There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Nvidia is ditching dedicated G-Sync modules to push back against FreeSync’s ubiquity

Back in 2013, Nvidia introduced a new technology called G-Sync to eliminate screen tearing and stuttering effects and reduce input lag when playing PC games. The company accomplished this by tying your display’s refresh rate to the actual frame rate of the game you were playing, and similar variable refresh-rate (VRR) technology has become a mainstay even in budget monitors and TVs today.

The issue for Nvidia is that G-Sync isn’t what has been driving most of that adoption. G-Sync has always required extra dedicated hardware inside of displays, increasing the costs for both users and monitor manufacturers. The VRR technology in most low-end to mid-range screens these days is usually some version of the royalty-free AMD FreeSync or the similar VESA Adaptive-Sync standard, both of which provide G-Sync’s most important features without requiring extra hardware. Nvidia more or less acknowledged that the free-to-use, cheap-to-implement VRR technologies had won in 2019 when it announced its “G-Sync Compatible” certification tier for FreeSync monitors. The list of G-Sync Compatible screens now vastly outnumbers the list of G-Sync and G-Sync Ultimate screens.

vikingtons ,
@vikingtons@lemmy.world avatar

Good for them if it help eliminate the mark up of displays advertising gsync ultimate. I have my doubts but it’d make sense if they’re no longer using dedicated boards with FPGAs and RAM.

One has to wonder if VESA will further their VRR standard to support refresh rates as low as 1Hz

ScampiLover ,

TL:DR The stuff the dedicated module is doing will go inside specific Mediatek chips on specific premium monitors

Really weird it’s taken this long - I remember reading that the modules were expensive and assumed it was just because they were early generations and Nvidia was still working things out

melroy ,
@melroy@kbin.melroy.org avatar

Open standards always win. Just buy FreeSync and get an AMD GPU.

GamingChairModel ,

They always win, unless they don’t. History is littered with examples of the freer standard losing to the more proprietary standard, with plenty of examples going the other way, too.

Openness is an advantage in some cases, but tight control can be an advantage in some other cases.

Poiar ,

Quick, sell all your Nvidia stocks!

melroy ,
@melroy@kbin.melroy.org avatar

haha. I wouldn't, but yes please sell your stocks. I will buy them. We still have a $300B inflow of AI shizzle (bubble) that goes into Nvidia.

DmMacniel ,
@DmMacniel@feddit.org avatar

Awwwwwwwww… poor nVidia loses again.

conciselyverbose ,

This is silly.

Gsync solved a problem that couldn’t be solved before they made it. They stayed committed to that good solution until there was an alternative that reached a reasonable level of performance, then supported both until they could get close without the expensive extra hardware.

Was it worth it? For most people no. But it’s still technically superior today and there are loads of options without the extra cost.

Aatube ,

Take notes, Apple Metal!

Tetsuo ,

The problem was solved by Nvidia, then AMD made it cheap and accessible and not requiring a dedicated hardware module.

For years and years Nvidia increased artificially by up to 150 euros many Gsync screens and for no legitimate reason. Initially there was NO compatibility with free sync at all.

Nvidia wasn’t kindly solving a gamers problem at least to after the first year of release of that tech. They were forcibly selling expensive hardware modules nobody needed or wanted. And long after freesync showed you could do it just as well without this expensive requirements.

This hardware module they insisted on selling wasn’t solving a technical problem but a money one.

I don’t even think anyone was ever able to differentiate between the different qualities of “sync techs”.

conciselyverbose , (edited )

There absolutely was a legitimate reason. The hardware was not capable of processing the signals. They didn’t use FPGAs on a whim. They did it because they were necessary to handle the signals properly.

And you just haven’t followed the tech if you think they were indistinguishable. Gsync has supported a much wider variance of frame times over its entire lifespan.

barsoap ,

VESA Adaptive-Sync goes back to the eDP stardard, 2009. AMD simply took that and said “Hey why aren’t we doing that over external DisplayPort”. And they did.

So instead of over-engineering a solution that nobody asked for to create vendor lock-in nobody (but fanboys with Stockholm Syndrome) want they exposed functionality that many many panels already had, anyway, because manufactures don’t use completely different control circuitry for laptop (eDP) and stand-alone monitors.

And, no, nvidia’s tech is not superior. From what I gather they have stricter certification requirements but that’s it.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •