Is it time for AMD/ATi to support G-Sync?

Communism

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
165
I was in the market for a new monitor and I will say the sheer quality of monitors that support G-Sync now is insane.. I ended up wanting to get the Asus ROG Swift PG279Q (absolutely amazing gaming monitor) and all I could think of is it really would be nice to its customers if AMD/ATi would support this..

G-Sync is a standard that is supported by 100% of the best displays and 100% of the best graphics cards.

G-Sync is the standard of 70-80% of the graphics cards on the market.

AMD/ATi is really hurting it's customers by not supporting the industry standard that is G-Sync.
 

Ocellaris

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
19,075
I am also confused why AMD chooses to supports an inconsistent feature like FreeSync and won’t just use GSync so people know it is going to work. Monitor makers doing as little as possible to claim FreeSync support is keeping the cost of GSync displays high.

Why force the consumer to go cross reference multiple charts to look up FreeSync ranges and Low Framerate Compensation support? Why are monitors with terrible range support and no LFC allowed to claim FreeSync support? AMD is anti-consumer and trying to trick people by pushing a spec poorly implement spec.
 
Last edited:

extide

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
3,494
It's a proprietary standard. AMD could probably reverse engineer it but I would bet that would piss Nvidia off and they would get sued or something.
 

Communism

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
165
It's a proprietary standard. AMD could probably reverse engineer it but I would bet that would piss Nvidia off and they would get sued or something.

The reverse engineering part would be extremely easy, given that Nvidia implemented (at least the original ones) on FPGA.

Highly doubt they would get sued since AMD would only be "copying" the interface protocol, and i don't think you can actually lock that down with any legal language.

And let's not forget that AMD/ATi literally has a cross-licencing agreement with Nvidia anyways.

Piss Nvidia off? I highly doubt AMD/ATi cares about Nvidia's feelings, lulz.

When AMD/ATi announced that they would do a copy of G-Sync, I was hoping that it would be a carbon copy so that it wouldn't suck.

I was extremely disappointed with what actually came out.
 

razor1

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
10,120
The reverse engineering part would be extremely easy, given that Nvidia implemented (at least the original ones) on FPGA.

Highly doubt they would get sued since AMD would only be "copying" the interface protocol, and i don't think you can actually lock that down with any legal language.

And let's not forget that AMD/ATi literally has a cross-licencing agreement with Nvidia anyways.

Piss Nvidia off? I highly doubt AMD/ATi cares about Nvidia's feelings, lulz.

When AMD/ATi announced that they would do a copy of G-Sync, I was hoping that it would be a carbon copy so that it wouldn't suck.

I was extremely disappointed with what actually came out.


They wouldn't sue the interface part that is correct, but they will sue the program part (drivers), yeah they can't just depend on the cross licensing agreement unless the cross licensing agreement also covers G Sync. which I don't think it does as its not directly related to GPU's, GPU has control over it via drivers.

Yes it will piss nV off, and they will be happy to sue AMD, just more money for lawyers less money for AMD to use for R&D.

I wouldn't say Freesync (current version) sucks, yeah it doesn't have all the features of G Sync but for no cost or little cost, its a good deal.
 

Algrim

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2016
Messages
1,747
If they can clean-room implement a compatible solution they could call it Gsync-compatible without infringement depending on how dickish nVidia wanted to be about it. It's basically how Compaq originally was able to copy the IBM PC BIOS without being sued successfully (they were sued but Compaq won).
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,230
If they can clean-room implement a compatible solution they could call it Gsync-compatible without infringement depending on how dickish nVidia wanted to be about it. It's basically how Compaq originally was able to copy the IBM PC BIOS without being sued successfully (they were sued but Compaq won).

true but after all you saw the lengths nvidia was willing to go to terminate any ability to use a nvidia gpu as a physX card when using an ATi/AMD GPU as your primary card.. there's no way in hell they'd ever allow AMD to use G-sync.
 

Communism

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
165
true but after all you saw the lengths nvidia was willing to go to terminate any ability to use a nvidia gpu as a physX card when using an ATi/AMD GPU as your primary card.. there's no way in hell they'd ever allow AMD to use G-sync.

That is an entirely differant circumstance that requires leveraging Nvidia's own drivers to work.

Apples and oranges.
 

razor1

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
10,120
true but after all you saw the lengths nvidia was willing to go to terminate any ability to use a nvidia gpu as a physX card when using an ATi/AMD GPU as your primary card.. there's no way in hell they'd ever allow AMD to use G-sync.


Straight out to use G-Sync that won't happen, but AMD will have full control over their software stack if they make their copy G-Sync hardware.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,780
Would it not just be easier if RTG just license GSync from Nvidia to use in their drivers? Charge the customer if they want it the extra license fee which would be given to Nvidia anyways, case by case. If Nvidia does not want to play then so be it, just let the folks know in the end. Adaptive Sync will probably win anyways in the long run so probably best if AMD just let the market decide, which so far looks like Adaptive Sync (Freesync) is winning.

Also, $200 for GSync! The module really costs that much to make and install on a monitor? You can buy whole video cards for much less than that. How much is Nvidia making on GSync? It has to be almost pure profit for almost nothing.
 
Last edited:

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,532
Would it not just be easier if RTG just license GSync from Nvidia to use in their drivers? Charge the customer if they want it the extra license fee which would be given to Nvidia anyways, case by case. If Nvidia does not want to play then so be it, just let the folks know in the end. Adaptive Sync will probably win anyways in the long run so probably best if AMD just let the market decide, which so far looks like Adaptive Sync (Freesync) is winning.

Also, $200 for GSync! The module really costs that much to make and install on a monitor? You can buy whole video cards for much less than that. How much is Nvidia making on GSync? It has to be almost pure profit for almost nothing.

It more or less is. For a number of years now Nvidia has been the premium, top end GPU provider. Even though most people don't buy the $600-800 range, they have become to go to for those that due. G-Sync came out around that time, and they have successfully marketed it as a premium, niche product. And for about a year AMD could not even compete at the upper mid range level until Vega finally came out. To be blunt, Nvidia can get away with it because AMD lost their competitive edge.

To me I think G-Sync has been on the market long enough now. I don't think it is necessary for it to be ~$200. To be honest, I think every gaming oriented monitor should feature it or some similar technology. Anyone buying a monitor, be it low priced (~$200) should have it. I think by now it should be more or less standard across all PCs. Even a $50 premium would be more reasonable. It would also help lock in more budget minded gamers to continue buying Nvidia.

I like my G-Sync monitor, but I wish it was standard tech by now. Kind of like how other once premium, high end technologies in GPUs trickled down to the low end.
 

Brackle

Old Timer
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
8,023
Why would they support G-sync when it will eventually die, or become known as a premium product you have to pay extra money to buy a special Monitor. Intel adopted Adaptive-Sync (freesync), and remember Intel has more of a foothold on PC's with Intel On-board graphics.

For TV's PS4,and the Xbox one both run AMD cards, which support Freesync. It will take time, but it will to me die just like 3D Vision/3D gaming Nvidia tried to push, which failed.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,780
Why would they support G-sync when it will eventually die, or become known as a premium product you have to pay extra money to buy a special Monitor. Intel adopted Adaptive-Sync (freesync), and remember Intel has more of a foothold on PC's with Intel On-board graphics.

For TV's PS4,and the Xbox one both run AMD cards, which support Freesync. It will take time, but it will to me die just like 3D Vision/3D gaming Nvidia tried to push, which failed.
While 3D Vision is fading fast, one thing that Nvidia did do is to continue to support it throughout the years. That is something I like very much with Nvidia in that they have very long term support. Look at AMD anemic HD3D support - that was pissed poor implementation and commitment. LiquidVR? It maybe just that RTG can't have long term commitments due to costs and what is the most important at the time. Hopefully they have more funds for longer term endeavours and provide support as well as time goes on.
 
Top