Monday, January 7th 2019

NVIDIA G-SYNC now Supports FreeSync/VESA Adaptive-Sync Technology

Update 2 by

Jan 7th, 2019 00:24 Updated: Jan 7th, 2019 01:34 Discuss (231 Comments)

NVIDIA finally got around to realizing that the number of monitors with VESA adaptive-sync overwhelmingly outnumber those supporting NVIDIA G-Sync, and is going ahead with adding support for adaptive-sync monitors. This however, comes with a big rider. NVIDIA is not immediately going to unlock adaptive-sync to all monitors, just the ones it has tested and found to work "perfectly" with their hardware. NVIDIA announced that it has found a handful of the 550+ monitor models in the market that support adaptive-sync, and has enabled support to them. Over time, as it tests more monitors, support for these monitors will be added through GeForce driver updates, as a "certified" monitor.

At their CES event, the company provided a list of monitors that they already tested and that fulfill all requirements. G-Sync support for these models from Acer, ASUS, AOC, Agon and BenQ will be automatically enabled with a driver update on January 15th.

Update: We received word from NVIDIA that you can manually enable G-SYNC on all Adaptive-Sync monitors, even non-certified ones: "For gamers who have monitors that we have not yet tested, or that have failed validation, we'll give you an option to manually enable VRR, too."

Update 2: NVIDIA released these new Adaptive-Sync capable drivers, we tested G-SYNC on a FreeSync monitor.

Add your own comment

231 Comments on NVIDIA G-SYNC now Supports FreeSync/VESA Adaptive-Sync Technology

#126

Fluffmeister

Cunning move by Nvidia, launch G-SYNC, AMD are like OMG nice idea.... eh how about "FreeSync" and let the monitor manufacturers do all the work. AMD fans rejoice, market expands, Nvidia drop the mic and steal their thunder.

Superb.

#127

RichF

moproblems99Actually, it is consumers' fault.

This is reductionism taken too far. Consumers don't exist and operate in a bubble. There are a lot of things to blame for the situation we're in:

1) Lack of antitrust enforcement. Duopolies and monopolies are common in tech.

2) The corporation. Corporations are not designed to benefit humanity. They're, as Ambrose Bierce said (quoted in Civilization), an ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. Put more simply, they're about wealth consolidation. Wealth consolidation means giving a smaller number of people more of the resources pie so they can have more privileged lives. The sales pitch for this kind of social planning is that their privilege trickles down.

3) Marketing. Corporate/political marketing is designed to confuse people with emotion to get them to part with more of their money than they should. Money is essentially a person's life, the currency of a person's time, energy, and ability.

4) Tribalism indoctrination. People are generally trained to think tribally, in an us vs. them dichotomy (like football/soccer and the "two-party" system). This makes it easy to substitute duopoly, for example, in lieu of having an actually competitive marketplace.

I found it droll to see the claim that we have a really crowded and competitive GPU market in the same article that argued that Vega is so overpriced that it's not competitive enough to be recommended. link

Dave JamesWithout the price drop the Vega cards are prohibitively expensive, especially compared with the $350 (£329) RTX 2060.

As it is, it looks like Sapphire was just trying to make the highest-performing AMD gaming cards as relevant as possible in light of the latest Nvidia release.

Unfortunately Sapphire is no longer looking to give its RX Vega cards any help in the crowded, competitive graphics card market.

Claim A = Without a price drop Vega is not competitive, meaning the only "competition" in the market involves Nvidia with itself. :rolleyes:
Claim B = We have a crowded/competitive graphics card market.

While it's possible to "yeah, but" my point with the practice of releasing lots of barely different 3rd-party cards, I don't consider the market nearly competitive enough. Duopolies aren't good enough and the argument he made is that AMD isn't even competing at the current pricing, therefore we're talking about monopoly which is even worse.

#128

xkm1948

FluffmeisterCunning move by Nvidia, launch G-SYNC, AMD are like OMG nice idea.... eh how about "FreeSync" and let the monitor manufacturers do all the work. AMD fans rejoice, market expands, Nvidia drop the mic and steal their thunder.

Superb.

Annnd thumbs down coming your way for stating the truth from angry red men in 3,2,1

#129

moproblems99

RichFThis is reductionism taken too far. Consumers don't exist and operate in a bubble. There are a lot of things to blame for the situation we're in:

So, how would you propose to fix the duopolies we have in GPUs and CPUs?
What does this have to do with anything?
Who's fault is it they pull out a credit card after being duped by a marketing team?

#130

Fluffmeister

xkm1948Annnd thumbs down coming your way for stating the truth from angry red men in 3,2,1

It's OK my friend, Nvidia aren't moving the market forward apparently, yet team red happily wait 15 months for Vega... to get the same peformance as a GTX 1080, albiet with worse power consumption of course.

I love them really.

#131

moproblems99

xkm1948angry red men

You should be ashamed of yourself for being racist towards Native Americans...

#132

RichF

moproblems99So, how would you propose to fix the duopolies we have in GPUs and CPUs?

The first step is to recognize/understand the situation. For the most part, we're not at that point yet as a tech community. People complain about the symptoms but don't put much, if any, effort into going beyond those to the systemic causes.

Large-scale changes don't happen without large-scale citizen involvement so it's important for people to communicate with one another about the situation we're in and develop solutions. Nothing will improve when consumers abandon their role in the battle between consumer need and corporate desire. Consumer need is to get value for one's life/money. Corporate desire is to give them as little as possible in exchange for it.

As for the other two questions, the second is a troll and the third was already answered.

#133

Totally

OneMoarHOLY SHIT I know it winter but did hell freeze over ?

The skeptic in me says that in the future when things are once again going their way, they'll discover an issue/bug and the "fix" they'll implement will effectively revert this outright or from that point on.

#134

moproblems99

RichFThe first step is to recognize/understand the situation. For the most part, we're not at that point yet as a tech community. People complain about the symptoms but don't put much, if any, effort into going beyond those to the systemic causes.

Large-scale changes don't happen without large-scale citizen involvement so it's important for people to communicate with one another about the situation we're in and develop solutions. Nothing will improve when consumers abandon their role in the battle between consumer need and corporate desire. Consumer need is to get value for one's life/money. Corporate desire is to give them as little as possible in exchange for it.

As for the other two questions, the second is a troll and the third was already answered.

You must be in politics because there are no answers in there. It is so easy to solve the problems with GPUs and CPUs that the answer borders on silly. If it doesn't fit your budget, or your value...don't buy it. If the products don't sell...prices will inevitably go down. High-end PCs are nothing more than a luxury. However, if the products sell....the prices aren't too high.

For things like high-end PCs, the consumer has complete control. Much like government, consumers have the PC industry they deserve.

#135

RichF

moproblems99You must be in politics because there are no answers in there.

This is an ad hominem as well as avoidance of the substance of my posts. I have a policy of ignoring people who start response posts with ad homs.

#136

moproblems99

RichFThis is an ad hominem as well as avoidance of the substance of my posts. I have a policy of ignoring people who start response posts with ad homs.

Well, I guess you can add me to that because this is the second post with out any answers.

#137

RichF

Avoiding the substance of a person's arguments and information with the "answers demand" is a classic rhetorical trick.

(It's a bit better than raw trolling with statements like "What does this have to do with anything?" but not much.)

The claim is that a person can't legitimately expose and discuss problems without then taking another step — providing solutions to those problems. It means journalists are all corrupt/useless unless everything they write is an editorial.

It means teachers can't teach students about any problems without solving them for them. If they don't solve them then it's proof that they don't know anything about the problems.

This rhetorical strategy is typically adopted as a way to avoid the issues. It's generally seen as easier to attack suggested solutions to problems than to discuss the problems with any depth. It's a way of ignoring facts in favor of debates (analysis of existing problems) over opinion (suggested solutions, which are necessarily more speculative), as opinion is more difficult to prove. It makes it easier to defend one's "point" while offering little substance to back it up.

The truth is that a person can, and should, discuss reality without being expected to solve all of its problems as well. Those are two separate things. The discussion is valuable because it can give others tools to help them to solve their problems. Also, there isn't a huge separation between the two things. One can't solve anything unless one understands the reality. It's a process and it can be done as a team.

Teamwork doesn't happen when others respond with ad homs and trolls like "What does that have to do with anything?"

#138

moproblems99

The problem is the 'substance' of your posts have nothing to do with questions so not sure what you are looking for.

#139

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"

FluffmeisterCunning move by Nvidia, launch G-SYNC, AMD are like OMG nice idea.... eh how about "FreeSync" and let the monitor manufacturers do all the work. AMD fans rejoice, market expands, Nvidia drop the mic and steal their thunder.

Superb.

The original idea was in VESA embedded DisplayPort (eDP) standard as a power saving feature. NVIDIA basically made an external eDP chip that functions over DP. AMD looked at both, saw NVIDIA was doing it expensively when it should be done cheaply (like eDP), made a proof of concept (first DisplayPort, then HDMI) and got it ratified by VESA and the HDMI Forum. Now NVIDIA's expensive approach has stabbed them in the back because they loss exclusivity and didn't hold any patents to stop AMD/VESA/HDMI Forum, so NVIDIA kept the charade going as long as they could.

The only "cunning" thing NVIDIA ever did in regards to adaptive sync is expanding the idea of eDP to external DP panels. After that was full of stupid. Namely it follows NVIDIA's line of thinking where step "b" is always "profits," not "accessibility." As pointed out many times in this thread, NVIDIA's desire for PhysX profits sidelined the technology's intent (hardware accelerated physics simulations). NVIDIA could have beat AMD to the punch by finding a driver solution to the problem but there's no profits in drivers.

#140

xkm1948

moproblems99You should be ashamed of yourself for being racist towards Native Americans...

You should be ashamed of yourself for making such associations

#141

moproblems99

FordGT90ConceptNamely it follows NVIDIA's line of thinking where step "b" is always "profits," not "accessibility."

I always like to take a jab at NV when I can but I can't for the above. Either fools are parted with their money or the price ain't too damn high...

#142

terroralpha

epiqpnwageYou do know that he is talking about the physyx cards nvidia tried to sell sheep like you who don't know better right?

nvidia never sold physx cards. physx sold physx cards until nvidia bought them out.

#143

jigar2speed

FatalfurySo its all over for AMD...
The only advantage AMD had ..........aaaandd its ..........Gone!!!

Stop having fatalfury with your brain. (Why do i feel i have typed this before to your other comment as well)

terroralphanvidia never sold physx cards. physx sold physx cards until nvidia bought them out.

Actually they did sell standalone physx card for some time, then introduced physx in their GPUs.

#144

Mussels

Freshwater Moderator

Already beaten to it by the edit to the post, but it sounds like they're doing a few Tiers of Gsync/freesync

1. Entry level VESA standard
2. Gsync compatible (Works, but no official branding/support)
3. Officially supported/advertised (the current type)
4. New ultra super premium variant with HDR support

I am so cucking excited by this, although i still cant understand how Freesync/Gsync can look better than plain old high refresh in the first place.

#145

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"

FTFY:

Mussels1. VESA adaptive sync implementation (it knows how to signal FreeSync monitors but compatibility is not guaranteed)
2. GSYNC Compatible (same as #1 but compatibility is tested/guaranteed)
3. GSYNC (all GSYNC module equipped monitors)
4. GSYNC Ultimate (equivalent to FreeSync 2, I think GSYNC module is required)

The question is, can GSYNC module equipped monitors handle an adapative sync signal from an AMD card? Especially GSYNC Ultimate?

#146

medi01

Vayra86Both AMD and Nvidia ran with their own implementation of variable refresh... its really that simple.

Let me state something very apparent, but since you seem to have reading comprehension problems, let me highlight it a bit: Only nVidia played vendor lock in game. AMD did not.

Vayra86I fail to see how bending over backwards is related to bending over backwards.

Yep.

#147

Vayra86

RichFAvoiding the substance of a person's arguments and information with the "answers demand" is a classic rhetorical trick.

(It's a bit better than raw trolling with statements like "What does this have to do with anything?" but not much.)

The claim is that a person can't legitimately expose and discuss problems without then taking another step — providing solutions to those problems. It means journalists are all corrupt/useless unless everything they write is an editorial.

It means teachers can't teach students about any problems without solving them for them. If they don't solve them then it's proof that they don't know anything about the problems.

This rhetorical strategy is typically adopted as a way to avoid the issues. It's generally seen as easier to attack suggested solutions to problems than to discuss the problems with any depth. It's a way of ignoring facts in favor of debates (analysis of existing problems) over opinion (suggested solutions, which are necessarily more speculative), as opinion is more difficult to prove. It makes it easier to defend one's "point" while offering little substance to back it up.

The truth is that a person can, and should, discuss reality without being expected to solve all of its problems as well. Those are two separate things. The discussion is valuable because it can give others tools to help them to solve their problems. Also, there isn't a huge separation between the two things. One can't solve anything unless one understands the reality. It's a process and it can be done as a team.

Teamwork doesn't happen when others respond with ad homs and trolls like "What does that have to do with anything?"

So, please, dear god... talk about substance then. What solutions do you propose? @moproblems99 proposed one, and I think its the only realistic one: don't buy. Wait. But even that is a questionable tactic because it takes an awful lot of people to get in line.

The idea that consumers have some direct form of control on a free market is slowly but surely dying off. And not just the idea - companies/corporations are getting way too powerful. You can blame the internet for that. Look at Blizzard - one of the finest PC game devs just told its entire, most loyal community they'd start focusing on mobile games. They even laughed about it on stage - don't you have a phone? What they actually said was: screw you, hardcore fanbase, we're going to dumb down everything and you can take it or leave it. And no, we have nothing for you, target audience. You can use your smartphone or you can sod off.

You made a good comment about the tech community and about providing tools and information to others to create a movement. That is the 'how'... what I am missing though is the 'what'. 'What' are we really going to do? You can look at Turing, you can search my post history and you can see what happens in our 'tech community' when solid arguments are presented to not buy into it. The same guy that liked your post (@xkm1948 , talking about you... and you're shitposting here again while adding nothing substantial to any discussion) is the guy that insta-replies to those arguments with 'haters gonna hate'. Think about that one for abit.

#148

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"

medi01Let me state something very apperent, but since you seem to have reading comprehension problems, let me highlight it a bit: Only nVidia played vendor lock in game. AMD did not.

Yup, this NVIDIA announcement is only possibile because AMD's ecosystem created all of these FreeSync monitors that don't care what GPU they are connected to. NVIDIA is jumping on AMD's bandwagon, not the other way around. AMD ~= VESA in this regard. Soon (I hope) Intel will launch their own adaptive sync implementation.

#149

Vayra86

medi01Let me state something very apperent, but since you seem to have reading comprehension problems, let me highlight it a bit: Only nVidia played vendor lock in game. AMD did not.

Yep.

I reported your post. You are quoting me with different text, that is unacceptable. Its fine if you're all emotional, just keep it civil and straight.

FordGT90ConceptYup, this NVIDIA announcement is only possibile because AMD's ecosystem created all of these FreeSync monitors that don't care what GPU they are connected to. NVIDIA is jumping on AMD's bandwagon, not the other way around. AMD ~= VESA in this regard. Soon (I hope) Intel will launch their own adaptive sync implementation.

Absolutely, but in practice, both FreeSync and Gsync resulted in a vendor lock-in for each camps' GPUs. There's no way around that... This isn't about pointing fingers; its about reality for a consumer. And ironically, AMD users are still locked to their FreeSync option now, while Nvidia users are not.

#150

moproblems99

Vayra86The idea that consumers have some direct form of control on a free market is slowly but surely dying off.

You are correct in the sense that consumers choices are dwindling but the fact remains that (for now) consumers are in control over their wallets and truly shape luxury markets.

Vayra86You can use your smartphone or you can sod off.

Hopefully, they choose the latter. While it is tough, if they give in....it will only get worse. Give them what they asked for, nothing.

Add your own comment

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts

NVIDIA G-SYNC now Supports FreeSync/VESA Adaptive-Sync Technology

231 Comments on NVIDIA G-SYNC now Supports FreeSync/VESA Adaptive-Sync Technology

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts

NVIDIA G-SYNC now Supports FreeSync/VESA Adaptive-Sync Technology

Related News

231 Comments on NVIDIA G-SYNC now Supports FreeSync/VESA Adaptive-Sync Technology

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts