When AMD launched Freesync back in March, one of the limitations of the initial launch version was that only single-GPU configurations were supported. Multi-GPU Crossfire systems could not be used with Freesync, requiring users to trade-off between Crossfire and Freesync. At the time AMD claimed that Crossfire Freesync support would be coming in April, however as April comes to a close it has become clear that such a release isn’t going to happen.

To that end, AMD has posted a short update on the status of Crossfire Freesync over on their forums. In the update, AMD states that after QA testing they believe that Crossfire Freesync is “is not quite ready for release” and that they will be holding it back as a result. Unfortunately AMD is not committing to a new release date for the feature, but given the fact that it’s more important to get this right than to get it out quickly, this is likely for the best.

Source: AMD

POST A COMMENT

92 Comments

View All Comments

  • chizow - Thursday, April 30, 2015 - link

    No surprise, it's obvious AMD is running into all kinds of problems with the limitations of their FreeSync spec.

    " but given the fact that it’s more important to get this right than to get it out quickly, this is likely for the best."

    What is interesting is that AMD did not apply the same level of restraint on FreeSync as a whole and pump the brakes until they got it right. This is the second glaring deficiency relative to G-Sync yet that didn't stop AnandTech from misleadingly declaring FreeSync an equivalent alternative.
    Reply
  • Crunchy005 - Thursday, April 30, 2015 - link

    Love how anything AMD your the first to comment, and anything that doesn't allow you to be anti AMD I never seem to see you comment on. Is the only thing you do is sit here and troll anti AMD stuff on this site?

    Either way this tech is still a nitche market with the premium it calls for. Not to mention the small range of choices for monitors that support G-Sync or FreeSync. Sad to see that crossfire got delayed for this I am sure the people who do go for this are enthusiast level and probably already run crossfire.
    Reply
  • chizow - Thursday, April 30, 2015 - link

    Have you ever considered that's because you only bother to read AMD headlines to defend their honor in their time of need? lol. I guess you missed the half dozen or so comments I made in other articles this week, everything from Apple to Microsoft's interesting announcements this week, but don't let that stop you from commenting ignorantly on the matter. I guess it never occurred to you that people will comment on articles that interest them, go figure!

    But yes this is a niche market, just as I stated, which makes you wonder whether or not AMD has the requisite resources or knowledge to be dabbling in this market when they clearly have bigger issues on their plate, most notably, launching competitive CPU and GPUs in the marketplace.
    Reply
  • mrmessma - Friday, May 1, 2015 - link

    Yes, PCWorld, TrustedReviews, and Toms Hardware are all just lying. I'll capitulate that Intel puts out better CPU's, but where have you been the last 5 years claiming their gpu's are anything less than nVidia, not even getting into if you get into the performance/$$? Reply
  • mrmessma - Friday, May 1, 2015 - link

    Yes, sorry about the grammar. My weak intellect is too brainwashed by AMD to proof read. Guess I frequent too many sites that allow editing for that, my apologies. Reply
  • chizow - Friday, May 1, 2015 - link

    AMD has never had the fastest GPU to end a generation since G80 launched, and while they are generally competitive in overall performance, they are still far behind when it comes to technology, drivers, features, and support. This entire FreeSync debacle is just another example of this.

    Nvidia took the time and resources to develop G-Sync years ago, it took a lot of time, research, and money and when they brought it to market, it worked, just as advertised to the world's amazement. AMD claims there was no reason for Nvidia to have gone the hardware route, that they were thinking of maybe working on something similar using open/existing DP specs, then half-assedly throw a solution together and 18 months later, we get something that is clearly inferior in FreeSync. See the difference?

    Who wants to spend their time and money on products that don't just work? You wouldn't pay a premium for a product that works as advertised, today, without having to wait? Given the life cycles of these products turns over rather frequently (18-24 months), every month you have to wait for a feature or product to mature is time and money wasted.
    Reply
  • Creig - Friday, May 1, 2015 - link

    Let's see what the the people who actually reviewed the technology said about FreeSync, rather than Chizow's nvidia-distorted view:

    Anandtech - 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

    TheTechReport - the BenQ XL2730Z is good enough that I think it's time for the rest of the industry to step up and support the VESA standard for variable refresh rates.

    Guru3D - FreeSync works as well as Gsync does and vice versa

    Gamespot - Freesync is the more attractive proposition, even if Nvidia has a wider slice of the GPU market. More monitor features, and a lower cost of entry make it even better.

    Keep trying, chizow.
    Reply
  • chizow - Friday, May 1, 2015 - link

    LMAO yeah let's see what the actual reviews that dug a bit deeper than the superficial, staged demo at AMD HQ that Creig presents:

    TFTCentral: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/benq_xl2730z.h...
    "As a result, response times are fairly slow at ~8.5ms G2G and there is a more noticeable blur to the moving image. See the more detailed response time tests in the previous sections for more information, but needless to say this is not the optimum AMA (response time) setting on this screen. For some reason, the combination of FreeSync support and this display disables the AMA function.

    This only happens when you are using a FreeSync enabled graphics card, FreeSync capable drivers and the DisplayPort interface...

    Having spoken to BenQ about it the issue is a known bug which apparently currently affects all FreeSync monitors. The AMD FreeSync command disturbs the response time (AMA) function, causing it to switch off. It's something which will require an update from AMD to their driver behaviour, which they are currently working on. It will also require a firmware update for the screen itself to correct the problem."

    Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2015/03...
    "Note to readers: I have seen this firsthand on the Acer FreeSync monitor I’m reviewing, and PC Perspective noticed it with 2 additional FreeSync monitors, the BenQ XL2730Z and LG 34UM67. To illustrate the problem they recorded the aforementioned monitors running AMD’s Windmill demo, as well as the same demo running on a G-Sync enabled Asus ROG Swift. Ignore the stuttering you see (this is a result of recording at high speed) and pay attention to the trailing lines, or ghosting. I agree that it’s jarring by comparison."

    PCPer: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Dissec...
    "It's also important to note that the experience below the VRR window on a FreeSync panel today is actually worse in practice than in theory. Because the refresh rates stays at 40 Hz when your frame rates are low, you get a combination of stutter and frame tearing (if V-Sync is off) that is worse than if the refresh rate was higher, at say 60 Hz or even 144 Hz. No doubt complications would arise from an instantaneous refresh rate shift of ~40 Hz to 144 Hz but some middle ground likely exists that FreeSync could implement to improve low-FPS experiences."

    In Summary: 3 things that make FreeSync worse than G-Sync, today

    1) Ghosting due to FreeSync commands disabling OverDrive anti-blur technologies in ALL FreeSync monitors.
    2) Worst than V-sync behavior outside of relatively limited VRR windows (input lag, stuttering, tearing all present, as high as 40Hz).
    3) No CF support to help mitigate these issues, leaving you with effectively 1 GPU choice for this technology (290/X), and good luck getting one of those to run acceptably well at 2560x1440 much less 4K in current games without turning settings WAY down.

    The alternative: Paying a premium for better Nvidia products that do everything they said they would relative to G-Sync and VRR, for the last 20 months since they launched it
    Reply
  • chizow - Friday, May 1, 2015 - link

    And I guess the follow-up to that question Creig, in your opinion, knowing there are reviews that have brought these issues to light, do you honestly think AMD's FreeSync is equivalent to Nvidia's G-Sync? Would you go and buy one of these monitors today, if VRR was important to you? Would you recommend someone else who was interested in Variable Refresh, buy one of these monitors today?

    See the difference between me and you is, I wouldn't recommend something that sucked to someone else if they were spending their hard-earned money. Clearly, you have no issue in doing so.
    Reply
  • Vayra - Tuesday, May 5, 2015 - link

    Wait, you are stuck with the illusion that G-Sync is working properly as of today?

    It is not. Nvidia is still countering lots of issues. Granted, they are less universal and more game-specific (or monitor-specific!) but to say G-Sync is smooth sailing and Nvidia delivered a great flawless tech, is very far from reality.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now