Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [PCR] Nvidia slams AMD FreeSync: "We can't comment on pricing of products that don't exist"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[PCR] Nvidia slams AMD FreeSync: "We can't comment on pricing of products that don't exist" - Page 7  

post #61 of 230
30" 4K freesync monitor please
post #62 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faithh View Post

The problem with FreeSync is that AMD PR's the crap out of a product that doesnt exist and it only works for a few GPU's.

I don't really care that much about AMDs PR anyway.
And this problem is quite smaller. Newer standards often require new hardware but in the end you should have no brand restriction. With G-Sync you are ultimately restricted to Nvidia.
Edited by Serios - 9/2/14 at 4:12am
post #63 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by MapRef41N93W View Post

How? This makes absolutely no sense, how does Mantle prevent AMD from being in shambles? Mantle is a total joke at the moment.
Yeah of course it is, we are so lucky to have Gameworks. That is the real deal.
post #64 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serios View Post

Yeah of course it is, we are so lucky to have Gameworks. That is the real deal.

And of course someone is trying to throw a spin by comparing a developer environment and a direct API.
Because those are totally the exact same thing. Its like comparing a car seat with an engine. Because the car seat is what makes the car move forward, and not the engine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serios View Post

G-sync is limited to Nvidia only and that is the huge problem.
Higher compatibility means you can sell you product to a larger consumer base. That is what everybody wants that is what normal consumers should want.

This is not a "huge problem".
G-sync was developed because there was nothing out there.
There is no reason for nvidia to make it freely compatible the same as they don't make physx free, the same as microsoft doesn't make windows free, the same as apple doesn't make OSX free.
Its theirs, they have every right to make it theirs, and everyone being angry that its only for nvidia, should be mad at AMD that instead of developing something similar or working with monitor developers to make it better, they decide to let someone else do all the work while they sit at the curb with frown faces and being angry that they didn't come up with it sooner so they could taunt nvidia with it.
Edited by Defoler - 9/2/14 at 4:21am
Main system
(16 items)
 
Editing PC
(8 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
E5-1680v2 AMD FirePro D700 AMD FirePro D700 64GB 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
1TB PCIE SSD OSX 10.10.x Dell U2713H Mac Pro 
  hide details  
Main system
(16 items)
 
Editing PC
(8 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
E5-1680v2 AMD FirePro D700 AMD FirePro D700 64GB 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
1TB PCIE SSD OSX 10.10.x Dell U2713H Mac Pro 
  hide details  
post #65 of 230
Of course they can be compared in a lot of ways.
Wouldn't you agree?
Quote:
Its like comparing a car seat with an engine.

The would be correct if you would compare a piece of hardware with some software so yeah your analogy incorrect.
post #66 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerITGuy View Post

their R9 series are actually not that bad, the R9 290 when it first launched was an absolute hit.

It's still a lucrative purchase. We'll see what NVIDIA does now until AMD releases something in Q1 or Q2 maybe. Chances are it will drop in price even further or the future environment will have even better offers.
PC
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4790K 4.6G 1.24v/1.74v, 5.1G 1.35v validation. GA-Z97X-Gaming 7 Tri-X R9 290 1100/1350 +0.012v G.Skill 2400 c10 
CoolingMonitorPowerCase
Noctua NH-D15 24EA53 IPS 76Hz OC EVGA 1000 G2 Phanteks Enthoo Pro 
Audio
SoundMagic E10 
  hide details  
PC
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4790K 4.6G 1.24v/1.74v, 5.1G 1.35v validation. GA-Z97X-Gaming 7 Tri-X R9 290 1100/1350 +0.012v G.Skill 2400 c10 
CoolingMonitorPowerCase
Noctua NH-D15 24EA53 IPS 76Hz OC EVGA 1000 G2 Phanteks Enthoo Pro 
Audio
SoundMagic E10 
  hide details  
post #67 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defoler View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serios View Post

G-sync is limited to Nvidia only and that is the huge problem.
Higher compatibility means you can sell you product to a larger consumer base. That is what everybody wants that is what normal consumers should want.

This is not a "huge problem".
G-sync was developed because there was nothing out there.
There is no reason for nvidia to make it freely compatible the same as they don't make physx free, the same as microsoft doesn't make windows free, the same as apple doesn't make OSX free.
Its theirs, they have every right to make it theirs, and everyone being angry that its only for nvidia, should be mad at AMD that instead of developing something similar or working with monitor developers to make it better, they decide to let someone else do all the work while they sit at the curb with frown faces and being angry that they didn't come up with it sooner so they could taunt nvidia with it.

He is right though. You should want that. If you are a big Capitalist as you imply you should also be selfish yourself and want to have higher availability of monitor options (what GPU they can take).
PC
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4790K 4.6G 1.24v/1.74v, 5.1G 1.35v validation. GA-Z97X-Gaming 7 Tri-X R9 290 1100/1350 +0.012v G.Skill 2400 c10 
CoolingMonitorPowerCase
Noctua NH-D15 24EA53 IPS 76Hz OC EVGA 1000 G2 Phanteks Enthoo Pro 
Audio
SoundMagic E10 
  hide details  
PC
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4790K 4.6G 1.24v/1.74v, 5.1G 1.35v validation. GA-Z97X-Gaming 7 Tri-X R9 290 1100/1350 +0.012v G.Skill 2400 c10 
CoolingMonitorPowerCase
Noctua NH-D15 24EA53 IPS 76Hz OC EVGA 1000 G2 Phanteks Enthoo Pro 
Audio
SoundMagic E10 
  hide details  
post #68 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defoler View Post

And of course someone is trying to throw a spin by comparing a developer environment and a direct API.
Because those are totally the exact same thing. Its like comparing a car seat with an engine. Because the car seat is what makes the car move forward, and not the engine.
This is not a "huge problem".
G-sync was developed because there was nothing out there.
There is no reason for nvidia to make it freely compatible the same as they don't make physx free, the same as microsoft doesn't make windows free, the same as apple doesn't make OSX free.
Its theirs, they have every right to make it theirs, and everyone being angry that its only for nvidia, should be mad at AMD that instead of developing something similar or working with monitor developers to make it better, they decide to let someone else do all the work while they sit at the curb with frown faces and being angry that they didn't come up with it sooner so they could taunt nvidia with it.
Referencing past mistakes for future guidance is sure to solve the problem in itself.
The reason Nvidia is pursuing exclusivity in features is the same reason Microsoft Windows isn't free. It is just so because they are socially accepted status items. Free stuff don't illustrate the same charm in the club, imo.
It is practically insane from my perspective to be honest. We cannot yet find a substitute for photosynthesis, but we look down upon nature. Same here. Dominance doesn't command creative power in itself. There may always be an understated one that is magnitutes better without the same economics of scale. So much so that a g-sync TN panel won't be better than an LTPS one - whether accessible currently, or not - if we are taking the brightness into account.
The Machine
(14 items)
 
Nexus 7 2013
(11 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A10 6800K Asus F2A85-V MSI 6870 Hawx, VTX3D 5770, AMD HD6950(RIP), Sap... G.skill Ripjaws PC12800 6-8-6-24 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Seagate 7200.5 1TB NEC 3540 Dvd-Rom Windows 7 x32 Ultimate Samsung P2350 23" 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Seasonic s12-600w CoolerMaster Centurion 5 Logitech G600 Auzen X-Fi Raider 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Quad Krait 300 at 1.5Ghz Qualcomm APQ8064-1AA SOC Adreno 320 at 400mhz 2GB DDR3L-1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
32GB Internal NAND Android 5.0 7" 1920X1200 103% sRGB & 572 cd/m2 LTPS IPS Microsoft Wedge Mobile Keyboard 
PowerAudio
3950mAh/15.01mAh Battery Stereo Speakers 
  hide details  
The Machine
(14 items)
 
Nexus 7 2013
(11 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A10 6800K Asus F2A85-V MSI 6870 Hawx, VTX3D 5770, AMD HD6950(RIP), Sap... G.skill Ripjaws PC12800 6-8-6-24 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Seagate 7200.5 1TB NEC 3540 Dvd-Rom Windows 7 x32 Ultimate Samsung P2350 23" 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
Seasonic s12-600w CoolerMaster Centurion 5 Logitech G600 Auzen X-Fi Raider 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Quad Krait 300 at 1.5Ghz Qualcomm APQ8064-1AA SOC Adreno 320 at 400mhz 2GB DDR3L-1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
32GB Internal NAND Android 5.0 7" 1920X1200 103% sRGB & 572 cd/m2 LTPS IPS Microsoft Wedge Mobile Keyboard 
PowerAudio
3950mAh/15.01mAh Battery Stereo Speakers 
  hide details  
post #69 of 230
I don't get all the hate towards amd. Their offer is the only one that could suppport non brand specific monitor. We'll see how it goes but you guys act like gsync is already well established when in fact i can count on a single hand the g sync monitors out on the market...
post #70 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defoler View Post

This is not a "huge problem".
G-sync was developed because there was nothing out there.
There is no reason for nvidia to make it freely compatible the same as they don't make physx free, the same as microsoft doesn't make windows free, the same as apple doesn't make OSX free.
Its theirs, they have every right to make it theirs, and everyone being angry that its only for nvidia, should be mad at AMD that instead of developing something similar or working with monitor developers to make it better, they decide to let someone else do all the work while they sit at the curb with frown faces and being angry that they didn't come up with it sooner so they could taunt nvidia with it.

Maybe for ultimate nvidia fans is not but for me it is. I don't care it's an Nvidia or AMD gpu as log as it's a great deal. If the situation was reversed I would still not agree with the proprietary implementation.

G-sync is something huge developed front 0 in which Nvidia invested a lot? Also I bet they knew about the possibility of promoting the same thing AMD is trying to promote. It's not that Nvidia PR ever said that something like FreeSync is impossible even if many still insist in claiming it doesn't exist. But we know how Nvidia is.
Quote:
microsoft doesn't make windows free

Well last I heard MS will release a free version of their OS. It won't have a lot of feature but ultimately it will be free. Also they have their testing program and anybody can install Windows 7, 8.1 Enterprise 90 Trial with the possibility of 1-3 rearms and being able to repeat the process after a fresh install. With apple I don't know but their OS doesn't even come close to MS's market share anyway.

I don't agree with the fact that AMD should develop something similar(as in proprietary) and let's be honest it's not like they can't but in the end how would this be beneficial for the general consumers?

Should Samsung restrict their Smartphone compatibility only with their TV's, should Sony and LG do the same? I bet you would like that.
Quote:
they decide to let someone else do all the work
How is that? Without freesync the feature would not exist. So AMD is doing his part and monitor makers theirs.
Edited by Serios - 9/2/14 at 4:59am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [PCR] Nvidia slams AMD FreeSync: "We can't comment on pricing of products that don't exist"