The AMD FreeSync Review
by Jarred Walton on March 19, 2015 12:00 PM ESTFreeSync Features
In many ways FreeSync and G-SYNC are comparable. Both refresh the display as soon as a new frame is available, at least within their normal range of refresh rates. There are differences in how this is accomplished, however.
G-SYNC uses a proprietary module that replaces the normal scaler hardware in a display. Besides cost factors, this means that any company looking to make a G-SYNC display has to buy that module from NVIDIA. Of course the reason NVIDIA went with a proprietary module was because adaptive sync didn’t exist when they started working on G-SYNC, so they had to create their own protocol. Basically, the G-SYNC module controls all the regular core features of the display like the OSD, but it’s not as full featured as a “normal” scaler.
In contrast, as part of the DisplayPort 1.2a standard, Adaptive Sync (which is what AMD uses to enable FreeSync) will likely become part of many future displays. The major scaler companies (Realtek, Novatek, and MStar) have all announced support for Adaptive Sync, and it appears most of the changes required to support the standard could be accomplished via firmware updates. That means even if a display vendor doesn’t have a vested interest in making a FreeSync branded display, we could see future displays that still work with FreeSync.
Having FreeSync integrated into most scalers has other benefits as well. All the normal OSD controls are available, and the displays can support multiple inputs – though FreeSync of course requires the use of DisplayPort as Adaptive Sync doesn’t work with DVI, HDMI, or VGA (DSUB). AMD mentions in one of their slides that G-SYNC also lacks support for audio input over DisplayPort, and there’s mention of color processing as well, though this is somewhat misleading. NVIDIA's G-SYNC module supports color LUTs (Look Up Tables), but they don't support multiple color options like the "Warm, Cool, Movie, User, etc." modes that many displays have; NVIDIA states that the focus is on properly producing sRGB content, and so far the G-SYNC displays we've looked at have done quite well in this regard. We’ll look at the “Performance Penalty” aspect as well on the next page.
One other feature that differentiates FreeSync from G-SYNC is how things are handled when the frame rate is outside of the dynamic refresh range. With G-SYNC enabled, the system will behave as though VSYNC is enabled when frame rates are either above or below the dynamic range; NVIDIA's goal was to have no tearing, ever. That means if you drop below 30FPS, you can get the stutter associated with VSYNC while going above 60Hz/144Hz (depending on the display) is not possible – the frame rate is capped. Admittedly, neither situation is a huge problem, but AMD provides an alternative with FreeSync.
Instead of always behaving as though VSYNC is on, FreeSync can revert to either VSYNC off or VSYNC on behavior if your frame rates are too high/low. With VSYNC off, you could still get image tearing but at higher frame rates there would be a reduction in input latency. Again, this isn't necessarily a big flaw with G-SYNC – and I’d assume NVIDIA could probably rework the drivers to change the behavior if needed – but having choice is never a bad thing.
There’s another aspect to consider with FreeSync that might be interesting: as an open standard, it could potentially find its way into notebooks sooner than G-SYNC. We have yet to see any shipping G-SYNC enabled laptops, and it’s unlikely most notebooks manufacturers would be willing to pay $200 or even $100 extra to get a G-SYNC module into a notebook, and there's the question of power requirements. Then again, earlier this year there was an inadvertent leak of some alpha drivers that allowed G-SYNC to function on the ASUS G751j notebook without a G-SYNC module, so it’s clear NVIDIA is investigating other options.
While NVIDIA may do G-SYNC without a module for notebooks, there are still other questions. With many notebooks using a form of dynamic switchable graphics (Optimus and Enduro), support for Adaptive Sync by the Intel processor graphics could certainly help. NVIDIA might work with Intel to make G-SYNC work (though it’s worth pointing out that the ASUS G751 doesn’t support Optimus so it’s not a problem with that notebook), and AMD might be able to convince Intel to adopt DP Adaptive Sync, but to date neither has happened. There’s no clear direction yet but there’s definitely a market for adaptive refresh in laptops, as many are unable to reach 60+ FPS at high quality settings.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
350 Comments
View All Comments
chizow - Thursday, March 19, 2015 - link
@lordken and yes I am well aware Gsync is tied to Nvidia lol, but like I said, will I bet on the market leader with ~70% market share and installed user base (actually much higher than this, since Kepler is 100% vs. GCN1.1 is maybe 30%? over the cards sold since 2012) over the solution that holds a minor share of the dGPU market and even a smaller share of the CPU/APU market.chizow - Thursday, March 19, 2015 - link
And why don't you stop your biased preconceptions and actually read some articles that don't just take AMD's slidedecks at face value? Read a review that actually tries to tackle the real issues I am referring to, while actually TALKING to the vendors and doing some investigative reporting:http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Displays/AMD-FreeSync...
You will see, there are some major issues still with FreeSync that still need to be answered and addressed.
JarredWalton - Thursday, March 19, 2015 - link
It's not a "major issue" so much as a limitation of the variable refresh rate range and how AMD chooses to handle it. With NVIDIA it refreshes the same frame at least twice if you drop below 30Hz, and that's fine but it would have to introduce some lag. (When a frame is being refreshed, there's no way to send the next frame to the screen = lag.) AMD gives two options: VSYNC off or VSYNC on. With VSYNC off, you get tearing but less lag/latency. With VSYNC on you get stuttering if you fall below the minimum VRR rate.The LG displays are actually not a great option here, as 48Hz at minimum is rather high -- 45 FPS for example will give you tearing or stutter. So you basically want to choose settings for games such that you can stay above 48 FPS with this particular display. But that's certainly no worse than the classic way of doing things where people either live with tearing or aim for 60+ FPS -- 48 FPS is more easily achieved than 60 FPS.
The problem right now is we're all stuck comparing different implementations. A 2560x1080 IPS display is inherently different than a 2560x1440 TN display. LG decided 48Hz was the minimum refresh rate, most likely to avoid flicker; others have allowed some flicker while going down to 30Hz. You'll definitely see flicker on G-SYNC at 35FPS/35Hz in my experience, incidentally. I can't knock FreeSync and AMD for a problem that is arguably the fault of the display, so we'll look at it more when we get to the actual display review.
As to the solution, well, there's nothing stopping AMD from just resending a frame if the FPS is too low. They haven't done this in the current driver, but this is FreeSync 1.0 beta.
Final thought: I don't think most people looking to buy the LG 34UM67 are going to be using a low-end GPU, and in fact with current prices I suspect most people that upgrade will already have an R9 290/290X. Part of the reason I didn't notice issues with FreeSync is that with a single R9 290X in most games the FPS is well over 48. More time is needed for testing, obviously, and a single LCD with FreeSync isn't going to represent all future FreeSync displays. Don't try and draw conclusions from one sample, basically.
chizow - Friday, March 20, 2015 - link
@JarredHow is it not a major issue? You think that level of ghosting is acceptable and comparable to G-Sync!?!?! My have your standards dropped, if that is the case I do not think you are qualified to write this review, or at least post it under Editorial, or even better, post it under the AMD sponsored banner.
Fact is, below the stated minimum refresh, FreeSync is WORST than a non-VRR monitor would be, as all the tearing and input lag is there AND you get awful flickering and ghosting too.
And how do you know it is a limitation of panel technology when Nvidia's solution exhibits none of these issues at typical refresh rates as low as 20Hz, and especially at the higher refresh rates that AMD starts to experience it? Don't you have access to the sources and players here? I mean we know you have AMD's side of the story, but why don't you ask these same questions to Nvidia, the scaler makers, the monitor makers as well? It could certainly be a limitation of the spec don't you think? If monitor makers are just designing a monitor to AMD's FreeSync spec, and AMD is claiming they can alleviate this via a driver update, it sounds to me like the limitation is in the specification, not the technology, especially when Nvidia's solution does not have these issues. In fact, if you had asked Nvidia, as PCPer did, they may very well have explained to you why FreeSync ghosts/flickers, and their solution does not: From PCPer, again:
" But in a situation where the refresh rate can literally be ANY rate, as we get with VRR displays, the LCD will very often be in these non-tuned refresh rates. NVIDIA claims its G-Sync module is tuned for each display to prevent ghosting by change the amount of voltage going to pixels at different refresh rates, allowing pixels to untwist and retwist at different rates."
Science and hardware trumps hunches and hearsay, imo. :)
Also, you might need to get with Ryan to fully understand the difference between G-Sync and FreeSync at low refresh. G-Sync simply displays the same frame twice. There is no sense of input lag, as input lag would be if the next refreshed panel was tied to a different input I/O. That is not the case with G-Sync, because the held frame 2nd is still tied to the input of the 1st frame, but the next live frame has a live input. All you perceive is low FPS, not input lag. There is a difference. It would be like playing a game at 30FPS on a 60Hz monitor with no Vsync. Still, certainly much better than AMD's solution of having everything fall apart at a framerate that is still quite high and hard to obtain for many video cards.
The LG is a horrible situation, who wants to be tied to a solution that is only effective in such a tight framerate band? If you are actually going to do some "testing", why don't you test something meaningful like a gaming session that shows the % of frames in any particular game with a particular graphics card that shows that fall outside of the "supported" refresh rates. I think you will find the amount of time spent outside of these bands is actually pretty high in demanding games and titles at the higher than 1080p games on the market today.
And you definitely see flicker at 35fps/35Hz on a G-Sync panel? Prove it. I have an ROG Swift and there is no flicker as low as 20FPS which is common in the CPU-limited MMO games out there. Not any noticeable flicker. You have access to both technologies, prove it. Post a video, post pictures, post the kind of evidence and do the kind of testing you would actually expect from a professional reviewer on a site like AT instead of addressing the deficiencies in your article with hearsay and anecdotal evidence.
Last part, again I'd recommend running the test I suggested on multiple panels with multiple cards and mapping out the frame rates to see the % that fall outside or below these minimum FreeSync thresholds. I think you would be surprised, especially given many of these panels are above 1080p. Even that LG is only ~1.35x 1080p, but most of these panels are 1440p premium panels and I can tell you for a fact a single 970/290/290X/980 class card is NOT enough to maintain 40+FPS in many recent demanding games at high settings. And as of now, CF is not an option. So another strike against FreeSync, if you want to use it, your realistic options are a 290/X at the minimum or there's the real possibility you are below the minimum threshold.
Hopefully you don't take this too harshly or personally, while there is some directed comments in there, there's also a lot of constructive feedback. I have been a fan of some of your work in the past but this is certainly not your best effort or an effort worthy of AT, imo. The biggest problem I have and we've gotten into it a bit in the past is that you repeat many of the same misconceptions that helped shape and perpetuate all the "noise" surrounding FreeSync. For example, you mention it again in this article, yet do we have any confirmation from ANYONE that existing scalers and panels can simply be flashed to FreeSync with a firmware update? If not, why bother repeating the myth?
Darkito - Friday, March 20, 2015 - link
@JaredWhat do you make of this PCPerformance article?
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Displays/AMD-FreeSync...
"
G-Sync treats this “below the window” scenario very differently. Rather than reverting to VSync on or off, the module in the G-Sync display is responsible for auto-refreshing the screen if the frame rate dips below the minimum refresh of the panel that would otherwise be affected by flicker. So, in a 30-144 Hz G-Sync monitor, we have measured that when the frame rate actually gets to 29 FPS, the display is actually refreshing at 58 Hz, each frame being “drawn” one extra instance to avoid flicker of the pixels but still maintains a tear free and stutter free animation. If the frame rate dips to 25 FPS, then the screen draws at 50 Hz. If the frame rate drops to something more extreme like 14 FPS, we actually see the module quadruple drawing the frame, taking the refresh rate back to 56 Hz. It’s a clever trick that keeps the VRR goals and prevents a degradation of the gaming experience. But, this method requires a local frame buffer and requires logic on the display controller to work. Hence, the current implementation in a G-Sync module."
Especially those last few sentences. You say AMD can just duplicate frames like G-Sync but according to this article it's actually something in the G-Sync module that enables it. Is there truth to that?
Socketofpoop - Thursday, March 19, 2015 - link
Not worth the typing effort. Chizow is a well known nvidia fanboy or possibly a shill for them. As long as it is green it is best to him. Bent over, cheeks spread and ready for nvidias next salvo all the time.chizow - Friday, March 20, 2015 - link
@Socketofpoop, I'm well known among AMD fanboys! I'm so flattered!I would ask this of you and the lesser-known AMD fanboys out there. If a graphics card had all the same great features, performance, support with existing prices that Nvidia offers, but had an AMD logo and red cooler on the box, I would buy the AMD card in a heartbeat. No questions asked. Would you if roles were reversed? Of course not, because you're an AMD fan and obviously brand preference matters to you more than what is actually the better product.
Black Obsidian - Thursday, March 19, 2015 - link
I hate to break it to you, but history has not been kind to the technically superior but proprietary and/or higher cost solution. HD-DVD, miniDisc, Laserdisc, Betamax... the list goes on.JarredWalton - Thursday, March 19, 2015 - link
Something else interesting to note is that there are 11 FreeSync displays already in the works (with supposedly nine more unannounced), compared to seven G-SYNC displays. In terms of numbers, FreeSync on the day of launch has nearly caught up to G-SYNC.chizow - Thursday, March 19, 2015 - link
Did you pull that off AMD's slidedeck too Jarred? What's interesting to note is you list the FreeSync displays "in the works" without counting the G-Sync panels "in the works"? And 3 monitors is now "nearly caught up to" 7? Right.A brand new panel is a big investment (not really), I guess everyone should place their bets carefully. I'll bet on the market leader that holds a commanding share of the dGPU market, consistently provides the best graphics cards, great support and features, and isn't riddled with billions in debt with a gloomy financial outlook.