Gaming monitor market to get more competitive next year

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Nope. Don't care.

G-sync ties you to nvidia, freesync ties you to AMD, and 4k means a remortgage for GPUs that can drive the thing at a reasonable rate. I'll stick with my "non-gaming" 2560x1600 Dell that, surprisingly, I can play games on.

Sorry I wish people stopped the whole "FreeSync ties you to AMD" thing. Many of the FreeSync monitors cost no more than their non-FreeSync equivalents with similar features. In fact one of the cheapest monitors with DP is a FreeSync monitor:

http://www.ebuyer.com/720608-aoc-g22...itor-g2260vwq6

That is under £100.

GSync comes with a massive premium,with FreeSync you rarely pay that premium.

For example,this is one of the cheapest 144HZ FreeSync monitors:

http://www.ebuyer.com/720608-aoc-g22...itor-g2260vwq6

Its £200. The cheapest 144HZ non-FreeSync monitor in the UK is £189:

http://www.ebuyer.com/670217-acer-xb...r-um-fb0ee-001

So if you are looking for a budget high refresh rate monitor you might as well get a FreeSync one even if you are using an Nvidia card.

As the cost difference is so small,or does not exist for many monitors you might as well get a FreeSync monitor if you are looking for one anyway unless you have specialist needs.

Since FreeSync is essential an AMD software interface to a VESA standard that will be introduced with more and more scalers it is no wonder the cost is probably to be not massively higher to incorporate the tech over older generation ones.

[Shane74]

First one to release a 32-35inch 4k 120hz IPS G sync/free sync monitor with HDR gets my money!
I'd be willing to pay $500 more than what I paid for the 1440p IPS ROG Swift 165hz.
Would be the last monitor I would need with specs like that.
As for OLED monitors, Forget it.
Will be several more years before they are affordable to enthusiasts let alone mainstream users.
I ain't paying 5k for a small screen oled monitor, Rather buy latest HDR tv.

[aidanjt]

freesync ties you to AMD

Not really. FreeSync doesn't have any royalties or proprietary scaler strings attached. So there's not much of a price increase by implementing it. So if you're in the market for a monitor, and you don't want to pay an extra hundred quid for G-sync if you have an nVidia GPU, you don't lose anything by getting a FreeSync monitor, it just makes it better if Vega or some future AMD GPU turns out to be awesome and you decide to get one.

[aidanjt]

Sorry I wish people stopped the whole "FreeSync ties you to AMD" thing..

Sorry I missed your post before posting myself, you proved my point before I even made, and it very well too lol.

Since FreeSync is essential an AMD software interface to a VESA standard

The same is basically true of G-sync as well, only nVidia demands monitor manufacturers use their scaler for G-sync certification, which, while very good, is uh, not competitively priced. Otherwise nVidia drivers wont deliver async refresh rates. Pretty dick move for what's basically an industry standard.

[Spreadie]

Sorry I wish people stopped the whole "FreeSync ties you to AMD" thing.

Not really. FreeSync doesn't have any royalties or proprietary scaler strings attached.

Both have you have conveniently ignored the fact that, in order to get the benefit of freesync in the freesync enabled monitor, you need to use an AMD card. In that respect, my earlier statement stands.

[DanceswithUnix]

Both have you have conveniently ignored the fact that, in order to get the benefit of freesync in the freesync enabled monitor, you need to use an AMD card. In that respect, my earlier statement stands.

I am stunned that Intel are yet to adopt Adaptive Sync, they wouldn't call it FreeSync but the technology is there for the taking.

Partly because it would benefit their customers enormously by making the lower frame rates of their integrated graphics feel much smoother. Partly because it would hurt Nvidia, which seems to be an old favourite Intel pastime.

The original rumour was that it would be adopted some time after Skylake. That could be real soon, let's hope some journalist gets digging for an update.

http://techreport.com/news/28865/int...-sync-displays

[Dashers]

I'm a gaming enthusiast so these adaptive sync technologies aren't a concern for me as frame-rate is a priority for me. I don't set my games up to run under the refresh rate of my monitor - not that I recall being distracted by any times that they have fallen below (aside from obviously slow frame rates).

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Both have you have conveniently ignored the fact that, in order to get the benefit of freesync in the freesync enabled monitor, you need to use an AMD card. In that respect, my earlier statement stands.

But equating FreeSync and GSync is disgenuous on your part since one adds a massive price premium and fact is you can get a 144hz FreeSync monitor for around £200 which is virtually the same price as a non-FreeSync one. The cheapest 24" 144hz GSync monitor is nearer £300.

The cheapest monitor with DP has FreeSync so you can't tell people with an Nvidia card to avoid it if they want DP??


The fact of the matter if you are looking for a decent sub £250 gaming monitor you will be most likely be getting a FreeSync one by default since the high refresh rates will work with any companies cards.

It makes little or no sense to avoid a FreeSync monitor if you even have a Nvidia card.

Trying to tell people to avoid FreeSync monitors because they have FreeSync is ridiculous when the pricing is more or less the same as non FreeSync ones. You might as well not bother with any monitor at that rate.

The thing is time progresses more and more sub £250 monitors will have FreeSync as standard so if you are actively avoiding FreeSync you will probably avoid more and more monitors under £250.

[scaryjim]

... The same is basically true of G-sync as well, only nVidia demands monitor manufacturers use their scaler for G-sync certification ...

I thought G-Sync used different signalling to push the variable refresh rate, and therefore wasn't compatible with Adaptive V-Sync; hence the need for proprietary hardware in the monitor. Could be wrong though, I don't play anywhere near enough games to actually care about variable refresh rates!

Both have you have conveniently ignored the fact that, in order to get the benefit of freesync in the freesync enabled monitor, you need to use an AMD card. In that respect, my earlier statement stands.

You missed the word "currently" in your sentence. A monitor that supports signalling for VESA Adaptive VSync will support it for any graphics vendor that implements it. NVidia could introduce a Vesa-compliant Adaptive Sync implementation and it should work on any Freesync monitor, as the technology uses open standards. As DwU says, there's plenty of runours around that Intel will be introducing it (interestingly someone over in hardware dredged up rumours that Intel were about to license or implement AMD graphics tech - wonder if it' just that they'll implement adaptive sync and license the freesync name so they can slap it on their chips....?). It's only nvidia's famed truculence and love of proprietary lock-ins that mean we don't have a single universally-implemented adaptive sync technology in place already...

[Biscuit]

But equating FreeSync and GSync is disgenuous in your part. No amount of deflection on your part changes the fact you can get a 144hz FreeSync monitor for around £200 which is virtually the same price as a non-FreeSync one. The cheapest 24" 144hz GSync monitor is nearer £300.

That is like the difference between an RX470 4GB and an RX480 8GB with change to spare.

The fact of the matter if you are looking for a decent sub £300 gaming monitor you will be most likely be getting a FreeSync one by default since the high refresh rates will work with any companies cards.

Trying to tell people to avoid FreeSync monitors because they have FreeSync is ridiculous when the pricing is more or less the same as non FreeSync ones. You might as well not bother with any monitor at that rate.

I don't think that he was implying other people should avoid Freesync, he was simply highlighting the split in industry standards which results in reduced access to functionality when mismatching monitor to GPU has made it a non-starter for him. I completely agree with him, although I would probably go Freesync if the price was REALLY right.

Whether its £200, £300, £400 or more, a monitor is still a lot of money and is something that ideally wouldn't be changed nearly as regularly as perhaps a GPU would be. Given that the performance crown at each given price point flop-flops from generation to generation, any technology which could result in either losing functionality that improves the gaming experience or having to buy a more expensive/less powerful card to keep said functionality is a bit of a kick in the nuts. It's not a dig at Freesync specifically, its just the nature of the market at the moment (thanks to Nvidia).

Presently, if you want to benefit from adaptive V sync, you're choice of monitor will lock you down into a GPU technology. This is the truth, and its bad for the consumer.

[scaryjim]

... Presently, if you want to benefit from adaptive V sync, you're choice of monitor will lock you down into a GPU technology. This is the truth, and its bad for the consumer.

Actually, it's not strictly the truth. If you choose G-Sync it absolutely is because that's a proprietary technology - if you have a G-Sync monitor you need nvidia technology in your graphics solution. But if you choose freesync, you're choosing an open standards-compliant technology that anyone can implement. NVidia can implement a freesync-compatible solution if they want to. Intel can implement a freesync-compatible solution if they want to. Neither would have to license any new technology to do so. But if anyone wants to implement a G-Sync compatible solution they'll have to pay nvidia for the privilege. And you'll already have paid £100 extra for your monitor anyway (based on ebuyer's cheapest 1080p 144Hz monitor supporting each technology).

G-Sync is bad for the consumer. It's locked in, proprietary, expensive; just how nvidia like their technology. nvidia could implement freesync. There's nothing external stopping them. It's really down to the consumers to vote with their feet. If you want an open, standards-based world, invest in the companies who are promoting open standards-based technologies.

[DanceswithUnix]

I'm a gaming enthusiast so these adaptive sync technologies aren't a concern for me as frame-rate is a priority for me. I don't set my games up to run under the refresh rate of my monitor - not that I recall being distracted by any times that they have fallen below (aside from obviously slow frame rates).

That seems an odd comment.

The whole point of adaptive sync is that games run at the fastest frame rate they can manage as they are never waiting for vsync. You can get the same performance by turning vsync off, if you don't mind screen tears.

So yeah, it isn't a technology I would pay £100 for but at AMD pricing it is exactly what you want. Heck, at 144Hz I have roughly zero chance of keeping my fps above my monitor rate, but at just under 7ms per frame it isn't so important as on average there is a 3.5ms delay before the next vsync happens, but with adaptive sync that drops to nothing.

[The Hand]

I think Nvidia will have to u-turn on G-Sync at some point, simply on the fact of the significantly higher cost of G-Sync monitors. Sticking with G-Sync could push graphics card buyers to go for an AMD card and a cheaper Free Sync monitor. It could be a big loss for Nvidia, especially with a lot of people considering moving to 4K over time and with Vega coming, AMD has a chance of pulling off a home run so to speak.

Edit:

Here's a pretty interesting video on G-Sync vs Free Sync and they come to the conclusion Free Sync is probably the way the go for the future:

[Biscuit]

Actually, it's not strictly the truth.

I said PRESENTLY this is the case. So yes, it is strictly the truth.

[scaryjim]

I said PRESENTLY this is the case. So yes, it is strictly the truth.

Given you were talking about vendor lock down, isn't that a rather disingenuous comeback? The fact that at this exact moment only one vendor supports something doesn't mean it causes vendor lock down - that's only the case if a feature will only *ever* be supported by one vendor. So unless you're using the term "lock down" in an unusual, time-limited and specific way, it's still not the truth.

Buying a freesync monitor means that right now you will have to buy an AMD graphics card to take advantage of adaptive sync, but it doesn't "lock you down into a GPU technology." - other companies can also implement Freesync, and in the future you'll potentially be able to choose between a number of GPU technologies that are all freesync-compatible.

[Biscuit]

Given you were talking about vendor lock down, isn't that a rather disingenuous comeback? The fact that at this exact moment only one vendor supports something doesn't mean it causes vendor lock down - that's only the case if a feature will only *ever* be supported by one vendor. So unless you're using the term "lock down" in an unusual, time-limited and specific way, it's still not the truth.

Is there any evidence or precedent that would suggest the situation would ever change? Nope, not presently.

Hell, Nvidia could always have a change of heart and open the protocol details for G-Sync, at this stage we have about as much evidence of this happening as we do for them supporting freesync.... (zero)

If you buy one or the other with the purpose of adaptive V-sync, you're locked into a GPU manufacturer. This is absolutely honest, this is the only honest advise anyone should give a potential buyer right now, because there is simply no evidence to suggest anything will change in the future.
One technology/standard being open to the other manufacturer doesn't change this unless there is any kind of suggestion they are willing to adhere to it. Yes, for us, we understand that its better for consumers, but that's largely irrelevant to someone looking to buy for the best experience right now, or LIKELY even for the next 1-2 years.

Buying a freesync monitor means that right now you will have to buy an AMD graphics card to take advantage of adaptive sync, but it doesn't "lock you down into a GPU technology." - other companies can also implement Freesync, and in the future you'll potentially be able to choose between a number of GPU technologies that are all freesync-compatible.

In the future we might all be able to communicate telepathically as well...

I'm not sure how you read what I said, and came to the conclusion I was being disingenuous and then rebutted me with supposition.