EK Classic RGB P240 review
Promo: VIP-SCDKey Games and Windows 10 / Office
Synology DS620slim Gigabit NAS Review
Fractal Design Vector RS review
Corsair iCUE 465X review
be quiet! Pure Base 500 review
Borderlands 3: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Swiftech H240 X3 AIO review
Promo: URCDKey Autumn Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
Corsair HS35 Stereo Gaming Headset Review
NVIDIA: G-SYNC Validation Runs into 94% failure rates
Ever since NVIDIA opened up Adaptive-Sync in their drivers as G-Sync (compatible) the display monitor vendors can get a G-Sync label and validation. In order to get that G-Sync label, the monitor manufacturers need to submit their display to NVIDIA for testing.
As it turns out, quite a number of monitors submitted to NVIDIA, do not pass their certification test. NVIDIA obviously sets the criteria for these test but roughly 95 percent of the currently 475 models tested, failed.
Nvidia presented a list of 14 compatible screens, to which the company validated G-Sync compatibility at CES; then in April, that number grew to 17 models. Here at Computex Nvidia claims 28 models that meet their requirements. You do need to remember that for g-Sync Ultimate, for example, HDR at 1000 nits is required. So if it was 600 nits (which is great) it would still fail that validation.
In total Nvidia states 536 monitors have Adaptive Sync support, 503 of which could be tested. For more than half of the displays, the variable synchronization simply covers too small a variable refresh rate range, according to Nvidia.
With GeForce RTX graphics cards delivering high levels of performance in the latest titles, such as Apex Legends, Murderhaw, Rage 2, and World War Z, our review has shown that gamers buying displays with VRR refresh rates that max out at 75Hz the majority of their time gaming VRR.
For G-SYNC Compatible displays, we saw the maximum refresh rates during testing, and the breakdown of passes and fails: over 300 failed monitors had a max 75Hz refresh rate or lower, and / or super slim VRR ranges, only 3 monitors that 120Hz, and the majority of the others have a refresh rate of 144Hz or higher. However, 76% of these higher refresh rates are G-SYNC Compatible monitors at 1920x1080, limiting game detail and clarity.
For the remaining 230 displays, 202 were failed specific image quality tests or had other problems. Among them, flickering.
To sum it up:
- 28 passed
- 202 failed for image quality or “other” issues
- 273 failed for having insufficient Variable Refresh Rate ranges
NVIDIA: GeForce RTX 2070 Available October 17th - 09/25/2018 08:01 PM
Two cards RTX have been released, yet three where announced. The cheapest RTX, or less expensive model 2070 still is awaiting an actual launch. Some expected later this month, but NVIDIA finally share...
NVIDIA: GeForce 1000 Series To Sell into 2019 - likely no RTX for Lower End Cards - 09/10/2018 08:40 AM
A series of interesting answers have been given in an interview by the executive vice president and chief financial officer of Nvidia, Colette Kress, the interview was performed by Seeking Alpha. ...
Nvidia: AI Reconstructs Photos with Realistic Results - 04/24/2018 08:01 AM
Researchers from NVIDIA, led by Guilin Liu, introduced a state-of-the-art deep learning method that can edit images or reconstruct a corrupted image, one that has holes or is missing pixels. The metho...
NVIDIA: GPU prices will continue increasing through Q3 2018 - 02/25/2018 11:39 AM
You guys all have been able to observe the graphics card price spikes the past half year. Though things are a bit more steady and stable it seems that the trend might continue for a while. Nvidia now...
NVIDIA: DirectX 12 Is Huge Improvement for Gaming - 03/21/2014 08:12 AM
Microsoft today introduced DirectX 12 at the annual Game Developers Conference (GDC) in San Francisco. DX12 is Microsoft's latest version of the graphics API that is the dominant standard in the grow...
liviut
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: 2006-05-22
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: 2006-05-22
#5674933 Posted on: 05/30/2019 11:01 AM
I have an Alienware AW2518HF the one with freesync, it's not g-sync validated but i never noticed any issue with using gsync compatible on it, i would call this bullshit, but well maybe i'm not seeing if i have any problems or something like that, i use gsync compatible from the first driver they introduced it, and i never noticed any flickers or i dont know whatever problems.
I have an Alienware AW2518HF the one with freesync, it's not g-sync validated but i never noticed any issue with using gsync compatible on it, i would call this bullshit, but well maybe i'm not seeing if i have any problems or something like that, i use gsync compatible from the first driver they introduced it, and i never noticed any flickers or i dont know whatever problems.
nevcairiel
Senior Member
Posts: 585
Joined: 2015-05-19
Senior Member
Posts: 585
Joined: 2015-05-19
#5674934 Posted on: 05/30/2019 11:07 AM
Flickering issues can be inconsistent, and sometimes only occur under certain image conditions. They have special test scenarios designed to provoke such problems more commonly then they occur in real games. But of course that doesn't mean it never happens in real gaming.
Some people also don't perceive some types of flicker that much, in other people it just causes headaches without being obvious to "see". So there can be a range of issues that not everyone is even susceptible to equally. I wish I could see their reasons for failing a screen, but for obvious reasons they are not going to publish that.
Personally, I applaud their efforts of testing and validating every possible screen ever. Reviewers have in the past not been that great at checking Adaptive Sync support/behavior.
Flickering issues can be inconsistent, and sometimes only occur under certain image conditions. They have special test scenarios designed to provoke such problems more commonly then they occur in real games. But of course that doesn't mean it never happens in real gaming.
Some people also don't perceive some types of flicker that much, in other people it just causes headaches without being obvious to "see". So there can be a range of issues that not everyone is even susceptible to equally. I wish I could see their reasons for failing a screen, but for obvious reasons they are not going to publish that.
Personally, I applaud their efforts of testing and validating every possible screen ever. Reviewers have in the past not been that great at checking Adaptive Sync support/behavior.
alanm
Senior Member
Posts: 8872
Joined: 2004-05-10
Senior Member
Posts: 8872
Joined: 2004-05-10
#5674938 Posted on: 05/30/2019 11:24 AM
What goes on in Nvidias monitor testing lab.
What goes on in Nvidias monitor testing lab.
Cave Waverider
Senior Member
Posts: 875
Joined: 2010-07-25
Senior Member
Posts: 875
Joined: 2010-07-25
#5674941 Posted on: 05/30/2019 11:36 AM
I think I've read that Nvidia also requires that the monitor has VRR enabled out of the box for Gsync compatible certification. This eliminates all the monitors that have a switch/OSD setting to turn the feature on and come off by default (which apparently many monitors do), even if they happen to work flawlessly once it's enabled. Many also don't have the required range for certification (but one can adjust that with CRU usually). Small things like that probably factor in for so many monitors failing certification.
I think in the long haul the certification standards are a good thing, as they will inspire display manufacturers to raise their standards.
I think I've read that Nvidia also requires that the monitor has VRR enabled out of the box for Gsync compatible certification. This eliminates all the monitors that have a switch/OSD setting to turn the feature on and come off by default (which apparently many monitors do), even if they happen to work flawlessly once it's enabled. Many also don't have the required range for certification (but one can adjust that with CRU usually). Small things like that probably factor in for so many monitors failing certification.
I think in the long haul the certification standards are a good thing, as they will inspire display manufacturers to raise their standards.
Kaarme
Senior Member
Posts: 1597
Joined: 2013-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 1597
Joined: 2013-03-10
#5674942 Posted on: 05/30/2019 11:39 AM
Nvidia originally built their GPUs so that they would achieve adaptive sync with the very special hardware required inside the screen. AMD built their GPUs so that far less is demanded from the screen. Thus it makes perfect sense AMD video cards would work with far more screens sufficiently than Nvidia video cards, of course forgetting the samples that are rejected due to obvious spec reasons, like not a wide enough sync range; they wouldn't even need to test those. It's like taking a very low riding car and an SUV and comparing the kinds of roads they can survive.
Nvidia originally built their GPUs so that they would achieve adaptive sync with the very special hardware required inside the screen. AMD built their GPUs so that far less is demanded from the screen. Thus it makes perfect sense AMD video cards would work with far more screens sufficiently than Nvidia video cards, of course forgetting the samples that are rejected due to obvious spec reasons, like not a wide enough sync range; they wouldn't even need to test those. It's like taking a very low riding car and an SUV and comparing the kinds of roads they can survive.
rl66
Senior Member
Posts: 2103
Joined: 2007-05-31
Senior Member
Posts: 2103
Joined: 2007-05-31
#5674959 Posted on: 05/30/2019 12:27 PM
Anyway both Freesync and Gsync are bullshit to make people buy monitor... On paper it is nice but in real world, it's not so nice.
The bad thing with Gsync is the hardware inside monitor (remain of their pro sync add on) again nice idea but make an extra cost that final consumer shouldn't pay
Freesync isn't so free either and is not so compatible with all, but as less expensive it is the more popular.
For main consumer it should be free AND compatible with all brand of GPU and supported by everyone, then it's might be the evolution.
Nvidia originally built their GPUs so that they would achieve adaptive sync with the very special hardware required inside the screen. AMD built their GPUs so that far less is demanded from the screen. Thus it makes perfect sense AMD video cards would work with far more screens sufficiently than Nvidia video cards, of course forgetting the samples that are rejected due to obvious spec reasons, like not a wide enough sync range; they wouldn't even need to test those. It's like taking a very low riding car and an SUV and comparing the kinds of roads they can survive.
Anyway both Freesync and Gsync are bullshit to make people buy monitor... On paper it is nice but in real world, it's not so nice.
The bad thing with Gsync is the hardware inside monitor (remain of their pro sync add on) again nice idea but make an extra cost that final consumer shouldn't pay
Freesync isn't so free either and is not so compatible with all, but as less expensive it is the more popular.
For main consumer it should be free AND compatible with all brand of GPU and supported by everyone, then it's might be the evolution.
nevcairiel
Senior Member
Posts: 585
Joined: 2015-05-19
Senior Member
Posts: 585
Joined: 2015-05-19
#5674963 Posted on: 05/30/2019 12:33 PM
Only someone that has never experienced the difference on a good monitor would say that.
You can of course get by without it. Just get a 60Hz display, turn down graphic settings until its 100% over 60 FPS, and it'll be smooth as well. But that "solution" is full of compromise.
Anyway both Freesync and Gsync are bullshit to make people buy monitor... On paper it is nice but in real world, it's not so nice.
Only someone that has never experienced the difference on a good monitor would say that.
You can of course get by without it. Just get a 60Hz display, turn down graphic settings until its 100% over 60 FPS, and it'll be smooth as well. But that "solution" is full of compromise.
Fediuld
Member
Posts: 99
Joined: 2016-10-04
Member
Posts: 99
Joined: 2016-10-04
#5674970 Posted on: 05/30/2019 12:51 PM
Anyway both Freesync and Gsync are bullshit to make people buy monitor... On paper it is nice but in real world, it's not so nice.
The bad thing with Gsync is the hardware inside monitor (remain of their pro sync add on) again nice idea but make an extra cost that final consumer shouldn't pay
Freesync isn't so free either and is not so compatible with all, but as less expensive it is the more popular.
For main consumer it should be free AND compatible with all brand of GPU and supported by everyone, then it's might be the evolution.
I agree with @nevcairiel that only someone who hasn't experience adaptive sync makes such post, especially 4 years after Freesync!
AMD Freesync is the software implementation of the VESA Adaptive Sync standard existed on embedded systems more than 10 years now. The whole "Freesync" is a marketing nomenclature to go against Nvidia Gsync which requires an expensive module manufactured by Nvidia.
In addition, the Nvidia Gsync laptops, is using exactly the same VESA Adaptive sync "Freesync", and not Gsync module. That is why is flaky at best on laptops, especially with the crap Nvidia drivers who do not have even the simple functionality to cap FPS. Something found on AMD drivers for many years now.
--------------------
As for the article, until Nvidia puts an FPS limiter on their drivers, they won't validate any "Freesync" monitor properly.
Because all Vesa Adaptive Sync monitors fail on exactly the same issues Laptop Gsync monitors have, yet Nvidia brushes them (gsync laptop monitor) issues under the carpet......
(And I have a Predator 15, so talking from experience).
Anyway both Freesync and Gsync are bullshit to make people buy monitor... On paper it is nice but in real world, it's not so nice.
The bad thing with Gsync is the hardware inside monitor (remain of their pro sync add on) again nice idea but make an extra cost that final consumer shouldn't pay
Freesync isn't so free either and is not so compatible with all, but as less expensive it is the more popular.
For main consumer it should be free AND compatible with all brand of GPU and supported by everyone, then it's might be the evolution.
I agree with @nevcairiel that only someone who hasn't experience adaptive sync makes such post, especially 4 years after Freesync!
AMD Freesync is the software implementation of the VESA Adaptive Sync standard existed on embedded systems more than 10 years now. The whole "Freesync" is a marketing nomenclature to go against Nvidia Gsync which requires an expensive module manufactured by Nvidia.
In addition, the Nvidia Gsync laptops, is using exactly the same VESA Adaptive sync "Freesync", and not Gsync module. That is why is flaky at best on laptops, especially with the crap Nvidia drivers who do not have even the simple functionality to cap FPS. Something found on AMD drivers for many years now.
--------------------
As for the article, until Nvidia puts an FPS limiter on their drivers, they won't validate any "Freesync" monitor properly.
Because all Vesa Adaptive Sync monitors fail on exactly the same issues Laptop Gsync monitors have, yet Nvidia brushes them (gsync laptop monitor) issues under the carpet......
(And I have a Predator 15, so talking from experience).
Amaze
Senior Member
Posts: 3023
Joined: 2003-11-15
Senior Member
Posts: 3023
Joined: 2003-11-15
#5674973 Posted on: 05/30/2019 01:00 PM
Nvidia will also not approve any monitor that doesn't have Freesync enabled by default, of which there are many.
Nvidia will also not approve any monitor that doesn't have Freesync enabled by default, of which there are many.
Michal Turlik 21
Member
Posts: 84
Joined: 2017-08-21
Member
Posts: 84
Joined: 2017-08-21
#5674975 Posted on: 05/30/2019 01:05 PM
Just as stated by someone here...could not the VESA Adaptive Sync standard be enough to enjoy a better experience?
Do the players (AMD and NVIDIA) have always to omit standards and try to get the ball by their own side?
I am guessing how much NVIDIA is supporting the VESA adaptive sync in their drivers...same as for AMD.
By now I am very happy with my almost 100% rgb compliant Asus PA329Q which (fortunately) has no support for any of both.
Just as stated by someone here...could not the VESA Adaptive Sync standard be enough to enjoy a better experience?
Do the players (AMD and NVIDIA) have always to omit standards and try to get the ball by their own side?
I am guessing how much NVIDIA is supporting the VESA adaptive sync in their drivers...same as for AMD.
By now I am very happy with my almost 100% rgb compliant Asus PA329Q which (fortunately) has no support for any of both.
Anarion
Senior Member
Posts: 13505
Joined: 2005-08-13
Senior Member
Posts: 13505
Joined: 2005-08-13
#5674976 Posted on: 05/30/2019 01:15 PM
Well, most adaptive sync monitors are 75Hz at best with very limited range. Of course those are going to fail the certification but it doesn't really mean that they will not work.
Well, most adaptive sync monitors are 75Hz at best with very limited range. Of course those are going to fail the certification but it doesn't really mean that they will not work.
Dribble
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 2019-01-18
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 2019-01-18
#5674986 Posted on: 05/30/2019 01:40 PM
The nvidia certification is obviously a good thing as it basically forces monitor makers to put the effort in to pass the certification on their future monitors - if they don't bother they've obviously just done the minimum to stick the freesync label on so avoid. Anyway Nvidia are finally giving us a reliable guarantee of freesync quality, something AMD should have been doing since they first introduced freesync.
This is something AMD must change if they want to take gpu share - AMD initiatives (freesync) should not require and Nvidia stamp on them for us to know that they actually work properly, the AMD stamp needs to be a stamp of quality.
The nvidia certification is obviously a good thing as it basically forces monitor makers to put the effort in to pass the certification on their future monitors - if they don't bother they've obviously just done the minimum to stick the freesync label on so avoid. Anyway Nvidia are finally giving us a reliable guarantee of freesync quality, something AMD should have been doing since they first introduced freesync.
This is something AMD must change if they want to take gpu share - AMD initiatives (freesync) should not require and Nvidia stamp on them for us to know that they actually work properly, the AMD stamp needs to be a stamp of quality.
nevcairiel
Senior Member
Posts: 585
Joined: 2015-05-19
Senior Member
Posts: 585
Joined: 2015-05-19
#5674987 Posted on: 05/30/2019 01:43 PM
This is something AMD must change if they want to take gpu share - AMD initiatives (freesync) should not require and Nvidia stamp on them for us to know that they actually work properly, the AMD stamp needs to be a stamp of quality.
Apparently FreeSync2 has higher requirements to be able to use that marketing term, but its not controlled by AMD, so any manufacturer can claim to fullfill those and get the rubber stamp, even if its buggy.
This is something AMD must change if they want to take gpu share - AMD initiatives (freesync) should not require and Nvidia stamp on them for us to know that they actually work properly, the AMD stamp needs to be a stamp of quality.
Apparently FreeSync2 has higher requirements to be able to use that marketing term, but its not controlled by AMD, so any manufacturer can claim to fullfill those and get the rubber stamp, even if its buggy.
SpajdrEX
Senior Member
Posts: 1963
Joined: 2006-05-07
Senior Member
Posts: 1963
Joined: 2006-05-07
#5674990 Posted on: 05/30/2019 01:50 PM
Is there any list with what display monitors they tested?
Is there any list with what display monitors they tested?
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 2002-09-14
That's exactly why I still don't consider upgrading my monitor - with its "forced" refresh rate of 65 Hz (1080p), an old school, 24 inches IPS Acer gets me "there", into the virtual reality. Early adopters will be biting the dust again...