Hardware Canucks A Week With NVIDIA's G-SYNC Monitor

[solofly]

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm music to my ears...

http://alienbabeltech.com/abt/viewto...7dcf055e7d981a

[Lanek]

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm music to my ears...

http://alienbabeltech.com/abt/viewto...7dcf055e7d981a

wow, i was not know there's so much nvfanboy on this site.

[solofly]

Who cares about fanboys, we are all fanboys and if you say otherwise you're also a liar. I'm excited about the monitor that's about to come out...

[Dimitriman]

Variable refresh rate standard was a technology developed with mobile devices in mind with the objective to reduce power consumption. Therefore, it is an existing standard. Nvidia's has seen the potential for this technology for gaming and has adapted it to the PC as Gsync. However, it seems that current Nvidia hardware does not support this (due to non-complience with the standard?) and therefore the add-on card is necessary. If AMD's approach becomes successful, as it seems that GCN cards all support it natively, all that will happen is that Nvidia will be forced to include this ability in their next Maxwell silicon and support the standard as well. Which means one thing: Gsync will only be a paid for solution in its first iteration, and only the current crop of monitors will feature this expensive Nvidia chip. Very soon, all monitors will be configured to support Variable refresh rate on both AMD and Nvidia hardware natively.

For this reason, if I were an Nvidia owner, I would wait for the development of AMD's solution before jumping the gun on a Gsync monitor that is 200$ more expensive than the others.

[solofly]

Waiting for AMD's solution? lol I'll be dead by then...

[Lanek]

Who cares about fanboys, we are all fanboys and if you say otherwise you're also a liar. I'm excited about the monitor that's about to come out...

I was comment on the comment i have read on the link you have post.. Hopefully they have no idea of how work g-sync it seems.

[Dimitriman]

Waiting for AMD's solution? lol I'll be dead by then...

I tend to buy whatever is fastest for my dollar, and whatever suits best my needs. Don't really stick to one brand in particular. I would have had a GTX680 in my system if it were available at the time I was travelling to the USA, simply because it was faster at the time than the 7970. I'm glad I went for the AMD though because time has turned things around.

In your case, since you are an assumed Nvidia only buyer, it doesn't make much sense to wait or to even care about anything AMD releases, since you will never buy it anyway. In any case, I think you underestimate how fast AMD will counter Gsync, but that is just my opinion and I do not possess any technical information to back it up.

[LordEC911]

Waiting for AMD's solution? lol I'll be dead by then...

So you have been dead for the last ~3years? Good to know.

[solofly]

In your case, since you are an assumed Nvidia only buyer

I only buy what WORKS and unfortunately AMD doesn't. They simply can't deliver in the software department and that's what drives the hardware. Promises promises and half assed baked delivery is all you ever get...

[mockingbird]

AMD's message is clear:

"We will only implement new features after someone else already has, and only then if we don't have to hire any new people to do it. Until then, we will minimize the usefulness of our competitor's features and then advertise it as one of our own original ideas when we finally manage to reverse-engineer it and implement it in 5 years".

Thanks AMD.

[Hornet331]

I only buy what WORKS and unfortunately AMD doesn't. They simply can't deliver in the software department and that's what drives the hardware. Promises promises and half assed baked delivery is all you ever get...

by the same logic same thing would apply to nvidia, half the time they release a new driver it brakes a couple of games or setting in games and you have to revert to older drivers to play your game.

[DefStar]

That is so funny! Nvidia's ground-breaking Gsync is an abomination of an already existing standard of which that their hardware can't support. I mean really, how (insert your own word) can Nvidia make themselves look. I'm sorry, but Nvidia's marketing department will do anything and burn their customers in the process. Obviously Nvidia just pulled this out of their asss to steal the thunder of the R9 290x release. Now lets modify monitors for Nvidia lack of for-sight to support the standard nativeley. I apologize if I come of offensive but this is how I see it.

This is why I don't buy Nvidia...they don't care about their customers and value, they only care about marketing.

[Stukov]

You guys...

[BababooeyHTJ]

Like Eyefinity?
The fact is that they have been using something similar for a long time.

Nvidia goes, takes an existing standard, creates custom expensive silicon for it and calls it their own.

Oh you can name one thing, cool. The one thing that I don't use.

Its called capitalism and why Nvidia does well. Supporting some existing standard doesn't mean to me when I can't do anything with it. Like bullet physx.

You also act as if the variable refresh rates are the only aspect of these displays. They also have an improved strobe mode due to the demand from people using lightboost.

Also if it weren't for 3d vision do you think that 120hz monitors would be so prevalent?

I don't see what you guys are ing and moaning about.

I'm sure that the third party displays using free sync will be as plentiful and competitive as the 120hz displays that supported AMD3D.

[BababooeyHTJ]

This is why I don't buy Nvidia...they don't care about their customers and value, they only care about marketing.

Contact Nvidia tech support and then AMD tech support and tell me that again. I think that Nvidia is far more in tune with their customers.

I consider the features that I use all of the time added due to customer requests like being the removal of the pixel clock limit so I can overclock my catleap without third party utilities. LOD bias adjustments, SGSSAA, compatibility flags, etc. Yeah, I call that added value. I'll even pay a little more for it. Most people will.

Don't get me wrong. I think that AMD cards can (not at current litecoin prices) provide a great value to some people. Most of the time it has to come at a more competitive cost due to features. Unless, you're an eyefinity or 4k user. Thats where I can see r9 290 being a great value compared to a nvidia offering, tahiti too.

For how I use my pc Nvidia provides a better value, for me.

[bill_d]

AMD's message is clear:

"We will only implement new features after someone else already has, and only then if we don't have to hire any new people to do it. Until then, we will minimize the usefulness of our competitor's features and then advertise it as one of our own original ideas when we finally manage to reverse-engineer it and implement it in 5 years".

Thanks AMD.

Like ddr4, ddr5, displayport when was the last time nv was first on a new node gtx280 I seem to remember something about a can of something that did not go well
like Eyefinity but that's ok as I hear nvidia surround still doen't work very well



both companies have copied from each other on software for years but neither seem to complain ( no apple like lawsuit )

and having both 680 sli and 7970 cfx for the last 2 years now I can say both have had driver problems

I think the only reason g-sync needs hardware is to make more money and to lock out anyone else from using it

[BababooeyHTJ]

I think the only reason g-sync needs hardware is to make more money and to lock out anyone else from using it

Probably, but at least it'll get something on the market.

[cx-ray]

http://www.overclock.net/t/1457018/a...#post_21530163

FreeSync is not GSync alternative.

FreeSync uses variable VBI, meaning the driver needs to setup the proper VBI for the next frame, therefore requires the driver to predict the future. If the app isn't running in constant FPS, then FreeSync will fail when FPS changes, and you will still see stuttering. Also, you need to enable VSYNC, therefore you still have the lag issue that GSync solves by working without VSYNC. Sure you will have a better experience, but not as good as GSync. With FreeSync you will have have software overhead, and if you predict conservatively you lose FPS, if you predict aggressively you might end up with more stuttering than plain VSYNC.

GSync solves the problems by holding VBI until the next frame is drawn, therefore there is no speculation, so it works under all circumstances. You simply can't do that in software, because software runs on the computer, not the monitor. You have to have a monitor smart enough to wait for the next GPU command to do the drawing, and that's why NVIDIA has to do it with a separate board. There is no VESA standard for that.

GSync is "GPU drives VBI," whereas FreeSync is "driver speculates VBI." The outcome can be close, but one is superior than the other.

[LordEC911]

Oh you can name one thing, cool. The one thing that I don't use.

Its called capitalism and why Nvidia does well. Supporting some existing standard doesn't mean to me when I can't do anything with it. Like bullet physx.

You also act as if the variable refresh rates are the only aspect of these displays. They also have an improved strobe mode due to the demand from people using lightboost.

Also if it weren't for 3d vision do you think that 120hz monitors would be so prevalent?

I don't see what you guys are ing and moaning about.

I'm sure that the third party displays using free sync will be as plentiful and competitive as the 120hz displays that supported AMD3D.

Don't worry. I read all your posts and had a good laugh about how confused you were with the different features and benefits of all these different display technologies.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1457018/a...#post_21530163

FreeSync is not GSync alternative.

FreeSync uses variable VBI, meaning the driver needs to setup the proper VBI for the next frame, therefore requires the driver to predict the future. If the app isn't running in constant FPS, then FreeSync will fail when FPS changes, and you will still see stuttering. Also, you need to enable VSYNC, therefore you still have the lag issue that GSync solves by working without VSYNC. Sure you will have a better experience, but not as good as GSync. With FreeSync you will have have software overhead, and if you predict conservatively you lose FPS, if you predict aggressively you might end up with more stuttering than plain VSYNC.

GSync solves the problems by holding VBI until the next frame is drawn, therefore there is no speculation, so it works under all circumstances. You simply can't do that in software, because software runs on the computer, not the monitor. You have to have a monitor smart enough to wait for the next GPU command to do the drawing, and that's why NVIDIA has to do it with a separate board. There is no VESA standard for that.

GSync is "GPU drives VBI," whereas FreeSync is "driver speculates VBI." The outcome can be close, but one is superior than the other.

Please let's stop quoting that shill. He doesn't know what he is talking about.

[mockingbird]

That is so funny! Nvidia's ground-breaking Gsync is an abomination of an already existing standard of which that their hardware can't support. I mean really, how (insert your own word) can Nvidia make themselves look. I'm sorry, but Nvidia's marketing department will do anything and burn their customers in the process. Obviously Nvidia just pulled this out of their asss to steal the thunder of the R9 290x release. Now lets modify monitors for Nvidia lack of for-sight to support the standard nativeley. I apologize if I come of offensive but this is how I see it.

I'll take G-SYNC over ATI/AMD's next bastard child GPU anyday... Let's face it nVidia delivered exactly what people want while AMD focused its next release on delivering an extra 10FPS for a few pompous assed brats who need to play some lethargically-repetitive FPS at some ridiculously high framerate... There are other games that exist besides FPSsuch as Starcraft, Simcity, and HOMM that can stress the GPU sufficiently to warrant a mid-high end GPU but not enough to warrant a 290X... Those who play these games will represent the majority of videocard owners, and G-SYNC is an excellent innovative feature that will surely help nVidia conquer more of this potential market... Let's face it AMD has been caught with their pants down as usual, showing their typical shortsightedness. Keep shilling for them while they continue to feast with Sony and Microsoft and enjoy the odd tablescrap thrown your way.

[STEvil]

I'll take G-SYNC over ATI/AMD's next bastard child GPU anyday... Let's face it nVidia delivered exactly what people want while AMD focused its next release on delivering an extra 10FPS for a few pompous assed brats who need to play some lethargically-repetitive FPS at some ridiculously high framerate... There are other games that exist besides FPSsuch as Starcraft, Simcity, and HOMM that can stress the GPU sufficiently to warrant a mid-high end GPU but not enough to warrant a 290X... Those who play these games will represent the majority of videocard owners, and G-SYNC is an excellent innovative feature that will surely help nVidia conquer more of this potential market... Let's face it AMD has been caught with their pants down as usual, showing their typical shortsightedness. Keep shilling for them while they continue to feast with Sony and Microsoft and enjoy the odd tablescrap thrown your way.

G-Sync is not a GPU.

But dont let that get in the way of your fanboyism.

[LordEC911]

I'll take G-SYNC over ATI/AMD's next bastard child GPU anyday... Let's face it nVidia delivered exactly what people want while AMD focused its next release on delivering an extra 10FPS for a few pompous assed brats who need to play some lethargically-repetitive FPS at some ridiculously high framerate... There are other games that exist besides FPSsuch as Starcraft, Simcity, and HOMM that can stress the GPU sufficiently to warrant a mid-high end GPU but not enough to warrant a 290X... Those who play these games will represent the majority of videocard owners, and G-SYNC is an excellent innovative feature that will surely help nVidia conquer more of this potential market... Let's face it AMD has been caught with their pants down as usual, showing their typical shortsightedness. Keep shilling for them while they continue to feast with Sony and Microsoft and enjoy the odd tablescrap thrown your way.

How is this Nvidia innovation when Intel and AMD have been using a similar implementation, though in a different market, for the last ~3-4years?
2 months after Nvidia announces their "product" and AMD had a working demo showcasing the same benefits...

[alpha0ne]

Nvidia goes, takes an existing standard, creates custom expensive silicon for it and calls it their own.

Is that you Steve J

The fanboyism in this thread is becoming tiresome, its about time cettain ppl had a short holiday IMHO

[Craftyman.]

[Sparky]

I only buy what WORKS and unfortunately AMD doesn't. They simply can't deliver in the software department and that's what drives the hardware. Promises promises and half assed baked delivery is all you ever get...

Um, what? Are you referring to the ATI Rage era again?

by the same logic same thing would apply to nvidia, half the time they release a new driver it brakes a couple of games or setting in games and you have to revert to older drivers to play your game.

This.

Both have their ups and downs with drivers. I have had no problems with the past several drivers packs I've used on my AMD card(s). Most of the nvidia drivers I have used have been OK too, although the one on my office PC for the GTS250 makes IE never close properly (google it, known bug caused by the nvidia driver revision). I don't really care because I don't use IE all that much, but still thought it the most bizarre bug to be caused by a video driver