How G-Sync and FreeSync differ right deep down inside

[qubit]

PC Per have done a really deep techie analysis of the two technologies. They have written an article with lots of graphs to go with this video.

So, which one's better? To me, it looks like G-Sync as it performs better at very low framerates.

 

[Ferrum Master]

PC Per have done a really deep techie analysis of the two technologies. They have written an article with lots of graphs to go with this video.

So, which one's better? To me, it looks like G-Sync as it performs better at very low framerates.

It depends on the panel, that's it... g sync is a replica of old 100Hz TV principles. And freesync depends just on the hardware speed itself(scaler + panel)... it is way too fast to declare the winner.

 

[qubit]

What do you mean by G-Sync a replica of "old 100Hz principles"?

 

[Ferrum Master]

What do you mean by G-Sync a replica of "old 100Hz principles"?

haven't you had ever a 100Hz TV... during the 90ties?

So just likewise during the old days with 50/60hz [PAL/NTSC] TV signal there was such thing as 100Hz TV's, they just showed the same screen twice thus getting 100Hz... judging from the source that you gave g-sync cheats the same way a bit... it ain't bad btw, but not good also, it is just an old method...

 

[qubit]

Yes, of course I've heard of 100Hz TV / frame doubling, but the context of your comment wasn't clear.

It seems to me that when the framerate gets too low there isn't an artifact-free way of dealing with it which doesn't really surprise me, because the whole principle of displaying a moving picture requires that there be an adequate number of frames per second to give the illusion of motion.

Moral of the story is not to let the framerate get that low in the first place, lol.

 

[AsRock]

By what those pair are saying both G Sync and FreeSync would annoy me at one point or another there fore i can wait.

Hi frame drops drops the G Sync flashes at you ?, i am sure it's not as common as it sounds but i play games that happens a lot with (frame drop).

FreeSync has a flaw at low res so so both fail.

Think the video was pretty crap and they should of showed you them playing and showing the issue.

 

[qubit]

By what those pair are saying both G Sync and FreeSync would annoy me at one point or another there fore i can wait.

I wish I could actually see them in action. I'd then really know what I think about them. The way it's going, the first I'll ever see of them is if I buy a supporting monitor one day.

 

[radusorin]

Honestly it's really hard to say. This is what i have until now.

g-sync = added cost
freesync= no added cost

At low FPS:
g-sync = better, at least esthetically, no idea if it ads lag or if you can sens this lag
freesync= under the refresh rate of the monitor is none existing

High FPS:
g-sync= it limits you to the refresh rate of the monitor
freesync= better (maybe), at list if you have the hardware to push the FPS it can go over the refresh rate of your monitor (better for competitive play)

Right now this tech is useful for the low fps case as many seems to say that at higher fps this problems seem to go away or harder to see. Now freesync is part of the standard sooner or later all monitors will be on that standard. Nvidia will have to adopt that standard otherwise nvidia cards will only work whit g-sync monitors, and i don't think we will go there. So at this time g-sync seems to work better but freesync seems to have the longevity on it side. Also freesync will have some impact on the monitor market(maybe).

So yeah it really is hard to say right now.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

PC Per have done a really deep techie analysis of the two technologies. They have written an article with lots of graphs to go with this video.

So, which one's better? To me, it looks like G-Sync as it performs better at very low framerates.

Honestly, the low frame rate thing is overblown. Look how long G-Sync has been on the market and how few manufacturers are supporting it. Freesync is relatively new and has already been adopted by VESA, which G-Sync hasn't mind you.

Freesync in fact supports a MUCH lower frame rate than G-Sync. Naturally though, the first displays supporting it aren't going to be high risk, high price units. Give it a little time, after VESA adopted it and tests show that at 48Hz and above it performs equally to G-Sync, there WILL be displays made for it that support much lower refresh.

This is what I meant when I told 15th Warlock this site does not know how to interpret the data available. AnandTech and other sites that have been long known and trusted for benches take these things into account and surmise that Freesync has the best chance of being the variable sync trend.

 

[Ferrum Master]

Freesync has the best chance of being the variable sync trend.

Shhh... someone will bash you that you're a fanboy .

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Shhh... someone will bash you that you're a fanboy .

LOL, like I care. I'd rather that than have all this speculation blowing good tech out of proportion.

The irony here is some are touting PC Perspective as having the most detailed review, yet of all of them, they are the ones if anything that LACK perspective.

Get it through your heads people, Freesync only just hit the market. It's not lacking in below 48Hz support. In fact it supports MUCH lower frame rate than G-Sync does, literally down to 9 FPS.

Now that VESA has adopted it and tests show it performs equal to G-Sync at ranges it's currently supporting displays can handle, there WILL be more made that offer lower refresh ranges.

PC "Perspective" my arse! Just a bunch of clowns that don't know how to interpret simple facts. Worse yet, it misleads the public. If more people knew the actual facts about this, Freesync would be easily winning this poll. Just the fact that it was conducted with PC Per as the ONLY source of info is rather suspect.

 

[Ferrum Master]

LOL, like I care.

Well you care obviously, don't lie to yourself...

But it is everywhere... especially in phone reviews... even nextTPU reviewers some are very biased and don't understand many many things in this area...

But certainly one thing is sure... the only possible way to decide these kind of things are to use it yourself, both solutions, as we are not equal - we hear and sense things in a bit different manner, many hear better upper freqs, noises, some are motion sick, some don't see colors or ignore them, don't care, but some are kind of perfection Nazis like myself etc...

The point of the review is to show that there is actually this product and turn down the philosophy... just plain numbers taken from measurement devices, benchmarks are enough - a more detailed datasheet.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

The point of the review is to show that there is actually this product and turn down the philosophy... just plain numbers taken from measurement devices, benchmarks are enough - a more detailed datasheet.

But that's the thing, the data itself isn't enough. The biggest loophole in the review is their oversights of the facts that 1) VESA adopted Freesync giving it MUCH better chance of being taken seriously by manufacturers, 2) Freesync having a much lower supported frame rate, and 3) Freesync being still too new for there to be a wide range of supported refreshes from displays.

Without accounting for that it's pretty much pointless to even conduct a so called review.

 

[WhoDecidedThat]

In fact it supports MUCH lower frame rate than G-Sync does, literally down to 9 FPS.

So what? It doesn't matter. When you go below 40 Hz you start getting visual artifacts. Does it work below 40 Hz? Yep it does. Will it look good? Nope. But AMD won't tell you that because you won't support their product like you are now.

IMO, the solution G-Sync employs below the Variable Refresh Rate Window (VRRW) is only a stop-gap solution.

The best method would be be to use parts of SLI/CF tech along with VESA Adaptive Sync. For SLI/CF to work the driver has to divide the workload of every frame into 2 equal parts. Even if you are running a single card, the driver should divide the workload into 2. Once half the workload is done, the driver, using the knowledge of how much time it took to do half work, predicts how much more time it will require to complete the rendering of the frame, if it's more than 7 ms then the driver can send the previous frame again to make sure the monitor stays in the VRRW while the GPU renders the current frame. This will ensure a smooth and consistent experience at all times.

 

[newconroer]

The article and this discussion just go to show how this technology isn't quite that simple for the average user.
Honestly, just a little knowledge on frame latency and refresh rate locking, would solve a lot of performance issues for people.

We know it works best (or at all) under 60 frames. But every one is aiming at 96 or higher now. This advanced adaptive technology is behind the current trend in gamers' priorities.

And who the hell is defending it because it might be able to make 10fps a 'smoother experience?'

If you're gaming at under 25-40fps, fu** the 'sync' monitor, get yourself a proper graphics card.

.............. .............. .........

 

[Ferrum Master]

Without accounting for that it's pretty much pointless to even conduct a so called review.

So okay, what's the root problem then? Journalistic unprofessionalism? Bribes? Lack of common sense? It has become a trend lately, and you are completely right... it has become some sort of circus.

 

[Brusfantomet]

"Free Sync supports refresh rate down to 9 Hz."

So what? It doesn't matter. When you go below 40 Hz you start getting visual artifacts. Does it work below 40 Hz? Yep it does. Will it look good? Nope. But AMD won't tell you that because you won't support their product like you are now.

I think the best method would be be to use some of SLI/CFX technology in that. For SLI/CFX to work the driver has to divide the workload of every frame into 2 equal parts. So even if you are running a single card, the driver should divide the workload into 2. Once half the workload is done, the driver should calculate how much time it took to do half work, predict how much more will it require to complete the rendering of the frame. This way if frame times go below, say 25 ms (40 Hz), then halfway through the frame rendering, the driver can send the previous frame again to make sure the monitor stays in the Variable Refresh Rate Window (VRRW) while it renders the current frame. IMHO, the solution G-Sync employs below the VRRW is quite complicated and is only a stop-gap soluion.

I dont see them needing eaven that, just save the last rendered frame (for a 30 bit, 4K immage that would reqier 32 MB of GFX ram) and redraw that if the new frame is not ready, (basicaly what the G-sync module is doing for nvidia)

 

[newconroer]

Holy sh*t Alan Malvantano looks like a paedo ...that stare..

 

[WhoDecidedThat]

And who the hell is defending it because it might be able to make 10fps a 'smoother experience?'

If you're gaming at under 25-40fps, fu** the 'sync' monitor, get yourself a proper graphics card.

Yeah. A lot of people in forums are like, "It works at 9 Hz. G-Sync can't do that." I am like, "Who the bloody hell pays over 400$ for a monitor only to play below 25 Hz?" It's crazy!

I dont see them needing eaven that, just save the last rendered frame (for a 30 bit, 4K immage that would reqier 32 MB of GFX ram) and redraw that if the new frame is not ready, (basicaly what the G-sync module is doing for nvidia)

It takes time to draw a frame. What happens if the frame rendering is completed while you are in the middle of drawing the frame? You are back to square one and get stutter/tearing/both. It's not easy as it sounds. I am amazed that NVIDIA even managed to get frame doubling/tripling to work with variable frame rate.

Holy sh*t Alan Malvantano looks like a paedo ...that stare..

Yeah. And the way he sits still. It's creepy. It's like he is a zombie or something.

 

[natr0n]

I was curious to see if that demo would work on amd gpu and it does. Gsync option of course wont work, but the tests are universal.

 

[Brusfantomet]

It takes time to draw a frame. What happens if the frame rendering is completed while you are in the middle of drawing the frame? You are back to square one and get stutter/tearing/both. It's not easy as it sounds. I am amazed that NVIDIA even managed to get frame doubling/tripling to work with variable frame rate.

it takes the same amout of time as the G-sync solution takes, only diference is that it has to be transportet over the interface (display port cable) and displayed on the screen again, but since the creen already is at a low refresh rate it shuld be ample banwith to doubble the Hz from the card.

The point is to store the immage in raw format, and not owerwrite it when the new image have been rendered and is ready for the screen, this new frame can then be inserted in the next refresh from the GFX card. This solution will introduce some frame latency or prefromance penalty, but if AMD is a bit smart i think they can implement it so that you can select in the driver if you want it to be normal tear mode, v-sync mode or dubble refresh mode.

 

[Sasqui]

Since G-Sync is a proprietary solution by NVidia, it is inherently evil

 

[WhoDecidedThat]

it takes the same amout of time as the G-sync solution takes

No it doesn't. Do you think NVIDIA and AMD engineers are morons? You need a chip very close and properly attuned to the display to make frame doubling work. If frame doubling could be done properly in software NVIDIA and AMD would have done so already. But they haven't.

 

[Xzibit]

No it doesn't. Do you think NVIDIA and AMD engineers are morons? You need a chip very close and properly attuned to the display to make frame doubling work. If frame doubling could be done properly in software NVIDIA and AMD would have done so already. But they haven't.

VRR isn't frame doubling. You cant have VRR outside its window. It then becomes frame insertion.. As the PCPerspective graphs show G-Sync is inserting frames at a higher rate below the 30 hz cut off at times but never in the VRR window.


As far as the chip is concerned.
The Wall Street Journal - Intel in Talks to Buy Altera
Isnt Intel talking about buying Altera the ones that provide Nvidia with the SoC G-Sync module. Intel already started supporting Adaptive-Sync. Wonder what effects that will have going forward.

 

[qubit]

Wanna add, that when I eventually buy an adaptive sync (AS) monitor of whatever standard, I'm still gonna aim for a solid 120fps vsynced wherever possible. Why? Lag.

While AS will get rid of judder and tearing, the maximum lag at 120fps is 8.3ms (ie 1/120) while at lower refresh rates it increases proportionally, so a drop to 60fps will give a lag of 16.7ms and 30fps a lag of 33.3ms and so on. Hence, the need to keep the framerate as high as possible doesn't go away with AS.