It's not about whether it is better or not, it is about why it's proprietary. And the only reason it is, is to fill nvidias pockets. There's no other reason. And that is bullshit, but nvidia has been doing shit like this for years and I'm just tired of it... They just aren't willing to do anything for the industry as a whole.
My question above still stands, I can't see a single valid reason as to why it's prorpietary other then nvidias bottom line.
This monitor will be future proof for a while. Amazing specs.
probably. but either way you have two sides of the same coin. you need X to run Xsync and you can't cross pollinate. one of them just happens to have fuckloads of funding and therefor it's unsurprising that Gsync would be technically superior.
What I'm saying is there is no reason Nvidia cards shouldn't work with Freesync from the beginning except that they wanted their customers to pay for their proprietary tech.
100% correct
Nvidia have an obligation to make as much money as they can. It is the consumer's responsibility to vote with their wallet.
Yes, but like Stockholm Syndrome victims they cooperate with this company who abuses them.
The thing is I wouldn't even be mad about G-Sync in itself (even though it's proprietary, see above), but nvidia could choose to implement both G-Sync and FreeSync, whereas AMD does not have that freedom.
Either the contracts are set up so that it is exclusively either of both (which would be bad enough) or nvidia is just not willing to implement the VESA standard (since FreeSync is essentially the VESA standard with a few optionals slapped on). Wouldn't be the first time I guess.
The problem is that the customer, once decided on a monitor, does not have the freedom to choose their GPU brand if they actually want to utilise their monitor.
That is why I'm an advocate of consumer education.
Your blinded by your fanboyism in that you can't objectively look at the two technologies and clearly, objectively tell that the G-Sync module actually facilitates things that are currently not technically possible from any FreeSync equivalent. There would be FreeSync equivalents to every G-Sync monitor, if the technology could support it in its current state. The FreeSync standard does allow for matching of every feature of the G-Sync module, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the current limitations of monitor controllers, not the standard. I'm not slanting AMD or FreeSync, I'm objectively stating that current monitor controllers are not capable of matching what the G-Sync module can do. That is not "fanboyism," that is objectivity.
It being proprietary means that its not left to the incompetent monitor controller makers that have been incapable of matching the specifications of G-Sync panels. There is a 1080p G-Sync panel that can do 30-240hz variable refresh rate, no FreeSync equivalent. There are multiple 1440p ips panels with 30-165Hz variable refresh rates, no FreeSync equivalents. There are now two announced and soon to be released 4k 10 bit panels with 30-144hz refresh rates, no FreeSync equivalent.
Why? The G-Sync controller is objectively capable of doing more, and will continue to do so because of the financial hurdles in place of developing a FreeSync controller that can match it. By Nvidia bringing it in house, they can take said module and spread its development cost across the entire volume of G-Sync monitors sold, something that cannot be replicated by FreeSync because there is not one entity selling all the controllers, which is what enables the volume sale capable of supporting the development of a controller like the G-Sync controller.
@mihawk90
We now must now realize that G-Sync is proprietary only to fund it's development and not because it's licensing fees are a source of profit. Nvidia's development of this technology is solely for the benefit of Mankind exemplifying altruism at it's finest. AMD's FreeSync is interfering with the technological advances of Nvidia by offering it's Lo-Tech for free, thereby confusing the consumer and keeping them dumbed-down.
Never did I say that they didn't also do it for profit. I did however give a valid reason why this approach offers superior technologies. If you would like to rebuttal that point I implore you to do so. Yeah FreeSync has no fee, but it also has produced inferior products because of this approach. But yeah fuck Nvidia for catalyzing the creation of objectively products and making a buck doing it right?
If you want to have a legitimate discussion about the merits of the two technologies I would implore you to not be a sarcastic fanboy about it. Really makes you seem reasonable. Irony intended.
Also maybe don't make this about AMD and Nvidia, considering as I said
which is really a critique of the market and monitor makers rather than a slant at AMD.
yeah.
i moved from a 50' 1080 to a 39' 4k and i feel the disappoint from the old large size
no you didn't, you just pretended it did. You said because it means it isn't left to incompetent monitor controller makers. But Nvidia making theirs open source would not prevent Nvidia from making the controllers they do now or if they made their own cards compatible with freesync, it wouldn't prevent them from making the controllers they do no. What is preventing freesync from matching gsync's specs is that the high end market is saturated with nvidia cards that isn't compatible with freesync, so they can't spend a lot on a controller to compete with gsync. Who would buy a monitor capable of 4k 30-165hz only on AMD cards? Practically no one.
Yes but making their cards compatible with freesync would lessen Nvidia's profitability on their gsync monitors and graphics card ecosystem. It makes no sense for them to do that. Open sourcing their technology would lower their return on investment for developing the technology. That makes no business sense for them to do. Can't blame a business for making a profitable move. AMD would do the same if the tables were turned.
I partially agree, but there is some historical precedent that contradicts that. When the Fury X and 980 Ti were the two big highend cards, this problem still existed. Even then the monitor makers produced far more technically advanced G-Sync monitors than they did FreeSync, and even then it was a struggle. If I remember right, Asus had a 1440p FreeSync monitor that actually had to be recalled because it was dropping every 6th frame.
so everyone is in agreement, Nvidia is making it proprietary and not allowing their cards to be compatible with freesync to maximize their profits.
IDK, i would chalk that up to AMD still playing catch up, with Nvidia as gsync started development much earlier. Also with the 980ti and fury X its not like it was 50/50; the high end was still almost entirely Nvidia.
Well yeah I never said I didn't agree to that, my point in the earlier discussion was that this route ultimately produces better products. I said earlier that I didn't dispute this as well. As of here:
It wasn't 50/50 no and too be fair AMD was showing tech demos of FreeSync functioning on laptops fairly soon after when G-Sync was released, and AMD also had the advantage of being able to use some non-well-known optional variable-refresh rate standard that was already somewhat in displayport, if I remember right. But as I said I do semi-agree with what your saying in this regard. I'll partially agree with most of what you said.
I doubt that. A dual GTX 1080 Ti isn't getting 144 FPS at 4K (unless your talking about less demanding games)...and a next gen card from anyone isn't going to pull 144 FPS neither at 4K.
I get 100 FPS at 4K too...(in Rocket League)
I thought Gsync was considered better, but it is proprietary tech that comes with a substantial price tag. Also don't NVidia's gaming laptops use something different from the Gsync in monitors?
Also, how is Vega going to sell Freesync more (Besides more people owning AMD probably)? My GPU supports Freesync already and I never had a display (not even my new 4K one) that has Freesync.