this will be a day long remembered. it has seen the end of being tied to a manufacturer, and will soon see the end of the g-sync chip.
or the expensive chip will be kept for a range of high-end monitors so customers have a larger guaranteed sync range (or whatever they can use to make a premium option out of it)
before g-sync, buying a monitor was rather simple. maybe g-sync is the better solution from a technical standpoint (i don't know), but this artificial split into g-sync vs freesync monitors has bothered me since its inception. i never noticed the tearing g-sync was supposed to eliminate, and stuck with g-sync because of the blur reduction (ulmb) tied to it. which is no longer necessary now as many monitors come with their built-in blur reduction tech (dyac, elmb, whatever it's called). but they still cost significantly more than their freesync counterparts due to the g-sync chip.
now, nvidia isn't giving up its g-sync ecosystem for nothing. perhaps they will lose it anyway when intel supports freesync with their integrated graphics. or they think that customers will have even less reasons to buy an amd card if their cards work with cheaper monitors. so, they give up sales of g-sync chips for more card sales. recent share price losses might be a reason for them to act before it gets worse.
Last edited by Pirx; 01-07-2019 at 08:00 AM.