Overclock.net banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

[PCWorld] Why AMD FreeSync is beating Nvidia G-Sync on monitor selection and price

31K views 599 replies 125 participants last post by  superhead91 
#1 ·
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3129276/components-graphics/why-amd-freesync-is-beating-nvidia-g-sync-on-monitor-selection-and-price.html
Quote:
Hint: It's not just the cost of the proprietary module.

...The website 144HzMonitors lists 20 available G-Sync monitors, versus 85 FreeSync monitors, the latter showing more combinations of screen size, refresh rate, and resolution.

Why the disparity? The conventional wisdom is that Nvidia's proprietary G-Sync hardware module raises the monitor price due to licensing fees, but that's not a satisfying explanation. Nvidia is still far and away the market share leader in graphics cards, so you'd think that most monitor makers would create G-Sync variants of their FreeSync displays and at least give GeForce users the option of absorbing the module cost.

As I started talking to monitor makers, a more complicated picture emerged. The real reason for G-Sync's limited availability is as much about design and development concerns as it is about the price of the module itself...
 
#3 ·
not to be confused as "why freesync beats g-sync".
it does not.

I think g-sync still has a wider high-end display selection. and 28" 4K TN is not high-end.

back to the topic, R9 Fury Nitro + a nice 75Hz Ultrawide freesync IPS display for the price of a custom GTX 1070: best deal this year.
 
#5 ·
Goodness, here comes the war.

Simply put; G-Sync displays typically cost more, and are a higher end display overall. Where as FreeSync is seen on a lot of lower cost, mainstream displays. You also have to take into consideration the implementation of FreeSync, as any many cases listed the VRR window is not the same as the panels full refresh.

Either way, it comes down to a couple of reasons we have long know about;

  • Cost of putting out a G-Sync display.
  • Time to do it.

The 'story' isn't much of a story. As the two main factors have been known since the beginning.

It would be nice if media picked up on how amazing VRR is as a whole, instead of continuing to push G-Sync vs F-Sync. VRR is amazing, and eventually we will see it as a standard on all displays of all types. Consoles with VRR? Come on, show us that goodness!
 
#6 ·
OMG at the nVidia rep...
Quote:
Of course, some monitor makers would prefer that Nvidia supported DisplayPort's adaptive sync standard, so users could ,at least enjoy some anti-tearing benefits even if they didn't splurge for a G-Sync monitor. To that, Petersen says "never say never," but right now he argues there's no benefit to doing so.

"I'm worried that by just throwing it out there, we could be delivering the same less-than-awesome experience that FreeSync does today," he says, "and that's just not our strategy."
So... Ugh... If you DID support it, those who don't have a G-sync monitor could enjoy the level that Freesync offers, which is better than what Nvidia offers now to those without G-sync. They are basically saying that if you don't spend more money, you don't really matter to them.
 
#7 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuell View Post

OMG at the nVidia rep...
So... Ugh... If you DID support it, those who don't have a G-sync monitor could enjoy the level that Freesync offers, which is better than what Nvidia offers now to those without G-sync. They are basically saying that if you don't spend more money, you don't really matter to them.
Exactly how I read that.

I would love to use my 980 Ti with the Acer XR341CK I want to get. "Gsync is the best! Everything else is not" That's great, but I don't see the harm of allowing users to take advantage of the adaptive sync standard. If Gsync is that much of a better experience; why the fear? You all know the answer. Freesync may not be the best, but it's close and at a better price. That's what nVidia fears. The truth of it.
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by PostalTwinkie View Post

It would be nice if media picked up on how amazing VRR is as a whole, instead of continuing to push G-Sync vs F-Sync. VRR is amazing, and eventually we will see it as a standard on all displays of all types. Consoles with VRR? Come on, show us that goodness!
This. The story should not be Red vs Green, but variable refresh versus the junk that is fixed refresh.

As far as the differences between the two, G-Sync is superior on a technical level, but FreeSync is still a TON better than fixed refresh. You pay more for added quality, performance, and robustness, which puts it higher up on the price scale and therefore lower volume of available models.

EVERYTHING is better with variable refresh. Everything. TVs (to support consoles, and varying framerates in movies and broadcast channels), phones and tablets (they play games too), VR (fixed refresh visual artifacts like tearing or studdering are going to be more noticeable, and more jarring), everything.
 
#9 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

This. The story should not be Red vs Green, but variable refresh versus the junk that is fixed refresh.

As far as the differences between the two, G-Sync is superior on a technical level, but FreeSync is still a TON better than fixed refresh. You pay more for added quality, performance, and robustness, which puts it higher up on the price scale and therefore lower volume of available models.

EVERYTHING is better with variable refresh. Everything. TVs (to support consoles, and varying framerates in movies and broadcast channels), phones and tablets (they play games too), VR (fixed refresh visual artifacts like tearing or studdering are going to be more noticeable, and more jarring), everything.
Well, it is because G-Sync cannot deliver a true 144Hz strobing backlight(ULMB). The competition for novelty in 144Hz displays is at an all time high.
 
#10 ·
I'm keeping my eye on freesync monitors even though I have an Nvidia GPU right now so I'm waiting on those Vega GPU's to come out. I remember reading a couple of months ago that freesync support started appearing in the Linux AMDGPU driver, not complete yet, but it's encouraging. To me its a matter of supporting the VESA standard, Linux support, price and Intel said they'd support it as well and that would be nice on a laptop someday.

I'm keeping my eye on this monitor. 3000:1 contrast and 125% sRGB would be a nice upgrade over my current Dell IPS from 2011/2012 that every now and then I turn it on and it has black streaks and on occasion it goes completely black and then its fine for a couple of weeks. From what I read the expectation is the freesync range being 48 - 144Hz but at 1920x1080 with a Vega GPU, that shouldn't hard.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M1DEEYP/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=29JEBM8Y9B77H&coliid=IZHTB180T23UF&psc=1
 
#11 ·
Having owned both a G-Sync and a FreeSync monitor I'll take the latter any day of the week. I got a benQ 27" 1440p 144Hz TN FreeSync monitor for the same price as I did a Benq 24" 1080p 144Hz TN G-Sync monitor. That alone is a huge deal. Ease of use is another, while you need to switch between the 2 modules to activate G-Sync (which makes bunch of your monitor stuff including the S-Switch not work) you can simply leave FreeSync ON all the time and enjoy all monitor features. Once you enable Blur reduction FreeSync simply disables yourself. Saves a lot of hassle.
 
#14 ·
144 ULMB is still inferior to 144-maximum variable refresh.

I mean, I suppose if you have vastly overpowered your machine such that you never drop below the maximum refresh rate, then yeah, ULMB has a place. But I don't see that as a practical situation for the vast majority of people looking to purchase a high-resolution, high-refresh rate monitor.
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

ULMB is inferior to variable refresh, so I'm not sure how that matters.
You also can't use ULMB and VRR at the same time, regardless of what VRR tech you use. Not sure what his point was...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ban13 View Post

Having owned both a G-Sync and a FreeSync monitor I'll take the latter any day of the week. I got a benQ 27" 1440p 144Hz TN FreeSync monitor for the same price as I did a Benq 24" 1080p 144Hz TN G-Sync monitor. That alone is a huge deal. Ease of use is another, while you need to switch between the 2 modules to activate G-Sync (which makes bunch of your monitor stuff including the S-Switch not work) you can simply leave FreeSync ON all the time and enjoy all monitor features. Once you enable Blur reduction FreeSync simply disables yourself. Saves a lot of hassle.
G-Sync is on by default, and in rare situations where you might want ULMB over G-Sync, how is it a hassle to toggle a setting?
 
#16 ·
I want to add that freesync is missing monitor options such as 1440p in 24 invh monitor. Only 27... and because of price, im not even looking at gsync monitors.
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

I'm not convinced that 1440p at anything *less* than 27 has value...
I used a 27" and 25" Dell UltraSharp side by side for two months before selling the 27" and sticking with Dual U2515H.

25" is the sweet spot for me. I'm waiting for a 25", 1440p, 144Hz, Gsync, IPS
thumb.gif
but if I had too, I could live with a S2516DG, like the 24" and 27" variants.

 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

I'm not convinced that 1440p at anything *less* than 27 has value...
U2515H.

27, 30, or 32 inch preferred, but if you're being practical it's pretty hard to beat without resorting to knockoff models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

I'm not convinced that 1440p at anything *less* than 27 has value...
I used a 27" and 25" Dell UltraSharp side by side for two months before selling the 27" and sticking with Dual U2515H.

25" is the sweet spot for me. I'm waiting for a 25", 1440p, 144Hz, Gsync, IPS
thumb.gif
What he said.
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

144 ULMB is still inferior to 144-maximum variable refresh.

I mean, I suppose if you have vastly overpowered your machine such that you never drop below the maximum refresh rate, then yeah, ULMB has a place. But I don't see that as a practical situation for the vast majority of people looking to purchase a high-resolution, high-refresh rate monitor.
It sure would trigger a lot more high-end gpu purchases from impulsive buyers than the substitution via VRR. Surely, gpus sell for more than affiliate displays, right?
I'm totally okay with Nvidia leaving others do the "1ms motion picture response time" branding. It looks good on them.
 
#21 ·
Both tech. are crap in my opinion. I mean why would you want to have variable refresh rate, in sync with fps ? I mean your machine can push full 144fps in any game, to have 144hz also, on a variable refresh display ? No it can't.

Why u want to have a variable refresh rate, instead a fixed one ? Because of tearing ? U know that tearing is VERY SMALL on static refresh rate monitors(talking about 144hz ones only) ? Of course variable refresh monitors will eliminate all the tearing, but hell, u can't deal with some tearing that 144hz monitors have right now ?

And last; the transition from low fps/ low hz to high fps / high hz is soo bad. Imagine having 80fps in a game with 80hz, on a variable refresh rate monitor, when u get into some demanding areas your fps will drop to 60 and the refresh too, so drop from 80fps and 80hz to 60fps and 60hz, and so on.

Me for example im better having 80fps at 144hz, 60fps at 144hz etc.

Its better to keep the same refresh rate, than to modify it in sync with fps. Its better for each frame you render.
 
#22 ·
G-Sync is just a physical DRM module. I remember someone hacked a version of the driver to make G-Sync work with any monitor. So I guess most monitor makers aren't willing to pay for the DRM.

https://teksyndicate.com/comment/1834196
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: Culverin
#23 ·
I would like a hardware-based FreeSync Premium as an option, perhaps bundled with a non-GPU specific blur reduction implementation that's more flexible than ULMB, with the two being able to work simultaneously. This way NVIDIA can stop with their proprietary crap since it loses all value, and I like the benefits of G-SYNC over FreeSync (bigger range, less input lag it seems due to the controller/G-SYNC module).
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalinTM View Post

Both tech. are crap in my opinion. I mean why would you want to have variable refresh rate, in sync with fps ? I mean your machine can push full 144fps in any game, to have 144hz also, on a variable refresh display ? No it can't.

Why u want to have a variable refresh rate, instead a fixed one ? Because of tearing ? U know that tearing is VERY SMALL on static refresh rate monitors(talking about 144hz ones only) ? Of course variable refresh monitors will eliminate all the tearing, but hell, u can't deal with some tearing that 144hz monitors have right now ?

And last; the transition from low fps/ low hz to high fps / high hz is soo bad. Imagine having 80fps in a game with 80hz, on a variable refresh rate monitor, when u get into some demanding areas your fps will drop to 60 and the refresh too, so drop from 80fps and 80hz to 60fps and 60hz, and so on.

Me for example im better having 80fps at 144hz, 60fps at 144hz etc.

Its better to keep the same refresh rate, than to modify it in sync with fps. Its better for each frame you render.
Tearing is a problem without any syncing technology. V-Sync on a 1440p 144 Hz display isn't exactly feasible in modern games without lowering refresh rate to the point where buying 144 Hz was a waste. Nope, I can't deal with any tearing, and even if I'm pulling 130 FPS on my 144 Hz monitor without VRR there is tons of tearing. Try it yourself if you haven't. Therefore VRR is a godsend if you can't maintain a high enough frame rate to instead use blur reduction.

I'd rather fluctuate between 60 Hz/60 FPS and 100 Hz/100 FPS than just V-Sync myself to 60 Hz/60 FPS with much more lag. At least this way I will get to experience better than 60 FPS sometimes in that game. Also the FPS fluctuations aren't particularly bad, they are smooth transitions.
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

I'm not convinced that 1440p at anything *less* than 27 has value...
I have a small desk, 27 inch screen 1440p is to big either in pisel size (as i sit quite close to it) aswell as overall size of device.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalinTM View Post

Both tech. are crap in my opinion. I mean why would you want to have variable refresh rate, in sync with fps ? I mean your machine can push full 144fps in any game, to have 144hz also, on a variable refresh display ? No it can't.

Why u want to have a variable refresh rate, instead a fixed one ? Because of tearing ? U know that tearing is VERY SMALL on static refresh rate monitors(talking about 144hz ones only) ? Of course variable refresh monitors will eliminate all the tearing, but hell, u can't deal with some tearing that 144hz monitors have right now ?

And last; the transition from low fps/ low hz to high fps / high hz is soo bad. Imagine having 80fps in a game with 80hz, on a variable refresh rate monitor, when u get into some demanding areas your fps will drop to 60 and the refresh too, so drop from 80fps and 80hz to 60fps and 60hz, and so on.

Me for example im better having 80fps at 144hz, 60fps at 144hz etc.

Its better to keep the same refresh rate, than to modify it in sync with fps. Its better for each frame you render.
Absolute rubbish. You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalinTM View Post

Both tech. are crap in my opinion. I mean why would you want to have variable refresh rate, in sync with fps ? I mean your machine can push full 144fps in any game, to have 144hz also, on a variable refresh display ? No it can't.

Why u want to have a variable refresh rate, instead a fixed one ? Because of tearing ? U know that tearing is VERY SMALL on static refresh rate monitors(talking about 144hz ones only) ? Of course variable refresh monitors will eliminate all the tearing, but hell, u can't deal with some tearing that 144hz monitors have right now ?

And last; the transition from low fps/ low hz to high fps / high hz is soo bad. Imagine having 80fps in a game with 80hz, on a variable refresh rate monitor, when u get into some demanding areas your fps will drop to 60 and the refresh too, so drop from 80fps and 80hz to 60fps and 60hz, and so on.

Me for example im better having 80fps at 144hz, 60fps at 144hz etc.

Its better to keep the same refresh rate, than to modify it in sync with fps. Its better for each frame you render.
lachen.gif


You clearly have ZERO idea what you are talking about. We aren't even talking branding here, but physical technology here.

It is one thing to say that VRR isn't your cup of tea, but to try and even say what you are attempting to say is so far off base. You clearly don't have any concept of display technology and how they work. Sorry mate, but go brush up on your knowledge a bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by awdrifter View Post

G-Sync is just a physical DRM module. I remember someone hacked a version of the driver to make G-Sync work with any monitor. So I guess most monitor makers aren't willing to pay for the DRM.

https://teksyndicate.com/comment/1834196
Mmm....no, not exactly.

There is plenty of technical documentation showing exactly what the G-Sync module is doing, and thus why G-Sync simply works better than FreeSync; although FreeSync is miles above no VRR.

Basically, you can trick/software implement G-Sync, basically doing what FreeSync does with AdaptiveSync (what Freesync is based on), but it doesn't work like G-Sync itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top