All Channels
Popular
70°

AMD Freesync Review

Today AMD have unleashed Freesync upon the world. A way to get the benefits of IQ at high FPS. We take a look.

Read Full Story >>
overclock3d.net
Volkama4079d ago

Man I wish freesync/adaptive sync were supported on TVs. HDMI is a frustrating standard.

BVFTW4078d ago (Edited 4078d ago )

I wish Nvidia were more open and give support to freesync as well as G-sync, I'm aware that G-sync is somewhat more advanced having an specialised module on displays that prop this feature and all that jazz but it drives the price up, freesync works and is "open" so I don't see any other reason than corporate pride for not adding it to the plethora of features of the GTX cards, this way they still can market G-sync for the diehard green enthusiasts and don't loose ground if freesync takes off.

Mega244078d ago

Nvidia is very strict of their tech, and AMD is starting to do the same. Best way to make money is to make consumers buy you product for the benefits of its features. Pure competition. I just hope Nvidia starts lowering some of their prices, starting to get crazy high.

Articuno764078d ago

Wait, so AMD's implementation makes you choose between eliminating screen-tearing or lag-less input? Huh, that makes it's cheaper buy-in price for the consumer less appealing. G-Sync is certainly more expensive but I seem to have gotten the impression that it has both bases covered.

DragoonsScaleLegends4078d ago (Edited 4078d ago )

No...If you enable VSync that eliminates screen-tearing but adds input lag to the mouse. Now AMDs solution to this problem is Freesync. You no longer have to enable VSync which means it eliminates the input lag while Freesync eliminates screen-tearing. But of course the catch is that the frame-rate has to stay within the range the monitor supports. The technology I think supports frame-rates between 8-250. But most of the monitors so far only support 40-144 which means if the frame-rate goes outside those ranges you will get screen-tearing. But TechSpot wrote a good article about this if you are interested. They also mentioned that when enabled you couldn't tell the difference between a game running at 45 compared to 60. Which sounds amazing if you want to push those graphics and still get a smooth experience.

Articuno764078d ago (Edited 4078d ago )

Are you sure? That appears to contradict AMD's own promotional materials which state that screen-tearing is still possible if you don't enable both v-sync and freesync together:

Check out the slide entitled 'Beyond Dynamic Refresh rate here':
http://www.anandtech.com/sh...

I'm working on the assumption that when AMD says "Typical Mouse Latency" for when Freesync + Vsync are enabled (necessary to eliminate screen tearing) they mean typical for a v-synced display.

From what I can tell Freesync without Vsync basically... does nothing. I guess technically it eliminates judder, but you don't really experience much of it with Vsync off anyway.

That means all Freesync really does is eliminate your typical V-sync judder but without addressing v-sync input latency. And it only does that in cases where both Freesync and Vsync are engaged at the same time.

This isn't how I thought it would work at all TBH and quite disappointing.

DancingDirty74077d ago

NO

G-Sync works in the DRR, below DRR it still syncs by regulating the refresh rate in multiples of the fps (2,3,4,5), above DRR enables V-Sync.

FreeSync works in the DRR, below or over DRR you choose either to have V-Sync on so you don't get tearing but have some impact in input lag, or you choose to have V-Sync off so you might get tearing with V-Sync off if the frame rate goes above or lower than DRR but you get no input lag!

So FreeSync is better because it gives you choice if you want to have some tearing outside DRR or input lag, where G-Sync just has always on V-Sync and has input lag above DRR.

G-Sync is better cause it sync frames and regulates the refresh rate even below DRR (that's what the module is for)

Also pcper.com quick report is that 2 FreeSync monitors have ghosting (BenQ XL2730Z and LG 34um67), where 1 g-sync monitor doesn't have ghosting (Asus ROG SWIFT)

Articuno764077d ago (Edited 4077d ago )

The plot thickens (and gets a lot more complicated).

Last I heard official support for multiple displays/Crossfire Freesync was still in the air so is it possible that the ghosting is something a driver issue could address?

TBH, after hearing your explanation I'm not really interested in either technology anymore as neither is quite the holy grail of smooth, input-lag free gaming I thought they were.

And AMD and Nvdia really have their work cut out for them trying to market and differentiate these technologies as I'm guessing almost no one really gets what they do/their limitations.

edit: Doesn't the below/above DDR requirement to stay tearing + input-lag free for Freesync basically mean V-sync (input lag) is always needed to stay tearing free? How often do you hit your DRR bang on?

starchild4078d ago

I've had my G-Sync monitor for quite some time and I have to say that it is incredible technology. Easily the best gaming-related purchase I have made. Those with AMD cards should definitely check out freesync. Variable refresh rate displays are one of the best things to come along for PC gaming in a long time.

VJGenova4078d ago

Kinda off topic but can anyone recommend a long (over 15ft of possible) mdp 1.2 cable? I'd like to setup a monitor in another room than my server. Might get one of these if I can make that work.

60°

Next-Gen Xbox on Track for 2027 Release According to AMD

AMD has mentioned that the next-gen Xbox is on track for release in 2027, which means we might be in the final year of the Series X|S.

104d ago
KicksnSnares104d ago

Xbox is dead. How are they making another console? Fake news lol

fr0sty103d ago (Edited 103d ago )

They might think taking a crack at the PC/console hybrid approach might work out for them... but with PS6 delayed until 2029 at least, there went the power advantage that paying all that extra money was supposed to afford them once PS6 does launch. Also, releasing a console right now is stupid with RAM prices as high as they are. Either we're gonna be forking out $1200-1500 for this thing, or it's going to get downgraded. It costs over $700 to put 64GB of RAM into a PC right now because all the AI datacenters are buying up ALL the RAM.

Maybe a select few gamers will be willing to fork out that much $ for a system that is more powerful than PS5 Pro, but most gamers are only just now feeling like PS5 is hitting its stride and still has a few years of life left in it before we need to move on to a new generation. Plus, by the time PS6 does launch, RAM prices will be stablizing, so PS6 will be able to put much more of its overall budget towards a more powerful GPU and CPU vs. having to spend such a large chunk of the budget just on RAM like the new Xbox will, assuming it does drop next year while still in the midst of this RAM crisis.

Reaper22_103d ago (Edited 103d ago )

People said the same thing about xbox 360 launching early but it turned out pretty good. Microsoft's R&D is much larger and more cash rich than Sony's. They have the money to do it. One of the reason Sony is waiting because they arent ready to spend billions more on hardware and the PS5 is still selling and that would definitely hurt their sales. Plus they just released Ps5 pro.
The series x isn't selling well so for Microsoft its a good time to get ready for next gen. The next console from xbox is gonna be for core gamers and no matter when sony launches it probably wont have many advances over Magnus if any at all. Im confident it will be on par or better than the next Playstation. Even the series x does features that ps5 or the pro still cant do. Sony shouldn't of released the PS5 pro. Imo its not needed and underwhelming. They could of used what they spent on that for the PS6

salis844103d ago (Edited 103d ago )

First, no one actually said that PS6 is delayed.

The rumor started with Tom Henderson saying he thought PlayStation might consider delaying the PS6 due to RAM prices. He specifically did not say that he heard that they were going to delay it or anything like that, it was 100% speculation, and he never implied otherwise.

That said, let them delay it, the PS5 Pro especially with FSR 4 coming in the next month or so, will be more than sufficient. There isn't going to be any publishers, including Microsoft, willing to skip PlayStation's user base, especially when publishers seem eager to put games on Switch 2 which is a significant step down even from the base PS5. So, the idea that having more power is really going to shift things in their favor is extremely hard to believe.

Microsoft can make as many consoles as they want, the issue is convincing people to buy them.

Both the PS5 and the Switch 2 sold double the amount of consoles in December that the SX sold in the entire year of 2025. And I doubt that a super expensive co-pilot box is going to help them, especially if you look at the lackluster sales AI equipped PC's have seen.

103d ago
Eonjay103d ago

The next Xbox issaid to have 36 GB of memory so the price short from ram should not be as apocalyptic as a 64 GB kit. With the PS6 coming in with 30 GB, the RAM should not be what makes the Xbox cost so much more. Of course without Microsoft subsidizing the console the actual MSRPs may diverge wildly.

fr0sty103d ago (Edited 103d ago )

32GB of DDR5 still costs in the neighborhood of $250-300 for the super cheap stuff, $450 for the name brand. That's what entire consoles used to cost. That eats up a huge chunk of the budget that was supposed to be paying for the CPU and GPU, which means that the cost of this system will be driven farther north than previously anticipated, and it was already expected to be above $1k. Releasing a console in the middle of an industry-wide RAM shortage is stupid. Even GPU makers are scaling back production because of it, and focusing their remaining stock and production towards selling to datacenters. Some memory manufacturers have dropped consumer products entirely and now only make chips for datacenters. Nvidia is scaling back its consumer GPUs, no longer offering the super series of some GPUs, for instance.

For MS to pull the trigger now means releasing at a very risky price point against a PS5 that is simply on fire, even outselling the Switch 2 in many cases. It's coming at a time where the Xbox brand is at its weakest ever, and consumer confidence in the brand is at absolute rock bottom. Nobody wants to drop $1500 on an Xbox when they can play the same games on their PS5 Pro for half the price already, or even cheaper if using a base PS5. Only a select few enthusiasts will bother to fork out that kind of money... by the time this product reaches a price point where it can have mass-market appeal, the PS6 will be dropping... but by that time, RAM prices will be dropping, so PS6 will now be able to, assuming it does delay until 2029, invest more into upgrading its architecture over the previously released spec, invest in more RAM than the new Xbox will have, a better CPU & GPU, etc.

As for nobody saying PS6 will launch in 2029, nobody said it would come sooner either, not officially, at least. As of now all we have to go by are rumors based on internal information that could easily change at a moment's notice. Even the design of the chip itself could change as it has not yet entered into production. They could easily opt to include a few more CUs, more RAM, more CPU cores, etc. between now and when it does officially enter production. So, MS could drop a new Xbox now, but it wouldn't be wise, at all, for them to do so if they plan on even holding a candle agains the juggernaut that will be PS6. PS5 will most likely mop the floor with it due to its price point alone.

And that's assuming MS even gives the green light to start manufacturing the console to begin with. We'll see in the coming months if production even happens. Microsoft's shareholders damn sure aren't going to be willing to subsidize anything at all after they just dumped $100b into buying game publishers, expecting to see a ROI, and not seeing it anywhere near as fast as they'd hoped, which is why we're now playing Xbox games on PS5.

As for MS sitting on RAM, they are sitting on some, but Xbox is sitting on none. Microsoft knows good and well they will make far more money putting that RAM into datacenters than they ever would putting it into a console that is already at a huge disadvantage before it even launches, and has little hope of generating a lot of sales.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 103d ago
Neonridr103d ago

It'll end up being a Windows based machine that utilizes an Xbox ecosystem as well to play their game library on. But you'll end up being able to buy games from places like Steam as well more than likely.

Would make the most sense honestly. Best of both worlds.

Agent75103d ago

Microsoft should just ditch Xbox and cash in on PC and PlayStation games, maybe even Switch 2. Apparently, they make a loss on hardware, so what's the point?

Reaper22_103d ago

How can this be? Xbox died already.

103d ago Replies(1)
mkis007103d ago (Edited 103d ago )

What Xbox was is dead. Long live Xbox. I mean Halo and fable are coming to PlayStation this year. Gears and forza are already there. I'm here for it. I will absolutely give MS publishing my money if they make good games.

103d ago Replies(1)
Elda103d ago

My XBOX Series X is my first & my last XB console.

Show all comments (21)
150°

NVIDIA DLSS 4 vs AMD FSR 4 Compared: Ray Reconstruction Makes FSR 4 Look Last-Gen

FSR 4 was a substantial improvement to AMD’s upscaling solution. It reduces ghosting, improves finer mesh retention, and particle effects. In most cases, it delivers similar visual quality to DLSS 4’s CNN model, but slightly worse than the newer transformer model.

Read Full Story >>
pcoptimizedsettings.com
dveio166d ago

Since FSR is open-source and nvidia's DLSS isn't, I'd personally always prefer FSR.

Frankly, I think all these differences are nice to know (and notice) about if you're playing at DF level. And I totally respect that very small need to max out performance.

But given the prices, I don't think any nvidia GPU advantage justifies paying 1000+ bucks. I don't see any game(s) exclusively (or not) available on PC that offer a fundamentally different and innovative gameplay experience.

Notellin166d ago

There's never a good reason to own any products from Nvidia. They are one of the most destructive and anti-consumer companies that's ever existed.

Anyone buying and using Nvidia is only contributing to the downfall and end of gaming as we know it now.

With the rise of Nvidia all we've seen is price gouging while their products that continue to become less power efficient and their performance gains are so miniscule you'd need a 100x microscope to notice the AI upscaling. Pathetic really.

Tapani165d ago

Why do you need to pay 1000 bucks for an Nvidia GPU? You can find one that is faster than the PS5 Pro at 400 bucks, RTX 5060 ti 16GB, and it has better upscaling, more VRAM, multiframe generation and RT.

Gamersunite880166d ago

DLSS will always be better. FSR sucks.

__y2jb166d ago

The examples given look essentially identical.

babadivad166d ago

Exactly. Headline says FSR looks like last gen. Implying it's years behind the competition. Article says it's slightly behind.

Examples shown, the difference are barely discernible.

derek166d ago

I dont know about anyone else, but I've never had 2 screens playing at the same time to know the difference in performance of a given game. It's like those TV screen comparisons, virtually nobody in the real world engages does this, lol. Performance seems comparable to me. Besides Nvidia is no longer interested in the gaming products, its full steam ahead with "AI".

Tapani165d ago (Edited 165d ago )

Yeah, but the gaving division is still 8.5% of their global revenue, and they just made 30% YoY topline growth per quarter. A 11.35 billion business is absolutely massive, and this will continue to increase. That means there's 11.35bn reasons why they won't stop the gaming business, nor lose their focus on it. It's also their pivot if things do not go as well in the AI race. By end of 2026, they have DOUBLED the gaming division business in 5 years.

FY 2025 $11.35 billion 8.6%
FY 2024 $10.45 billion 15.2% (approx)
FY 2023 $9.07 billion -7.5% (approx)
FY 2022 $9.82 billion (approx) 49.6% (approx)
FY 2021 $6.5 billion (approx) 61.1% (approx)

MrDead166d ago

I've been lucky enough to get a new 5090 build in March, glad I went with Nvidia. Cyberpunk looks amazing.

Show all comments (11)
100°

AMD's RX9070 XT crushes Nvidia's RTX 5080 in Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 benchmarks - Story Mode

The 9070XT matches or beats Nvidia's much more expensive 5080 in CoD: BO7 benchmarks. A rare win for AMD. The article also takes a closer look at 9600X vs 9800X3D performance.

Read Full Story >>
storymode.info
wesnytsfs220d ago

No ray tracing might be why.

Runechaz219d ago

Ray tracing is useless in a fps

thecodingart219d ago

Came looking for dumb comments - found them

Zenzuu219d ago

Not every game needs to have ray tracing.

Darkseeker219d ago

I'd even say no games need to have it. It's just a ressource hog.

Blad3runner00219d ago (Edited 219d ago )

Why does the article use misleading terms like "Crushes" and "The 9070 XT "HANDILY BEATS" the more expensive RTX 5080" ? It even admits it at the end of the article, yet keeps the terms lol

Looking at the graph, the difference is only 4-19fps, depending on the settings.

I would hardly call a 4-19fps difference, "crushes" or "handily beats" and no one is going to buy a 9070 over a 5080 for COD alone. How does the 9070 fair in other games compared to the 5080?

OpenGL219d ago

I think they exaggerate because people like when a product punches above its weight, especially from an underdog, but yeah it's not a huge difference. There are plenty of games where the 5080 is significantly faster.

wesnytsfs219d ago

That is basically what the 5090 does compared to the 4090. I dont consider it crushing either and decided to keep my 4090 over geting the 5090 with its small increase of FPS.

OpenGL218d ago

That's a no brainer, the 5090 is definitely the fastest card on the market but the 4090 is the second fastest, so it's still extremely powerful.