Vayra86Absolutely, 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.

NVIDIA locked FreeSync out. NVIDIA could have enabled AMD cards to drive GSYNC monitors and NVIDIA cards to drive FreeSync monitors years ago, but didn't. AMD is 100% blameless here. It is extremely likely NVIDIA will never allow AMD cards to drive GSYNC module-equipped monitors at adaptive refresh rates. NVIDIA loves exclusivity (see GPP), consumers be damned.

AMD meant it when they called it FreeSync.

Now NV users will be able to drive UltraWides at 144Hz instead of the 120Hz cap that G-Sync provided.

FordGT90ConceptNVIDIA locked FreeSync out. NVIDIA could have enabled AMD cards to drive GSYNC monitors and NVIDIA cards to drive FreeSync monitors years ago, but didn't. AMD is 100% blameless here. It is extremely likely NVIDIA will never allow AMD cards to drive GSYNC module-equipped monitors at adaptive refresh rates. NVIDIA loves exclusivity (see GPP), consumers be damned.

AMD meant it when they called it FreeSync.

No need to explain this to me, I know. You're completely missing my point and the toxic response from medi01 also underlines that. It happens a lot on this forum and should be something to reflect on... take off the tinted glasses. You're not getting paid for being pro-anybody.

What I said was, even while explicitly saying its not about pointing fingers that Nvidia users are now in the ironical situation that they DO have full access to all variable refresh monitors while AMD users do not - and that even FreeSync was a lock-in no matter AMD's intent with their approach. The harsh, business reality is that AMD is now once again left with a less interesting proposition.

In terms of doing business you might have to wonder whether FreeSync was a smart move. A good one yes, I can only agree and I applaud them putting the 'consumer first' relative to Nvidia's move. But not a smart one from a business perspective. You are a smart man, surely you can see the paradox here. This company struggles to make profit, yet consistently drops the ball when it gets a chance to do so. Gsync was paid, nothing stopped AMD from making it a little bit less costly and still earn money on it. Money that could have gone to the R&D to actually keep playing in the GPU field, for example...

Its a pattern with AMD - good intentions with a touch of naive and lacking insight in how the market will respond to it, and what the bottom line will be as a result of that. Good intentions don't make you rich, unfortunately. Most consumers aren't brand loyal at all, but susceptible to marketing and 'good deals'.

Vayra86In terms of doing business you might have to wonder whether FreeSync was a smart move.

Ultimately it was, especially in the short term. However, Nvidia was again able to maneuver themselves into a good spot - although I believe it was purely by accident this time.

Vayra86What I said was, even while explicitly saying its not about pointing fingers that Nvidia users are now in the ironical situation that they DO have full access to all variable refresh monitors while AMD users do not...

Pray tell me what AMD user cares about GSYNC? There's far more people running NVIDIA cards and FreeSync monitors (without using adaptive sync) than AMD cards and GSYNC monitors. Why? Cost. You would have had an argument here if GSYNC monitors were roughly the same cost as FreeSync monitors but they aren't by design.

Vayra86...and that even FreeSync was a lock-in no matter AMD's intent with their approach.

There was no "lock-in" ever. NVIDIA is proving that now. FreeSync is available to all with the only barrier being implementation. NVIDIA choose to lock-out FreeSync on NVIDIA cards.

Vayra86In terms of doing business you might have to wonder whether FreeSync was a smart move.

Yes, it was. Fixed refresh rates have been the norm for decades. The only way to change the status quo was to eliminate barriers (like GSYNC module) to adaptive refresh rates which, technical problems aside, is a superior solution to both GPU and monitor design. From the business perspective, the program tightened the relationship between AMD and monitor/TV manufacturers. This is why the market is flooding with FreeSync-branded displays and NVIDIA tapped out.

moproblems99Ultimately it was, especially in the short term. However, Nvidia was again able to maneuver themselves into a good spot - although I believe it was purely by accident this time.

We don't know how rough NVIDIA will have it (how many did they test to only get 12 working?). AMD had a lot of growing pains with FreeSync that NVIDIA is now taking on.

FordGT90ConceptThere was no "lock-in" ever.

Is the plank really that thick? Or do you just want to say no today?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in

In economics, vendor lock-in, also known as proprietary lock-in or customer lock-in, makes a customer dependent on a vendor for products and services, unable to use another vendor without substantial switching costs.

Let's see: AMD GPU needed FreeSync monitor. FreeSync monitor needed AMD GPU to use the tech... Nvidia GPU needed Gsync monitor. In both cases, switching brands while maintaining variable refresh would have incurred a 'substantial switching cost' - a cost higher than the cost of just a new GPU, or the cost of just a new monitor.

I mean... its not thát complicated is it.

FordGT90ConceptPray tell me what AMD user cares about GSYNC? There's far more people running NVIDIA cards and FreeSync monitors (without using adaptive sync) than AMD cards and GSYNC monitors. Why? Cost. You would have had an argument here if GSYNC monitors were roughly the same cost as FreeSync monitors but they aren't by design.

What? FreeSync is not even a nice to have for an Nvidia card user - up until today. They simply didn't care - or they paid for Gsync.

Vayra86FreeSync was a lock-in...

Stating that kind of nonsense in THIS VERY THREAD requires skills only certain #teamgreen folks possess.

Vayra86AMD GPU needed FreeSync monitor.

If you want to use VESA adaptive sync, yes; otherwise, no.

Vayra86FreeSync monitor needed AMD GPU to use the tech...

False. AMD just happened to be the only implementation of VESA adaptive sync which is no longer the case.

Vayra86Nvidia GPU needed Gsync monitor.

If you want to use GSYNC, yes; otherwise, no.

Vayra86In both cases, switching brands while maintaining variable refresh would have incurred a 'substantial switching cost' - a cost higher than the cost of just a new GPU, or the cost of just a new monitor.

The cost of GPU and monitor is implied (these items are going to cost you a significant amount regardless of who you buy it from). The "switching cost" is exclusively the GSYNC module which represents the NVIDIA lock-in. If you have a GSYNC monitor, you're not very likely to consider an AMD card to replace a dead NVIDIA card because of how much you spent on that GSYNC module-equipped monitor. FreeSync monitor on NVIDIA card? You really didn't pay a premium for the monitor. Losing adaptive sync sucks but many people do it, especially lately, because Vega 64 can't keep up to cards like the GTX 1080 Ti. So you buy a faster video card, pushing into framerates where adaptive sync matters less. AMD is doing nothing to compel you not to buy an NVIDIA card.

Vayra86What? FreeSync is not even a nice to have for an Nvidia card user - up until today. They simply didn't care - or they paid for Gsync.

How many people bought Vega + FreeSync because of the GSYNC fee? How many people bought GeForce + GSYNC because of the non-existent FreeSync fee?

medi01Stating that kind of nonsense in THIS VERY THREAD requires skills only certain #teamgreen folks possess.

The definition of vendor lock-in disagrees with that. Try reading for a change.

FordGT90ConceptWe don't know how rough NVIDIA will have it (how many did they test to only get 12 working?). AMD had a lot of growing pains with FreeSync that NVIDIA is now taking on.

From where I sit, they needed some good publicity and they got it. It can't be viewed as anything but a good thing for them to open up Freesync capabilities. There may be growing pains but looking at recent history and the rabid fanbase, I don't think it matters.

moproblems99Now NV users will be able to drive UltraWides at 144Hz instead of the 120Hz cap that G-Sync provided.

Well, there's the 2nd gen G-Sync module out there that has yet to be put into an ultrawide. You know, the one that needs a fan but is in those 144Hz 4K displays? That's why the LG 950G is handicapped to 120Hz while the LG 950F is running at it's native 144Hz.

I can see why they rolled out without the 2nd gen module, it's more expensive and there probably aren't a lot on hand. But boy is it nice for the consumers that they can now buy the 144Hz 950F anyway if they have an NVIDIA card.

FordGT90ConceptFalse. AMD just happened to be the only implementation of VESA adaptive sync which is no longer the case.

Uh.. That's not how it works. If AMD is the only one implementing it, then you're locked to AMD.

I have a FreeSync monitor and AMD GPU. Before this announcement, if I wanted to upgrade my GPU and keep using FreeSync I had to buy another AMD GPU thus locking me in to AMD products only.

FordGT90ConceptIf you want to use VESA adaptive sync, yes; otherwise, no.


False. AMD just happened to be the only implementation of VESA adaptive sync which is no longer the case.


If you want to use GSYNC, yes; otherwise, no.


The cost of GPU and monitor is implied (these items are going to cost you a significant amount regardless of who you buy it from). The "switching cost" is exclusively the GSYNC module which represents the NVIDIA lock-in.


How many people bought Vega + FreeSync because of the GSYNC fee? How many people bought GeForce + GSYNC because of the non-existent FreeSync fee?

So what will happen as an Nvidia user, you d buy an AMD card to enjoy on your Gsync monitor when you upgrade? Or would you rather buy another Nvidia GPU? That is a lock in.

And with an AMD Freesync setup, would you have bought an Nvidia card? Of course not, but now you can and lose nothing in the process.

Get it?

:shadedshu:

Vayra86And with an AMD Freesync setup, would you have bought an Nvidia card? Of course not, but now you can and lose nothing in the process.

Quite common. A friend of mine did exactly that. He has a GTX 1070 and I recommended to him a Nixeus FreeSync capable 27" 1440p gaming monitor. He bought it and used it at fixed 144 Hz. Why? because FreeSync capabilities cost nothing extra and the monitor otherwise is an excellent gaming panel. So now he might get the added benefit of being able to use FreeSync (Nixeus already said they're looking into it) with his NVIDIA card. He was not locked in to anything because that cost component nor exclusivity component of FreeSync was ever there. He got exactly what he paid for originally and this announcement is just icing on the cake.

Prior to this announcement, the only way to get adaptive sync on NVIDIA hardware was by paying the GSYNC fee. Look at it this way (assuming NVIDIA card):
1) pay GSYNC fee to get adaptive sync support.
2) pay for a fixed sync monitor without adapative sync support.
3) pay roughly the same as #2 for a adaptive sync monitor but no GSYNC support.

#1 is vendor lock-in
#3 makes the most financial sense

AMD cards only ever had #2 and #3 as options.

FordGT90ConceptQuite common. A friend of mine did exactly that. He has a GTX 1070 and I recommended to him a Nixeus FreeSync capable 27" 1440p gaming monitor. He bought it and used it at fixed 144 Hz. Why? because FreeSync capabilities cost nothing extra and the monitor otherwise is an excellent gaming panel. So now he might get the added benefit of being able to use FreeSync (Nixeus already said they're looking into it) with his NVIDIA card. He was not locked in to anything because that cost component nor exclusivity component of FreeSync was ever there. He got exactly what he paid for originally and this announcement is just icing on the cake.

Prior to this announcement, the only way to get adaptive sync on NVIDIA hardware was by paying the GSYNC fee. Look at it this way (assuming NVIDIA card):
1) pay GSYNC fee to get adaptive sync support.
2) pay for a fixed sync monitor without adapative sync support.
3) pay roughly the same as #2 for a adaptive sync monitor but no GSYNC support.

#1 is vendor lock-in
#3 makes the most financial sense

AMD cards only ever had #2 and #3 as options.

You turned the example around. Monitors tend to last longer than GPUs, so when you upgrade a GPU why would you not get the better combo?

Nonetheless I get what you are saying about the cost aspect wrt Freesync offerings and vendor lock in in a general sense.

Guys, could we please just get along. Regardless of the reasoning behind Nvidia's announcement, getting a more standard VRR environment is a good thing :)

Vayra86You turned the example around. Monitors tend to last longer than GPUs, so when you upgrade a GPU why would you not get the better combo?

Nonetheless I get what you are saying about the cost aspect wrt Freesync offerings and vendor lock in in a general sense.

You answered your own question: cost. FreeSync versus fixed sync has very little difference in cost (for the manufacture, literally just time, the value of a single monitor, and S&H).


Vendor lock-in requires a proprietary or customer component. VESA adapative sync is an open standard (for members) and AMD has open sourced their VESA adpative sync implementation (trademarked as FreeSync) through the GPUOpen initiative. You're accusing AMD of customer lock-in (NVIDIA proved they didn't with this announcement) when NVIDIA is provably guilty of both proprietary and customer lock-in.

Judging by the reply quoted above, yeah, I think you finally "get it." ;)

londisteGuys, could we please just get along. Regardless of the reasoning behind Nvidia's announcement, getting a more standard VRR environment is a good thing :)

Good idea, going in circles now.

Looking at VRR support in DP and HDMI specs and cross referencing NVIDIA architectures, only Maxwell, Pascal, and Turing cards likely support VESA adaptive sync over DisplayPort and none of them (unless they mimic AMD's proprietary HDMI signaling) support VRR over HDMI. DP 1.2a was created specifically for AMD VRR which NVIDIA did not implement. VRR became a broad standard in DP 1.3 which Maxwell supports. VRR was not standardized at all in HDMI spec until 2.1. Turing has 2.0b support.

Researching this, I rediscovered NVIDIA's DP firmware update back in June...I wonder if it is related to this news:
www.techspot.com/news/74994-nvidia-releases-fix-displayport-issues-maxwell-pascal-graphics.html

FordGT90ConceptLooking at VRR support in DP and HDMI specs and cross referencing NVIDIA architectures, only Maxwell, Pascal, and Turing cards likely support VESA adaptive sync over DisplayPort and none of them (unless they mimic AMD's proprietary HDMI signaling) support VRR over HDMI. DP 1.2a was created specifically for AMD VRR which NVIDIA did not implement. VRR became a broad standard in DP 1.3 which Maxwell supports. VRR was not standardized at all in HDMI spec until 2.1. Turing has 2.0b support.

Researching this, I rediscovered NVIDIA's DP firmware update back in June...I wonder if it is related to this news:
www.techspot.com/news/74994-nvidia-releases-fix-displayport-issues-maxwell-pascal-graphics.html

From an article on AnandTech, the new driver will enable VESA Adaptive Sync only on Pascal and newer cards.

Wow, they really dropped the ball there.

Uhm I'm not really sure if Maxwell has displayport over 1.2(At least every maxwell cards specs says displayport 1.2 i.e. gtx980ti and maximum resolution is lower than what is possible with 1.3/1.4). Adaptive sync were included to 1.2a version. That TEchspot article says that connected to monitor that support 1.3/1.4 have problems not that Maxwell have displayport 1.3/1.4 connector.

Nvidia says G-Sync requirement is 600 series (650Ti and up) or newer. So, basically starting Kepler. There is no reason to assume they will reduce support in some way. Older GPUs like 500 series (Fermi) did not have DisplayPort. Also, 600-series is as far back as their current driver support goes.

That's for GSYNC as in monitors equipped with the GSYNC module. We're talking about "GSYNC Compatible" which is what NVIDIA is calling their adaption of VESA adaptive sync standard. As Rahnak pointed out, "GSYNC Compatible" is only on Pascal and newer cards.

FordGT90ConceptThat's for GSYNC as in monitors equipped with the GSYNC module. We're talking about "GSYNC Compatible" which is what NVIDIA is calling their adaption of VESA adaptive sync standard. As Rahnak pointed out, "GSYNC Compatible" is only on Pascal and newer cards.

We'll have to wait and see. Nvidia does not say anywhere that it is limited to Pascal/Turing and there is no technical reason for anything like that. Just the opposite, there are good reasons for Nvidia to keep the list of GPUs supporting G-Sync stable.