up the market for people hooking up game computers to these TVs.

NVidia will be shooting itself in the foot to continue with it's scummy behavior.
Click to expand...

Well, agree to disagree. See I don't see anything "scummy" about NVidia's adaptive sync solution. Like I said earlier, a free and open standard only means you have no control over that standard and you have to adapt, and be restricted to it, and not the other way around. Is it cheaper, maybe.

Go price out two brand new builds top to bottom. Put a 4K TV with AMD cards on one, and the newest G-Sync NVidia hotness on the other. Come back with the price difference and how many cards it will take to drive that 4K TV resolution vs the best G-Sync monitor going.

I am betting that your free and open standard costs about the same on the credit card ignoring differences in power usage and heat output.

I didn't give you "my case" for any reason except to put it out front that everyone has to do what's right for their own situation. I explained what mine was hoping you could make the logical next step that other people will have their own situations to deal with. I never tried to say my case is valid for everyone else. I'm glad you agree.

And you'll know if NVidia is hurting itself when the company's quarterly earnings get released because that is the foot they are trying to fit, always.

I bought AMD stock in 2007 while in Iraq working. It was under $20 a share the day I bought, the next day it dropped 60% to $8 a share. I bought another 10K at six something ..... it kept dropping to $3.50 a share. Then they came back up, I got my money back, I made my 15% target which is what I like doing. Today they are over $100 a share. You think they are hurting themselves, I'm saying we'll see .... just make sure you are looking in the right place if you want to find out.
 
Shmee said:
It is just a shame that they both can't come together to use the same tech. Creating lock-in for what monitors you buy is kind of bogus.
Click to expand...

Did not yet watch the video, but I am assuming G-Sync offers some advantages. If Nvidia supported both it would be great. Then we can use cheaper monitors with Free Sync but if we wanted a better experience we could pay more for a G-Sync monitor. But my guess is they're too similar and only a small minority will spend the extra for G-Sync if Nvidia supported both.
 
lcpiper said:
I bought AMD stock in 2007 while in Iraq working. It was under $20 a share the day I bought, the next day it dropped 60% to $8 a share. I bought another 10K at six something ..... it kept dropping to $3.50 a share. Then they came back up, I got my money back, I made my 15% target which is what I like doing. Today they are over $100 a share. You think they are hurting themselves, I'm saying we'll see .... just make sure you are looking in the right place if you want to find out.
Click to expand...

I assume you typo'd an extra 0, but just so nobody gets confused, AMD stock prices are currently just over $10/share (down 25%+ in the last few days), not $100/share..
 
Flogger23m said:
Did not yet watch the video, but I am assuming G-Sync offers some advantages. If Nvidia supported both it would be great. Then we can use cheaper monitors with Free Sync but if we wanted a better experience we could pay more for a G-Sync monitor. But my guess is they're too similar and only a small minority will spend the extra for G-Sync if Nvidia supported both.
Click to expand...

They were identical.

Except for the frame rate limiter built into the 1 game they tested worked better on NVidia. You could set it to 142 fps on NV and it would hold it from hitting the 144 max of the monitor, on AMD they had to set it to about 130 to keep it from hitting 144.
 
lcpiper said:
Well, agree to disagree. See I don't see anything "scummy" about NVidia's adaptive sync solution. Like I said earlier, a free and open standard only means you have no control over that standard and you have to adapt, and be restricted to it, and not the other way around. Is it cheaper, maybe.

Go price out two brand new builds top to bottom. Put a 4K TV with AMD cards on one, and the newest G-Sync NVidia hotness on the other. Come back with the price difference and how many cards it will take to drive that 4K TV resolution vs the best G-Sync monitor going.

I am betting that your free and open standard costs about the same on the credit card ignoring differences in power usage and heat output.

I didn't give you "my case" for any reason except to put it out front that everyone has to do what's right for their own situation. I explained what mine was hoping you could make the logical next step that other people will have their own situations to deal with. I never tried to say my case is valid for everyone else. I'm glad you agree.

And you'll know if NVidia is hurting itself when the company's quarterly earnings get released because that is the foot they are trying to fit, always.

I bought AMD stock in 2007 while in Iraq working. It was under $20 a share the day I bought, the next day it dropped 60% to $8 a share. I bought another 10K at six something ..... it kept dropping to $3.50 a share. Then they came back up, I got my money back, I made my 15% target which is what I like doing. Today they are over $100 a share. You think they are hurting themselves, I'm saying we'll see .... just make sure you are looking in the right place if you want to find out.
Click to expand...

Your ignoring Vega, which will come in better than the 1080 Ti and close to a Titan for a whole lot less. Then where willyour calculations go??Down the toilet bowl. Vega will be released in less than a month.
 
I'll add two facts:

1. Nvidia supporting FreeSync is literally just a decision. They already implement the technology for Mobile G-Sync.
2. HDMI VRR is its own standard- and Nvidia is likely to support it. However, we're not likely to see this feature quickly proliferate among computer monitors, and for those of you arguing 'well tons of people are using TVs for monitors!!!'- they're not, not that it matters either way.

For now, G-Sync remains the better overall solution simply because you get full performance out of the box, i.e., you get no lag, no sync stuttering, and no tearing, across the range of response times your monitor can handle, by default. Maybe AMD will tighten up FreeSync and force a reasonable standard some day. Maybe they'll produce GPUs that can compete at the top end.

Maybe.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I'll add two facts:


For now, G-Sync remains the better overall solution simply because you get full performance out of the box, i.e., you get no lag, no sync stuttering, and no tearing, across the range of response times your monitor can handle, by default. Maybe AMD will tighten up FreeSync and force a reasonable standard some day. Maybe they'll produce GPUs that can compete at the top end.

Maybe.
Click to expand...

Or Maybe that is mostly just FUD against AMD.

In this test, they were essentially identical. You just get the "benefit" of paying much more for NVidias closed solution.
 
Snowdog said:
Or Maybe that is mostly just FUD against AMD.

In this test, they were essentially identical. You just get the "benefit" of paying much more for NVidias closed solution.
Click to expand...

The FUD is assuming that this monitor and this test is representative of the technology in its form as available on the market today. It isn't. The FreeSync experience is highly variable and something that must be researched on a per-monitor basis to ensure you're actually getting the benefit, and this is not necessary with G-Sync: Nvidia solved the whole problem up front before they even went to market with VRR, while AMD half-assed their way into it in typical fashion.

(note that I'm not labelling FreeSync as inherently 'inferior'; it is, but not to an amount that would actually matter and account for the price difference; I'm criticizing the highly variable implementations available today in contrast to the consistency Nvidia brought with G-Sync from the beginning)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top