Seems like the G-SYNC module itself adds a ton to the cost because it's expensive in itself since overall lower volume and has a lot of BoM items that are pricey to begin with (aside from the "premium" tax).

www.techpowerup.com/245463/nvidia-g-sync-hdr-module-adds-usd-500-to-monitor-pricing

This reminds me of back in the way back days when you could run an ATi/AMD card and still have PhysX by putting in a low end NVidia card and running the PhysX portion of the driver.

used to have "TriFire" HD 5850s and ran a GTX260 if I remember right as the PhysX card.

I *think* FreeSync/G-Sync is determined by the monitor connected to it. For example, if you have a non-adapative-sync display plugged into an NVIDIA card and a FreeSync card plugged into an AMD card with FreeSync enabled, whatever is being displayed on that monitor is going to get FreeSync applied--even if the draw calls are being performed by the NVIDIA card and the finished frames being sent to the AMD card for displaying. Thing is, most games don't let you be choosey about what card is doing the rendering. Most games defer to Windows which determines which GPU is going to do the rendering according to what monitor has most of the window. Microsoft does that for a reason: cards sending completed frames over PCI Express to another card creates unnecessary overhead.

TL;DR: NVIDIA isn't doing FreeSync in these cases, it's rendering frames, Windows is transfering it to a FreeSync enabled GPU which signals the adaptive sync features of the panel.


There's absolutely no technical reason why AMD couldn't drive G-Sync and NVIDIA couldn't drive FreeSync. It's all software and legalese.

SetsunaFZerodo I see a NGreedia Hotfix driver incoming

Yeah, the reason is not to affect the premium and elegant "User Experience".

GreiverBladeactually it's classed as a standard.
Stable release: FreeSync 2.0 / 3 January 2017; 19 months ago
Developed by: Advanced Micro Devices
Operating system: Microsoft Windows, Linux, Xbox One
Original author: Advanced Micro Devices
Initial release: 19 March 2015; 3 years ago
License: Open standard, Royalty-free


and it is based on VESA VRR,just like G-Sync, (which is Adaptive Sync) only G-Sync need a add on card in the monitor ... and we all know why ... (hint 200$+ )
Variable refresh rate display technologies include several industry standards and proprietary standards:

• AMD FreeSync
• Nvidia G-Sync
• VESA Adaptive Sync
• HDMI 2.1 VRR
• Apple ProMotion (ah? apple do some promotion? what price reduction? 1%? oh ... proprietary display technology, i get it... )

Adaptive-Sync
VESA announced Adaptive-Sync as an ingredient component of the DisplayPort 1.2a specification; FreeSync is a hardware–software solution that uses DisplayPort Adaptive-Sync protocols to enable smooth, tearing-free and low-latency gameplay. FreeSync has also been implemented over HDMI.

If you bothered copy pasting from Wikipedia, you might as well paste the very first paragraph:

FreeSync is the brand name for an adaptive synchronization technology for LCD displays that support a dynamic refresh rate aimed at reducing tearing and stuttering caused by misalignment with content's frame rate.

It's not a standard by a long shot.

bugIf you bothered copy pasting from Wikipedia, you might as well paste the very first paragraph:

It's not a standard by a long shot.

I've always been under the impression it's just an implementation of the same thing (and extended to HDMI). The foundation is a Vesa displayport standard.
edit:

AMD --
"Adaptive-Sync is the underlying standard, but makes no qualitative demands of adopters. As far as the spec is concerned, a 2Hz range is Adaptive-Sync, for example. Obviously that is useless for gaming. We have specific tests for backlight bleed, DRR range, motion blur, backlight flicker, pixel persistence, etc. We want monitors that bear our brand and logo to clear a certain quality threshold for the users that might buy them. To put it bluntly: the rubric is not available because this is a competitive industry and we're not interested in having our rubric needlessly and pettily nitpicked."

StrayKATI've always been under the impression it's just an implementation of the same thing (and extended to HDMI). The foundation is a Vesa displayport standard.
edit:

AMD --
"Adaptive-Sync is the underlying standard, but makes no qualitative demands of adopters. As far as the spec is concerned, a 2Hz range is Adaptive-Sync, for example. Obviously that is useless for gaming. We have specific tests for backlight bleed, DRR range, motion blur, backlight flicker, pixel persistence, etc. We want monitors that bear our brand and logo to clear a certain quality threshold for the users that might buy them. To put it bluntly: the rubric is not available because this is a competitive industry and we're not interested in having our rubric needlessly and pettily nitpicked."

Yup, take a crystal clear thing, give it to marketing and the problem is fixed :D
Still, FreeSync is AMD's name for their implementation. There's no standards body that adopted FreeSync that I know of.

bugYup, take a crystal clear thing, give it to marketing and the problem is fixed :D
Still, FreeSync is AMD's name for their implementation. There's no standards body that adopted FreeSync that I know of.

No, but it's slowly becoming a makeshift sort of standard via market forces.. It's very easy to find Freesync monitors everywhere. And it helps that the underlying parts that are specified are roughly the same as what they'd already be making if they followed VESA alone. All AMD is doing is introducing quality control and looking at the gaming market's needs (probably wasn't a priority for VESA).

FreeSync monitors are often picked on and with a good reason. 48-75Hz is a joke of a variable refresh rate range and it will not get LFC either.
Mandated wide frequency range is one thing Nvidia definitely got right with GSync along with frame doubling from get go.

londisteFreeSync monitors are often picked on and with a good reason. 48-75Hz is a joke of a variable refresh rate range and it will not get LFC either.
Mandated wide frequency range is one thing Nvidia definitely got right with GSync along with frame doubling from get go.

Funnily, my TV does better than my monitor (monitor is also only 1080p :\). It has two modes (Basic and Ultimate). 90-120 and 48-120 (but 4k is limited to 60hz.. so I use the latter mode here.. 48-120).

StrayKATNo, but it's slowly becoming a makeshift sort of standard via market forces..

You mean a de facto standard. I hope you're right.

StrayKATIt's very easy to find Freesync monitors everywhere.

It's very easy to find GSync monitors, too. That doesn't prove much.

StrayKATAnd it helps that the underlying parts that are specified are roughly the same as what they'd already be making if they followed VESA alone.

You've never worked with a standard if you think "roughly the same" cuts it ;)

StrayKATAll AMD is doing is introducing quality control and looking at the gaming market's needs (probably wasn't a priority for VESA).

AMD has no say in how manufacturers conduct QC. FreeSync2 (which is quite another thing) introduces additional requirements which should ensure monitors aren't just bottom of the barrel with a pretty sticker on them. But there aren't enought FreeSync2 monitors out there to draw a conclusion just yet.

bugYou mean a de facto standard. I hope you're right.

It's very easy to find GSync monitors, too. That doesn't prove much.

You've never worked with a standard if you think "roughly the same" cuts it ;)

AMD has no say in how manufacturers conduct QC. FreeSync2 (which is quite another thing) introduces additional requirements which should ensure monitors aren't just bottom of the barrel with a pretty sticker on them. But there aren't enought FreeSync2 monitors out there to draw a conclusion just yet.

They do have a say.. that's what the Freesync branding is.. it's "certification" rather than mere branding. It's their input that specified more than what VESA called for.

Granted though, you're right about the rest (I don't have experience working with standards :p).

edit: Yes, de facto standard. Brainfart. :)

bugIf you bothered copy pasting from Wikipedia, you might as well paste the very first paragraph:

It's not a standard by a long shot.

well ... it is ... hum? a brand can't be a standard? ohhh snaps... nonetheless the first paragraphe doesn't give me wrong ... just saying it's a branding just like G-Sync...
"In essence, a standard is an agreed way of doing something. It could be about making a product, managing a process, delivering a service or supplying materials—standards can cover a huge range of activities undertaken by organizations and used by their customers. "

bugIt's very easy to find GSync monitors, too. That doesn't prove much.

well yes ... G-Sync is another one ...

key sentence was actually that ...
include several industry standards and proprietary standards: AMD FreeSync, Nvidia G-Sync, VESA Adaptive Sync, HDMI 2.1 VRR, Apple ProMotion
standard branding then ... :laugh: oh well who care about standard ... only Vesa VRR is, okay, "de facto standard" then ... (well it still include the word standard ... :roll: )

i didn't just copy past no worries :p (removed all hyperlink ... that was a p.i.t.a. :laugh: )

FordGT90ConceptNVIDIA couldn't drive FreeSync. It's all software and legalese.

actually nothing legal involved ... Nvidia just doesn't support the open royalty free equivalent of their tech (well ...:laugh: not really equivalent since it does not need supplementary hardware to work ), partially because G-Sync has wider rate range but majorly because it add 200-500$ to their pocket for each monitor sold with it ... (a overpriced frame buffer ... okay okay it also has a SOC and a few gimmick to make it seems worth it .. )

^^^ It's not worth arguing past this point.

bug^^^ It's not worth arguing past this point.

i agree you are right too, no worries

i am not merely arguing since the definition of "standard" is vague at best :laugh:

GreiverBladeactually nothing legal involved ... Nvidia just doesn't support the open royalty free equivalent of their tech (well ...:laugh: not really equivalent since it does not need supplementary hardware to work ), partially because G-Sync has wider rate range but majorly because it add 200-500$ to their pocket for each monitor sold with it ... (a overpriced frame buffer ... okay okay it also has a SOC and a few gimmick to make it seems worth it .. )

It's a situation like Sun and Microsoft got into over JVM. NVIDIA would most definitely sue AMD for using G-Sync without license to do so. Depending on the language in FreeSync license, AMD may or may not be able to do the same should NVIDIA implement FreeSync in their cards. More specifically, NVIDIA can adapt the VESA standard but AMD may have all rights to FreeSync branding so NVIDIA can't call it FreeSync. So yeah, there's lots of legalese involved.

GreiverBladeuh? ... well ... with G-Sync you don't even need a second GPU to pay more :laugh:

Nailed IT!!:toast: