quote:
The important takeaway with FreeSync is that it's actually going to be available and not necessarily unique to the most high-end gaming monitors. The problem with G-SYNC is that you only find it on prohibitively expensive displays, and the idea of retrofitting is not feasible.

I think Nvidia's insistence on only supporting their proprietary technology is going to bite them in the arse here.

Truth to that, except that I would expect freesync monitors to still cost $300+ because panel quality is important for dynamic refresh. NVIDIA knew this was coming, and they were ahead of it by a year. If they'd flooded the market with affordable gsync monitors, the proprietary nature of gsync would've been an advantage to them instead of a hindrance.

That same poster said:

quote:
When you strive for the best graphics experience, it's no longer a single purchase that defines your experience. Now, you're tied to a monitor -- a considerable expense. If you have to choose between the $400 390 (or $500 390X?) and the $550 980, but have some bias toward Nvidia you might still go with the 980. But if you now have to choose between an $800 ROG Swift and a comparable Samsung (or any other mfg) FreeSync for $400, you might be easily persuaded.

Imagine you were an AMD user looking for an upgrade around the time the 970s/980s hit the market, and you could actually get gsync monitors in variety of flavors for a reasonable price, more people would have 970s and gsync monitors and would be far less inclined to switch brands for their next GPU upgrade. If the ROG swift were $500, even 600, I would've purchased one the minute I could find one in stock (but I know the gsync chip isn't only thing driving up costs on this panel). I'd say they should start giving away gsync chips to any brand that will take them, but NVIDIA is too arrogant to do that.

Another quote from that guy:

quote:
I sincerely hope they do support it. The divide that Nvidia creates with gobbling up open technologies and making them proprietary (PhysX! It was better as an add-in card) is toxic to the PC gaming industry.
If their technology is better, it should stand on its own merit. The fact that they don't support open technologies makes it look like they don't even trust that their technology is better.

His thoughts = mine

This post was edited on 1/10/15 at 1:30 pm