FreeSync 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.

FreeSync Displays and Pricing FreeSync vs. G-SYNC Performance


View All Comments

  • 5150Joker - Friday, March 20, 2015 - link

    NewEgg review LOL! In defense of Jared, he's probably working in the confines of the equipment made available to him by the parent company of this place. TFTCentral and PRAD have really expensive equipment they use to quantify the metrics in their reviews. Reply
  • chizow - Thursday, March 19, 2015 - link

    G-Sync isn't going anywhere, but its nice to see AMD provide their fans with an inferior option as usual. Works out well, given their customers are generally less discerning anyways. Overall its a great day for AMD fans that can finally enjoy the tech they've been downplaying for some 18 months since G-Sync was announced. Reply
  • Black Obsidian - Thursday, March 19, 2015 - link

    AMD offers an option that's indistinguishable in actual use from nVidia's, and significantly cheaper to boot. Sure, it's not enough for the "discerning" set who are willing to pay big premiums for minuscule gains just so they can brag that they have the best, but who other than nVidia stockholders cares who gets to fleece that crowd?

    Frankly, I wish that AMD could pull the same stunt in the CPU market. Intel could use a price/performance kick in the pants.
  • chizow - Thursday, March 19, 2015 - link

    Well unfortunately, for less discerning customers, the type that would just take such a superficial review as gospel to declare equivalency, the issues with input lag focuses on minor differences that were not easily quantified or identified, but over thousands of frames, the differences are much more apparent.

    If you're referring to differences in FPS charts, you've already failed in seeing the value Nvidia provides to end-users in their products as graphics cards have become much more than just spitting out frames on a bar graph. FreeSync and G-Sync are just another example of this, going beyond the "miniscule gains" vs price tag that less discerning individuals might prioritize.
  • Ranger101 - Friday, March 20, 2015 - link

    My heartfelt thanks to chizow. Your fanboy gibberings are a constant source of amusement :) Reply
  • chizow - Friday, March 20, 2015 - link

    Np, without the nonsense posted by AMD fanboys there wouldn't be a need to post at all! Reply
  • Black Obsidian - Friday, March 20, 2015 - link

    You're so discerning that I'm sure you could wax poetical on how your $3K monocrystalline speaker cables properly align the electrons to improve the depth of your music in ways that aren't easily quantifiable. Reply
  • chizow - Friday, March 20, 2015 - link

    No, but I can certainly tell you why G-Sync and dozen or so other features Nvidia provides as value-add features for their graphics cards make them a better solution for me and the vast majority of the market. Reply
  • silverblue - Friday, March 20, 2015 - link

    A dozen? Please.

    No really, I mean PLEASE tell us this "dozen or so other features".
  • chizow - Friday, March 20, 2015 - link

    Np, always nice mental exercise reminding myself why I prefer Nvidia over AMD:

    1. G-Sync
    2. 3D Vision (and soon VRDirect)
    3. PhysX
    4. GeForce Experience
    5. Shadowplay
    6. Better 3rd party tool support (NVInspector, Afterburner, Precision) which gives control over SLI/AA settings in game profiles and overclocking
    7. GameWorks
    8. Better driver support and features (driver-level FXAA and HBAO+), profiles as mentioned above, better CF profile and Day 1 support.
    9. Better AA support, both in-game and forced via driver (MFAA, TXAA, and now DSR)
    10. Better SLI compatibility and control (even if XDMA and CF have come a long way in terms of frame pacing and scaling).
    11. Better game bundles
    12. Better vendor partners and warranty (especially EVGA).
    13. Better reference/stock cooler, acoustics, heat etc.

    Don't particularly use these but they are interesting to me at either work or in the future:
    14. CUDA, we only use CUDA at work, period.
    15. GameStream. This has potential but not enough for me to buy a $200-300 Android device for PC gaming, yet.
    16. GRID. Another way to play your PC games on connected mobile devices.

    Damn, was that 16? No sweat.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now