AMD announces FreeSync 2

[Zaphod]

Very off-topic and should probably be split to a different thread, but Nvidia's Adaptive V-Sync (force v-sync only above display refresh rate) and VESA Adaptive-Sync (variable refresh rate) are two distinctly different things.

Radeon Chill seems to do something similar to the former (among other things) on the AMD side while G-Sync is the Nvidia equivalent of the latter.

 

[DavidGraham]

Radeon Chill seems to do something similar to the former

It's not that similar though, it works on a limited number of supported games, and it dictates a min and max frame cap irrespective of the monitor's refresh rate.

 

[Malo]

The main point to clarify is that monitor AdaptiveSync is not the same thing as Nvidia's Adaptive V-sync. Having hardware solutions like G-sync and Freesync (AdaptiveSync) is to get away from V-sync.

 

[DavidGraham]

Having hardware solutions like G-sync and Freesync (AdaptiveSync) is to get away from V-sync.

True, but one of the main reasons Adaptive V.Sync was introduced for is to serve G.Sync, by having the G.Sync monitor locking the fps and preventing the game from going above the monitor's refresh rate, and thus not allowing tearing to happen on a G.Sync monitor. Monitors with FreeSync can really use this methodology from AMD.

 

[Malo]

True, but one of the main reasons Adaptive V.Sync was introduced for is to serve G.Sync, by having the G.Sync monitor locking the fps and preventing the game from going above the monitor's refresh rate, and thus not allowing tearing to happen on a G.Sync monitor. Monitors with FreeSync can really use this methodology from AMD.

Very true. It's annoying when a game doesn't have an fps cap option and you don't have a feature like this.

 

[entity279]

mmm.. okay, I meant VESA Adaptive-Sync in my off topic remark which caused this oftopic but interesting stream of replies. So what is nvidia's Adaptive Sync then? A frame limiter?

 

[Zaphod]

Yes, basically.

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/adaptive-vsync/technology

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Aren't you mixing it with G-Sync?
To be fair entity279 should technically say FreeSync as AdaptiveSync is a generic term.

Actually, Adaptive Sync is the official VESA term. FreeSync is AMD's branding of the VESA standard Adapative Sync. Gsync is completely unrelated other than offering similar functionality. It's all VRR (Variable Refresh Rate).

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

True, but one of the main reasons Adaptive V.Sync was introduced for is to serve G.Sync, by having the G.Sync monitor locking the fps and preventing the game from going above the monitor's refresh rate, and thus not allowing tearing to happen on a G.Sync monitor. Monitors with FreeSync can really use this methodology from AMD.

Erm, you've been able to cap framerate in the AMD drivers for a very long time now. It's unrelated to Adaptive Sync but can be used in conjunction with Adaptive Sync (FreeSync). There's no need to introduce a separate Adaptive Sync framerate cap.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

something similar, non curved and at around 40-42" would have me very hyped. 32" is the size of my current display and I love it. 49" is too much for the space I have. And since I have a 32" display I want more because I know how beneficial it is without getting one too large for the limited space I have in my room

Trust, me at that size you are going to want some curvature unless you sit very far away from your monitor. I constantly wish my 49" screen had some curvature as I'm constantly either shifting to the left or right to read something in a window at the left or right edges, or moving my seat to more easily read it. As well when viewed straight on from about 1 meter away, 5-8 pixels are basically cut off at the right and left edges due to optics and how LCD panels are created. Shifting to the left or right will allow me to see those pixels again.

For those more sensitive to those things, there will be subtle color shifting as well on the left and right edges unless you sit relatively far from the screen.

Some amount of curvature would solve these issues.

For a TV in the living room, curvature is more of a gimmick as you generally sit so far away from it, but for large monitor screens where you sit close to the screen, it's essential, IMO.

Regards,
SB

 

[Cyan]

Trust, me at that size you are going to want some curvature unless you sit very far away from your monitor. I constantly wish my 49" screen had some curvature as I'm constantly either shifting to the left or right to read something in a window at the left or right edges, or moving my seat to more easily read it. As well when viewed straight on from about 1 meter away, 5-8 pixels are basically cut off at the right and left edges due to optics and how LCD panels are created. Shifting to the left or right will allow me to see those pixels again.

For those more sensitive to those things, there will be subtle color shifting as well on the left and right edges unless you sit relatively far from the screen.

Some amount of curvature would solve these issues.

For a TV in the living room, curvature is more of a gimmick as you generally sit so far away from it, but for large monitor screens where you sit close to the screen, it's essential, IMO.

Regards,
SB

I had never thought of that. And to be honest it is something I've been aware of with my 32" screen. The distance from eye to screen is like 50cm in my case -not much space- and I feel very comfortable with it. However, sometimes I end up looking at the corners of the screen (days ago I noticed this several times, when I had to really turn my head up and right to see the close window button) or moving the head from left to right -which I am doing while I am typing this post and the words fill the screen from one side to the other-. If you can see the entire field of vision with a curved monitor, then I think it is a must have, because I insist, that for every line I am writing my head turns from left to right unsconsciously and I have my screen centered. Excellent suggestion.

There are malls close to where I live where I've seen curved 4k TVs, but not monitors.

 

[Blazkowicz]

One draw to this super wide 49" monitors might be to treat it as a triple 1280x1024 (with some vertical slack for panels, menu bars. good)

Can have many 1280-wide browser windows with three shown at a time, and it should be easy to focus on one of them. Sometimes instead of a browser window you might have a word processor, a VM/remote desktop/secondary desktop, even a classic game.
Although, 1280-wide is getting old school.

 

[xEx]

I want to know why the birghtness are almost half whats needed for real HDR and where is the minimum brightness which is as important as the maximum. Although for 600 the 27 has a good price for todays standard.

 

[Malo]

Doesn't nvidia even have an fps cap setting called Fast Sync?

 

[Cyan]

new 4K Dell Ultrasharp 38" curved monitor:

http://www.dell.com/learn/al/en/alc...t-4k-ultra-hd-high-brightness-laser-projector

 

[DavidGraham]

New Doesn't nvidia even have an fps cap setting called Fast Sync?

Fast Sync doesn't cap fps, on contrary it allows fps to go virtually unlimited, well and beyond the monitor's refresh rate, while also eliminating Tearing at the cost of a small latency. It's effectively a proprietary NVIDIA V.Sync technique. It only works on Pascal GPUs.

You can cap fps to whatever value you want using NVIDIA Inspector.

 

[Cyan]

LG 32UD99. A 32" 4K monitor that has a bit of everything you need to enjoy future standards:

http://www.displayspecifications.com/es/model/d1e796e


3840×2160 Resolution

10-bit IPS Panel

HDR10

AMDFreeSync

HDMI 2.0

 

[DavidGraham]

Erm, you've been able to cap framerate in the AMD drivers for a very long time now. It's unrelated to Adaptive Sync but can be used in conjunction with Adaptive Sync (FreeSync). There's no need to introduce a separate Adaptive Sync framerate cap.

True, But a driver frame cap is still relatively a crude way to handle the problem:

-You will have to set the cap below the monitor refresh rate. As it's not 100% accurate so If you set it exactly at the monitor's refresh rate it can still go up beyond it and introduce Tearing.
-The cap will introduce a small additional latency penalty, since you are rendering below your refresh rate, and also introducing a slight driver overhead.

The Adaptive V.Sync technique will avoid both problems, no tearing and no latency penalty. You also enjoy maximum fps in accordance with your monitor's refresh rate. It's the right way of handling the problem.

I found this comprehensive video comparing different methods of adaptive refresh rates and how they handle this problem specifically: FreeSync, G.Sync, AMD fps cap, Riva Tuner fps cap, NV Inspector cap, and the integrated game fps cap.

 

[Malo]

https://www.reddit.com/r/path%3D%252Fr%252FAmd%252Fcomments%252F4ypw5k%252Ffreesync_is_so_fcking_awesome%252Fd958sk8

So V-sync + Freesync + LFC is basically ideal on the AMD side. You get the frame cap automatically and no v-sync latency.

 

[DavidGraham]

So V-sync + Freesync + LFC is basically ideal on the AMD side. You get the frame cap automatically and no v-sync latency.

But you still get the cons of V.Sync, which is still added latency, V.Sync can also half your fps in an instant, forcing you out of FreeSync range. This will make you stutter unless you have LFC.

CONS: Lowest possible input latency will not be achieved if app goes outside of FreeSync range. Vsync stutter possible when app is below FreeSync window.

So, this is not the ideal solution, the best one would be: a Riva Tuner fps cap (adds the lowest latency possible) + FreeSync + LFC. Some games have a solid fps cap built in, which can be used in place of the Riva Tuner cap.