TR Forums

link here
Samsung will be releasing 120Hz FreeSync TVs this year.
Microsoft will bring FreeSync to the XB1S and XB1X

These sound perfect for all my systems, though I do hate that I have to choose between my sound system and Freesync. I wish I could find a proper workaround for that (before eARC hits.)

Does HDMI 2.1 not automatically imply eARC anyway?

That'll work for me. I've always prefered to use my HDTV as an HDMI hub for one-remote simplicity.

A sign that Xbox has already had an impact. Very good*. Now if Sony could just do the same thing with the PS4 (also running AMD graphics), it'd really put the nail in the coffin and end this nonsense.

As a bit of a sidenote, I'm curious as to why the original Xbox hardware couldn't implement Freesync. Perhaps the original PS4 has the same issue as well, but even just enabling it on the Pro would probably do the trick.



*especially since I just bought a Freesync monitor

Chrispy_ wrote:

Does HDMI 2.1 not automatically imply eARC anyway?

That'll work for me. I've always prefered to use my HDTV as an HDMI hub for one-remote simplicity.

These aren't 2.1, though they'll have features from it? And I don't know if the receiver also has to support eARC or not.

The Egg wrote:

As a bit of a sidenote, I'm curious as to why the original Xbox hardware couldn't implement Freesync. Perhaps the original PS4 has the same issue as well, but even just enabling it on the Pro would probably do the trick.
*especially since I just bought a Freesync monitor

I believe it will with the update about to roll out. Xbox One and Xbox One S will support Freesync 1 I believe, and X will support Freesync 2.

I might be fuzzy on the details but I think that's right.

I already have three including the one in my new laptop

The Egg wrote:

As a bit of a sidenote, I'm curious as to why the original Xbox hardware couldn't implement Freesync.

The XB1 had HDMI 1.4a, whereas the XB1S has HDMI2.0. Hence why they'll be able to do FreeSync over HDMI on the XB1S.

I thought HDMI 1.4a supported freesync.
Despite AMD showing freesync working over HDMI 1.4a in 2015, the products that made it to market in 2016 all seem to have 2.0

FFS NVidia, either start working with your partners to release a similar scope of GSync displays or throw in the towel and let me use my 1080Ti with the latest tech.

Kretschmer wrote:

FFS NVidia, either start working with your partners to release a similar scope of GSync displays

They actually announced BFGDs back in January. So technically Nvidia was first. However, with all consoles being AMD, I don't see BFGDs taking off en masse.

Kretschmer wrote:

FFS NVidia, either start working with your partners to release a similar scope of GSync displays or throw in the towel and let me use my 1080Ti with the latest tech.

The main problem with Freesync vs GSync is that Freesync as a check-box feature means that it is added to all sorts of crappy display with very narrow VRR windows. Until there is an easy way to differentiate good Freesync vs Freesynch-as-a-checkbox, I don't think nVidia will switch gears.

Why would Nvidia care? They don't make monitors.

IIRC, GSync modules are still FPGAs and they haven't moved to ASICs yet. Nvidia probably cut all R&D of GSync modules a long time ago and are just milking the exclusivity to recoup R&D costs and get as much profit as possible until GSync sales drop below a given threshold. Once they support VESA Adaptive Sync, GSync monitor sales will dry up in a hurry.
I don't blame them for stringing out GSync as long as possible, it was the smart thing to do. They were first to market with VRR, but FreeSync was better. It just sucks to be vendor locked to a monitor.

DPete27 wrote:

Why would Nvidia care? They don't make monitors.

They're name is still tied to GSync, which at this point is pretty much a guarantee of a good experience, versus freesync which can be hit or miss due to some of the low-end monitors.

DPete27 wrote:

I don't blame them for stringing out GSync as long as possible, it was the smart thing to do. They were first to market with VRR, but FreeSync was better. It just sucks to be vendor locked to a monitor.

Let's be clear. FreeSync wasn't better at anything except being cheaper and not requiring a separate FPGA. In that sense, sure.

But yeah, it's time Nvidia.

Beta vs. VHS ...

blablabla

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

DPete27 wrote:

Why would Nvidia care? They don't make monitors.

Their name is still tied to GSync, which at this point is pretty much a guarantee of a good experience, versus freesync which can be hit or miss due to some of the low-end monitors.

The reason for that is because Nvidia needed GSync to be in premium speccd monitors so the ~$150 cost of the module could be sufficiently swallowed up in the overall cost. Slap a $150 premium on a $250 monitor and nobody will buy it.

@DancinJack - Yes, sorry, I was assuming everyone knew GSync and FreeSync are at feature parity, but FreeSync does it cheaper/simpler.

(Getting a little off track from the topic, but I suppose it's partially my fault)

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

Kretschmer wrote:

FFS NVidia, either start working with your partners to release a similar scope of GSync displays or throw in the towel and let me use my 1080Ti with the latest tech.

The main problem with Freesync vs GSync is that Freesync as a check-box feature means that it is added to all sorts of crappy display with very narrow VRR windows. Until there is an easy way to differentiate good Freesync vs Freesynch-as-a-checkbox, I don't think nVidia will switch gears.

If you're a monitor nerd, you can see a panoply of FreeSync displays coming out and...very, very few GSync options. I'd be ok with there being one or two premium GSync displays in each category as opposed to a dozen FreeSync displays of varying quality, but the flow of new displays is a still a trickle. FreeSync is hitting more form factors and feature sets these days, and it's maddening.

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

The main problem with Freesync vs GSync is that Freesync as a check-box feature means that it is added to all sorts of crappy display with very narrow VRR windows. Until there is an easy way to differentiate good Freesync vs Freesynch-as-a-checkbox, I don't think nVidia will switch gears.

I'm pretty sure Freesync 2 establishes some sort of minimum refresh rate, though it's a little unclear whether it's a hard number, or a ratio (maximum at least 2.5x the minimum).

The Egg wrote:

I'm pretty sure Freesync 2 establishes some sort of minimum refresh rate, though it's a little unclear whether it's a hard number, or a ratio (maximum at least 2.5x the minimum).

Freesync 2 requires LFC, so that pretty much takes care of the low end.

Kretschmer wrote:

FFS NVidia, either start working with your partners to release a similar scope of GSync displays or throw in the towel and let me use my 1080Ti with the latest tech.

If you're speaking specifically to the opening post TV, I'm not sure what you expect NVIDIA to do. FreeSync HDMI is proprietary, as is the FreeSync 2 HDR tech.

As for HDMI 2.1 VRR, which that article confirms is a different standard* than FreeSync HDMI, who knows what NVIDIA will do with regard to that. We'd need an NVIDIA card that actually has HDMI 2.1 support first.

*

flatpanelshd wrote:

The other supported system is HDMI 2.1’s so-called VRR (variable refresh rate), which is the HDMI Organization’s standardized version that largely resembles FreeSync in form and function but is intended for TVs. It is not identical to FreeSync, according to Samsung.

Ryu Connor wrote:

If you're speaking specifically to the opening post TV, I'm not sure what you expect NVIDIA to do. FreeSync HDMI is proprietary, as is the FreeSync 2 HDR tech.

I imagine getting the rights to use those would be fairly cheap.

Obviously I can't speak for AMD either way, but they haven't shown to be nearly as interested in shutting out the competition as NVIDIA has.

You're saying nobody else can run VESA Adaptive Sync over HDMI? I thought that was part of the HDMI 2.0 spec sheet.
The FreeSync 2 HDR stuff seems more driver-based, to which I'd imagine Nvidia could implement similar features.

DPete27 wrote:

You're saying nobody else can run VESA Adaptive Sync over HDMI? I thought that was part of the HDMI 2.0 spec sheet.
The FreeSync 2 HDR stuff seems more driver-based, to which I'd imagine Nvidia could implement similar features.

Well AMD demonstrated Freesync(1) over HDMI 1.4a back in 2015. So clearly VESA adaptive sync can be run over HDMI, since Freesync is based on the VESA standard. It'll obviously need some support at the GPU and display end to get working, but the interface and hardware already meets the requirements and has done for almost three years.

So yeah....since the PS4 Pro uses essentially the same AMD graphics chip and has HDMI 2.0, they should be able to add Freesync support with a software update.

I'd be surprised if Sony doesn't. Even if there aren't any/many TVs with FreeSync in the wild, that's a marketing advantage that Sony can't afford to give MS.

LostCat wrote:

Obviously I can't speak for AMD either way, but they haven't shown to be nearly as interested in shutting out the competition as NVIDIA has.

I think the appropriate response here is.

lololololololololol

AMD will not be licensing their proprietary tech to NVIDIA. You guys are killing me with the whole AMD is a non-profit corporation talk. Please remember they are a for profit business. You buying a RADEON and AMD only FreeSync display is more valuable than playing nice with NVIDIA. AMD employs evil marketing geniuses too. Those evil geniuses like to publicly play up that AMD is a David versus the NVIDIA Goliath, while privately taking steps to do the same thing NVIDIA does. FreeSync HDMI & FreeSync 2 HDR are the steps toward creating an AMD only monitor ecosystem to lock you in, while still riding the early wave of evil NVIDIA being obstinate. "If only NVIDIA would just support the standard. Alas and alack."

Evil_marketing_geniuses. They're a for profit business, you're not gonna find any Saints around here.

DPete27 wrote:

You're saying nobody else can run VESA Adaptive Sync over HDMI? I thought that was part of the HDMI 2.0 spec sheet.
The FreeSync 2 HDR stuff seems more driver-based, to which I'd imagine Nvidia could implement similar features.

No, it is not part of the HDMI 2.0 spec sheet. HDMI 2.1 added VRR and that VRR is not FreeSync. HDMI decided their VRR needed to implement a completely different electrical signaling method.

The HDMI standard allows for vendor-specific extensions to the specifications. AMD used that to create HDMI FreeSync. HDMI FreeSync is 100% an AMD creation. NVIDIA can obviously do the same thing, but that will create yet another standard. Do you really want another standard? A standard that will require a whole new spate of monitors with support for the NVIDIA vendor-specific HDMI extensions, but naturally not support the AMD vendor-specific extensions.

The FreeSync 2 HDR stuff is a mess. Not only does it not adhere to HDR10 or Dolby Vision, it's effectively an enhanced sRGB, it also requires the game or app to tap into the FreeSync HDR API in the AMD drivers.

You're right, NVIDIA could do that too, but.. wait for it.

It would create yet another standard.

Ryu Connor wrote:

They're a for profit business, you're not gonna find any Saints around here.

All that open source code for their game tech vs PhysX/Gameworks kinda speaks for itself.

I don't need to find a reason to hate NVIDIA, they parade their reasons right out in the open.

DPete27 wrote:

Why would Nvidia care? They don't make monitors.

IIRC, GSync modules are still FPGAs and they haven't moved to ASICs yet. Nvidia probably cut all R&D of GSync modules a long time ago and are just milking the exclusivity to recoup R&D costs and get as much profit as possible until GSync sales drop below a given threshold. Once they support VESA Adaptive Sync, GSync monitor sales will dry up in a hurry.
I don't blame them for stringing out GSync as long as possible, it was the smart thing to do. They were first to market with VRR, but FreeSync was better. It just sucks to be vendor locked to a monitor.

The other factor for nVidia to still remain Gsync exclusive is that the Cannon Lake generation of graphics from Intel was supposed to support VESA adaptive sync (along with DP 1.3/1.4 and HDMI 2.0 natively). Since Cannon Lake is MIA outside of a spread sheet so an Intel exec could get a bonus, the wide spread of adaptive sync capable systems has yet to happen. Granted any serious gamer with a dedicated GPU likely has a variable refresh rate capable graphics card but that number pales in comparison to the number of integrated GPUs Intel sells. Once it becomes a standard feature, more monitors will ship with variable refresh rate support and sales will pick up. Right now it exists as a premium feature and nVidia sees fit to charge a premium price for Gsync.

I see nVidia adding VESA adaptive sync support to their GPUs after Intel starts shipping integrated GPUs with similar support, at least for computer displays using DP.

Ryu Connor wrote:

AMD will not be licensing their proprietary tech to NVIDIA. You guys are killing me with the whole AMD is a non-profit corporation talk. Please remember they are a for profit business. You buying a RADEON and AMD only FreeSync display is more valuable than playing nice with NVIDIA. AMD employs evil marketing geniuses too. Those evil geniuses like to publicly play up that AMD is a David versus the NVIDIA Goliath, while privately taking steps to do the same thing NVIDIA does. FreeSync HDMI & FreeSync 2 HDR are the steps toward creating an AMD only monitor ecosystem to lock you in, while still riding the early wave of evil NVIDIA being obstinate. "If only NVIDIA would just support the standard. Alas and alack."

Evil_marketing_geniuses. They're a for profit business, you're not gonna find any Saints around here.

AMD's efforts in this area are purely a market share play, which they have won in a few instances with this strategy. Their Mantle effort morphed into Vulkan which nVidia had to support as a Khronos group standard for example. They also have had plenty of failures too but considering AMD's cash striped and resource starved nature, open standards/open source were appropriate business strategies to take.

Now that AMD is back on its feet, they could start moving toward more closed initiatives.

Ryu Connor wrote:

DPete27 wrote:

You're saying nobody else can run VESA Adaptive Sync over HDMI? I thought that was part of the HDMI 2.0 spec sheet.
The FreeSync 2 HDR stuff seems more driver-based, to which I'd imagine Nvidia could implement similar features.

No, it is not part of the HDMI 2.0 spec sheet. HDMI 2.1 added VRR and that VRR is not FreeSync. HDMI decided their VRR needed to implement a completely different electrical signaling method.

The HDMI standard allows for vendor-specific extensions to the specifications. AMD used that to create HDMI FreeSync. HDMI FreeSync is 100% an AMD creation. NVIDIA can obviously do the same thing, but that will create yet another standard. Do you really want another standard? A standard that will require a whole new spate of monitors with support for the NVIDIA vendor-specific HDMI extensions, but naturally not support the AMD vendor-specific extensions.

Certain features can get back ported in specs as optional extensions. Often it is little things like 4k30 support on devices that are only rated for HDMI 1.3 for example. Easy to add as that doesn't change the core signaling of HDMI 1.x.

Ryu Connor wrote:

The FreeSync 2 HDR stuff is a mess. Not only does it not adhere to HDR10 or Dolby Vision, it's effectively an enhanced sRGB, it also requires the game or app to tap into the FreeSync HDR API in the AMD drivers.

You're right, NVIDIA could do that too, but.. wait for it.

It would create yet another standard.

Agreed but HDR is a mess everywhere in general. This will eventually sort itself out long term as it always happens when a dozen competing standards rush to market to gain the early adopter market share. The idea that nVidia could launch their own HDR standard should just be a punchline but it is something I can see happening.

LostCat wrote:

All that open source code for their game tech vs PhysX/Gameworks kinda speaks for itself.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "all that open source code", but FreeSync 2 requires LFC, and LFC is a "secret sauce". Whether it's done in hardware or software I don't think is particularly important. The point(Ryu can slap me with a trout if I get this wrong) is that if you want to make the stance of "open source good, proprietary bad", then you should be aware that AMD isn't completely on the open source side here at all.

@ the
While you may end up being right about Intel, from a logical standpoint, people using those integrated GPUs have almost zero impact on the sales of gaming displays, nor care anything of VRR. The two major consoles, as pure gaming machines, should be the real 800lb gorillas.

Of course things don't always work logically.