Cool, will not upgrade my graphics card and monitor till 2017.

At least you'll know what's going to be available at a lower price 🙂

I mean that's true -- but for the most part all the features announced here for freesync are already available on G-Sync. And I'm sure that Nvidia will have additional features planned for Pascal's release relating to G-Sync. That's the advantage of having the onboard FPGA -- they can just update the module as they go if they find something new and useful to add. That being said, I think AMD's approach is obviously the more consumer friendly method and hopefully it will keep G-Sync costs in check.

That's it for this update. H.

according to the last line of the review: good for the the success :john: of AMD for year 2015.

I mean that's true -- but for the most part all the features announced here for freesync are already available on G-Sync. And I'm sure that Nvidia will have additional features planned for Pascal's release relating to G-Sync. That's the advantage of having the onboard FPGA -- they can just update the module as they go if they find something new and useful to add. That being said, I think AMD's approach is obviously the more consumer friendly method and hopefully it will keep G-Sync costs in check.

disagree, how often do you upgrade your monitor? not nearly as often as the GPU. I rather the changes come from the GPU and drivers, then have to upgrade (which always means replacement) my monitor every other year... gsync is a fail compared to freesync long term...

disagree, how often do you upgrade your Monitor? not nearly as often as the GPU. I rather the changes come from the GPU and drivers, then have to upgrade my monitor every other year... gsync is a fail compared to freesync long term...

Uh, it's kind of the opposite, well it could be the opposite depending on where it goes. The G-Sync module is an FPGA. That's why it's so expensive. The module can be reprogrammed specifically for future hardware support so you don't need a new monitor. AMD has been doing driver based workarounds for problems that the G-Sync module handles natively. This is fine, but there may come a point where AMD can't physically support a specific feature because the scalar in a specific monitor won't support it. In which case you will need a new monitor. G-Sync may not necessarily run into this problem because the module can be completely reprogrammed as necessary.

When are we getting 8K OLED screens @144hz with Free-sync? i can't wait 🙁

Uh, it's kind of the opposite, well it could be the opposite depending on where it goes. The G-Sync module is an FPGA. That's why it's so expensive. The module can be reprogrammed specifically for future hardware support so you don't need a new monitor. AMD has been doing driver based workarounds for problems that the G-Sync module handles natively. This is fine, but there may come a point where AMD can't physically support a specific feature because the scalar in a specific monitor won't support it. In which case you will need a new monitor. G-Sync may not necessarily run into this problem because the module can be completely reprogrammed as necessary.

If you could afford a good Nvidia gaming video card and a G-Sync screen in the first place, you can also afford to upgrade them when necessary. They aren't for the poor man.

Because you think that Nvidia will send you a new modules, or Asus sold it to you, instead of sold you a new fresh monitor ? ... With AMD, all new need is a driver update .. and i think Nvidia it is the same for add new features on G-sync....

What? I never said Asus or Nvidia would send a new module. I said that Nvidia can update the module, via a driver. It's an FPGA -- it can be completely reprogrammed via software updates.

Commercially maybe, it may be phased out and no new G-Sync screens may be made in few years. But people who bought G-Sync based screen will be able to use it till it dies and it provides same functionality as Freesync. Only difference is that you can select how FS behaves once you go out of FS range of screen. (But maybe nV already added same feature too? Some owner of G-Sync screen can fill this information in.))

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/g-sync-gets-even-better You can set it for going above the range but not below. Although I don't know why you'd want it to set it off for going below. The frame doubling (LFC as AMD calls it) or whatever does a good job of keeping it smooth below the threshold. I'm assuming AMD's solution does the same. Overall G-Sync or Freesync, the technology is totally worth it. I didn't really believe the hype till I bought my PG278Q and games in the 35-70 fps range definitely become way smoother/better experience when G-Sync is enabled. I'm sure Freesync is the same way. Its something you really have to experience, but I definitely think it's worth the cost of a new monitor or paying $100 more in Nvidia's case.

good more competition is better, but AMD have bad record of broken promises. This time i hope they turn out to be true, but i know nvidia won't sit and watch.

That is over 80% the bandwidth that HDMI 2.0 offers. This enabled enables 4k gaming run on 120 Hz monitors. 4K 120Hz panels will be available in q4 2106. Low framerate compensation will be included in there as well btw.

Oh well, we'll have to wait 91 more years what choice do we have. Hue.

disagree, how often do you upgrade your monitor? not nearly as often as the GPU. I rather the changes come from the GPU and drivers, then have to upgrade (which always means replacement) my monitor every other year... gsync is a fail compared to freesync long term...

GSync is not even remotely a fail. The FPGA module is reprogrammable, meaning Nvidia can push 'firmware' (if you may) updates through drivers for example. That way it's less likely that your monitor goes obsolete. And as it stands currently, Freesync is simply playing catch-up to GSync which has more functionality. GSync is simply the better tech but it's hardware locked. I would even argue that GSync is more future-oriented aside from being proprietary tech.

If you could afford a good Nvidia gaming video card and a G-Sync screen in the first place, you can also afford to upgrade them when necessary. They aren't for the poor man.

We're talking about 4k 120+Hz monitors here. They WILL be expensive. I don't think you want to pay GPU money for a monitor every few years.

This time i hope they turn out to be true, but i know nvidia won't sit and watch.

Nvidia's whole financial and market share success is based on its exceptionally smart sit and watch strategy. While AMD has spent extra money to guess, develop, and offer people what they might need tomorrow, Nvidia has used the most cost effective current technology to give people what they need today. Obviously people have then bought what they need for the current games, not games that might appear one day. That being said, I still don't understand why AMD didn't keep HBM for themselves for the time being just like Nvidia has kept G-sync hardware locked, for example, forcing AMD to develop and market what people generally consider a less refined solution (even if cheaper). Next year AMD could then have watched Nvidia try to compete with GDDR5 against HBM2. If Nvidia now beats AMD to the next generation, like it did last time, people will spend their money on Nvidia first. Actually they still might in either case since I reckon they first look at the options from their current supplier, which is more likely Nvidia with their huge market share.

Maybe some part of HBM cash from nvidia goes to AMD as well, if they would keep it for themselves, nvidia might found other way to use their own HBM or what it was called. anyway, 2k16 gonna be intersting, Pascal and AC should bring new stuff to the table.

AMDoes what NVidont. :flip:

What? I never said Asus or Nvidia would send a new module. I said that Nvidia can update the module, via a driver. It's an FPGA -- it can be completely reprogrammed via software updates. http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/g-sync-gets-even-better You can set it for going above the range but not below. Although I don't know why you'd want it to set it off for going below. The frame doubling (LFC as AMD calls it) or whatever does a good job of keeping it smooth below the threshold. I'm assuming AMD's solution does the same. Overall G-Sync or Freesync, the technology is totally worth it. I didn't really believe the hype till I bought my PG278Q and games in the 35-70 fps range definitely become way smoother/better experience when G-Sync is enabled. I'm sure Freesync is the same way. Its something you really have to experience, but I definitely think it's worth the cost of a new monitor or paying $100 more in Nvidia's case.

Lower rates don't really feel much different to me, not that I've done a side-by-side or GS on/off comparison because having it on is nice. The lack of tearing without V-sync is worth it for GS or FS (presuming FS is about the same). The only problem I've had is that some older games won't run at all with G-Sync and sometimes games require I manually set G-Sync to on for the specific game in the NV control panel despite having it as the default.