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...
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.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."
Exactly how I read that.Originally Posted by Fuell
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.
This. The story should not be Red vs Green, but variable refresh versus the junk that is fixed refresh.
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.Originally Posted by Mand12
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.
Yes, when you are limited to inferior grade 100-120 Hz in comparison to 144 Hz VRR. It is nobody else's fault if Nvidia keeps standing still while others innovate.
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...
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?Originally Posted by Ban13
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.
U2515H.
What he said.
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?Originally Posted by Mand12
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.
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.Originally Posted by CalinTM
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.
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.
Absolute rubbish. You have no idea what you're talking about.Originally Posted by CalinTM
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.
Originally Posted by CalinTM
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.
Mmm....no, not exactly.Originally Posted by awdrifter
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