AMD Introduces FreeSync Technology for New Samsung QLED TVs

[Nordic]

A certain stubborn someone asked for a bump of this thread. BUMP!

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Totally agree. Don't forget TV and monitor manufacturers have the risk of added cost when incorporating G-Sync, plus the fact that NVidia will not allow a monitor to support Free-Sync if it has the G-Sync label on it. No doubt Free-Sync isn't totally "free" to make, but a lot less than the $200 premium for G-Sync. Proprietary systems suck, even worse with contractual constraints!

I asked a credible source (whom will remain nameless) and he said that FreeSync has no added cost other than time. He also added he can manufacturer two FreeSync monitors (24", 1920x1080, 144 Hz) for the price of manufacturing one G-Sync monitor because the scalar he has to buy from NVIDIA costs as much as a monitor by itself.

Said differently, FreeSync has no extra hardware in the panel. The panel just reports its capabilities to the graphics device via EDID and then the work of doing variable refresh rate falls on the GPU to keep the frames coming at a pace the monitor can render. Even AMD GPUs have no extra hardware to make it work: just time spent there too in making sure the drivers handle it right.


TL;DR: FreeSync is a software solution (open standard); G-Sync is a hardware solution (closed standard).


I suspect Intel's new GPU will support adaptive sync too (probably branded differently) and you'll likely be able to plug a FreeSync monitor into them and they'll work as advertised. If Intel starts validating monitors itself, they may elect to use different branding (not sure how much of a grip AMD has on "FreeSync"). It could get confusing which monitors will work with which GPUs.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

Neat...
My next GPU will be AMD and my next TV will have freesync

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I enquired about how Intel plays into adaptive sync and it sounds like Intel would likely create their own validation program and thus, have their own branded monitors. Even though the underlying tech is the same doesn't necessarily mean adaptive sync is agnostic (displays and drivers have to work in lockstep with each other).

I hope this isn't the case but only time will tell.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

I don't think Intel would go with their own standard after needing AMD to get a foot in the door.... The last thing they need is a device starting a new proprietary line...

 

[xvi]

With Intel's Core i7-8809G (integrated AMD GPU) floating around now, you'd think that'd be even more incentive for Intel to go FreeSync. It's an open standard anyways.

 

[Sasqui]

I asked a credible source (whom will remain nameless) and he said that FreeSync has no added cost other than time. He also added he can manufacturer two FreeSync monitors (24", 1920x1080, 144 Hz) for the price of manufacturing one G-Sync monitor because the scalar he has to buy from NVIDIA costs as much as a monitor by itself.

Assuming that's true, then they must not be charging much more than the actual cost of the G-Sync module. Which means *much* lower margins on a G-Sync unit.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

With Intel's Core i7-8809G (integrated AMD GPU) floating around now, you'd think that'd be even more incentive for Intel to go FreeSync. It's an open standard anyways.

AMD can't be expected to validate monitors for Intel's GPUs. Intel got around that by impementing an AMD GPU so it is FreeSync AMD supports via drivers. I'm talking an Intel designed GPU. I think the fact they don't want to do the driver work (or at least until they poached Raja) and validate monitors is the reason why Intel hasn't implemented adpative sync yet.

Assuming that's true, then they must not be charging much more than the actual cost of the G-Sync module. Which means *much* lower margins on a G-Sync unit.

This manufacturer doesn't produce G-Sync monitors. If by "they" you mean manufacturers that do sell G-Sync monitors, then yeah, the profit margins are small on the monitors they do sell.

This isn't from the source but I guesstimate NVIDIA requires about $200 USD per G-Sync module. If you look around at G-Sync monitors for sell, they're about $200 more than their FreeSync/regular breathren. In other words, they're selling the G-Sync module at cost. There is no extra manufacturer markup for the G-Sync.

 

[Nordic]

I remember nvidia doing a limited run on G-sync modules direct to consumers willing to solder it on themselves for about $100.

 

[StrayKAT]

G-Sync funnily reminds me of IBM/Microchannel back in the day. They made pretty badass hardware, but that kind of behavior just wasn't going to fly.

 

[Xzibit]

I remember nvidia doing a limited run on G-sync modules direct to consumers willing to solder it on themselves for about $100.

The kit was announced to be $150. When it launched it was $199. It was limited to the Asus VG248QE. DIY kit so there was that and there was a service offered to install the module which ended up costing more then the monitor itself. They also offered a pre-modified version of the panel which was the cheapest option at $499 if you didnt have a panel due to shipping cost and if you wanted to avoid breaking stuff yourself.

 

[Readlight]

i can imagine how terrible will look these greedy, slow consoles on it.
cant they also enable it on older series tv?
tomb raider should be looking good on pc.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

FreeSync requires a lot of testing and validation. Older TVs aren't going to get it because they're not making money off of them anymore to justify the cost.