Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:
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.







