Just as I see it, Gsync will never be supported by AMD, and FreeSync will never be supported by Nvidia. Actually, both systems put the customer in the same situation: You have to match your monitor with your gpu.

Yeah except Nvidia has the option AMD doesn't. Terrible move by Nvidia.

Yeah except Nvidia has the option AMD doesn't. Terrible move by Nvidia.

Well, I wouldn't have expected anything else. But as that technology basically is open to any gpu manufacturer, I guess it's implemented through the driver, correct? Well as Nvidia has the possibility to adopt, they won't do so until they've gotten their profit out of Gsync. The question is, and that's a hard one to answer, will they ever change course, and go with both gsync and freesync support once they've made millions with gsync?

Well, I wouldn't have expected anything else. But as that technology basically is open to any gpu manufacturer, I guess it's implemented through the driver, correct? Well as Nvidia has the possibility to adopt, they won't do so until they've gotten their profit out of Gsync. The question is, and that's a hard one to answer, will they ever change course, and go with both gsync and freesync support once they've made millions with gsync?

Unless their hand is forced, it's unlikely. NVidia looks for ways to lock people into their hardware. Proprietary "features" are the easiest way to do that. If they "develop" something, and make it a proprietary "feature" then people who want it are stuck with their hardware. If they make it open, then people have more choice. While choice is great for consumers, it's bad for businesses. The more choice people have, the more businesses have to be worried about. Of course, I do find it quite funny that nobody has an issue with NVidia pulling crap like this, but if AMD were to have done it, this thread would have gone into full blown AMD flaming by now.

This decision could really hurt nVidia If monitors can support FreeSync at a fraction of price of G-Sync then soon all monitors, designed for gamers, will have this feature. Huge monitors can outlast multiple generations of GPU cards. nVidia will loose multiple GPU sales to a single customer who has monitor with FreeSync. This decision, potentially, could lead to extremely huge and irreversible damage to nVidia - nobody would be buying even old nVidia cards for years to come if market will be filled with FreeSync monitors.

The AMD Radeon™ R9 295X2, 290X, R9 290, R9 285, R7 260X and R7 260 GPUs additionally feature updated display controllers that will support dynamic refresh rates during gaming. no other graphics card, and who in their right mind would use apu for gaming, it wont be nearly enough for 1080p so there is no point of that at this time, as for why nvidia won't support iot, they need to make back their investment with gsync and untill that happens they will no way in hell support freesync, and the big thing is as mentioned many times gsync is here now, while freesync is still on the drawing board(late stages but still no market implementation) asfor the cost, gsync already replaces the scaler in those displays, the extra cost is premium form manufacturers not nvidia(small part maybe 50bucks) and the same will be true for free sync i can guarantee that

I mean yeah the Freesync module definitely costs something, AMD has already indirectly stated that. And honestly we have no idea how freesync compares to G-Sync. If it will have the same game/driver issues. If there is added latency compared to it, etc. I still think it's a ****ty move by Nvidia though. I don't want to be locked into their video cards because I bought a monitor. They should support both and just continue to make G-Sync better through updates and give a valid reason as to why it's better than the alternative.

The AMD Radeon™ R9 295X2, 290X, R9 290, R9 285, R7 260X and R7 260 GPUs additionally feature updated display controllers that will support dynamic refresh rates during gaming. no other graphics card, and who in their right mind would use apu for gaming, it wont be nearly enough for 1080p so there is no point of that at this time, as for why nvidia won't support iot, they need to make back their investment with gsync and untill that happens they will no way in hell support freesync, and the big thing is as mentioned many times gsync is here now, while freesync is still on the drawing board(late stages but still no market implementation) asfor the cost, gsync already replaces the scaler in those displays, the extra cost is premium form manufacturers not nvidia(small part maybe 50bucks) and the same will be true for free sync i can guarantee that

Not everyone games at 1080P. There's a large portion of the market still using 720 and 1050 displays. The A8 and A10 APUs are just fine for 720P and light 1080P gaming. Most of those using AMD's iGPU aren't trying to play the latest games at high resolutions or high graphics settings. Instead, they find settings that are actually playable.

The AMD Radeon™ R9 295X2, 290X, R9 290, R9 285, R7 260X and R7 260 GPUs additionally feature updated display controllers that will support dynamic refresh rates during gaming. no other graphics card, and who in their right mind would use apu for gaming, it wont be nearly enough for 1080p so there is no point of that at this time, as for why nvidia won't support iot, they need to make back their investment with gsync and untill that happens they will no way in hell support freesync, and the big thing is as mentioned many times gsync is here now, while freesync is still on the drawing board(late stages but still no market implementation) asfor the cost, gsync already replaces the scaler in those displays, the extra cost is premium form manufacturers not nvidia(small part maybe 50bucks) and the same will be true for free sync i can guarantee that

Cost-wise G-Sync is so expensive partially because it's FPGA and not in high-volume production yet. In a long run, it may be a really chip solution, as you get a single chip replacing a few. It may also result in decreased input lag compared to multi-chip solution. Of course, manufacturers are free to use more robust chips in place of several simple ones in their adaptive vsync solutions.

Unless their hand is forced, it's unlikely. NVidia looks for ways to lock people into their hardware. Proprietary "features" are the easiest way to do that. If they "develop" something, and make it a proprietary "feature" then people who want it are stuck with their hardware. If they make it open, then people have more choice. While choice is great for consumers, it's bad for businesses. The more choice people have, the more businesses have to be worried about. Of course, I do find it quite funny that nobody has an issue with NVidia pulling crap like this, but if AMD were to have done it, this thread would have gone into full blown AMD flaming by now.

well AMD has there fair share of exclusive tech to counter nvidia's physx and... TXAA? are the exclusive game tech's for nvidia i think. wile AMD has it's tressFX and mantle since dx is so bad. doesn't seem different from amd saying nope to cuda/physx and forcing havoc down our throat most of the time. in the end it's quite simple amd doesn't want to use stuff made by nvidia, and nvidia doesn't want to use stuff made by amd.

It's not different at all. It's typical eye for an eye bull and the only ones who stand to loose is us - the customer

Unless their hand is forced, it's unlikely. NVidia looks for ways to lock people into their hardware. Proprietary "features" are the easiest way to do that. If they "develop" something, and make it a proprietary "feature" then people who want it are stuck with their hardware. If they make it open, then people have more choice. While choice is great for consumers, it's bad for businesses. The more choice people have, the more businesses have to be worried about. Of course, I do find it quite funny that nobody has an issue with NVidia pulling crap like this, but if AMD were to have done it, this thread would have gone into full blown AMD flaming by now.

Well, I don't want to bash on AMD, since I wish they would seriously kick Nvidia in the nuts, but I'm a bit sad to not see it happen until maybe the 390X. The 290X was a right stept, only that it gets so hot was holding me off to upgrading to a 290X. But what makes the whole situation a monitor-gpu matching thing is that Nvidia doesn't want to support freesync! AMD has done nothing wrong in that department, and I clearly see them milking the customers, whereas AMD tries to just offer an alternative. They have created the possibility for Nvidia to jump on board, which the greens don't want to do, so AMD can't be blamed. No bashing needed there, at least in my opinion. AS far as I've heard, Gsync modules are 100 to 150€, or was that just the DIY kit? On the other hand, hasn't AMD offered to let Nvidia work with the Mantle API? Or am I just recalling it wrong? I think it was pretty much the same situation as with freesync.

It's not different at all. It's typical eye for an eye bull and the only ones who stand to loose is us - the customer

Absof*ckinglutely.

Well, I don't want to bash on AMD, since I wish they would seriously kick Nvidia in the nuts, but I'm a bit sad to not see it happen until maybe the 390X. The 290X was a right stept, only that it gets so hot was holding me off to upgrading to a 290X. But what makes the whole situation a monitor-gpu matching thing is that Nvidia doesn't want to support freesync! AMD has done nothing wrong in that department, and I clearly see them milking the customers, whereas AMD tries to just offer an alternative. They have created the possibility for Nvidia to jump on board, which the greens don't want to do, so AMD can't be blamed. No bashing needed there, at least in my opinion. AS far as I've heard, Gsync modules are 100 to 150€, or was that just the DIY kit? On the other hand, hasn't AMD offered to let Nvidia work with the Mantle API? Or am I just recalling it wrong? I think it was pretty much the same situation as with freesync.

They said at some point they'd open the API for Mantle. They also promised Linux support and other stuff but never delivered. With DX12 a year away I doubt it even pays for Nvidia to do anything with Mantle.

They said at some point they'd open the API for Mantle. They also promised Linux support and other stuff but never delivered. With DX12 a year away I doubt it even pays for Nvidia to do anything with Mantle.

That's true. As a consumer, I haven't heard that dx12 will at least partially try to do what Mantle does, so I had the subjective feeling that they came out with it after Mantle was released, as to counter people opting for AMD gpus and Mantle. In my humble opinion, I fear that the Mantle API will lose lots of momentum if dx12 shows to do what they stated it will do.

Let's see what happens once FreeSync displays are actually available.

Nah... nVidia can always make GSync cheaper. And because they control the tech by themselves, they can innovate as much as they want without asking anybody else. They just need to make it good value for gamers. It remains to be seen if they can. However, since they are still backing GSync with everything they have, they must have some plans for it for the future. If it was clear for nVidia that ASync will win anyway, it wouldnt make any sense to continue wasting money on GSync no matter how much money they already burned.

Let's see what happens once FreeSync displays are actually available.

Unfortunately, people can't always wait for another 3 months, half a year, or a year. Some don't want to wait.

It's not surprising since g-sync is one of the best gaming/graphics advancements I've experienced over the last 10 years. Nvidia really nailed it with g-sync. I have the Asus ROG Swift monitor and can confirm it rocks!

Hang on.. Everyone always goes on about how competition is good for both industry and consumer... so whats the bloody problem here exactly.. Its seems just because Nvidia doesnt want to ditch its own r&d and products/in-house solutions just to please the open-source crowd, people seem to want to bitch and moan. I can bet that if it was AMD in Nvidia's place, you be hi-fiving them and hoping that nvidia goes out of business.

well AMD has there fair share of exclusive tech to counter nvidia's physx and... TXAA? are the exclusive game tech's for nvidia i think. wile AMD has it's tressFX and mantle since dx is so bad. doesn't seem different from amd saying nope to cuda/physx and forcing havoc down our throat most of the time. in the end it's quite simple amd doesn't want to use stuff made by nvidia, and nvidia doesn't want to use stuff made by amd.

TressFX isn't AMD exclusive. Mantle isn't intended to be AMD specific once it's out of beta, which, as Denial stated...

With DX12 a year away I doubt it even pays for Nvidia to do anything with Mantle.

Personally, if I were running NVidia, I'd ignore Mantle completely. Hell, I'm using AMD graphics cards and I'm ignoring Mantle at this point. I accept that it exists and I understand the principles of it, but with DX12 and all it's promises I see no real point in it at this time. I believe a 3rd party developed and supported API is a better route for the industry. As for CUDA, it wasn't offered to AMD. It was intended to be NVidia specific. AMD isn't pushing Havok. Havok is Intel's baby. Personally, I'd rather see Havok and PhysX fall to the Bullet Physics API since it's an open API and designed to be vendor agnostic. Proprietary "tech" has never been good for the industry or consumers. The only thing "exclusive" to AMD...are the current gen consoles.

Hang on.. Everyone always goes on about how competition is good for both industry and consumer... so whats the bloody problem here exactly.. Its seems just because Nvidia doesnt want to ditch its own r&d and products/in-house solutions just to please the open-source crowd, people seem to want to bitch and moan. I can bet that if it was AMD in Nvidia's place, you be hi-fiving them and hoping that nvidia goes out of business.

Some would, some wouldn't. This forum seems to go against anything AMD does, whether good for the consumer or not. Personally, I'd like to see NVidia give people an option of which they want to use and let the display makers do their jobs. There's plenty of ways to differentiate G-Sync displays from A-Sync displays. NVidia just needs to make G-Sync more appealing. They market everything else as a "premium product"....they could treat G-Sync the same and people will still buy it.

TressFX isn't AMD exclusive. Mantle isn't intended to be AMD specific once it's out of beta, which, as Denial stated... Personally, if I were running NVidia, I'd ignore Mantle completely. Hell, I'm using AMD graphics cards and I'm ignoring Mantle at this point. I accept that it exists and I understand the principles of it, but with DX12 and all it's promises I see no real point in it at this time. I believe a 3rd party developed and supported API is a better route for the industry. As for CUDA, it wasn't offered to AMD. It was intended to be NVidia specific. AMD isn't pushing Havok. Havok is Intel's baby. Personally, I'd rather see Havok and PhysX fall to the Bullet Physics API since it's an open API and designed to be vendor agnostic. Proprietary "tech" has never been good for the industry or consumers. The only thing "exclusive" to AMD...are the current gen consoles.

HAhahahaha...what Propriety tech is what drives competition, you'd not have half the things we have if it wasn't for one company trying to out do another by offering a 'better' alternative for a similar feature. Open source doesnt work, to many people working on one thing leads to feature creep and disagreements over what and what not to have. Then theres fragmentation with different variations and versions from different people being put out with crap product support. Thats why certain alternative open-source operating systems will never over take Windows or iOS, unless theres some miraculous massive down fall of Microsoft and Apple. Hell, PC gamers cant even band together to stop paying for crap ports and poor post-release support for games. Hardly think they ever bet together to boycott anything else.