arterius2Wait, what exactly has AMD implemented here regarding Vsync? I'm not understanding this fully.

I mean, there really isn't a lot of options here, you either match the monitor with the GPU, or you match the GPU with the monitor, since you can't just magically "improve" performance on the GPU, then this is a hardware problem, not software.

I get that G-sync works by adjusting the monitor's refresh rate to match the GPU's frame rate - OK, fairly simple and straightforward, I get this.

But what is AMD's method here? according to my understanding of the article, AMD tries to insert "blank/fake" frames to pretentiously boost the frame rate to match that of the monitor, is that what they are doing here?

if I remember correctly, this is exactly the same method Lucidlogic tried to implement with their Virtu software which was nothing but gimmick, it only 'looked' good in benchmark scores, but it didn't fix the problem, if anything it created more stuttering and decreased overall performance.

esreverAMD's way is exactly the same as nvidia's way which also uses vblanks. The only thing the gsync hardware does is hold a frame on the monitor side to wait for the gpu it displays the frame once the vblank time interval is up. They both use dynamic vblank to set a custom refresh rate.

esreverAMD's way is exactly the same as nvidia's way which also uses vblanks. The only thing the gsync hardware does is hold a frame on the monitor side to wait for the gpu it displays the frame once the vblank time interval is up. They both use dynamic vblank to set a custom refresh rate.

arterius2Past 3 generations eh? So they waited until now to tell us this? I call BS, typical AMD PR stunt.



Oh, you mean like the adaptive v-sync setting in the Nvidia control panel?

arterius2Past 3 generations eh? So they waited until now to tell us this? I call BS, typical AMD PR stunt.

Oh, you mean like the adaptive v-sync setting in the Nvidia control panel?

esreverAMD's way is exactly the same as nvidia's way which also uses vblanks. The only thing the gsync hardware does is hold a frame on the monitor side to wait for the gpu it displays the frame once the vblank time interval is up. They both use dynamic vblank to set a custom refresh rate.

WantonAgain someone wrong on the internet. No G-Sync doesn't use vblank or vsync at all.
G-Sync works like this it sends your frame to display and then ask display to refresh it self. If your framerate drops below 30fps g-sync monitor duplicates last frame, but that doesn't cause stutter because next update can come even after some milliseconds from another update. So even framerate that fluctuates between 20 and 40 is smooth on G-Sync.

So when you are using G-Sync there is no vsync or vblank ever period.

It seems like some AMD fanboys wish that FreeSync was good as G-Sync but it's much crappier tech.
Also it needs new hardware in monitors and new VESA specification because current VESA specification is for integrated displays only like in laptops. That why they are showing it on those Toshiba laptops.

FreeSync is probably cheaper tech than G-Sync but you don't get latency reduction you get with G-Sync.

With G-Sync you probably get better CPU usage because CPU doesn't have to wait for anything, but with FreeSync there is still some sort of sync I think, so there must be some CPU overhead.

NVidia added frame duplication because lcd displays really don't work well under 30hz.
Because of that I think you can't have under 30hz with FreeSync. That means framerate fluctuating between 20 to 40 framerate isn't going to be smooth with FreeSync.

PC Perspective - PCPer Live! NVIDIA G-Sync Discussion with Tom Petersen, Q&A

G-Sync essentially functions by altering and controlling the vBlank signal sent to the monitor. In a normal configuration, vBlank is a combination of the combination of the vertical front and back porch and the necessary sync time. That timing is set a fixed stepping that determines the effective refresh rate of the monitor; 60 Hz, 120 Hz, etc. What NVIDIA will now do in the driver and firmware is lengthen or shorten the vBlank signal as desired and will send it when one of two criteria is met.

1. A new frame has completed rendering and has been copied to the front buffer. Sending vBlank at this time will tell the screen grab data from the card and display it immediately.
2. A substantial amount of time has passed and the currently displayed image needs to be refreshed to avoid brightness variation.

In current display timing setups, the submission of the vBlank signal has been completely independent from the rendering pipeline. The result was varying frame latency and either horizontal tearing or fixed refresh frame rates. With NVIDIA G-Sync creating an intelligent connection between rendering and frame updating, the display of PC games is fundamentally changed.

XzibitDude please...
You were saying something about fanboyism ?

1. A new frame has completed rendering and has been copied to the front buffer. Sending vBlank at this time will tell the screen grab data from the card and display it immediately.

What NVIDIA will now do in the driver and firmware is lengthen or shorten the vBlank signal as desired and will send it when one of two criteria is met.

RCoonFreesync is supposed to be competing against GSync right? I'm fairly certain people buying GSync monitors have enough cash to splash on a good system considering they're spending so much on a GSync monitor. If this isn't for the high end market like GSync monitors, then it isn't competing at all, just another bit of free stuff for everyone.

theoneandonlymrkNah your wrong, Vblank is poorly named ,It should have been Frame hold because thats what it does, via a Vesa standard the frame is held by the monitor itself and frame smoothness is not its only purpose, power reduction is also one of its main caveats because if nothing happens on screen the frame is held hence saveing power in many areas and its been co-operatively worked upon for some time as i believe intel and nvidia are working on their own tech to use Vblank ,

However Nvidia had shitloads of tegra 4s sitting around and thought they would slap their fanbase (just like with nv3d) for something that included a royalty fee to them, hell you never know it might catch on ,,,,or all monitor maker's will realise they can do the same without paying Nvidia a penny and Nvidia will likely roll the support in quitely later via a driver and or new Gpu's with SPECIAL Gsync built in only 500 extra notes

WantonAgain someone wrong on the internet. No G-Sync doesn't use vblank or vsync at all.
G-Sync works like this it sends your frame to display and then ask display to refresh it self. If your framerate drops below 30fps g-sync monitor duplicates last frame, but that doesn't cause stutter because next update can come even after some milliseconds from another update. So even framerate that fluctuates between 20 and 40 is smooth on G-Sync.

WantonSo when you are using G-Sync there is no vsync or vblank ever period.

WantonIt seems like some AMD fanboys wish that FreeSync was good as G-Sync but it's much crappier tech.

WantonAlso it needs new hardware in monitors and new VESA specification because current VESA specification is for integrated displays only like in laptops. That why they are showing it on those Toshiba laptops.

WantonWith G-Sync you probably get better CPU usage because CPU doesn't have to wait for anything, but with FreeSync there is still some sort of sync I think, so there must be some CPU overhead.

XzibitvBlank isn't a frame holding. vBlank [Vertical blank] is the vertical blanking area of a frame. The space from the end of the border to the end of the blanking verticaly in a frame.

marsey99nvidia fanbois are nearly getting as gullible as apple fanbois, damn.

WantonYes it's sad that vBlank term is used so wrong. When I was coding demos for Amiga vBlank was time after vSync has happened and before screen started to draw. But now if you look at wiki en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_blanking_interval
It's used as synonym for Vertical blanking interval. That why I said there is no vBlank anymore on monitor with G-Sync. It's sad that people are using wrong term for VBI but what can you do.

There is no vSync or vBlank/VBI on monitor when you are using VBI. That means there is no interval for display refresh. With G-Sync graphics card is asking for display refresh but with FreeSync display is still controlling refresh rate but display card is setting that inverval by guessing.

vBlank is a combination of the combination of the vertical front and back porch and the necessary sync time. That timing is set a fixed stepping that determines the effective refresh rate of the monitor; 60 Hz, 120 Hz, etc. What NVIDIA will now do in the driver and firmware is lengthen or shorten the vBlank signal as desired and will send it when one of two criteria is met.

When asked about a potential VESA standard to enable dynamic refresh rates, Petersen had something very interesting to say: he doesn't think it's necessary, because DisplayPort already supports "everything required" for dynamic refresh rates via the extension of the vblank interval. That's why, he noted, G-Sync works with existing cables without the need for any new standards. Nvidia sees no need and has no plans to approach VESA about a new standard for G-Sync-style functionality—because it already exists.

Xzibit?
G-Sync is just extending or reducing the lines of the VFP and VBP to fit the timing of the closest refresh cycle.

RCoonWow man, calling people fanboys? Calling someone an AMD/Intel/NVidia fanboy is about the most childish thing you can say on a forum, you may as well go around calling people poopie heads...
Seriously, I expected more from you of all people.

NVidia are a business, as are AMD. The whole point of a business is to sell people something they probably don't necessarily need. This keeps profits up and stockholders happy. NVidia happen to have marketing team, so they can successfully charge people for something they don't really need, because they went ahead and marketed GSync. AMD did nothing bit sit on good tech for a few years, and they poorly marketed it. As far as I can conjure, Freesync (VBlank) is not yet a complete VESA standard, so not all monitors have it. People might call it "Free"sync, but there's nothing stopping display manufacturers adopting it while it's not a standard, advertising their screens as having such technology, and charging more for it. Just means AMD missed out on some possible profit.

NVIDIAHe first said, of course, that he was excited to see his competitor taking an interest in dynamic refresh rates and thinking that the technology could offer benefits for gamers. In his view, AMD interest was validation of Nvidia's work in this area.

However, Petersen quickly pointed out an important detail about AMD's "free sync" demo: it was conducted on laptop systems. Laptops, he explained, have a different display architecture than desktops, with a more direct interface between the GPU and the LCD panel, generally based on standards like LVDS or eDP (embedded DisplayPort). Desktop monitors use other interfaces, like HDMI and DisplayPort, and typically have a scaler chip situated in the path between the GPU and the panel. As a result, a feature like variable refresh is nearly impossible to implement on a desktop monitor as things now stand.

That, Petersen explained, is why Nvidia decided to create its G-Sync module, which replaces the scaler ASIC with logic of Nvidia's own creation. To his knowledge, no scaler ASIC with variable refresh capability exists—and if it did, he said, "we would know." Nvidia's intent in building the G-Sync module was to enable this capability and thus to nudge the industry in the right direction.

When asked about a potential VESA standard to enable dynamic refresh rates, Petersen had something very interesting to say: he doesn't think it's necessary, because DisplayPort already supports "everything required" for dynamic refresh rates via the extension of the vblank interval. That's why, he noted, G-Sync works with existing cables without the need for any new standards. Nvidia sees no need and has no plans to approach VESA about a new standard for G-Sync-style functionality—because it already exists.

That said, Nvidia won't enable G-Sync for competing graphics chips because it has invested real time and effort in building a good solution and doesn't intend to "do the work for everyone." If the competition wants to have a similar feature in its products, Petersen said, "They have to do the work. They have to hire the guys to figure it out."

WantonNo if that would be the case you would not have that latency reduction that they are promising. So it can't wait for next refresh cycle if you want that latency reduction. What you just quoted I haven't seen any mention about anything like that on NVIDIA written texts about G-Sync. Everything written by NVIDIA employees says graphics card is controlling display refresh. Find me something written by NVIDIA employee and i'll believe you.

arterius2Basically, to sum it up, reason why AMD showcased it on some crappy laptop is because it's the only system could utilize this feature atm. Why is it free? because AMD hasn't invested a lot of research nor could offer any form of polished product at the given moment. So I guess this ends all discussions then.

AMD Gaming BlogDoing the work for everyone

In our industry, one of the toughest decisions we continually face is how open we should be with our technology. On the one hand, developing cutting-edge graphics technology requires enormous investments. On the other hand, too much emphasis on keeping technologies proprietary can hinder broad adoption.

It’s a dilemma we face practically every day, which is why we decided some time ago that those decisions would be guided by a basic principle: our goal is to support moving the industry forward as a whole, and that we’re proud to take a leadership position to help achieve that goal.

The latest example of that philosophy is our work with dynamic refresh rates, currently codenamed "Project FreeSync”. Screen tearing is a persistent nuisance for gamers, and vertical synchronization (v-sync) is an imperfect fix. There are a few ways the problem can be solved, but there are very specific reasons why we’re pursuing the route of using industry standards.

The most obvious reason is ease of implementation, both for us from a corporate perspective and also for gamers who face the cost of upgrading their hardware. But the more important reason is that it’s consistent with our philosophy of making sure that the gaming industry keeps marching forward at a steady pace that benefits everyone.

It sometimes takes longer to do things that way — lots of stakeholders need to coordinate their efforts — but we know it’s ultimately the best way forward. This strategy enables technologies to proliferate faster and cost less, and that’s good for everyone.

The same philosophy explains why we’re revealing technology that’s still in the development stage. Now’s our chance to get feedback from industry, media and users, to make sure we develop the right features for the market. That’s what it takes to develop a technology that actually delivers on consumers’ expectations.

And Project FreeSync isn’t the only example of this philosophy and its payoffs. We worked across the industry to first bring GDDR5 memory to graphics cards— an innovation with industry-wide benefits. And when game developers came to us demanding a low-level API, we listened to them and developed Mantle. It’s an innovation that we hope will speed the evolution of industry-standard APIs in the future.

We’re passionate about gaming, and we know that the biggest advancements come when all industry players collaborate. There’s no room for proprietary technologies when you have a mission to accomplish. That’s why we do the work we do, and if we can help move the industry forward we’re proud to do it for everyone.