Misinformation, indeed. : D
Indeed indeed. Unfotunately, we are both guilty. I apologize my last post was not written well.
I have nothing against FreeSync. I'm happy Freesync is a thing. I'm also happy they are making improvements. But when people say they are the same thing as G-Sync they are wrong. That's like saying a Ford is the same as an Audi. Yes, they are both cars, yes they both have similar features, and yes they both get you from point A. to point B. However, there is a difference in quality that separates them both. There is a reason why you pay more for G-Sync than FreeSync. I also think a lot of people should buy FreeSync or FreeSync 2. Especially depending on their budget. But if you want the best experience G-Sync is the one to buy.
With that said FreeSync and G-Sync Compatible are relatively the same thing. It could be argued that FreeSync is superior to G-Sync Compatible. But it's not superior to Actual G-Sync. I would like more options available for actual G-Sync. As currently many of the models that are out have been out for a long time. I also would like this because there is an oversaturation of the market with more and more FreeSync Monitors that vary greatly in quality.
That's not exactly accurate. Both AMD's FreeSync and Nvidia's "G-Sync Compatible" implementation support Low Framerate Compensation (LFC), so long as the screen's maximum refresh frequency is at least 2.4x above its minimum, which applies to nearly all 144+Hz FreeSync displays. In the event that the framerate drops below the minimum refresh rate window supported by the hardware, the refresh rate is simply doubled to stay within the supported range, effectively removing that lower limit.
Not all FreeSync monitors support LFC. Unless that has changed. Whereas all G-Sync Monitors do. Even if it does support Low Framerate Compensation it doesn't work on the entire range like G-Sync. It also doesn't work as well. It may double the refresh rate to stay within the supported range to prevent tearing but it is not as smooth once you're outside that range. Where for G-sync it doesn't matter it's always smooth and consistent.
For example, if your FreeSync monitor's range is 60 - 144 hz and you're at 30 fps you won't get tearing but it won't be as smooth as if it were between 60 - 144 hz. Additionally even if it were between 60 - 144 hz it wouldn't be as smooth as G-sync. This has been tested in studies and people preferred the G-Sync over the Freesync.
In addition games (such as Escape From Tarkov) which are horribly optimized and vary in frame rate tremendously (say 1 - 144 fps) on a FreeSync display, will not feel nearly as good as on a G-Sync display. As this is when you will really be taxing the modules in both and since G-Syncs are more robust the experience will be much better on it as it has better LFC implementation (among other things) and it is what G-Sync was made for and it shines in that regard. However, either option is better than no FreeSync or G-Sync.
Plus sometimes the frequency range that FreeSync gives is simply ridiculous. Such as with the Asus MG279Q where it only works between 35 - 90 hz. Even though it is a 144hz panel. So, with any Freesync Montior you have to look at what the range is. Which they don't make readily available. Which makes me concerned that the average user may not even notice before buying the monitor and then end up with an inferior product. With G-Sync you don't have to worry. If it's a 144 hz monitor you're good to go in that entire range.
There are simply far more FreeSync options available, ranging all the way from budget $100 75Hz screens up to $1000+ premium high refresh rate screens. In fact, even just looking at high refresh rate displays, there are significantly more available with FreeSync than with G-Sync.
(3) 200-240Hz models
(8) 144-165Hz models
(4) 100-120Hz models
(1) 60 Hz model
(10) 200-240Hz models
(44) 144-165Hz models
(5) 100-120Hz models
(20) 60-75Hz models
That's correct. There are a lot more FreeSync monitors than G-Sync monitors. This is for two reasons. 1. FreeSync is free and has no regulations (but Freesync 2 does). 2. Nearly all of those monitors wouldn't pass G-Syncs rigorous testing. More doesn't necessarily mean better.
G-Sync displays tend to be priced well outside what the vast majority of people are willing to pay for a monitor, so they are not particularly relevant to most people.
I agree. G-Sync monitors are very expensive. However, recently they have gotten more affordable. I expect this trend to continue due to the competition with FreeSync/FreeSync 2 since they can't go crazy with their pricing like they were previously when they were unchecked and the only game in town. Which I think is fantastic. That's why I love competition.
But with that said the majority of time with monitors you get what you pay for. The more expensive the monitor the better it will be. Obviously there is diminishing returns here. But an expensive monitor should blow an inexpensive monitor out of the water.
The reason why a lot of G-Sync monitors are more expensive are 1. Due to the G-Sync module itself, but more importantly 2. They are more expensive monitors with more features before the G-Sync module is even added which already make them more expensive. This is likely since a more inexpensive monitor wouldn't pass Nvidia's testing. Meaning if you took the modules out of the monitor and compared the average G-Sync Monitor to the average FreeSync monitor I would imagine the G-Sync monitors would be more expensive as they are using more quality parts. Which isn't to say FreeSync monitors are bad or cheap. But there are a lot that are which brings the average down.
Again, if we're talking "G-Sync Compatible" displays, Nvidia certifies those to meet their standards for adaptive sync and refresh rate capabilities as well. And their standards appear to primarily amount to just keeping pixel response times within a certain threshold, not having any obvious flaws, and likely paying them a decent amount for the certification process that probably takes one guy an afternoon's worth of testing. It's not a bad thing that they have a certification process, but G-Sync certification alone doesn't necessarily mean that a screen has good all-around image quality or design, just that it meets certain arbitrary standards set by Nvidia, so one should still check out detailed reviews to determine how good a monitor is.
FreeSync and G-Sync Compatible are practically the same thing. I totally agree. They go through a lot less testing than actual G-Sync. The things I have mentioned that are FreeSyncs weaknesses are the same with G-Sync Compatible. I 100% agree, one should always check out detailed reviews before buying a monitor of any kind.
As for the testing for actual G-Sync is rigorous. It takes a long time. Nvidia is also part of the process from the start to the end of the development. Does that mean it is a perfect monitor no. There are some bad G-Sync displays (in the sense of contrast and color). But you have a better chance of finding a solid G-Sync Monitor than a FreeSync monitor but you will be paying more. But if you're interested in the testing that Nvidia does check out this video by Linus Tech Tips (View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um0PFoB-Ls4
This is not true. Many manufacturers produce both FreeSync and G-Sync versions of a display that use the same panels and are nearly identical outside of pricing.
When I said that the G-Sync Monitor will perform better in the worst of conditions compared to FreeSync in the best of conditions I may have been being hyperbolic. However, blind testing has shown that people will pick a G-Sync monitor over a FreeSync monitor because it feels smoother and more consistent. Also, testing has shown that G-Sync Monitors are more consistent and smoother than FreeSync monitors. I'm not talking about Contrast or Color here. Just how the actual Variable Refresh Rate tech works. As sometime the contrast and color in a G-Sync display is disappointing. Which is why it is important to look at reviews before buying any monitor.
You are correct though that there are FreeSync and G-Sync monitors that use the same display but they can still widely differ from each other. Just because that's the life of monitor technology, no two monitors are the same. As for them being nearly identical outside of pricing isn't correct. As the screen may be the same but the way it is utilized and put together with the rest of the parts of a monitor are usually different. Plus the Nivida G-Sync Module uses the FPGA 768 mg DDR3 memory which means all the processing is actually done on the module itself which gives you better performance as your graphics card isn't doing any of the work. Where FreeSync doesn't do this.
Last, all actual G-Sync monitors avoid blanking, pulsing, flickering, ghosting, or other artifacts during variable refresh rate (vrr) gaming. This isn’t true with all Freesync displays or G-Sync compatible displays.