FreeSync vs G-Sync - Who will win?

Discussion in 'Technology' started by bfun, Mar 19, 2015.

  1. Beta vs VHS, Firewire vs. USB, HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray, and now FreeSync vs G-Sync. Who will win?

    Nvidia G-Sync is the bigger dog in the fight. Their graphics cards dominate the market 2:1 but G-Sync requires an Nvidia chip which adds $100 - $150 to the cost of G-Sync monitor. AMD's FreeSync is for the most part free. Manufactures don't need to buy anything from AMD and so there is no additional cost to the consumer. From what I've read both perform the same although AMD will point out the G-Sync takes a 1% performance hit in the frame rates.
  2. Until they stop putting G-sync on shitty TN panel monitors, I have zero interest. I won't buy anything that's not IPS or VA.
  3. Freesynch vs. Gsync is one of the main reasons I bought a 290x over a 970 when both were around the same price. I have no interest in having to buy from one GPU vendor because of the monitor I use.

    Of course, until Nvidia support adaptive sync (the standard), it is effectively the same problem with freesync/adaptive sync monitors. But hey, they are the stubborn one's who made it this way, so I'll support the company who supports giving consumers a choice by adopting/creating an open standard.

    Like monkey said though, I'm not going back to a TN monitor. I have a QHD IPS now, and personally find VA the best technology right now (slightly worse viewing angles, much better blacks and less 'glow'). I hope samsung, benq or philips release a QHD adaptive synch VA panel that can do at least 90Hz. Not holding my breath, though.
  4. Intel says it will be supporting freesync. That's a pretty big deal since Intel has 72% of the GPU market share.
  5. Now if only any of those laptops weren't garbage. It does seem like some of them are getting better in specs at least (SSD, decent screen) but the other surprise aspects are still up in the air (track pad, battery life, bundled crapware, build quality). Lets see if they can at the very least use two sticks of RAM in most of them to enable dual channel mode.

    All devices sold, including TV's, need to start supporting adaptive sync so it can just be a feature that everyone takes for granted. This is why gsync should die and intel should hurry up and bring out a chip that supports it already. If the only support it gets is from AMD in their current state then it's as good as dead and we'll have a fractured market where only high end gaming PC/laptops ever get adaptive frame rate technology.