FreeSync monitors coming from five display OEMs

[Scorpus]

2015 will be the year we start to see a ton of monitors available with adaptive refresh technology, whether that's Nvidia's G-Sync or the AMD-backed FreeSync. When it comes to the latter implementation, five display manufacturers have now signed up to deliver FreeSync displays early this year.

Major display OEMs LG, BenQ and ViewSonic are ready to release a small selection of FreeSync monitors in the coming months. On top of this we'll get FreeSync panels from Samsung, as we previously reported, and Nixeus.

FreeSync displays will come in all sizes and resolutions, so there will be a decent amount of choice available to consumers. Samsung alone will offer Ultra HD displays ranging from 23.6" to 31.5", while LG will be producing ultra-wide 2560 x 1080 monitors (29" and 34") to begin with. BenQ will offer a 144 Hz QHD 27-incher, and ViewSonic and Nixeus will round things off with 27- and 24-inch 1080p 144 Hz monitors respectively.

All OEMs currently involved with producing FreeSync displays are new to the adaptive refresh game; that's to say that they have no G-Sync monitors on the market. It's a similar story for G-Sync OEMs Asus, AOC and Acer, who haven't announced any plans to support FreeSync.

Unlike G-Sync, FreeSync does not require any proprietary hardware in the monitor (save for an updated scaler), which should result in cheaper displays for consumers. FreeSync is also found in the VESA-standard DisplayPort 1.2a spec, which is currently optional but definitely a step in the right direction.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/59309-freesync-monitors-five-display-manufacturers.html

 

[SirChocula]

All I want is a QHD monitor that's around 25-27'', IPS, 144hz, 1ms refresh rate with super thin bezels at a fairly reasonable price. Acer seems to be the first, so I hope all the other OEMs will follow soon. Not a fan of 4k yet and our current gfx cards can't really push that (yet), so I'll be very satisfied with QHD for the next 5 or so years, if not longer

 

[Burty117]

My question is, Will Nvidia support FreeSync? I mean, if it's a simple driver update would Nvidia support it at all? I know G-Sync does a bit more than just sync the refresh rate to the frames generated by the GPU but it is the main attraction none the less.

 

[Puiu]

My question is, Will Nvidia support FreeSync? I mean, if it's a simple driver update would Nvidia support it at all? I know G-Sync does a bit more than just sync the refresh rate to the frames generated by the GPU but it is the main attraction none the less.

no they can't just update the driver. right now nvidia is refusing to adopt DP 1.2a and it's too early for 1.3 since it was just released. the newly released 980/970 GTX only support DP 1.2

 

[Burty117]

no they can't just update the driver. right now nvidia is refusing to adopt DP 1.2a and it's too early for 1.3 since it was just released. the newly released 980/970 GTX only support DP 1.2

Ah, hadn't thought about that, fair enough, that means only the 290 and 290x would be compatible with FreeSync though? I guess that makes G-sync a tad more flexible since anything above a 650 (I think) works with it?

 

[GhostRyder]

Ah, hadn't thought about that, fair enough, that means only the 290 and 290x would be compatible with FreeSync though? I guess that makes G-sync a tad more flexible since anything above a 650 (I think) works with it?

It just requires DP 1.2a and AMD's support which according to them is right now any of the GPU's out there that are on GCN 1.1 architecture and many of the newer generation APU's. 260/X, 285, 290/x, 295X2, Kaveri, beema, mullins, kabini, and temash are also listed with support but it seems to rely mostly on the new GPU architecture. That or course is just gaming I am speaking of as all GCN can at least use it for video playback and such but sadly that is not as important as the gaming side.

Don't know if I really care enough to get a FreeSync supported monitor, my Acer 4K display has no tearing problems in-game (Though I rarely get any in this day and age because of things like Dynamic V-Sync and such) and honestly the adaptive sync only really feels at home in high refresh situations or if your FPS constantly changes. But that is just me...

 

[SirGCal]

Ah, hadn't thought about that, fair enough, that means only the 290 and 290x would be compatible with FreeSync though? I guess that makes G-sync a tad more flexible since anything above a 650 (I think) works with it?

It just requires DP 1.2a and AMD's support which according to them is right now any of the GPU's out there that are on GCN 1.1 architecture and many of the newer generation APU's. 260/X, 285, 290/x, 295X2, Kaveri, beema, mullins, kabini, and temash are also listed with support but it seems to rely mostly on the new GPU architecture. That or course is just gaming I am speaking of as all GCN can at least use it for video playback and such but sadly that is not as important as the gaming side.

Don't know if I really care enough to get a FreeSync supported monitor, my Acer 4K display has no tearing problems in-game (Though I rarely get any in this day and age because of things like Dynamic V-Sync and such) and honestly the adaptive sync only really feels at home in high refresh situations or if your FPS constantly changes. But that is just me...

I think you miss the point of these technologies all together. V sync of any flavor can easily involve studdering and we all are now so used to it. Tearing doesn't just mean your fps is greater then the refresh of the monitor. It can easily happen at lower rates also. All it has to do is perform a screen update while in the middle of a refresh. And even on my 144Hz unit, this is so very easy to do and extremely noticeable. V sync will hold the refresh until the next cycle. Hence the stuttering effect some notice, at any refresh. Instead of all of that, these technologies sync the two devices together instead of trying to force the GPU to wait for sync periods. The end result is a very fluid and smooth picture. I've been dieing to be able to afford a g-sync 144 UHD unit since I saw it a while back. This option however would be much cheaper, although will Nvidia adopt it? And which one is better? All remain to be seen.

Simple point is these are vastly better then vsync. Even my otherwise blind parents to this type of tech noticed how smooth it was... And that was on identical units, one vsynced, one g-synced. Even I was skeptical until I saw it in person.

 

[Guest]

I'll take a 21:9, 40" curved ips with the same response time and 144hz that my Benq 2720 has please.
Oh and I've had the gpu power to push 4k for the last 12 months with my two R9 290's. Resolution seems to have little effect on their performance.

 

[GhostRyder]

I think you miss the point of these technologies all together. V sync of any flavor can easily involve studdering and we all are now so used to it. Tearing doesn't just mean your fps is greater then the refresh of the monitor. It can easily happen at lower rates also. All it has to do is perform a screen update while in the middle of a refresh. And even on my 144Hz unit, this is so very easy to do and extremely noticeable. V sync will hold the refresh until the next cycle. Hence the stuttering effect some notice, at any refresh. Instead of all of that, these technologies sync the two devices together instead of trying to force the GPU to wait for sync periods. The end result is a very fluid and smooth picture. I've been dieing to be able to afford a g-sync 144 UHD unit since I saw it a while back. This option however would be much cheaper, although will Nvidia adopt it? And which one is better? All remain to be seen.

Simple point is these are vastly better then vsync. Even my otherwise blind parents to this type of tech noticed how smooth it was... And that was on identical units, one vsynced, one g-synced. Even I was skeptical until I saw it in person.

I am well aware of what it does and how the technology works along with seeing it in person. I have 2 friends who already own G-Sync Monitors (One being the ROG swift) but my point does not change. Vsync is problematic in general especially in game ones in many cases (Maybe even most) but "Dynamic" Vsync used by third parties or with the drivers actually reduces (or removes in some cases) the stutter in many games for me at least (BF4 is a prime example for me).

The techs are both great but the point where you get the major tearing is normally in situations where the FPS changes frequently and does not match the refresh of the monitor. Most high end GPU's are very stable in many games for standard 1080/1200p-1440/1600p at 60 FPS which results in very limited tearing and when proper settings are used low amounts of stuttering (Exceptions are out there of course). The reason most of the monitors that are coming with these techs have above 60hz refresh (IE 144hz) is because that is where the tech really shines and shows the improvements. Most games even with the most powerful GPU's will not run stable at anywhere near 120-144hz which is why the tech makes a very big difference up there but not as much in the lower areas. In fact below 50FPS the G-sync does not really make things that much smoother anymore.

The techs do what they are supposed to but are not a reason to chuck your old monitor in the waste bin for a new one.

 

[CaptainTom]

It's pretty obvious FreeSync will be the standard on nearly all monitors within 3 years...

 

[Evernessince]

It's pretty obvious FreeSync will be the standard on nearly all monitors within 3 years...

Most likely. It doesn't increase the price of the monitor and ins't proprietary. I would not be surprised if intel included the standard into their newer processors.

 

[cliffordcooley]

I would not be surprised if intel included the standard into their newer processors.

I think that would be a great idea. And call it quits with DVI, which seems to be slowing progress. DVI worked great for adapting digital while migrating away from analog. Lets drop everything that still supports the old analog standard. I'm tired of seeing VGA ports on the back of monitors still being produced.

 

[hahahanoobs]

If ASUS (major player) wants nothing to do with it , and Samsung (meh) and some company with what looks like a misspelling of the word Nexus (I'll pass) is, then that's not a good sign that the performance is on the same level as G-Sync. I'm not a fanboy, but come on, we seen G-Sync MONTHS ago, and a PATHETIC demo of FreeSync... MONTHS ago with nothing since, except some design wins? Come on!

Since these monitors are so close to release, are their even hands on demo's of FreeSync in action at CES? Anyone know?

 

[Evernessince]

I think that would be a great idea. And call it quits with DVI, which seems to be slowing progress. DVI worked great for adapting digital while migrating away from analog. Lets drop everything that still supports the old analog standard. I'm tired of seeing VGA ports on the back of monitors still being produced.

Yeah, I really don't see the point of VGA anymore. It just increases the cost of the monitor. It's not like there aren't vga to DVI converters.

 

[Guest]

"I'm tired of seeing VGA ports on the back of monitors still being produced."
What in gods name are you people talking about? You're "tired" of ports on the back of a monitor? Listen to yourself ffs! It's moronic, pretentious bollocks!
"Yeah, I really don't see the point of VGA anymore. It just increases the cost of the monitor"
Oh YOU dont see the need? Well let's do away with them because there's this one guy on techspot that doesn't see the need. Problem (there's a problem?) solved!

 

[Evernessince]

"I'm tired of seeing VGA ports on the back of monitors still being produced."
What in gods name are you people talking about? You're "tired" of ports on the back of a monitor? Listen to yourself ffs! It's moronic, pretentious bollocks!
"Yeah, I really don't see the point of VGA anymore. It just increases the cost of the monitor"
Oh YOU dont see the need? Well let's do away with them because there's this one guy on techspot that doesn't see the need. Problem (there's a problem?) solved!

A guest post providing nothing but insults to me and cliffordcooley, eh?

Perhaps next time you can come out from under the bridge with an official account and actually post reasons behind your words instead of mindless name calling.

 

[dividebyzero]

If ASUS (major player) wants nothing to do with it , and Samsung (meh) and some company with what looks like a misspelling of the word Nexus (I'll pass) is, then that's not a good sign that the performance is on the same level as G-Sync. I'm not a fanboy, but come on, we seen G-Sync MONTHS ago, and a PATHETIC demo of FreeSync... MONTHS ago with nothing since, except some design wins? Come on!

Asus does have at least one variable refresh monitor inbound. Whether they don't want to be tied to AMD's Freesync branding is another matter. Sounds like they'd prefer to just refer to it by it's DisplayPort status which might be an indicator either that their present adaptive sync tech partner (Nvidia) is including the recently finalized DP 1.3 spec with upcoming releases (probably a requirement given 1.3's stated 5K and 8K support form a marketing -if not practical, POV), or Asus is avoiding a political hot potato given their support of G-Sync.

Quite possible that both scenarios are in play.

Yeah, I really don't see the point of VGA anymore. It just increases the cost of the monitor. It's not like there aren't vga to DVI converters.

Cost-wise a VGA port, circuitry/traces would likely be less than $1. The only real benefit of doing away with VGA might be to see it finally disappear from the backpane I/O of budget graphics cards.

 

[hahahanoobs]

FreeSync on display @ CES

I can't wait to see a side by side with G-Sync and reviewed. After watching the above video, I'm still skeptical.

 

[Evernessince]

Cost-wise a VGA port, circuitry/traces would likely be less than $1. The only real benefit of doing away with VGA might be to see it finally disappear from the backpane I/O of budget graphics cards.

While it may not reduce the cost much it does take up space on the back of the monitor and requires additional circuitry, which makes the monitor a bit bigger.

Best case scenario would be for display port to be universally adopted. It can carry audio, video, and has much higher headroom than hdmi.