Did you miss Dave saying that there are indeed lemons at the store?
No, that was melon. Which still need some additional artificial flafour to make it taste like lemon.
Did you miss Dave saying that there are indeed lemons at the store?
How does AMD benefit financial from the technology? If they are giving the solution away, how is it not free?
If I set up a stand on my side walk with a "free lemonade" sign and gave away lemonade, how am I being untruthful just because you got in your car, drove to my street and incurred a cost from your use of fuel.
The way I see it is that if you want Gsync on your desktop you have to go out and buy a new Gsync monitor (at a premium over a normal monitor) and then it's free. This is something you will be able to do very soon.
If you want Freesync you have to go out and buy a new monitor with a variable refresh scaler and DP1.3 support (possibly at a premium over monitors without these technologies) as well as a new AMD GPU that supports DP1.3. Then freesync is free. You cant do that yet though since neither of those technologies are commercially available and there is no set timeline for them to become so, and indeed variable refresh rate scalers would likely never become a commercial product (at least not for a very long time) without something like Gsync to get the ball rolling in the first place.
On that basis, saying Freesync is somehow the more altruisic option or indeed simply more 'free' than Gsync seems a little strange.
Nvidia did specifically say that to their knowledge (and in their own words - they would know) there are no monitors available today with variable refresh rate scalers (which is the key component for this).
Did you miss Dave saying that there are indeed lemons at the store?
The variable refresh rate is an optional implementation of the DP1.3 standard , monitor makers will need the proper incentive and motivation to include it, they will probably do it for high-end models under direct pressure from both AMD and NVIDIA.As far as I understand it, even with DP1.3 you would still also need a monitor with a variable refresh scalar. I could be wrong there though
The variable refresh rate is an optional implementation of the DP1.3 standard , monitor makers will need the proper incentive and motivation to include it, they will probably do it for high-end models under direct pressure from both AMD and NVIDIA.
compatible also with earlier DisplayPort specifications. Nothing forbids the manufacturers to activate support on a DP1.2 monitor for instance.The variable refresh rate is an optional implementation of the DP1.3 standard
You really think NVIDIA would pressure them to do it, instead of pressuring them to use G-Sync-modules instead?
I would have to see a model name to believe that, I also doubt it would work as flawlessly as intended, considering DP1.3 is not even finalized as of yet.compatible also with earlier DisplayPort specifications. Nothing forbids the manufacturers to activate support on a DP1.2 monitor for instance.
I would almost guess, that the part with the variable refresh gets more or less taken from the eDP 1.0 specs from 2008. It just defines the behaviour for a data stream (which is basically valid also under previous DP specs, just the reaction of the monitor to it is not defined so far) in that respect, which is not directly tied to any other feature or property of DP1.3. There really shouldn't be much to it to enable support also on DP1.2 interfaces (or even DP 1.0 for that matter).I would have to see a model name to believe that, I also doubt it would work flawlessly as intended, considering DP1.3 is not even finalized as of yet.
So AMD wouldn't know?
At what point have AMD said they DO exist? In fact, given that Nvidia have specifically said they don't, where is AMD refutation?
The way I see it is that if you want Gsync on your desktop you have to go out and buy a new Gsync monitor (at a premium over a normal monitor) and then it's free. This is something you will be able to do very soon.
If you want Freesync you have to go out and buy a new monitor with a variable refresh scaler and DP1.3 support (possibly at a premium over monitors without these technologies) as well as a new AMD GPU that supports DP1.3. Then freesync is free. You cant do that yet though since neither of those technologies are commercially available and there is no set timeline for them to become so, and indeed variable refresh rate scalers would likely never become a commercial product (at least not for a very long time) without something like Gsync to get the ball rolling in the first place.
On that basis, saying Freesync is somehow the more altruisic option or indeed simply more 'free' than Gsync seems a little strange.
Maybe "OpenSync" would be more accurate.