- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,988
Man, monitors are serious business.
For the record, you can't get a Ford with a "Boss 309" either.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
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
- Thread starter Megalith
- Start date
I stand corrected
I like being right as much as the next guy.
Fortunately I don't mind being proven wrong ..... if I learn what's right.
I gave up on perfect long ago. I settle with just being perfect .... for her.
While I understand what you're saying, all else considered equal, that G-Sync adds $200+ to a monitor has, thus far, been true in the cases that I've personally seen. I'm actually monitor shopping right now, so if you can provide some examples demonstrating where G-Sync isn't adding a significant cost to the monitor itself, I'd truly love to see it. I'm waiting to see how the Vega launch goes before I upgrade my R9 280X to whichever brand has the better price/performance, but from what I've seen, AMD has my default vote simply by virtue of a better monitor solution. I would love to be proven wrong here, so if you can provide examples that you've seen, I would appreciate it.
Perfect example.
HockeyJon, you don't mind being an example do you?
This is the Freesync version of the Acer X34 I bought a few months back. Now I'm not going to lie, it's not a perfect monitor. But I have been very happy with mine and this is a recertified monitor from the Acer store. I bought one, had a problem and had no problems returning it. But in the short time it work I liked it enough to just go buy a new one.
My question is, would you consider this monitor?
And if you did buy it, do you think your R9 280X is enough to handle 3440x1440 @ 75hz or do you think you would need a second card for Crossfire?
D
Deleted member 184142
Guest
Acer XF270HU (FreeSync) and XB270HU (G-Sync), almost the exact same monitor, with the same panel, the only difference is the XB270HU (the G-Sync model) also has a few other features, like built in USB hub etc, yet difference in price is $60.
Asus MG278Q (FreeSync) and ROG PG278Q (G-Sync), the G-Sync also has ROG features, thin bezel etc and has shown from reports the G-Sync line has better quality control for panels (less light bleed etc etc), yet price difference of $50-70 depending on which one was on sale.
Lenovo Y27G and Y27F, both are pretty close in spec and use the same panel, difference in price $70.
There are slight differences between all of these, however it is always in the way of MORE features etc for the G-Sync, only making the price more in favor of FreeSync, as it is hard to find exactly the same monitors from the same mfg, with the only change being FreeSync or G-Sync, as most find that to redundant to carry both.
The parroting of G-Sync adding $200+ to a monitor is just not true. Examples given to support this idea is the cheapest FreeSync to the cheapest G-Sync, they NEVER consider features, build quality and most of all what panel is used.
I found this out myself when researching as I was looking to get a new GPU and monitor at the time this was all raging, I was leaning to FreeSync hard because of people stating just what you have....And then I went and looked at some in person and noticed the super cheap panels used in these bottom line FreeSync setups, by the time I found some that looked as good as the G-Sync panels I was in the same price range. So if I was not going to save tons on a monitor like so many people claim, I was not going to gimp myself on GPU by getting an AMD card.
Another thing to add to that - When I last looked, they didn't have 34"+ 3440x1440 100Hz Freesync displays that use IPS Panels. All of the Freesync / Adaptive-sync options appeared to be VA panels. Pretty hard to compare the prices on the ultrawides on the high end if that is still the case.
D
Deleted member 184142
Guest
Same holds true if you want over 144Hz, FreeSync has maybe one or two options last I checked in the 165Hz range, even less past that. Same happens when you move into 4K, and IPS options for FreeSync are far less than G-Sync etc. Which again points to FreeSync filling in the bottom budget lines, with a few in the mid and a handfull (maybe) in the top range. While G-Sync is mid range and a majority of the top range.
Should add, that might change at any time, however, as it stands now, quality for quality, the price in monitor is not a significant savings. As such, GPU you have, or need (for what you are trying to drive) if getting a new GPU is the deciding factor for which one you might end up getting, unless you are looking at upper end monitors for the time being.
I am no fanboy either. I just do NOT like being ripped off.G-Sync offers such a small advantage over freesync it is moronic to throw money down the toilet. I am working class and know hard I had to work and sacrifice my health to earn a living.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 32,855
LOL, the horse is paste, obvious fanboy. Also gsync is better than freesync. Come now, an extra amount for the best is always how things work. I have no clue what your second half means in relation to this thread.
Why would monitor manufacturers do anything else. Look, these companies don't consider AMD the "best bang for the buck" alternative. They just see it as the bargain card and they see NVidia's main line as the front end. In their eyes, they are not going to make expensive $1000 monitors for people who buy less expensive video cards because the two don't match up. Now there are a couple of exceptions, but not really. That Freesync Acer I linked to up above, it's not really an even match for the X34, it's just similar.
Any monitor that is 2K or better and running higher refresh rates is going to need some power to make it fly. Some cards have it, others don't. And if you have to buy a second card to make it fly then where did your savings go?
Now if something new comes along from AMD and it has the engineering behind it and someone already has a nice Freesync monitor then that person should be happy. I'll cross my fingers for them and wish them the best. What I have is working for me and all I want at this point is maybe a 16:9 G-Sync to match up with my 21:9 for those titles that just are not scaled properly ..... uhmmm Bethesda.
G-Sync also comes with ULMB for most of the high refresh rate monitors, FreeSync do not have such function.
Whether ULMB is useful or not though depends much more heavily on your game and hardware. 60fps games on 120hz ulmb look MUCH worse than G-Sync, on the virtue that ghosting is, ironically, extremely clear and therefore distracting than the motion blur from G-Sync.
Whether ULMB is useful or not though depends much more heavily on your game and hardware. 60fps games on 120hz ulmb look MUCH worse than G-Sync, on the virtue that ghosting is, ironically, extremely clear and therefore distracting than the motion blur from G-Sync.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter which is better. It's all about market acceptance. This goes back a long way. Look at Betamax for example. IMO, it was ultimately porn that drove vhs to dominance. Like reserve currency, it's only as strong as the people willing to use it.
OMG man, get off this bullshit. I don't have to justify anything. And for NVidia, it's a business decision. I thought Dodge was making a mistake stopping production of the Challenger, then they reversed and they are still being made and sold. I own one, obviously I am biased, but don't ask me to justify their decisions.
You want me to take a guess, I'd say it's because NVidia doesn't see market share gains behind supporting display standards other than those that support their own technologies.
I would say that NVidia sees the customer's choices as "What video card do I want?" (1st), and "What monitor will I need?" (2nd).
I would also say that although NVidia may have no plans to support HDMI 2.1 in the near future it doesn't mean they won't change their minds as the market recommends.
NVidia developed and released G-Sync before Freesync was a reality, not after. G-Sync was a superior performing solution and coupled with better engineered video cards it has been the best solution for a few years now for most people. If G-Sync couldn't compete there wouldn't be any G-Sync monitors being made so the only justification that matters is that NVidia has enough market share running that they don't have to change anything at all.
Are there any HDMI 2.1 monitors on the market at this time? If display manufacturers don't support it then I doubt NVidia will either.
Again, NVidia sees their gaming cards and gaming related technologies like G-Sync, as a solution that targets gamers. I beleive that in their eyes, gamers that want an adaptive sync solution will not buy TVs because only monitors offer NVidia's adaptive sync solution and NVidia has that centric view that a person buys a card they want, and a monitor for the card. I think that in their eyes, anyone who buys their cards and a TV, is not a serious gamer and although they appreciate the sales television displays are not optimal displays for their gaming hardware. Personally I think this is a backwards viewpoint but it's been proven time and again that the majority in the marketplace think the same way, computer and card first, monitor second. I prefer to start from usage, monitor, and user input, so that I understand my requirements that the rest of the computer must meet. But this is for building new systems and not incremental upgrades.
So these are my thoughts on it, you will have your own, but these thoughts are mine. I just read about HDMI 2.1 VRR yesterday when you brought it up, I hadn't even heard about it before and had to Google it to see what you were on about. You say NVidia isn't going to support it, I don't know, perhaps you should post a link and share this insight.
But don't ask me to justify anything that's outside of my control because I don't owe you any justifications for people and things beyond my control.
Not unless you were just out looking to catch some shit for it
You have things wrong here.
The manufacturer only pays NVidia for G-Sync when they sell monitors with G-Sync. Sales are not driven by manufacturers, they are driven by customers. As long as a "profitable" number of customers continue to buy G-Sync monitors and as said, it's profitable, they will continue to make and sell G-Sync monitors and NVidia will continue to provide G-Sync in their cards.
Look at it this way as well.
I make and sell monitors and HDMI 2.1 is coming out. I don't have to pay to support HDMI 2.1 VRR, but it does cost me to include it in my monitors. How much will my customers pay extra for this feature? What does it offer my customers?
Does VRR do anything for movies, streamed or otherwise? I don't think it does. It helps with games. But VRR isn't all that HDMI 2.1 provides, it will support greater resolutions, more display bandwidth. It's be good for 4K displays.
What display devices support 4K from the "source" side of things? Computers with high end graphics cards, any BluRay players? Streaming content or media streaming devices, consoles?
Organize these into groups and next to each, ask yourself, is this "normally connected to a TV or a Computer Monitor.
Then look at how much demand there is going to be for HDMI 2.1 VRR, for gamers, for my monitors today.
Until the standard is adopted by industry for their products, it's just a standard. Something called demand must show up as well.
As long as I have NVidia cards being sold with G-Sync and demand is driving sales of my G-Sync monitors, it's my customers who pay for G-Sync, not me. The increased capability and NVidia's Licensing costs just gives me a way to sneak in a little extra profit. Cutting that out and going with an "open standard" that's free just means I am down there grubbing with everyone else competing with who is selling the cheapest monitor, who's cutting the most corners, etc.
Wow, I just caught this post of yours.
You keep demanding that I justify why NVidia isn't going to support HDMI 2.1 VRR and now I find out that this is just a wild assed guess of your own?
Just wow. I thought you had something to base this on, a press release, rumored specs on a new card, something at least remotely tangible.
In your mind G-Sync is a proprietary standard that is in place because NVidia wants to lock out AMD.
You can have your opinion but I have a different one.
My opinion is based on a few facts, 1st, that NVidia developed and was selling G-Sync before AMD developed Freesync and got the VESA people to modify the DP 1.2a standard to include the Adaptive Sync Protocols that AMD developed and gave them.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7582/nvidia-gsync-review
So G-Sync was a working solution 1st and as such, NVidia had already invested in developing it. An investment that they can only leverage if it sells. It did sell and still does. And it was for sale first, before Freesync was even a working solution. Therefore I am not so hard on NVidia for this.
Now this is all the time I am going to invest in your concerns for the future of HDMI 2.1 VRR.
Last edited: