AMD Radeon FreeSync 2: HDR And Low Latency

[Xajel]

Three questions:

1. Did I misread something or is there anything in there that addresses where it is now with regard to the low refresh range, especially at low end.

2. With all this coordination required between monitor manufacturers , AMD and Game Developers ... mostly the manufacturers and the increased panel specs, will FreeSync continue to be "free" ? It would seem that improving panel technology to address the described issues would have a cost associated with it.

3. Finally, any sign of MBR coming with Freesync ? This is the big separation between the two technologies in both performance and cost. With the top cards shooting for 60 fps at 2160p, @ 1440p, performance bottoms out at 80 fps in all but a few games, where many find using ULMB to be a better experience then G-Sync. Right now, it's up to the monitor manufacturers whether or not to add in the necessary hardware to add this feature resulting in a hodge podge of different quality solutions. A Freesync 3 where MBR is provided would truly allow AMD to go head to head with nVidia with this feature, but I think we would have to sday goodbye tot he Free part.

I think you need to read the Anandtech article about this, they have a really good details on it...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10967/amd-announces-freesync-2-improving-ease-lowering-latency-of-hdr-gaming

 

[iam2thecrowe]

I have a lot of questions regarding the HDR portion of the article.

Since all the images and textures within a game, videos, web images etc. are mostly designed within the sRGB colour space, how does HDR and freesync 2 technology provide accurate colour? Or does it only provide inaccurate over-saturated colour? (A similar principle Bose uses but in regards to audio). Does this HDR they are using have a target profile? or are they just using the minimum and maximum values of every particular monitor?
Unless of course it requires content is specifically designed for this type of display technology to have any benefit...... I would also like to know how it affects performance?

 

[cinergy]

So much trolling here and so little talk about the actual release.

 

[renz496]

"But AMD knows it has a mindshare battle to fight against a competitor notorious for tightly controlled, proprietary IP"

Or because it's a superior product?

Personally, give me a monitor that can sync 20-60hz without issue and extra input lag and i'm a happy camper.

due to law of physics the lowest they nvidia and AMD can go with VRR minimum range will be 30hz. below 30hz they have different solution to deal with the smoothness.

 

[renz496]

Three questions:

1. Did I misread something or is there anything in there that addresses where it is now with regard to the low refresh range, especially at low end.

2. With all this coordination required between monitor manufacturers , AMD and Game Developers ... mostly the manufacturers and the increased panel specs, will FreeSync continue to be "free" ? It would seem that improving panel technology to address the described issues would have a cost associated with it.

3. Finally, any sign of MBR coming with Freesync ? This is the big separation between the two technologies in both performance and cost. With the top cards shooting for 60 fps at 2160p, @ 1440p, performance bottoms out at 80 fps in all but a few games, where many find using ULMB to be a better experience then G-Sync. Right now, it's up to the monitor manufacturers whether or not to add in the necessary hardware to add this feature resulting in a hodge podge of different quality solutions. A Freesync 3 where MBR is provided would truly allow AMD to go head to head with nVidia with this feature, but I think we would have to sday goodbye tot he Free part.

I think you need to read the Anandtech article about this, they have a really good details on it...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10967/amd-announces-freesync-2-improving-ease-lowering-latency-of-hdr-gaming

interesting read

As a result, when questioned on the matter, AMD is not currently commenting on the subject of FreeSync 2 royalties. Presumably, AMD is pondering the idea of charging royalties on FreeSync 2 hardware.

that's why i said it is poor choice by AMD to choose the word "free". they know all the effort to make this happen are not free and yet they insisting to include the "free" word to mock nvidia solution.

 

[hixbot]

Freak, your mistake is explicitly saying that if you have a 144hz monitor you don't need freesync/gysnc. You statement would be accurate if you said, if you have a 144hz monitor and your videocard and chose video settings can reach a rock solid 144hz with no dips in framerate, you don't need freesync/gsync. The right monitor is just one part of the solution, you also need to keep the framerate stable, which isn't always achievable.

 

[TJ Hooker]

due to law of physics the lowest they nvidia and AMD can go with VRR minimum range will be 30hz. below 30hz they have different solution to deal with the smoothness.

Lol, I don't think it has anything to do with the "law(s) of physics".

 

[Guest]

Even when games jumps between 80 and 120 FPS i don't see any problems like stuttering, or some tearing. Only issue i have with games is when it runs < 60, in my opinion it is unplayable and f. sucks. Luckily i found no game running < 60 FPS at max settings @ 1440p with 1080 SLI. However with the second rig running R390x Crossfire and Free Sync enabled...experience just sucks...no vsync and free sync will make that shit playable or any enjoyable if it's running < 60 FPS like Tomb Raider. As I said GSync and Free Sync are useless to me. if you can get 165 Hz monitor go for it, 200Hz are on a way meaning it will make GSync and Free Sync entirely useless and obsolete.

Please show me screen tearing on your game running 60FPS under 144 Hz monitor, i don't think you can show that because there is none.

 

[hixbot]

If the framerate does not equal the refresh rate you will get tearing without some sort of sync. if you are getting a range of 80 to 120fps on a 144hz refresh and you are not using vsync, gsync, or freesync, you will have tearing. The only time you dont need to sync the frame rate to the refresh rate is when the framerate is stable at the refresh rate (or an even multiple of the refresh rate).
Besides, you are citing very good framerates, obviously you have adjusted your original opinion that you dont need sync if you have a 144hz monitor. What you are now saying is that you dont need sync if you have a 144hz monitor and a GPU that can push very high framerates. Those are two very different statements.

 

[renz496]

due to law of physics the lowest they nvidia and AMD can go with VRR minimum range will be 30hz. below 30hz they have different solution to deal with the smoothness.

Lol, I don't think it has anything to do with the "law(s) of physics".

well at least it is science. PCPer did an explanation on why Gsync and Freesync cannot work below 30hz.

 

[TJ Hooker]

well at least it is science. PCPer did an explanation on why Gsync and Freesync cannot work below 30hz.

Do you have a link? I'd be interested in seeing that explanation.

 

[renz496]

well at least it is science. PCPer did an explanation on why Gsync and Freesync cannot work below 30hz.

Do you have a link? I'd be interested in seeing that explanation.

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Dissecting-G-Sync-and-FreeSync-How-Technologies-Differ

it mainly explain what gsync will do when the frame rate goes below 30hz and why they need to do that.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

If the framerate does not equal the refresh rate you will get tearing without some sort of sync. if you are getting a range of 80 to 120fps on a 144hz refresh and you are not using vsync, gsync, or freesync, you will have tearing. The only time you dont need to sync the frame rate to the refresh rate is when the framerate is stable at the refresh rate (or an even multiple of the refresh rate).
Besides, you are citing very good framerates, obviously you have adjusted your original opinion that you dont need sync if you have a 144hz monitor. What you are now saying is that you dont need sync if you have a 144hz monitor and a GPU that can push very high framerates. Those are two very different statements.

Even if you hit exactly 60fps for example on a 60hz display without vsync on, you may still get tearing. Very consistent tearing in exactly the same spot. I find its a tradeoff, some games vsync gives smooth playback, other games you have to turn it off for things to be smooth and accept some tearing. Gsync/freesync gives you both, at a cost.

Basic laws of Cost vs Quality vs Performance. Pick two of them and sacrifice the other. You want quality and performance? It comes at a cost. You want performance at good price? you sacrifice quality. etc.

 

[uglyduckling81]

Even when games jumps between 80 and 120 FPS i don't see any problems like stuttering, or some tearing. Only issue i have with games is when it runs < 60, in my opinion it is unplayable and f. sucks. Luckily i found no game running < 60 FPS at max settings @ 1440p with 1080 SLI. However with the second rig running R390x Crossfire and Free Sync enabled...experience just sucks...no vsync and free sync will make that shit playable or any enjoyable if it's running < 60 FPS like Tomb Raider. As I said GSync and Free Sync are useless to me. if you can get 165 Hz monitor go for it, 200Hz are on a way meaning it will make GSync and Free Sync entirely useless and obsolete.

Please show me screen tearing on your game running 60FPS under 144 Hz monitor, i don't think you can show that because there is none.

I think your problem is Crossfire and SLI rather than Freesync or G-Sync.
Both dual card configs are known to have large amounts of problems.
Your trying to sync 2 cards to render frames together. In my experience it just doesn't work. I've used both techs in the past, ATI 4850's and GTX 570's and I've sworn off dual cards forever.
I replaced the pair of 570's with a single 970. In games that scaled well on the 570's they were about as fast as a single 970 but the experience is much nicer on the single card. Less tearing, jittering, weird coloured poly's all over the place.
A 1440p G-Sync monitor would be perfect for my situation. Give me a smooth experience on hardware that's not able to provide super high refresh rates. I just don't want to pay the G-Sync Tax and be pigeon holed into Nvidia only.