![[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.
Intel to support freesync
- Thread starter darkeen
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 10,165
Shitstorm incoming..
3..
2...
1....
3..
2...
1....
misterbobby
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2014
- Messages
- 3,812
That is great for those playing low settings at 1280. Well except for the games where they still cant even maintain 30 fps...
Intel's iGPUs get better and better every generation. They're not the same crap that they were even five years ago.
misterbobby
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2014
- Messages
- 3,812
Yes I know but games keep getting more demanding too. Plus many of the igpus out there are the slower ones. Heck the fastest igpu out there, if you can even find a cpu with it, is still blown away by a $100 card. And most people that buy the cpus that come with the good igpus will be using a discrete card anyway.
Ozymandias
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,610
Could be. Why?
https://techreport.com/news/28862/jpr-second-quarter-gpu-shipments-fell-11-versus-q1 said:
75.2+10.7 = 85.9% of the entire PC market covered by Adaptive Sync.
Anyway, I wonder if Intel's adoption will work for Optimus laptops too. They technically output everything through the Intel iGPU, even when the dGPU is doing all the heavy lifting.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 23,513
Well that was a pleasant announcement. Thanks for the link!
defaultluser
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 14,398
It was only a matter of time.
G-Sync was the wrong way to go about this, even though it was first by a mile. The extra cost and limitations of the FPGA (limited inputs, limited display options) just were not viable long-term.
Could the Freesync standard somehow be expanded to allow for an on-monitor frame buffer? If so, the minimum framerate problem would go away.
G-Sync was the wrong way to go about this, even though it was first by a mile. The extra cost and limitations of the FPGA (limited inputs, limited display options) just were not viable long-term.
Could the Freesync standard somehow be expanded to allow for an on-monitor frame buffer? If so, the minimum framerate problem would go away.
Or Nvidia could support it and have 2 VRR technologies at hand. Either way 80% of users could care less about VRR technology at all. I pulled the 80% out of my ass because a vast majority of users besides the enthusiasts care about this sort of thing.
Unfortunately not every card produced by AMD is FreeSync supported. My friend is still happy with his r9 280 even if it can't support FreeSync.
I'm mainly curious if my G3258 will support FreeSync, or it would be relegated to newer Intel processors.
Never mind I just found my answer....
Oh well. My U2711 still has life in it after 5+ years.
G-Sync v2 includes an HDMI port now. Not that FreeSync or GSYNC can be used on anything besides DisplayPort for the VRR aspect, but they have added more inputs to the GSYNC scaler. Still not enough against FreeSync though, but at least it's better than a single input.
Last edited:
My opinion would be probably after Pascal. It seems to require some special hardware on the card itself and I doubt Nvidia placed that in already on current Maxwell cards, or even planned on it for Pascal whenever it releases.
I could be wrong though as Nvidia is a tricky little ass sometimes. Maybe they had FreeSync support all along and just waited for Intel to hop on board? Or they will hold onto their proprietary solution in order to facilitate more GPU sales. Future will be interesting. I just hope my U2711 survives long enough before I consider a FreeSync monitor and can't utilize the VRR aspect.
This was bound to happen at some point, it doesn't cost Intel much to support it so why not? It'll be a must-have feature soon.
Nvidia actually already supports VESA Adaptive sync, on laptops. They still call it G-Sync but for all intents and puposes it's "Freesync".
Nvidia actually already supports VESA Adaptive sync, on laptops. They still call it G-Sync but for all intents and puposes it's "Freesync".
Yeah. Even their drivers are better than AMD's now.
limitedaccess
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,592
There needs to be an understanding of the differentiation between Adaptive-Sync and Freesync.
As for Adaptive-Sync the likely outcome is that support for this was always going to be a "when" and not "if" situation from everyone.
According to the article -
As for Adaptive-Sync the likely outcome is that support for this was always going to be a "when" and not "if" situation from everyone.
According to the article -
Semantics
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,811
ULMB, still waiting for AMD to support strobing instead of relying on a modified nvidia driver and 3rd party program to run it on amd systetms. With Gsync you get ULMB.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 10,165
Unfortunately a majority of people think they are the same thing. I would of said something but I could care less at this point since Intel won't have A-Sync till after Skylake which sucks.
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/co...-amd-freesync-and-nvidia-gsync-over-hdmi.html
What do you mean by moddable range?
True. Though ToastyX's program still works I think even with AMD cards (panel depending I think) and Lightboost isn't so bad. Little darker than ULMB but still a nice thing for the highly sensitive.
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1872620
Am I not allowed to be excited for the future? Never said it was ready to go it's only been announced so far. It will be there in the future just like intel. Maybe there will be some kind of hope for a driver mod for nvidia freesync over hdmi. Lord knows there will probably only be 1 or 2 more g sync screens out by then.
Last edited:
wait intel sporting an amd sponsored open standard?! perhaps this is intels 1st shot across the bow of nvidia likely not the last
BenQ 2730Z has motion blur reduction. It's a monitor, not a GPU feature. I don't see AMD going there.
Lack of inputs for the Gsync module (DP only) and lack of menu features stop the Gsync monitors from being truly premium products, IMO. I really don't see justification for the price premium.
Michaelius
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,684
Nice hopefully it forces Nvidia to accelerate development of new G-sync models
So, that means they're better than Nvidias too?
Cool Vibrations
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2008
- Messages
- 660
FreeSync, or rather, Adaptive Sync would've been here regardless. AMD just branded it.
Funny how people don't see the pretty obvious parallel between GSync and Mantle, lol.
Freesync is just what AMD branded their drivers, not a-sync itself.
Clearly G-sync and A-sync have similar end purposes, it just the implementation that differs.
One is proprietary and costly, the other is open and cheaper.
There was never any doubt wich one would win.
Clearly G-sync and A-sync have similar end purposes, it just the implementation that differs.
One is proprietary and costly, the other is open and cheaper.
There was never any doubt wich one would win.
Ozymandias
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,610
My point with the 85.9% number is that even if Intel's current iGPUs and not all of AMD's products support Adaptive Sync now, adoption going forward should be much higher for Adaptive Sync. To put a twist on PRIME1's words: Adaptive-Sync will be "supported by around 80% of the video cards currently being sold. It's pretty much the standard."
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 53,542
I never like the Intel marketshare number. That number is only how many processor's with an iGPU have been sold, not necessarily have its iGPU being used. All this means is that the potential exposure to Adaptive Sync is above 80%, given that not everyone owns a Freesync-capable AMD GPU or is using an Intel iGPU as their primary display driver.
My point with the 85.9% number is that even if Intel's current iGPUs and not all of AMD's products support Adaptive Sync now, adoption going forward should be much higher for Adaptive Sync. To put a twist on PRIME1's words: Adaptive-Sync will be "supported by around 80% of the video cards currently being sold. It's pretty much the standard."
If you want to get technical Intel doesn't make video cards. Intel has not said how or when they will support the optional standard. It could just be for the power saving feature that's already found in laptops.
Granted this could be one less reason for people to buy AMD products, but they are moving out of the desktop market anyways.
Given the current problems with Freesync and the low support it currently has, I doubt high end gamers will ever flock to it. So you can expect Gsync to still be the gold standard for PC gaming.
If Intel does get it working someday even just for power savings that's certainly a positive. Their drivers are a lot better than AMD's so maybe they can correct some of the current issues although I think most of the issues are hardware related.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 53,542
More like deciding to. G-sync is proprietary tech, so Intel just had to decide whether or not it was going to add support for Adaptive-sync. G-sync was never an option for anyone else.
I think G-sync will continue, but I really hope nV consumers will get the option to enable Adaptive sync features on monitors that do not feature G-sync.
If G-sync is better, as many claim, then it will hopefully continue, but nV users shouldn't be excluded from a "good enough" tech.
If G-sync is better, as many claim, then it will hopefully continue, but nV users shouldn't be excluded from a "good enough" tech.
After using gsync I can't see myself without it anymore.. smooth gaming was always a dream for me and it's possible to have it TODAY.
Was thinking about upgrading my cpu/mobo/ram because of some cpu limited situations but with gsync these fps drops are only noticeable because of the fps counter, I'll delay said upgrade until something more worthwhile comes along.(6 cores skylake where are you ?)
Was thinking about upgrading my cpu/mobo/ram because of some cpu limited situations but with gsync these fps drops are only noticeable because of the fps counter, I'll delay said upgrade until something more worthwhile comes along.(6 cores skylake where are you ?)
That is true, just like the Beta/VHS war, the cheaper solution usually will win out.
Intel's video drivers are way worse than AMD's or Nvidia's and they have been for years.
They may work just fine in single monitor setups, but multi-monitor setups seem to usually have one issue or another.
Ones that I have seen.
Multi-monitor just randomly ceases to work - a driver update temporarily fixes it.. and then it dies a few months later. Then another driver update fixes it and it actually stays working.
Laptop external monitor video just dies randomly and will not work again no matter what.
A video driver update fixes it.
Multi-monitor resolution just freaks out and will not let you use what used to work. Sometimes removing and reinstalling the video driver fixes it. Sometimes a driver update fixes it.
The Intel gpu control panel totally trashes settings and makes stuff not work properly. A full driver package uninstall and reinstall is the only way yo get stuff working again.
I've seen some other random stuff with Intel's video drivers as well.. but those 4 are the most annoying to deal with.
GearChoices
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2013
- Messages
- 539
Despite AMD's continued poor performance, it is reaching the point where AMD is the only option for anyone not interested in flushing money down the toilet.
Nvidia refuses to offer an upper mid-range (or lower high-end?) card in both performance and price that has 4gb memory, Nvidia refuses to pressure monitor manufacturers in offering a truly high quality 1080p g-sync monitor (heck, we don't even have a truly high quality 1440p g-sync monitor yet) despite their significantly higher premium price, and Nvidia refuses to support adaptive sync.
AMD is bad, but Nvidia is making it extremely difficult for any informed, financially-responsible consumer to choose them.
Nvidia refuses to offer an upper mid-range (or lower high-end?) card in both performance and price that has 4gb memory, Nvidia refuses to pressure monitor manufacturers in offering a truly high quality 1080p g-sync monitor (heck, we don't even have a truly high quality 1440p g-sync monitor yet) despite their significantly higher premium price, and Nvidia refuses to support adaptive sync.
AMD is bad, but Nvidia is making it extremely difficult for any informed, financially-responsible consumer to choose them.