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”.
barsoap@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
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.
AngryMob@lemmy.one 4 weeks ago
Gsync modules have a lower sync window before LFC kicks in (usually around 30), and faster pixel response (overdrive) anywhere in the sync window. Those are benefits for both high framerate content and low framerate content.
Even today freesync usually bottoms out around 48. That constantly puts you at the LFC boundary for a lot of AAA games if youre on a popular midrange graphics card and aiming for 60fps average.
frezik@midwest.social 4 weeks ago
Just to address this from a high level, I see this as typical of Nvidia and AMD approaches. Nvidia makes something that’s engineered to perfection, but adds a bunch of requirements on it that make it expensive and supports vendor lock-in. Even if you’re willing to put with that to have The Best, you might hesitate when finding out what assholes Nvidia are about everything.
AMD then makes something 95% as good, and it’s cheap and you can work with them without yelling.
See also: FSR vs DLSS.
Eideen@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Is a problem that LFC is used? As it only duplicate frames.
www.amd.com/en/products/graphics/…/freesync.html
AngryMob@lemmy.one 4 weeks ago
With constant frametime its fine, but games don’t have constant frametime which is the whole point of vrr in the first place.
forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?t=6524
barsoap@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
That constantly puts you at the point where you should lower graphics settings. Average fps might be a thing to put on benchmarks, but for actual playing you want to go by minimum fps (non-cutscene if necessary). And it’s not like Adaptive Sync can’t go down that low, protocol-wise, it’s that monitor producers don’t care to.
Overdrive, too, is a matter of implementation not the sync protocol.
AngryMob@lemmy.one 4 weeks ago
Part of the point of vrr for the end user is to simplify worrying about settings and your system performance, isnt it? The average person is gonna pick a graphics preset and play. If the game feels smooth off the rip, thats the preset theyll stick with. They arent going to make sure that the heaviest scenes stay above their LFC threshold. They don’t even know what half this shit means. And arguably they wont even notice LFC stutter in the first place, which is probably why, like you said, manufactures dont care to make the threshold lower.
To be clear though i agree with you. I do manage settings to keep my minimum where i like it. And having an older gsync chipped monitor which lets me put that minimum around 45fps is quite nice for path traced games and the like.
I also want to be able to replace this monitor someday and not lose that option.