By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - AMD : FreeSync Monitors Shipping in December – Will Cost $100 Less Than Nvidia G-Sync

'And remember kids - it's your monitor that makes your games lag, not your pc.'



My Etsy store

My Ebay store

Deus Ex (2000) - a game that pushes the boundaries of what the video game medium is capable of to a degree unmatched to this very day.

Around the Network
Trentonater said:
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

I honestly think that neither of these technologies will persuade most PC gamers to get one or the other cause I feel like that more people are waiting for better 4k ready monitors rather than 1080p monitors with hardware level V-sync enabled. I know that in-game V-sync as well as "adaptive" V-sync isn't always perfect but I really don't think that most people care enough to dish out a few hundred dollars just so they can have better V-sync where as they can spend a few hundred dollars and get a 4k ready monitor and just continue to use software V-sync

And I get that its also available for 4k monitors but 4k monitors are quite expensive as it is so spending more just for a better V-sync option still doesn't seem like it will take off just yet but hopefully in the future, it will


You would be wrong. Gamers in general don't care about 4K because they are just paying a whole lot for crappy monitors with brute-force AA. You are paying more for something so could get for free with AA and probobly don't have the graphical power required to run in the first place. You end up playing at a lower resolution with upscaling so everything actually looks worse. 4K is going to go the way of 3D not 1080p.

G-sync is marketed towards gamers and all gamers care about is higher refresh rates and faster response times. That is why most G-sync monitors are the the 144Hz ones. Gamers also stay away from V-sync in general. They would rather take screen-tearing.

Umm... I highly doubt 4k is going to be a gimmick like 3d was considering how virtually every company is pushing 4k... Sure, our GPU's aren't quite there yet but it will be soon enough just like how our GPU's werent there when 1080p was a brand new thing and 4k does eliminate almost any need for AA because the pixcel density is quite high and I am pretty sure more people would prefer that over AA anyday if given the choice.

I also highly doubt gamers would prefer screen-tearing over V-sync. I know V-Sync is far from perfect which is why technologies like this are being built to combat it in the future but for the people that don't have a G-Sync/FreeSync monitor, the amount of immersion breaking mess that screen-tearing can create, I am sure will be enough to turn on V-sync for most gamers. But of course, that is very game/specs dependent. If you played Mirrors Edge with a 970 with Vsync off, you are in for one terrible ride as an example



                  

PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850

I hope freesynch TVs follow soon and consoles should be able to support that with a firmware update

that way devs finally can choose a stable 40 or 50 fps and aren't limited to 30 or 60 fps



Trentonater said:
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

I honestly think that neither of these technologies will persuade most PC gamers to get one or the other cause I feel like that more people are waiting for better 4k ready monitors rather than 1080p monitors with hardware level V-sync enabled. I know that in-game V-sync as well as "adaptive" V-sync isn't always perfect but I really don't think that most people care enough to dish out a few hundred dollars just so they can have better V-sync where as they can spend a few hundred dollars and get a 4k ready monitor and just continue to use software V-sync

And I get that its also available for 4k monitors but 4k monitors are quite expensive as it is so spending more just for a better V-sync option still doesn't seem like it will take off just yet but hopefully in the future, it will


You would be wrong. Gamers in general don't care about 4K because they are just paying a whole lot for crappy monitors with brute-force AA. You are paying more for something so could get for free with AA and probobly don't have the graphical power required to run in the first place. You end up playing at a lower resolution with upscaling so everything actually looks worse. 4K is going to go the way of 3D not 1080p.

G-sync is marketed towards gamers and all gamers care about is higher refresh rates and faster response times. That is why most G-sync monitors are the the 144Hz ones. Gamers also stay away from V-sync in general. They would rather take screen-tearing.

I hope you know that, not everyone shares the same opinions as you do.To be honest yes,rght now I know no one but myself that plays at 4k,but the PC gamers that I know don't play at that resolution, because they don't own hardware capable of running it,but it appeals to them none the less.Apparently you seem to have forgotten that, 4k not only works as AA, but also increases the detail that you can perceive from the picture, greatly.As for V-Sync, I can't handle screen tearing, I am so used to a completely clear screen image, that I can notice even the most minor thing,it is actually one of the things that I hate about many console games,my hate for it is so big that is only surpassed by the AA of the same games.



Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:
Captain_Tom said:
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

Whats the model number cause from the reviews I have seen... The Problems of TN is still there with a lot of color shift in the vertical angles as well as the colors being a saturated at the top vs the bottom. Again, my point is, first they need to get the display features right by having options such as an affordable IPS 4k display before they will widely implement things like FreeSync and G-Sync which is still, I would say, almost a year away before it really starts taking off

Ok look you are missing my point.  Freesync(Unlike G-Sync) costs very little to implement (They said some current monitors only need a firmware update).  There is no reason monitors have to wait for other things to get better to implement something that works NOW.

Well, if thats all it requires and there is no additional hardware involved then I will agree with you but from articles like this, it seems to me that it does require something cause what amd is saying is that it costs $100 less than G-Sync monitors but a monitor with G-Sync costs $200-$300+ than a similarly performing monitor without G-Sync.

In other words, if it costs $100 less than G-Sync but still costs $100-$200 more than a monitor that has about the same specs, just without FreeSync, that would mean that there is clearly some additional hardware involved which is why I am skeptical that this will be a widely adopted thing until the end of 2015-2016. If this really does become the standard right from launch, great cause then everyone is happy and I will be very excited to get one but if its not, then I do think it will take until 2016 till it really starts to take off.


It costs something extra, but it isn't much.  Here:

http://techreport.com/news/26919/freesync-monitors-will-sample-next-month-start-selling-next-year

 

$10-$20.  Plus they will probably add a small early adopters fee so I would assume an extra $50 at most instead of the extra $150 that G-Sync requires.  It won't be the standard right away, but I do expect there to be a wide selection within a few months after launch.  After 2015 it should be the defacto standard considering how big of a difference it makes for so little extra cost.



Around the Network
Trentonater said:
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

I honestly think that neither of these technologies will persuade most PC gamers to get one or the other cause I feel like that more people are waiting for better 4k ready monitors rather than 1080p monitors with hardware level V-sync enabled. I know that in-game V-sync as well as "adaptive" V-sync isn't always perfect but I really don't think that most people care enough to dish out a few hundred dollars just so they can have better V-sync where as they can spend a few hundred dollars and get a 4k ready monitor and just continue to use software V-sync

And I get that its also available for 4k monitors but 4k monitors are quite expensive as it is so spending more just for a better V-sync option still doesn't seem like it will take off just yet but hopefully in the future, it will


You would be wrong. Gamers in general don't care about 4K because they are just paying a whole lot for crappy monitors with brute-force AA. You are paying more for something so could get for free with AA and probobly don't have the graphical power required to run in the first place. You end up playing at a lower resolution with upscaling so everything actually looks worse. 4K is going to go the way of 3D not 1080p.

G-sync is marketed towards gamers and all gamers care about is higher refresh rates and faster response times. That is why most G-sync monitors are the the 144Hz ones. Gamers also stay away from V-sync in general. They would rather take screen-tearing.


LOL you could not be more wrong about pretty much everything you said.



Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:
Trentonater said:
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

I honestly think that neither of these technologies will persuade most PC gamers to get one or the other cause I feel like that more people are waiting for better 4k ready monitors rather than 1080p monitors with hardware level V-sync enabled. I know that in-game V-sync as well as "adaptive" V-sync isn't always perfect but I really don't think that most people care enough to dish out a few hundred dollars just so they can have better V-sync where as they can spend a few hundred dollars and get a 4k ready monitor and just continue to use software V-sync

And I get that its also available for 4k monitors but 4k monitors are quite expensive as it is so spending more just for a better V-sync option still doesn't seem like it will take off just yet but hopefully in the future, it will


You would be wrong. Gamers in general don't care about 4K because they are just paying a whole lot for crappy monitors with brute-force AA. You are paying more for something so could get for free with AA and probobly don't have the graphical power required to run in the first place. You end up playing at a lower resolution with upscaling so everything actually looks worse. 4K is going to go the way of 3D not 1080p.

G-sync is marketed towards gamers and all gamers care about is higher refresh rates and faster response times. That is why most G-sync monitors are the the 144Hz ones. Gamers also stay away from V-sync in general. They would rather take screen-tearing.

Umm... I highly doubt 4k is going to be a gimmick like 3d was considering how virtually every company is pushing 4k... Sure, our GPU's aren't quite there yet but it will be soon enough just like how our GPU's werent there when 1080p was a brand new thing and 4k does eliminate almost any need for AA because the pixcel density is quite high and I am pretty sure more people would prefer that over AA anyday if given the choice.

I also highly doubt gamers would prefer screen-tearing over V-sync. I know V-Sync is far from perfect which is why technologies like this are being built to combat it in the future but for the people that don't have a G-Sync/FreeSync monitor, the amount of immersion breaking mess that screen-tearing can create, I am sure will be enough to turn on V-sync for most gamers. But of course, that is very game/specs dependent. If you played Mirrors Edge with a 970 with Vsync off, you are in for one terrible ride as an example


3D was also heavily pushed by all companies riding off of the the Avatar hype. It caused more trouble than it improved though. 4K like 3D is suffering from the same issues. Lack of availible content, high pay wall, and inconvenience. 4K suffers huge scaling issues like 3d has brightness and headache issues. 4K also suffers from the law of diminishing returns. There is just no noticable increase in quality in most situation. 4K is only really needed with projectors. it is nowhere near the increase of 480p to 1080 as that also brought an entirely different viewing experience with different display sizes. 4k is just 1080p but better. There is very little mainstreme consumer interest in 4k. They can only get fooled by advertising for so long. 1080p was so successful because it was so noticable. Just look at how much more attention the ASUS ROG Swift got than the similarly priced Acer XB280HK.

A gamer can just eliminate all jaggies with a very cheap AA method with next to no performance cost. They can also go for more intense AA that will increase overall picture quality for a performance cost that is STILL less than 4K.

 

Yes V-sync off has been the choice for any competetive gamer.  Input lag has long been a dealbreaker for gamers. That is why tournaments use CRTs.



ill still be picking up a gsync compatible one in future



Even before AMD stated it I already expected its solution to be more open towards other HW and SW, even competing ones, granting it a wider compatibiliy.
Anyhow, I don't plan to upgrade my monitor soon, when I'll do most probably there will be a wide choice of monitors supporting either solution and maybe many even both.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


I can't wait for G-Sync/FreeSync!

I can't decide what's worse: Screen tear, or stuttering... Soon, I will have neither!



"Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

-Samuel Clemens