Technically they supported Adaptive Sync and Variable Refresh Rates since... at least Lynx Point/Haswell for standard DisplayPort via Firmware. I will have to look up the Intel's eDP extensions. When they got self-refresh and variable frame rates on the "premium" eDP notebooks.

Laptops actually supported hardware refresh synchronization for ages. It's just that no one was actively using it for some dumb reason...

G-Sync=Betamax

Another nail in the Coffin of G-Sync, just like Intel supporting Crossfire out of the box.

G Sync still give a better result in the end, i'm not sure any other technology can achieve the same.

While I'm happy to see an open source standard, as opposed to the very expensive alternative, embraced by Intel here... I fail to see what good it does... unless Intel really has something up their sleeve in the discrete graphics card department.

The one issue I'm wondering is.... will it have roughly the same tweaks that Freesync does (things AMD, I think, improved for the gaming market).

''and Intel hasn't even entered the discrete graphics market - yet.''

that maybe nice to get a 3ed option and help spur more graphics competition on best solution and pricing

Previous RTG goals = today's intel goals.
FreeSync and Vulkan are being pushed by Raja and Chris

With Intel throwing in their support I see no reason why adaptive sync couldn't/wouldn't be improved upon for gaming. Would be neat if this became mainstream and all displays supported this.

oxidizedG Sync still give a better result in the end, i'm not sure any other technology can achieve the same.

Nope, just get a Freesync monitor with a correct frequency range. For MUCH less.

I cant wait for intel GPUs to be fast enough to make use of freesync. See you guys in 2090.

aint amd freestink in the supporting card s driver not the monitors ? I'm going to relook that up that's what I thought amd claimed and said on it so any monitor should work if so

Simply put, FreeSync allows AMD’s video cards and APUs directly and dynamically control the refresh rate of a connected monitor. Most monitors are locked into refresh 60 times per second, but quick ones will refresh 75, 120 or 144 times per second. With FreeSync enabled, the monitor will refresh its image in sync with the game that’s being played, up to its maximum level, and adjusting down when necessary.


any monitor has to be able to is that not just be a freestink monitor . sounds like there just branding any capable monitor as freestink as sales hype ? the I guess with that at least you think it can ??

sounds like monitor overclocking in the end

www.pcgamer.com/how-to-overclock-your-monitor-to-a-higher-refresh-rate/

B-RealNope, just get a Freesync monitor with a correct frequency range. For MUCH less.

Not the same thing, there's a reason besides nvidia's greed, if those cost more, which is the proprietary board that allows for better performance compared to vesa's adaptive sync and AMD's freesync

I think Freesync won this race with the release of the feature on TVs... I use a Samsung for my PC, but really, it was targeted for the PS4 and Xbox. Nvidia isn't ever going to do that... even if it is superior. Superior doesn't always mean better. After all, we're all using PCs right? We could have been using 64 bit Sun workstations 20 years ago, if "superior" was supposed to win out.

When you see the same version of adaptive sync monitors using a g-sync module selling for $300-400 more than their freesync counterparts, you realize something is very wrong with nvidia's approach.

I must admit I plunged into the g-sync bandwagon a few years ago, but back then there was no other option for adaptive sync support, and I already had Nvidia hardware in almost all my systems.

Things are very different now, the fact that Nvidia choses not to support this open standard is like a slap in the face for us customers of their cards.

I wholeheartedly embrace the support for freesync, and hope this will mean that standard will continue to improve, and surpass g-sync in terms of availability of products with support for it, and overall performance.

oxidizedG Sync still give a better result in the end, i'm not sure any other technology can achieve the same.

If you're going to claim that Gsync is better than Freesync(adaptive sync), you need to provide examples, otherwise you just sound like a fanboy.

From what I've seen, there's little-to-no evidence that Gsync is any better than Freesync. HardOCP even did a blind test comparing the two.

FreeSync is only good if it's not used by AMD GPUs.

dwadeFreeSync is only good if it's not used by AMD GPUs.

??

StrayKATI think Freesync won this race with the release of the feature on TVs... I use a Samsung for my PC, but really, it was targeted for the PS4 and Xbox. Nvidia isn't ever going to do that... even if it is superior. Superior doesn't always mean better. After all, we're all using PCs right? We could have been using 64 bit Sun workstations 20 years ago, if "superior" was supposed to win out.

Freesync probably has a better cost/performance ratio, as per usual when talking about AMD products, but we're talking performance here, and that's on G-sync side.

15th WarlockWhen you see the same version of adaptive sync monitors using a g-sync module selling for $300-400 more than their freesync counterparts, you realize something is very wrong with nvidia's approach.

I must admit I plunged into the g-sync bandwagon a few years ago, but back then there was no other option for adaptive sync support, and I already had Nvidia hardware in almost all my systems.

Things are very different now, the fact that Nvidia choses not to support this open standard is like a slap in the face for us customers of their cards.

I wholeheartedly embrace the support for freesync, and hope this will mean that standard will continue to improve, and surpass g-sync in terms of availability of products with support for it, and overall performance.

I actually have never seen a product which cost 3/400$ more just because it had nvidia's tech instead of AMD's, sure nvidia probably pumped up the price as per usual when they know they have even only a slight advantage, but still the additional performance is there.

EatingDirtIf you're going to claim that Gsync is better than Freesync(adaptive sync), you need to provide examples, otherwise you just sound like a fanboy.

From what I've seen, there's little-to-no evidence that Gsync is any better than Freesync. HardOCP even did a blind test comparing the two.

Little to no evidence coming from Kyle "gimme your AMD shekels" Bennett? Have you tried the difference between the 2 in person? Well i had, and i noticed the difference, and like me, a few other people i know.

Now if we want to talk how that increase isn't always worth the price tag compared to freesync ones, i can understand and maybe even share the same thoughts, but i'm only talking performance vs performance.

Saw this coming years ago when Nvidia first introduced Gsync and AMD came out later with freesync. I remember how Nvidia Vision (does anyone care about 3D gaming anymore? ) added extra costs to everything and eventually died as industry standards took over plus software that enabled the feature on most games regardless of GPU as long as you have a capable display.

Same thing will happen to Gsync, it's just another cash grab tactic to get Nvidia loyalist/early adopters before standards are in place. I imagine HDR is the newest display standard battlefield except it's an industry wide issue.

15th WarlockWhen you see the same version of adaptive sync monitors using a g-sync module selling for $300-400 more than their freesync counterparts, you realize something is very wrong with nvidia's approach.

I must admit I plunged into the g-sync bandwagon a few years ago, but back then there was no other option for adaptive sync support, and I already had Nvidia hardware in almost all my systems.

Things are very different now, the fact that Nvidia choses not to support this open standard is like a slap in the face for us customers of their cards.

I wholeheartedly embrace the support for freesync, and hope this will mean that standard will continue to improve, and surpass g-sync in terms of availability of products with support for it, and overall performance.

well the NVidia cash cow you buy a 500 buck gpu of theres then feel the need to buy a monitor at its cost + another NVidia hardware built in it at there extra cost

like I say AMD freestink is just adaptive monitor overclocking through there driver software freestink approved or not if its capable to do so - a freestink branded monitor just shows you it can overclock with out guessing if the one you got /get will [opinion]

ya, NVidia could easily do it

StrayKAT??

FreeSync is only attractive if the GPU is fast. AMD is anything but fast.

dwadeFreeSync is only attractive if the GPU is fast. AMD is anything but fast.

I haven't run into any problems yet, except with one game (Mankind Divided...much better off running 1080p)

But the whole point of Freesync for me is to compensate for shortcomings. I can make a game that drops under 60fps at 4K not look so choppy. This is kind of the opposite of needing a fast GPU. It's making it looking better than it is.. or would be if I only had Vsync and would notice the drop. As long as my eyes are fooled, I'm cool.

I like the concept and AMD 's way [ it works and simple ] just sad it just AMD only applies it to there cards software . I don't see NVidia coming down off there high horse and implementing it in theres . I had to move off my amd cards due to lack of support of thins that worked great before . my 7850 was a solid card for what it was but when later drivers did not support games I run ? well time to move on to NVidia that all my stuff works

one example
steamcommunity.com/app/12140/discussions/0/864961721978159686/

use older 12.6 works use later don't . I'm not going to swap drivers all day to do this and the to do that crap as it was getting with amd then the blackscreening with the 14.xx and up