AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

[Lessthannil]

FreeSync>G-Sync
Anyone notice how Nvidia always finds way to lock things down and charge a lot of money for them. When i heard Nvidia shield was 200$ i was amazed i thought they would charge 400$ for it.

Seeing how NVIDIA covered the costs of making G-SYNC completely by themselves, its reasonable for them to charge and seek profit from it.

People who actually think the implementation of FreeSync is actually going to be free is just expecting something for nothing.

 

[ohyouknow]

FreeSync>G-Sync
Anyone notice how Nvidia always finds way to lock things down and charge a lot of money for them. When i heard Nvidia shield was 200$ i was amazed i thought they would charge 400$ for it.

I think Shield was $300 initially, then dropped to 250 before official retail.

 

[colinp]

FreeSync wont exactly be free, either.

1. Its an optional standard. It isn't mandatory for all of DisplayPort. Since monitors that come with DisplayPort are a minority already, monitor OEMs can close off the VRR capable ones to "Gaming" monitors that cost more.
2. FreeSync will still need an ASIC designed specfically for that monitor to work. Either AMD or monitor manufacturers will have to fund it and they can and will pass the expense onto you.
3. You are going to need a graphics card with DisplayPort 1.3

Either way, you have to buy new hardware in order to have VRR. At least NVIDIA was up front about the nature of VRR whereas AMD told us that getting FreeSync or whatever would be at little to no cost to the consumer, which just isnt true.

I'm not sure I see any issue. As with anything you buy, you can pay more for an item with the features you want, and if you don't need that feature, then buy a cheaper alternative. The monitor market is very competitive, there's lots of choice, and now there are additional features to chose from. It's all good for the consumer.

 

[Lessthannil]

FreeSync wont exactly be free, either.

1. Its an optional standard. It isn't mandatory for all of DisplayPort. Since monitors that come with DisplayPort are a minority already, monitor OEMs can close off the VRR capable ones to "Gaming" monitors that cost more.
2. FreeSync will still need an ASIC designed specfically for that monitor to work. Either AMD or monitor manufacturers will have to fund it and they can and will pass the expense onto you.
3. You are going to need a graphics card with DisplayPort 1.3

Either way, you have to buy new hardware in order to have VRR. At least NVIDIA was up front about the nature of VRR whereas AMD told us that getting FreeSync or whatever would be at little to no cost to the consumer, which just isnt true.

I'm not sure I see any issue. As with anything you buy, you can pay more for an item with the features you want, and if you don't need that feature, then buy a cheaper alternative. The monitor market is very competitive, there's lots of choice, and now there are additional features to chose from. It's all good for the consumer.

There isn't an issue other then the fact that people are convinced that FreeSync or another G-SYNC alternative will come to their outstanding hardware for free.

 

[jdwii]

FreeSync wont exactly be free, either.

1. Its an optional standard. It isn't mandatory for all of DisplayPort. Since monitors that come with DisplayPort are a minority already, monitor OEMs can close off the VRR capable ones to "Gaming" monitors that cost more.
2. FreeSync will still need an ASIC designed specfically for that monitor to work. Either AMD or monitor manufacturers will have to fund it and they can and will pass the expense onto you.
3. You are going to need a graphics card with DisplayPort 1.3

Either way, you have to buy new hardware in order to have VRR. At least NVIDIA was up front about the nature of VRR whereas AMD told us that getting FreeSync or whatever would be at little to no cost to the consumer, which just isnt true.

I'm not sure I see any issue. As with anything you buy, you can pay more for an item with the features you want, and if you don't need that feature, then buy a cheaper alternative. The monitor market is very competitive, there's lots of choice, and now there are additional features to chose from. It's all good for the consumer.

There isn't an issue other then the fact that people are convinced that FreeSync or another G-SYNC alternative will come to their outstanding hardware for free.

Amd uses more open technology compared to Nvidia there really is no arguing against this claim its true. Amd alternative will end up being cheaper on average mark my words on that.

 

[Lessthannil]

I dont even think VRR will become that popuplar.

Pioneering tech like AMD64, Mantle, and G-SYNC is usually proprietary (as in being owned by one single entity). Open standards follow them.

 

[wh3resmycar]

FreeSync wont exactly be free, either.

1. Its an optional standard. It isn't mandatory for all of DisplayPort. Since monitors that come with DisplayPort are a minority already, monitor OEMs can close off the VRR capable ones to "Gaming" monitors that cost more.
2. FreeSync will still need an ASIC designed specfically for that monitor to work. Either AMD or monitor manufacturers will have to fund it and they can and will pass the expense onto you.
3. You are going to need a graphics card with DisplayPort 1.3

Either way, you have to buy new hardware in order to have VRR. At least NVIDIA was up front about the nature of VRR whereas AMD told us that getting FreeSync or whatever would be at little to no cost to the consumer, which just isnt true.

I'm not sure I see any issue. As with anything you buy, you can pay more for an item with the features you want, and if you don't need that feature, then buy a cheaper alternative. The monitor market is very competitive, there's lots of choice, and now there are additional features to chose from. It's all good for the consumer.

There isn't an issue other then the fact that people are convinced that FreeSync or another G-SYNC alternative will come to their outstanding hardware for free.

Amd uses more open technology compared to Nvidia there really is no arguing against this claim its true. Amd alternative will end up being cheaper on average mark my words on that.

open technologies like what?

 

[Reynod]

Title edited to "AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture" to reflect the topic more accurately.

Many thanks to jimmysmitty for editing over a page of way off-topic dribble on Linux.

Our apologies for the discontinuation with some of the posts as a consequence.

 

[juanrga]

http://in.linkedin.com/pub/maheswari-vemana/37/428/605

Design Engineer : (Customer :AMD)
Worked as a physical design Engineer at AMD for STYX Project (which is a 64-bit ARM based processors) from RTL to GDSII and handled four blocks DMA (PL330_dma_tile_wrapper), adb400_pcie2mmu_tile_wrapper, adb400_10gbe_tile_wrapper, adb400_mc_tile_wrapper.
DMA(PL330_DMA_tile_wrapper) using Tile Builder Flow:
Styx includes the ARM DMA-330 direct memory access (DMA) engine. The DMA engine can be used to move memory blocks and supports big/little-endian conversion. The DMA-330 is provided in addition to the DMA units on the integrated I/O devices to support request from various embedded applications.

AMD’s flow i.e Tile builder flow is used for PL330_DMA_tile_wrapper
Technology : 28nm
Instance count of the block is 50k.
Block size is 897x399.6.
There are 3 clocks in the design.
Frequency : 500MHZ
Challenges: Synthesis, timing closure, Floor plan &power plan.
Tools used: DC Compiler ,EDI ,Primetime ,Calibre virtuoso & ICC
Responsibility: Floor plan, Power plan, CTS, Routing, Physical verification and timing closure.

ADB400_pcie2mmu_tile_wrapper using Tile Builder Flow::AMBA Domain Bridge (ADB-400)AMBA Domain Bridges (ADB-400) between I/O requesters and SMMUs and everywhere else to boot.

Instance count of the block is 20k.
Block size is 208 x 162.
There are 4 clocks in the design.
Frequency : 1115MHZ

Speculation can start

 

[8350rocks]

The failure here, is thinking monitors, rather then TV's, drives the market. They don't. And when you look at TVs, its 90%+ HDMI.

No, the failure here is the assertion that Displayport is intended to replace HDMI. It's not, it's intended to replace (and is replacing) DSUB and DVI.

Modern graphics cards have simply swapped out the DSUB for Displayport. And that costs nothing, since contrary to your incorrect assertion, Displayport is royalty free.

Its NOT free; you forget the cost to add in the circuitry alongside HDMI. And personally? Having a DSUB is preferable in case I never need to hook up to an old, analog display without needing to use a ton of conversion cables to get the job done. No reason to support two digital standards that do the same, exact, thing.

Actually, HDMI requires 2 connectors for 4k displays, DP 1.2 does not.

So, if we are actually talking about inferior digital standards...then the royalty laden HDMI port will likely be the one that goes the way of the dodo when 4k displays begin to arrive. With all the new Smart TVs out there, do you really think it is going to cost them much to change up the internal hardware in those TVs? No...it will not.

 

[8350rocks]

FreeSync wont exactly be free, either.

1. Its an optional standard. It isn't mandatory for all of DisplayPort. Since monitors that come with DisplayPort are a minority already, monitor OEMs can close off the VRR capable ones to "Gaming" monitors that cost more.
2. FreeSync will still need an ASIC designed specfically for that monitor to work. Either AMD or monitor manufacturers will have to fund it and they can and will pass the expense onto you.
3. You are going to need a graphics card with DisplayPort 1.3

Either way, you have to buy new hardware in order to have VRR. At least NVIDIA was up front about the nature of VRR whereas AMD told us that getting FreeSync or whatever would be at little to no cost to the consumer, which just isnt true.

I'm not sure I see any issue. As with anything you buy, you can pay more for an item with the features you want, and if you don't need that feature, then buy a cheaper alternative. The monitor market is very competitive, there's lots of choice, and now there are additional features to chose from. It's all good for the consumer.

There isn't an issue other then the fact that people are convinced that FreeSync or another G-SYNC alternative will come to their outstanding hardware for free.

Amd uses more open technology compared to Nvidia there really is no arguing against this claim its true. Amd alternative will end up being cheaper on average mark my words on that.

open technologies like what?

Mantle, freesync, and everything else AMD does outside of proprietary design for components is all open technology. The better question would be, does AMD have any proprietary technology software? The answer there would be, yes, TressFX is the only AMD proprietary software that cannot be accessed by NVidia should they so choose. Even then, if they were to partner AMD would likely allow them to license it, but you would be more likely to see snowballs in Hades before NVidia does that...

 

[8350rocks]

FreeSync wont exactly be free, either.

1. Its an optional standard. It isn't mandatory for all of DisplayPort. Since monitors that come with DisplayPort are a minority already, monitor OEMs can close off the VRR capable ones to "Gaming" monitors that cost more.
2. FreeSync will still need an ASIC designed specfically for that monitor to work. Either AMD or monitor manufacturers will have to fund it and they can and will pass the expense onto you.
3. You are going to need a graphics card with DisplayPort 1.3

Either way, you have to buy new hardware in order to have VRR. At least NVIDIA was up front about the nature of VRR whereas AMD told us that getting FreeSync or whatever would be at little to no cost to the consumer, which just isnt true.

I'm not sure I see any issue. As with anything you buy, you can pay more for an item with the features you want, and if you don't need that feature, then buy a cheaper alternative. The monitor market is very competitive, there's lots of choice, and now there are additional features to chose from. It's all good for the consumer.

There isn't an issue other then the fact that people are convinced that FreeSync or another G-SYNC alternative will come to their outstanding hardware for free.

Considering that Freesync is a technology included in the majority of laptops already...I fail to see the validity of your argument. The technology has been around for nearly 10 years...NVidia tries to sell monitors that have it for a premium as branded monitors, and AMD comes along and says..."Oh, we did that 10 years ago in laptops...we already are pushing a standard for it with VESA...we will not charge a premium." Then you chime in with..."well it will not be free..."

Of course it will not...but then again, 4k is not free either...nor was 1080p, or 720p, or any of the other standards...but you will not pay a premium for a freesync monitor above and beyond the technology difference. Unlike NVidia branded anything where they try to rake you over the coals because it is connected to them. $3k for a Titan Z anyone? No thanks...2xR9-295X2 would be FAR more favorable.

 

[jdwii]

8350fx right on man!

 

[colinp]

Mantle, freesync, and everything else AMD does outside of proprietary design for components is all open technology. The better question would be, does AMD have any proprietary technology software? The answer there would be, yes, TressFX is the only AMD proprietary software that cannot be accessed by NVidia should they so choose. Even then, if they were to partner AMD would likely allow them to license it, but you would be more likely to see snowballs in Hades before NVidia does that...

What about Trueaudio, isn't that proprietary? And until Mantle is opened (and it's not a given that it will be), then it is still proprietary too.

 

[Lessthannil]

The actual monitors themselves have no NVIDIA branding... They are ASUS ROG or other high end monitors- those monitors already cost more than what most people have already. The oh-so high markup NVIDIA branding only actually comes from the DIY kit, which is $150. Say what you want about the price but NVIDIA conceptualized, designed, and created G-SYNC all by themselves so it isn't unreasonable for them to charge for it, let alone to seek profit. Monitor OEMs will have to do the same to create an ASIC model to support Freesync, and they want money, too. Their own branding (keep in mind a small minority of PC users, let alone gamers, are willing to pay for VRR) and profit motive will also jack up the prices. So really, how is it any different when they do it when the "bid bad green Grinch" NVIDIA does it?

Most outstanding desktop monitors cant do Freesync without an ASIC or extensive modification because they arent built like the laptop screens used in AMD's FreeSync demostration.

You guys should read this post over at OCN. Maybe this will say what I mean better.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1479232/hardware-fr-amd-freesync-proposal-adopted-by-vesa/120#post_22067660

 

[colinp]

New standards and features get introduced in the tech world all the time. And if you want to benefit from them, and you want to be on the bleeding edge, then you have to pay for the privilege. Nobody will be forced to invest in Free / G-Sync, just as nobody will be forced to invest in a DDR4 compatible motherboard when the time comes.

 

[8350rocks]

Mantle, freesync, and everything else AMD does outside of proprietary design for components is all open technology. The better question would be, does AMD have any proprietary technology software? The answer there would be, yes, TressFX is the only AMD proprietary software that cannot be accessed by NVidia should they so choose. Even then, if they were to partner AMD would likely allow them to license it, but you would be more likely to see snowballs in Hades before NVidia does that...

What about Trueaudio, isn't that proprietary? And until Mantle is opened (and it's not a given that it will be), then it is still proprietary too.

If you are talking about the hardware, then yes...if you are talking about the software, then no. The software for trueaudio is actually a licensed codec and suite of modifications for audiophiles to be able to get maximized surround sound. If you watched the release in Hawaii discussing True Audio, then you would realize the software is actually licensed from a company that worked with AMD. Hence NVidia could do the same if they so chose.

As for Mantle, AMD already extended an olive branch to NVidia for Mantle support to split development costs and offer it for both architectures from my understanding. Though I do not have to tell you where NVidia told them to go...nor how NVidia miraculously has a proprietary offering that mimics Mantle, albeit without the developer support.

 

[8350rocks]

The actual monitors themselves have no NVIDIA branding... They are ASUS ROG or other high end monitors- those monitors already cost more than what most people have already. The oh-so high markup NVIDIA branding only actually comes from the DIY kit, which is $150. Say what you want about the price but NVIDIA conceptualized, designed, and created G-SYNC all by themselves so it isn't unreasonable for them to charge for it, let alone to seek profit. Monitor OEMs will have to do the same to create an ASIC model to support Freesync, and they want money, too. Their own branding (keep in mind a small minority of PC users, let alone gamers, are willing to pay for VRR) and profit motive will also jack up the prices. So really, how is it any different when they do it when the "bid bad green Grinch" NVIDIA does it?

Most outstanding desktop monitors cant do Freesync without an ASIC or extensive modification because they arent built like the laptop screens used in AMD's FreeSync demostration.

You guys should read this post over at OCN. Maybe this will say what I mean better.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1479232/hardware-fr-amd-freesync-proposal-adopted-by-vesa/120#post_22067660

NVidia took an existing standard for laptop monitors and wanted to apply it to ALL monitors and then made a DIY kit and charged a premium.

Do I fault them for it? No. Is it anything more than a preemptive cash grab for something that was already coming anyway? No. As stated, AMD had been using this technology in laptops for ages already...NVidia are behind.

 

[wh3resmycar]

uhm we need to define what an open technology is before we tag something as open technology. i was under the impression that when we say open technology it'll be like an open standard like open gl/cl (managed by a consortium, open source) or at least hardware agnostic.

mantle, trueaudio freesync all requires amd hardware. you don't see nvidia wanting to support these amd techs the same way intel does.

 

[8350rocks]

uhm we need to define what an open technology is before we tag something as open technology. i was under the impression that when we say open technology it'll be like an open standard like open gl/cl (managed by a consortium, open source) or at least hardware agnostic.

mantle, trueaudio freesync all requires amd hardware. you don't see nvidia wanting to support these amd techs the same way intel does.

Mantle was declared an Open standard by AMD at launch. Freesync is ALREADY an open VESA standard and trueaudio, while nice, is more software than hardware...(honestly, amd did a great job with it, though much of it is mostly software).

 

[palladin9479]

Gamer, there is a bigger difference between HDMI and DP then what it runs on. HDMI 2.0 supports 18Gbps of bandwidth while DP 1.3 supports 32.4Gbps of bandwidth, both prior to 10/8 encoding. DP 1.3 is designed to do 4K at 120Hz or 8K at 29.9 over a single cable. But that's not the biggest difference between them. Currently HDMI needs a LVDS converter unit inside the monitor to convert the signal into something the panels can understand. This places a cost restriction on the resolution and refresh rates you can reach. Notably you can't find many displays that are 1440p @120hz, in fact they aren't any. This is because the LVDS chip inside has a limited bandwidth on each lane and the vast majority of LVDS chips use two lanes. That limits their maximum native resolution. Now some Korean off brand companies take Samsung and LG panels and connect them to LVDS converter chips without any other control electronics on the board in a mode known as "pass-through". This allows the graphics card to dictate the LVDS signaling speeds, which means you can clock the LVDS chip at a higher rate then the specification calls for. Enter LCD "overclocking" where people are buying 1440p60 displays and overclocking them to 96~120hz. 3D won't work on them but you still get better refresh rates. The alternative is for a company to manufacture a LVDS chip with four lanes (I think Asus makes one) and then you can get 1440p@120, of course it's also very expensive to do that.

Display port doesn't require that LVDS converter chip, it can communicate directly with the panels. All you need is a control chip to separate out the various channels and route them accordingly. This makes HD DP monitors cheaper to make. There hasn't been a need, yet, for those HD monitors as everyone is using 1920x1080 which easily fits inside the limits of a 2 lane LVDS chip. The future is going to be DP, it will just take another two years to catch on.

 

[gamerk316]

Actually, HDMI requires 2 connectors for 4k displays, DP 1.2 does not.

Only for 120Hz; HDMI 2.0 has the bandwidth to handle 4k @ 60Hz.

 

[colinp]

Mantle was declared an Open standard by AMD at launch.

No, it wasn't. AMD said they might open it up in the future, but:

From Techradar

"Mantle for now is straight up in a closed ecosystem, a closed beta, which you have to do in a complicated project like this to get it off the ground. It's us and a few key game developers," Robert Hallock, technical communications, AMD Graphics & Gaming, told us in a recent interview.

From the horse's mouth

Only a limited set of developers are provided access to the Mantle NDA Developer SDK and access is subject to a selection process.

 

[esrever]

http://www.techpowerup.com/199839/sid-meiers-civilization-beyond-earth-supports-amd-mantle.html
Mantle in a CPU intensive game.

 

[palladin9479]

Mantle was declared an Open standard by AMD at launch.

No, it wasn't. AMD said they might open it up in the future, but:

From Techradar

"Mantle for now is straight up in a closed ecosystem, a closed beta, which you have to do in a complicated project like this to get it off the ground. It's us and a few key game developers," Robert Hallock, technical communications, AMD Graphics & Gaming, told us in a recent interview.

From the horse's mouth

Only a limited set of developers are provided access to the Mantle NDA Developer SDK and access is subject to a selection process.

Mantle in and of itself will be an open standard, and open in the way that anyone could make a compatible product without needing to license the ISA from AMD. The current developers kit is under lock and key because the project is still in closed beta. They are testing and refining it, which is why there are so many bugs, prior to releasing a version for everyone to use. I expect there to be a finalized standard around July this year with the developer resources being released then.