Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First AMD FreeSync Capable Gaming Displays and Drivers Launched, Tested

Posted by timothy on from the play-on-this dept.

MojoKid writes Soon after NVIDIA unveiled its G-SYNC technology, AMD announced that it would pursue an open standard, dubbed FreeSync, leveraging technologies already available in the DisplayPort specification to offer adaptive refresh rates to users of some discrete Radeon GPUs and AMD APUs. AMD's goal with FreeSync was to introduce a technology that offered similar end-user benefits to NVIDIA's G-SYNC, that didn't require monitor manufacturers to employ any proprietary add-ons, and that could be adopted by any GPU maker. Today, AMD released its first FreeSync capable set of drivers and this first look at the sleek ultra-widescreen LG 34UM67 showcases some of the benefits, based on an IPS panel with a native resolution of 2560x1080 and a max refresh rate of 75Hz. To fully appreciate how adaptive refresh rate technologies work, it's best to experience them in person. In short, the GPU scans a frame out to the monitor where it's drawn on-screen and the monitor doesn't update until a frame is done drawing. As soon as a frame is done, the monitor will update again as quickly as it can with the next frame, in lockstep with the GPU. This completely eliminates tearing and jitter issues that are common in PC gaming. Technologies like NVIDIA G-SYNC and AMD FreeSync aren't a panacea for all of PC gaming anomalies, but they do ultimately enhance the experience and are worthwhile upgrades in image quality and less eye strain.

63 comments

  1. uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uhh... what about vsync?

    1. Re:uhh... by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Vsync prevents the frame from being written to while it's displayed, avoiding tearing. FreeSync/Gsync makes the monitor wait for the frame to be rendered and ready for display instead of the other way around.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh... what about reading TFA?

    3. Re:uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vsync is not the same as Gsync.

      Vsync is a buffering technique that holds-off pushing a drawn screen until the monitor's scanline reaches the bottom, so that you do not get part of one frame and part of another on one full redraw.

      Gsync changes the monitor's refresh rate to match the input it is getting, so that your screen will be refreshed at the same speed your video card is pumping out data. It gives the same affect, but also a smoother look that doesn't feel sluggish on different pieces of hardware like vsync does.

    4. Re:uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So vsync used to be then. VSYNC was the signal from the monitor back to the graphic card that it was done. That got lost over the years and became a pulse clock.

    5. Re:uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Vsync keeps a frame from being written to the monitor until the monitor is ready for it. Say for example, your card can generate 70 FPS and your display is clocked at 60 FPS, your card will draw a frame, wait for the end of the previous frame, send the newest frame, then start generating the next frame. You lose out on the extra 10 fps that your card could be producing. On the other hand, if you run up against a heavy scene and your card's capability drops to 59 fps, it will take more than a single refresh to draw a frame, so your card re-sends the last frame while it waits for the current frame to finish, finishes the current frame, then sits around waiting for the re-sent frame to finish drawing. You eliminate tearing, but effectively drop to 30 fps. If your engine works a bit different and starts drawing the next frame ahead of time instead of waiting, you get jitters where several frames draw smoothly but eventually catch up with the buffer and stutter while a frame is skipped.

      Gsync, on the other hand, moves the waiting to the monitor side. A frame is drawn to the monitor as soon as it is complete. If you're producing frames faster than the max refresh rate, your card might still stop and wait while the frame is being sent, but if your framerate drops, you don't end up in a buffer-skip cycle. Instead of sending every frame by the clock, the card sends the frames as they finish, and the monitor doesn't refresh until it receives the full frame, regardless of whether it produces the full 60 FPS or a lower rate. This wouldn't work well with a CRT since every line has to be refreshed every cycle to maintain constant brightness and minimize flicker, but it works well with flat panel displays where each element is updated simultaneously only when the refresh signal is sent.

    6. Re:uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When are we going to stop reinventing the square wheel, and just design a spec that frees us from bit-by-bit rasterization in the first place?

    7. Re:uhh... by Wootery · · Score: 1

      A good summary. Here is Nvidia's overview of G-SYNC.

    8. Re:uhh... by Wootery · · Score: 1

      I imagine this will be standard in the next generation of display connectors.

      I don't think it's being mandated in DisplayPort 1.3 though, for whatever reason.

  2. And all the consumers will lose by Gaygirlie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "that didn't require monitor manufacturers to employ any proprietary add-ons, and that could be adopted by any GPU maker." -- I definitely like the general idea here, but NVIDIA trying to do lock-in and squeeze even more money out of people with requiring proprietary add-ons is only going to hurt the market; it forces manufacturers to choose either camp limiting markets, or both camps increasing costs. It's bullshit. NVIDIA should work with AMD and the other manufacturers on this, not against them.

    1. Re:And all the consumers will lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "squeeze even more money out of people with requiring proprietary add-ons"

      tell us more about how they are forcing people to buy into this technology

      if you don't want it, you can just ignore it

      but somehow you just HAVE to play the victim

    2. Re:And all the consumers will lose by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      You don't have to have it, but once you've bought a card with it, you'll buy a monitor with it. Once you have a monitor with it, that means your next PC will have it, then when your monitor dies, your next monitor will have it. That's what he means when he says "lock-in".

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    3. Re:And all the consumers will lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to have it, but once you've bought a card with it, you'll buy a monitor with it.

      And yet plenty of people own Nvidia GPU's that support G-Sync and didn't buy a G-Sync monitor. Maybe you need to learn some self control?

    4. Re:And all the consumers will lose by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you're obtuse on purpose or not, but I'll explain in any case: if a person wants to be able to take advantage of adaptive vsync, but they have an NVIDIA GPU their only choices are to buy into NVIDIA's lock-in or buy a new GPU *and* a new display. Both situations are anything but ideal.

    5. Re:And all the consumers will lose by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you're obtuse on purpose or not, but I'll explain in any case: if a person wants to be able to take advantage of adaptive vsync, but they have an NVIDIA GPU their only choices are to buy into NVIDIA's lock-in or buy a new GPU *and* a new display. Both situations are anything but ideal.

      Or buy a monitor without adaptive sync and live without it.
      Or buy a monitor with adaptive sync (freesync) and wait for Nvidia to support it in newer drivers.
      Or buy a monitor with adaptive sync (freesync) and buy a new gpu that supports open standards.
      Buying a new monitor or gpu? Sell the old one.

    6. Re:And all the consumers will lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First-world problems. LOL.

    7. Re:And all the consumers will lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's bullshit. NVIDIA should work with AMD and the other manufacturers on this, not against them.

      The mistake you're making is to assume that in a free market what's best for consumers is also best for corporations.

    8. Re:And all the consumers will lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Both situations are anything but ideal."

      Because there is no such thing as a used market and you can't ever get a single penny for your used equipment

    9. Re:And all the consumers will lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But their life will be devastated by not having this thing that 99.99% of the world lives without!!

    10. Re:And all the consumers will lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new to IT.

      It's the game that most manufactuers play, dreaming wet dreams of locking customers in like M$ did for a while with the .doc format, Autodesk I believe with it's CAD-format and other greats and have-beens.

      Perfect vendor lock-in is the holy grale of the IT-industry, not pesky cooperation (they only do that when absolutely needed).

    11. Re:And all the consumers will lose by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      It seems like the laptop version of G-Sync is using the same protocol as FreeSync (i.e it doesn't require any special hardware).
      http://www.extremetech.com/ext...
      So, maybe somebody could hack Nvidia's driver to make it compatible with FreeSync monitors?

    12. Re:And all the consumers will lose by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1

      >Buying a new monitor or gpu? Sell the old one.

      Yep, monitors and GPUs are very easy to sell commodity items.

    13. Re:And all the consumers will lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All problems above basic survival were "first world problems" at some point in history. We just keep setting the bar higher for what is considered "first world".

  3. Never leave by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    I'll never leave my mum's basement.

    1. Re:Never leave by zlives · · Score: 1

      Tit-Synced !?

    2. Re:Never leave by mister_playboy · · Score: 2

      Playing a video with breasts in motion is actually one of the best ways to check for screen tearing issues... :)

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  4. Now if AMD drivers could not suck by davydagger · · Score: 2

    Now, if AMD linux drivers could really not suck, that would be awesome.

    Because their drivers are crappy. Their FOSS driver is crappy and their propiertary driver is crappy. They are really putting the cart before the horse here. What they really need to do, is just a massive bug hunt with their drivers. Right now they are lacking.

    Oh, and its hurting sales, because people won't buy AMD cards because they are known to be buggy. Even after they fix them, its going to take a lot of them to be seen as reliable.

    1. Re:Now if AMD drivers could not suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the problem with FOSS driver? I haven't had any issues in years. Runs anything available at steam with 7950 at least.

    2. Re:Now if AMD drivers could not suck by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's the problem with FOSS driver? I haven't had any issues in years. Runs anything available at steam with 7950 at least.

      It's just an nVidiot screaming the same old bullshit from over a decade ago.

    3. Re:Now if AMD drivers could not suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Because if you don't have the problem then everybody else is wrong. Fuck off, little troll.

    4. Re:Now if AMD drivers could not suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I regularly lurk on Phoronix, and by their tests AMD drivers are generally getting better performance-wise on Linux. Also, there is an incoming rework on how their drivers are structured (open-souring large chunks of the Catalyst if I am not mistaken), so I personally expect rapidly improvements in the short/medium term.

  5. Re:National Socialism by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2

    Is this an oblique reference to the sync'ing of the Bismark?

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  6. Why still 1080? by BobSutan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've got a 24" monitor that's 10 yeas old and it's native resolution is1900x1200. Why the regression in recent years back to 1080? You'd think monitors today would have continued advancing. Sure, give them 1080 capability, but still they should have a much higher native resolution by now.

    --
    "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
    1. Re:Why still 1080? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people's PCs have integrated graphics that can just barely get by with 1080 resolution thats why.

    2. Re:Why still 1080? by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 2

      Economy of scale. The HDTV standard settled on 1080p. That was worse than the 1200p that was getting quite commonplace at the time, but close enough that manufacturers could justify consolidating their product ranges into mostly making 1080p for everybody, thus reducing their operating costs. Price of 1080p went down, and the price of 1200p was raised as manufacturers' inclination to supply them dwindled, causing a resultant reduction in demand, and so 1080p became standard. It's a pity because 1900x1200 really hit a sweet spot. Still, consider that modern games tend to go so overboard with pixel shaders that people now complain about 1900x1080 being a too-high resolution.

    3. Re:Why still 1080? by locopuyo · · Score: 1

      Because that would defeat the point of an ultra-wide monitor. 1200 vertical pixels would make it less wide. There would be none of the "advantages" you get from 16:10 over 16:9 by using 21:10 instead of 12:9. And 1920x1080 content would scale terribly on 21:10 in full screen.

      --
      The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
    4. Re:Why still 1080? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I have a monitor even older that runs 1920x1440. Welcome to widespread short-screen resolution adoption.
      Also it makes me sad that the 1080p/1200p shorthand has caused people to forget that it's 1920x1080, not 1900.

    5. Re:Why still 1080? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because people can't see the difference: Case & point, a point: .

      I am writing this on my smartphone's 4.5" screen that is 1920x1080. I have to zoom to see whether the dots on the i exist. It would be a waste of pixels to give me that same dots per inch on a 24" monitor. I have to hold the phone the same distance away from my face to cause its surface to consume the same visual area of my field of view that my 24" monitor takes up from 50-75cm away. That means we're either going to scale the pixels up for a larger screen with more pixels (thus lower DPI), or we're going to scale the screen down and then zoom in by putting it closer to our faces.

      It's the latter case where the resolution progress is largely happening. It's becoming pointless to increase DPI for monitors. Instead pixel response latency and refresh rate are more important. You asked "Why?", the answer is: Eyeballs don't have infinite resolution.

    6. Re:Why still 1080? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It's hard to call it a regression when it was driven by popularity.

      Also isn't your comment about a year too late to be relevant? Right now there are more QWXGA and QHD screens on the market than ever, let alone the incoming 4k screens. And they are affordable too!

    7. Re:Why still 1080? by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      Also isn't your comment about a year too late to be relevant?

      Indeed. Even Walmart is offering greater than 1080p choices now, for both monitors and TVs.

      1920x1200 is no longer something to brag about... adjust accordingly lest you start to sound like an old person. :P

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    8. Re: Why still 1080? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      4K TV is happening ... hang onto your hat and wait for the 4K 60Hz 4:4:4 panels later this year. Almost there.

      Of course I'm buying the first 50" 8K display I can get my hands on for less than $2K. After 30 years of upgrading displays, I think I will be done.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  7. Re:It's not the driver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all this time I thought it was Linux users who where the terrible fanbois

  8. AMD still makes graphics cards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been looking to increase my screen size for a while now. I'm currently using a 32 inch full hd tv as monitor, driven by my 5 year old radeon hd 4850. So now i want a 50 inch 4k monitor which offers almost the same dpi as current 24 inch full hd monitors. These are possible to find, not as monitors but as tv's, for a reasonable price. Yet as such, they only have hdmi 2.0 input to get 60hz 4k content. and AMD still does not have a graphics card that has that. Nvidia does have a few. yet you need to go to quite high prices before they say it's powerfull enough to actually play a game on 4k. To me this has clearly proven that moore's law has been broken. Why is that industry lagging behind so much ?

    1. Re:AMD still makes graphics cards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consoles?

    2. Re:AMD still makes graphics cards? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      What does Moore's Law have to do with processing power?

      Your 4850 was built on a 55nm process. Current GPU's are 28nm. Mobile processors are down to 14nm. Next year it'll be 10nm

  9. Re:It's not the driver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Statistically speaking it is virtually certain that you are using Linux is some capacity right now...

    Only cock-gobbling faggots use that shit.

    ...of course that it probably what you meant.

  10. Tearing by Morlenden · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "This completely eliminates tearing and jitter issues that are common in PC gaming."

    Adaptive sync should fix tearing but it won't do much for jitter. That has to be fixed in the game program. Jitter occurs when frames, each representing a point in time, are displayed at different times than the ones they represent. A game program must try to advance the simulation time for each frame an amount that matches the time that will elapse before the frame is displayed, but it can be difficult to know what the simulation and rendering time will be for a frame. Usually that time isn't constant and it can vary a lot when physics, AI, garbage collection, rendering and other per-frame steps can all have unpredictable variations in time.

    Still, it's good to have tearing fixed, and to have the option of choosing arbitray frame rates, not just the even divisors of some fixed screen rate.

    --
    "Slapping people is fun." - Starla Grady
    1. Re:Tearing by locopuyo · · Score: 1

      Actually it does a great job eliminating jitter.

      Jitter is usually caused by small fluctuations in frame rates which happens in pretty much every game. With GSYNC the monitor displays the frame as soon as it is rendered, so if frame one takes 16.42 ms to render and the next frame takes 16.01 ms to render the motion will still be smooth. With a normal monitor you would get a slight jitter.

      The only jitters GSYNC can't fix are in poorly programmed engines, typically seen in bad console ports.

      I've been using GSYNC for over a year (originally with the GSYNC upgrade kit and now with a ROG Swift). If I ever turn GSYNC off I notice jitter immediately. GSYNC is one of those things that once you start using you can never go back.

      --
      The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
    2. Re:Tearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jitter depends, generally, on some irregularity within the rendering pipeline (the simulation pipeline can be almost completely controlled), and can be corrected to a good degree within the driver. If you're using Vsync, on the other hand, there is no jitter except when it's bouncing between one of the breakpoints - say 30 FPS and 60 FPS - resulting in intervals where you get either one frame or two in the same period, which is a rather pronounced form of jitter. Dynamic refresh systems like Freesync allow you to get the tearing-free experience of vsync with the low(er)-jitter experience of unsynchronized frames on a modern driver.

      The new graphics APIs improve control over the rendering pipeline, reducing instances of jitter in the first place. Refer to the various reviews of the Mantle API for more detail, but generally frametimes are much more consistent than DirectX or OpenGL. With dynamic refresh rates, that means not just less jitter, but less jitter with no tearing.

      So, completely eliminates jitter? No, but it eliminates the worst form of it, and non-vsync jitter will be severely reduced in future games anyway.

    3. Re:Tearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been using GSYNC for over a year (originally with the GSYNC upgrade kit and now with a ROG Swift). If I ever turn GSYNC off I notice jitter immediately.

      New game comes out: Meh, doesn't look that much better
      Play new game for a year: Lets try the old one again. OMG the graphics is horrible!

      People don't realize how bad they have it until they had better for a while.

  11. Idiots by Cammi · · Score: 0

    And they are still not bright enough to have one standard, forcing customers to choose between the two cards based on software ... idiots.

  12. lots of options available still by Chirs · · Score: 2

    Dell U2412M, U2413, U2415 are all 24" monitors with 1920x1200 screens.

    Or you can jump up to 27" 2560x1440, 30" 2560x1600 or even 34" 3440x1440
    Or you can go to a 4K screen or even a 5K one.

  13. Most important question for me: Films? by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    Is nice to using that for games, but... This monitor can also work on 24fps films?

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    1. Re:Most important question for me: Films? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! I would expect this to work... and if it does, I want a TV that can do this, too, supporting any frame rate up to its refresh rate without needing any sort of pull down. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

    2. Re:Most important question for me: Films? by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Many monitors already support 24000/1001Hz refresh rates.

      But yes, playing video with the FreeSync technology is going to be a possibility. For the sub-R290 AMD cards it will actually be the only supported mode (i.e. no FreeSync gaming support).

  14. Most "scaler" chip manufacturers by Kartu · · Score: 1

    Most "scaler" chip manufacturers support AMD's FreeSync already. So gg nVidia...

  15. Thats great, now about your shitty response rates by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

    Any word on when we'll get a flatpanel that isn't like watching an oil painting smear around in realtime?

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  16. Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the only ~24" display is a 60Hz model, which is annoying as 24" is already somewhat too big IMNHO for my desktop, and 27" well there goes what little space is left.

    Also have to say that I'm not really sure that I want 2560x1440 either, especially when it comes at the cost of having to have a ginormous panel which again IMNHO defeats the purpose of increasing resolution, or higher ppi.

  17. Re:Thats great, now about your shitty response rat by Zan+Lynx · · Score: 1

    Let me guess...

    You buy the cheapest panels available and drive them from a VGA port.