The AMD FreeSync Review
by Jarred Walton on March 19, 2015 12:00 PM ESTClosing Thoughts
It took a while to get here, but if the proof is in the eating of the pudding, FreeSync tastes just as good as G-SYNC when it comes to adaptive refresh rates. Within the supported refresh rate range, I found nothing to complain about. Perhaps more importantly, while you’re not getting a “free” monitor upgrade, the current prices of the FreeSync displays are very close to what you’d pay for an equivalent display that doesn’t have adaptive sync. That’s great news, and with the major scaler manufacturers on board with adaptive sync the price disparity should only shrink over time.
The short summary is that FreeSync works just as you’d expect, and at least in our limited testing so far there have been no problems. Which isn’t to say that FreeSync will work with every possible AMD setup right now. As noted last month, the initial FreeSync driver that AMD provided (Catalyst 15.3 Beta 1) only allows FreeSync to work with single GPU configurations. Another driver should be coming next month that will support FreeSync with CrossFire setups.
Besides needing a driver and FreeSync display, you also need a GPU that uses AMD’s GCN 1.1 or later architecture. The list at present consists of the R7 260/260X, R9 285, R9 290/290X/295X2 discrete GPUs, as well as the Kaveri APUs – A6-7400K, A8-7600/7650K, and A10-7700K/7800/7850K. First generation GCN 1.0 cards (HD 7950/7970 or R9 280/280X and similar) are not supported.
All is not sunshine and roses, however. Part of the problem with reviewing something like FreeSync is that we're inherently tied to the hardware we receive, in this case the LG 34UM67 display. Armed with an R9 290X and running at the native resolution, the vast majority of games will run at 48FPS or above even at maximum detail settings, though of course there are exceptions. This means they look and feel smooth. But what happens with more demanding games or with lower performance GPUs? If you're running without VSYNC, you'd get tearing below 48FPS, while with VSYNC you'd get stuttering.
Neither is ideal, but how much this impacts your experience will depend on the game and individual. G-SYNC handles dropping below the minimum FPS more gracefully than FreeSync, though if you're routinely falling below the minimum FreeSync refresh rate we'd argue that you should lower the settings. Mostly what you get with FreeSync/G-SYNC is the ability to have smooth gaming at 40-60 FPS and not just 60+ FPS.
Other sites are reporting ghosting on FreeSync displays, but that's not inherent to the technology. Rather, it's a display specific problem (just as the amount of ghosting on normal LCDs is display specific). Using higher quality panels and hardware designed to reduce/eliminate ghosting is the solution. The FreeSync displays so far appear to not have the same level of anti-ghosting as the currently available G-SYNC panels, which is unfortunate if true. (Note that we've only looked at the LG 34UM67, so we can't report on all the FreeSync displays.) Again, ghosting shouldn't be a FreeSync issue so much as a panel/scaler/firmware problem, so we'll hold off on further commentary until we get to the monitor reviews.
One final topic to address is something that has become more noticeable to me over the past few months. While G-SYNC/FreeSync can make a big difference when frame rates are in the 40~75 FPS range, as you go beyond that point the benefits are a lot less clear. Take the 144Hz ASUS ROG Swift as an example. Even with G-SYNC disabled, the 144Hz refresh rate makes tearing rather difficult to spot, at least in my experience. Considering pixel response times for LCDs are not instantaneous and combine that with the way our human eyes and brain process the world and for all the hype I still think having high refresh rates with VSYNC disabled gets you 98% of the way to the goal of smooth gaming with no noticeable visual artifacts (at least for those of us without superhuman eyesight).
Overall, I’m impressed with what AMD has delivered so far with FreeSync. AMD gamers in particular will want to keep an eye on the new and upcoming FreeSync displays. They may not be the “must have” upgrade right now, but if you’re in the market and the price premium is less than $50, why not get FreeSync? On the other hand, for NVIDIA users things just got more complicated. Assuming you haven’t already jumped on the G-SYNC train, there’s now this question of whether or not NVIDIA will support non-G-SYNC displays that implement DisplayPort’s Adaptive Sync technology. I have little doubt that NVIDIA can support FreeSync panels, but whether they will support them is far less certain. Given the current price premium on G-SYNC displays, it’s probably a good time to sit back and wait a few months to see how things develop.
There is one G-SYNC display that I’m still waiting to see, however: Acer’s 27” 1440p144 IPS (AHVA) XB270HU. It was teased at CES and it could very well be the holy grail of displays. It’s scheduled to launch next month, and official pricing is $799 (with some pre-orders now online at higher prices). We might see a FreeSync variant of the XB270HU as well in the coming months, if not from Acer than likely from some other manufacturer. For those that work with images and movies as well as playing games, IPS/AHVA displays with G-SYNC or FreeSync support are definitely needed.
Wrapping up, if you haven’t upgraded your display in a while, now is a good time to take stock of the various options. IPS and other wide viewing angle displays have come down quite a bit in pricing, and there are overclockable 27” and 30” IPS displays that don’t cost much at all. Unfortunately, if you want a guaranteed high refresh rate, there’s a good chance you’re going to have to settle for TN. The new UltraWide LG displays with 75Hz IPS panels at least deliver a moderate improvement though, and they now come with FreeSync as an added bonus.
Considering a good display can last 5+ years, making a larger investment isn’t a bad idea, but by the same token rushing into a new display isn’t advisable either as you don't want to end up stuck with a "lemon" or a dead technology. Take some time, read the reviews, and then find the display that you will be happy to use for the next half decade. At least by then we should have a better idea of which display technologies will stick around.
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.