Overclock.net banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

[Forbes] Nvidia Explains Why Their G-Sync Display Tech Is Superior To AMD's FreeSync

37K views 708 replies 133 participants last post by  Malinkadink 
#1 ·
Quote:
Tom Petersen: "We don't do that. We have anti-ghosting technology so that regardless of framerate, we have very little ghosting. See, variable refresh rates change the way you have to deal with it. Again, we need that module. With AMD, the driver is doing most of the work. Part of the reason they have such bad ghosting is because their driver has to specifically be tuned for each kind of panel. They won't be able to keep up with the panel variations. We tune our G-Sync module for each monitor, based on its specs and voltage, which is exactly why you won't see ghosting from us.

We also do support the majority of our GPUs going back to Kepler. The 650Ti Boost is the oldest GPU we support, and there's a lot of gaps in their GPU support. It's a tough problem and I'm not meaning to knock AMD, but having that module allows us to exercise more control over the GPU and consequently offer a deeper range of support."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2015/03/23/nvidia-explains-why-their-g-sync-display-tech-is-superior-to-amds-freesync/

Essentially when you read on page 2, there will be a video of how g-sync compares to free-sync.

Ghosting occurs with free-sync while the 150 USD premium of the g-sync module actually eliminates the ghosting at low frame rates.

Long story short, the module is required for real adaptive sync without issues to occur.

ENJOY
thumb.gif
 
See less See more
1
#2 ·
I like the part where the guy from Nvidia says that the price of the ROG Swift is too low...
 
#5 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by KBOMB View Post

I like the part where the guy from Nvidia says that the price of the ROG Swift is too low...
Quote:
Forbes: Speaking of Asus, the ROG Swift seems like a great example, because all reports indicate it's constantly selling out at $749, which is obviously more expensive than an equivalent non G-Sync monitor.

Tom Petersen: "That tells me the price is probably too low. Commercially, if the price is too high you've got heavy stock, and prices come down to move that product. So I think as a very first principle, it's important to differentiate in your mind the difference between price and cost. Cost is what determines profitability. So from an OEM's perspective, they want to build products where the cost of manufacturing is lower than the price. So when I hear people talk about pricing, what I think a lot of people don't understand is…most of the time, Nvidia or Asus or Newegg doesn't really set the price. You get to effectively accept or not accept what the market is doing about pricing. The market is saying 'I love this monitor, reviews are awesome, I'm willing to pay this much money.' If you look at a FreeSync monitor and say 'oh, they're cheaper,' that's likely because the OEMs believe that the market will only tolerate a lower price. They're not setting it lower because they want to make less money.
lol explains a lot actually.
 
#9 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by 47 Knucklehead View Post

As I predicted, so will start the PR battle between G-Sync and FreeSync with nVidia espousing the technological superiority of their product over the optional standard where the monitor companies are free to set the VRR ranges as they want.
That's good
smile.gif
I want to know as much as I can before i sink 600-800 euro into display
biggrin.gif
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by 47 Knucklehead View Post

As I predicted
Early days, watch it evolve
Quote:
so will start the PR battle between G-Sync and FreeSync with nVidia espousing the technological superiority of their product over the optional standard where the monitor companies are free to set the VRR ranges as they want.
Thats choice and it not a bad thing, watch the monitor manufacturers compete to get it lower
 
#12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cybertox View Post

Nvidia trying to expose G-Sync as the better option instead of its alternative namely Free Sync, something like this is to be expected. Now wait for AMD or someone else related, state why Free Sync is better than G-Sync,
AMD already has put out those slides ... and about half the information on those slides have been shown to be either flat out lies or gross exaggerations.

 
#14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelius View Post

That's good
smile.gif
I want to know as much as I can before i sink 600-800 euro into display
biggrin.gif
Meh I'd rather not support either of these closed, proprietary standards until both are forced to adopt an open standard. So far only the Asus MG279Q (that you kindly brought to my attention) seems to potentially fit that bill.
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlugSeven View Post

Thats choice and it not a bad thing, watch the monitor manufacturers compete to get it lower
It's a bad thing NOW if you aren't as tech savvy as some here, and you drop $600 on a new FreeSync monitor and it's operational range is 48 to 75Hz and it ghosts.

Now if you are a tech savvy person, you'll know to STAY AWAY from a panel like that, but let's face it, most people aren't that knowledgeable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by incog View Post

I don't really care what either Nvidia or AMD have to say. I'm going to listen to a third party which knows their stuff, e.g. TFT Central.
You are wise.

Unfortunately, 99.999% of the computer users out there never heard of TFTCentral.
 
#17 ·
This thread won't end well. Winter is coming.
lachen.gif
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by 47 Knucklehead View Post

It's a bad thing NOW if you aren't as tech savvy as some here, and you drop $600 on a new FreeSync monitor and it's operational range is 48 to 75Hz and it ghosts.

Now if you are a tech savvy person, you'll know to STAY AWAY from a panel like that, but let's face it, most people aren't that knowledgeable.
You are wise.

Unfortunately, 99.999% of the computer users out there never heard of TFTCentral.
I'd argue most people also don't drop $600 for a monitor alone, or have even heard of VRR technology (or for that matter, care what it is and what it does).

Agreed TFTCentral is great, their color profile fixed the ridiculous factory profile I had on my VG248QE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master__Shake View Post

lol freesync is open.

gsync has the proprietary module
Well are Freesync monitors going to work with nVidia cards? If no then I don't consider it truly open.
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by magnek View Post

I'd argue most people also don't drop $600 for a monitor alone, or have even heard of VRR technology (or for that matter, care what it is and what it does).

Agreed TFTCentral is great, their color profile fixed the ridiculous factory profile I had on my VG248QE.
Well are Freesync monitors going to work with nVidia cards? If no then I don't consider it truly open.
they would if nvidia let them.

but that sorta counteracts their licensing and modules they can sell.
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cybertox View Post

Nvidia trying to expose G-Sync as the better option instead of its alternative namely Free Sync, something like this is to be expected. Now wait for AMD or someone else related, state why Free Sync is better than G-Sync,
Considering reviewers have already spoken tough luck Nvidia. Though we need more monitors which have a wider frequency range in which Freesync can work. If manufactures set it to 48 you won't reap all the benefits!
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by magnek View Post

I'd argue most people also don't drop $600 for a monitor alone, or have even heard of VRR technology (or for that matter, care what it is and what it does).

Agreed TFTCentral is great, their color profile fixed the ridiculous factory profile I had on my VG248QE.
Well are Freesync monitors going to work with nVidia cards? If no then I don't consider it truly open.
If NV supports it which they won't. Not sure how getting your competition to use something to their detriment means something is "open". Adaptive sync is as open as stuff gets.
 
#23 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master__Shake View Post

they would if nvidia let them.

but that sorta counteracts their licensing and modules they can sell.
If what Nvidia says is true(ghosting being eliminatedby Gsync module) Nvidia may not want to support all these monitors because of the exact reason they decided against it in 2013.

Again this is a big IF but if it is true Nvidia has every right not to support inferior tech.
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuuut View Post

Is it confirmed that freesync is causing the ghosting and it can't be solved?
Both gsync and freesyn cause ghosting but Nvidia has theirs under control. The Nvidia rep believes AMD can fix it but they can't keep on fixing it. By using only drivers instead of installing their own module requires them to keep up with display manufactures instead targeting their module to one unifying design. AMD is too cash strapped to adapt their drivers.

I agree AMD simply doesn't have the money to fix this but I feel this statement is a misleading. While Nvidia has been effective at making uniform performance with gsync that isn't the same as uniform specs. Each gysnc module needs to be tuned to the quirks of each panel type they have to interact with. AMD can't afford fixing their drivers AND it would've been more expensive for them to try to make their own modules.

Props to PCper. They mostly guessed correctly what Nvidia did at an advanced level.

LOL at Nvidia for citing the 295 price drop. It was better for them to mention that instead of their huge sell off with the Titan Z. $3000 was absurd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top