• 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.

Why won't NVIDIA support adaptive sync?

M76

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
15,239
It seems weird to me that they refuse to add support for freesync. It could mean the final blow against AMD in the gamer market.

Is it just pride? The royalty they get for every sold g-sync monitor surely doesn't worth it, compared to the vast amount of cheap freesync monitors out there.

The only reason I'm not buying a 980TI right this moment is this.
 
They probably will when revenue from gsync diminishes beyond that they could gain from adaptive sync.
 
M76 said:
It seems weird to me that they refuse to add support for freesync. It could mean the final blow against AMD in the gamer market.

Is it just pride? The royalty they get for every sold g-sync monitor surely doesn't worth it, compared to the vast amount of cheap freesync monitors out there.

The only reason I'm not buying a 980TI right this moment is this.
Click to expand...

They might support adaptive sync someday. At the moment none of their desktop cards have the hardware needed to connect to an adaptive sync monitor.
 
In the same boat as you right now. Amd cards not good enough, nvidia doesn't support freesync. I'm hoping that once freesync is available over hdmi soomeone will find some kind of hack or mod to let nvidia use it
 
Stoly said:
They do support adaptive sync.

in laptops.
Click to expand...

...with local frame buffers in the screen just like their Gsync module, which is why it can support such low frame rates.

This would add cost to the Freesync spec, so I don't believe it's included. Until AMD adds it to the sec, I expect Nvidia to be an ass about it.
 
Last edited:
So, I'm guessing the adaptive vsync that I can choose in the NVidia control panel is not what's being talked about.

I enable it for every game and I never see tearing. On a desktop. Using a Qnix at 96Hz refresh.
???
 
wrangler said:
So, I'm guessing the adaptive vsync that I can choose in the NVidia control panel is not what's being talked about.

I enable it for every game and I never see tearing. On a desktop. Using a Qnix at 96Hz refresh.
???
Click to expand...

Nvidia's "Adaptive VSync" is not Adaptive Sync/freesync.

All it does is enable and disable vsync within the game on the fly depending on your framerate.
 
M76 said:
It seems weird to me that they refuse to add support for freesync. It could mean the final blow against AMD in the gamer market.

Is it just pride? The royalty they get for every sold g-sync monitor surely doesn't worth it, compared to the vast amount of cheap freesync monitors out there.

The only reason I'm not buying a 980TI right this moment is this.
Click to expand...

It has something to do with their business philosophy they enjoy making money and asking for premium prices on hardware, they are excellent at marketing this and users love it. Nvidia was doing this with motherboards as well selling SLI compatibility as an exclusive feature and these days they just get money from Intel for this without needing a Nvidia chipset.

If Nvidia has plans to make money of you then Nvidia really does not care about anything but to push Gsync.
 
Tgrove said:
In the same boat as you right now. Amd cards not good enough, nvidia doesn't support freesync. I'm hoping that once freesync is available over hdmi soomeone will find some kind of hack or mod to let nvidia use it
Click to expand...

I kind of felt the same way. But I knew current games weren't pushing any hardware at 1440p. I decided on a 390x and a Ben Q XL2730Z, BF4 is probably the most demanding MP game I play. It's constantly 95+ FPS at 1440p. As long as all my games stay within the Freesync range it's fine. Best decision ever. ;)
 
PRIME1 said:
Because Gsync is still a lot better.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-freesync-versus-nvidia-g-sync-reader-event,4246.html
Click to expand...

Really? This again? I'm just gonna quote myself here.

As far as the "test" in question goes, well out of sample size of 48,

Right off the bat, we found it interesting that 10 of 48 respondents believed they knew which system was which. Of those 10, nine were correct, though for a variety of reasons.
Click to expand...


When your sample size is this small, and nearly 20% already knew a priori which team their system belonged to, that's really going to skew the results.

Also the article makes no mention whether they tested the players with VRR off, and from the looks of it, the answer is probably no. That's a huge problem actually, because without knowing the players' preference before VRR was enabled, we can't actually draw any conclusion about Freesync vs G-Sync. It could very well be they would've preferred a certain setup regardless of VRR, in which case Freesync or G-Sync would've simply been a proxy variable that doesn't tell us anything. The proper way to do it would've been to run the tests with VRR off, record the results, then do a second round with VRR on, and compared the results from the first round to see if the preferences have changed.
Click to expand...

Bottom line is small sample size + inherent bias (in the statistical sense) + no control = no meaningful conclusion can be drawn. To call this a "proper test" is a grave insult to the scientific method.
 
PRIME1 said:
Because Gsync is still a lot better.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-freesync-versus-nvidia-g-sync-reader-event,4246.html
Click to expand...

Yeah if a test where one monitor only goes up to 90hz and the other to 144hz is worth more than a slap in the face.

I don't even get it how they thought this will be fine?

I use freesync right now and it's good enough for me. I probably won't even notice any difference. And even if I do I don't care about it. It seems the g-sync vs async issue is starting to become like the TN vs IPS issue. Now we have g-sync snobs as well, great.

Pieter3dnow said:
If Nvidia has plans to make money of you then Nvidia really does not care about anything but to push Gsync.
Click to expand...

I can assure you, this way Nvidia stands to make absolutely no money off me in the foreseeable future. Right now I'm not pressed to upgrade, there are no games out there that don't give a decent performance on two 290x cards in 1440p. The only reason I'd consider switching now is because the developer of one of the applications I use sold itself to nvidia, and only supports cuda.
 
Last edited:
M76 said:
Why won't NVIDIA support adaptive sync?
Click to expand...
why, indeed

1437586947679.png
 
M76 said:
It seems weird to me that they refuse to add support for freesync. It could mean the final blow against AMD in the gamer market.

Is it just pride? The royalty they get for every sold g-sync monitor surely doesn't worth it, compared to the vast amount of cheap freesync monitors out there.

The only reason I'm not buying a 980TI right this moment is this.
Click to expand...

Because they can't make money off of it. /thread
 
I suspect part of Nvidia's deal selling G-Sync modules to monitor makers is that they necessarily promise not to support freesync during the shelf life of the monitor it'll be used in. So like, 10 years at least.

The module adds alot of cost to a monitor, so a manufacturer wouldn't want the tech potentially obseleted literally overnight with a driver update, making it harder to sell against freesync variants.

So it's not just Nvidia being dicks. Though they totally are. :p
 
They simply won't support it because they still have the better solution and more options going forward as they have their module at the right place in order to get more influence on the panel.

However the main reason is not a short term objective to make money out of G-Sync but the long-term objective to create their own ecosystem and G-Sync is just one side of it. They simply do not gain anything from Adaptive Sync business wise. As they control now close to 80% of the discrete market they simply can force their own stuff into the market. There is no need for them to wait for AMD or others.
 
Richthofen said:
They simply won't support it because they still have the better solution and more options going forward as they have their module at the right place in order to get more influence on the panel.

However the main reason is not a short term objective to make money out of G-Sync but the long-term objective to create their own ecosystem and G-Sync is just one side of it.
Click to expand...

It is such a long term that the amount of Gsync monitors that are available are doubled by "Freesync"/adaptive sync counterparts.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
It is such a long term that the amount of Gsync monitors that are available are doubled by "Freesync"/adaptive sync counterparts.
Click to expand...

With 18% or less of the video card market able to use those monitors it's kind of pointless.
 
trick0502 said:
You forget Intel just backed it? What % is that?
Click to expand...

Can Intel even get > 30fps on IGPs that don't cost a trillion dollars to buy?

How many people are going to buy a high-end gaming monitor and then game with an Intel IGP?
 
Pieter3dnow said:
It is such a long term that the amount of Gsync monitors that are available are doubled by "Freesync"/adaptive sync counterparts.
Click to expand...

The number of monitors is not at all an indicator. First of all most of the Freesync monitors are crap frequency range wise. Secondly Nvidia users, if interested, will buy a G-Sync monitor but not an Adaptive Sync Monitor. As the most important part is the discrete graphics card i would say Nvidia can very well live with the current situation and i don't think that the number of Adaptive Sync monitors matters to them at all. If you ask me they simply should start to market their own monitor brand. In the end the gamer just needs a few models. For the rest of the world that is using Office i don't think this feature matters :)
 
Relayer said:
Because they can't make money off of it. /thread
Click to expand...
You have your eyes closed or what? I'm the clear evidence that they could. And as I see there are others as well.

They don't want my business, because either they got into a bad deal with monitor manufacturers, or they think they can force people to adopt g-sync despite the price overhead. Well I'm not someone who can be forced to do anything unless I choose to.
 
Richthofen said:
The number of monitors is not at all an indicator. First of all most of the Freesync monitors are crap frequency range wise. Secondly Nvidia users, if interested, will buy a G-Sync monitor but not an Adaptive Sync Monitor. As the most important part is the discrete graphics card i would say Nvidia can very well live with the current situation and i don't think that the number of Adaptive Sync monitors matters to them at all. If you ask me they simply should start to market their own monitor brand. In the end the gamer just needs a few models. For the rest of the world that is using Office i don't think this feature matters :)
Click to expand...

You can mod the freesync range to greatly improve it. I would have bought a g sync monitor if they had something that appealed to people that don't like staring at tiny screens. Even that 34" gsync coming out is the same height as a 27".
 
Nvidia doesn't support Adaptive Sync because it has its own implementation. That's why. OP - answer me one thing. Why didn't Sony support HD-DVD?
 
I don't see why NVIDIA would want to spend the money developing support for AMDsync when they already have their own competing and superior technology in G-Sync.
 
jbltecnicspro said:
Nvidia doesn't support Adaptive Sync because it has its own implementation. That's why. OP - answer me one thing. Why didn't Sony support HD-DVD?
Click to expand...

That's a good point. Toshibia was the main backer of hd-dvd and they now make blu-ray players.
 
Richthofen said:
They simply won't support it because they still have the better solution and more options going forward as they have their module at the right place in order to get more influence on the panel.

However the main reason is not a short term objective to make money out of G-Sync but the long-term objective to create their own ecosystem and G-Sync is just one side of it. They simply do not gain anything from Adaptive Sync business wise. As they control now close to 80% of the discrete market they simply can force their own stuff into the market. There is no need for them to wait for AMD or others.
Click to expand...

I would hope they support it. Think of it as a lower end experience, where as a G-Sync monitor offers a higher quality version of the technology. Kind of like a single GPU vs SLI (ignoring SLI downsides). You pay more for better performance.

I hope and suspect this might come out in the future. But not after monitor manufactures have started selling some hardware. Most people who can afford higher end monitors will still go for the better quality G-Sync monitors, while those with lowered GPUs and monitors can use the Free-Sync option.

I don't see Nvidia loosing too much revenue over it because it might pull some lower-mid range users to Nvidia from AMD.
 
jbltecnicspro said:
Nvidia doesn't support Adaptive Sync because it has its own implementation. That's why. OP - answer me one thing. Why didn't Sony support HD-DVD?
Click to expand...

Difference with Sony and HD-DVD was that 90% of the movies were done at Sony studios.
 
cocdod said:
I don't see why NVIDIA would want to spend the money developing support for AMDsync when they already have their own competing and superior technology in G-Sync.
Click to expand...

It's superior below the minimum refresh rate. Like that's where people want to run their +120Hz monitors at? In case you haven't noticed they industry is moving in the opposite direction. We've gone from 120Hz to 144Hz to 160Hz. Who cares about <30-40 Hz? It's blur city running your monitor that slow.
 
It's still amazing to me that people think Freesync and G-Sync do the same thing. Or do they think that the end result is close enough that the differences are unimportant?
 
If nvidia supports freesync majority would not buy gsync because they are more expensive and don't offer enough models.not only that but then you would have to buy nvidia only. G sync is gonna go the way of physx in my opinion.
 
M76 said:
You have your eyes closed or what? I'm the clear evidence that they could. And as I see there are others as well.

They don't want my business, because either they got into a bad deal with monitor manufacturers, or they think they can force people to adopt g-sync despite the price overhead. Well I'm not someone who can be forced to do anything unless I choose to.
Click to expand...

For every holdout, there are 10 million lemmings who will still buy NV hardware.

They aren't losing any sleep over those few sales they aren't getting, like yours.

I really wish AMD was doing better than they have been, without good competition we all lose out, both on price and innovation.
 
Relayer said:
It's superior below the minimum refresh rate. Like that's where people want to run their +120Hz monitors at? In case you haven't noticed they industry is moving in the opposite direction. We've gone from 120Hz to 144Hz to 160Hz. Who cares about <30-40 Hz? It's blur city running your monitor that slow.
Click to expand...

You mean superior in all cases, otherwise everyone would be using AMDsync by now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top