Nvidia's G-SYNC tech to allow native refresh rates in MAME ?

[matrigs]

I think you missed the point

I definitely did NOT miss the point here. But idd, i didn't think as far as driving a display with a multiplied refresh rate. That is of course a very senseful solution.

[Ed Oscuro]

That was certainly an impolitic thing for me to say...it's just something that naturally falls out of the description they gave.

I realized now that there is another wrinkle to it: They do say that if the refresh rate falls below 24Hz that they will repeat frames (there is some possibility this is just a limitation based on current LCD monitor specs and nothing more). This obviously doesn't guarantee that you can send a signal in at 24Hz and have frames onscreen for the right number of time slices (i.e., 2 frames with the identical information, each at 1/48th of a second).

I think that this is probably something that nVidia shouldn't try to mess with; rather if it's possible to drive it at 48Hz then it is a matter of educating hardware and software developers, and user, so that people know it can be done, and start developing movie players with a 48Hz mode for 24Hz movies.

[Endymion]

I think you missed the point

I definitely did NOT miss the point here. But idd, i didn't think as far as driving a display with a multiplied refresh rate. That is of course a very senseful solution.

Like he said, that was the driving rationale behind 120Hz television development. And that little development did nothing at all to help gaming. Television viewing will pretty much always win out for these kinds of considerations, and while an upscaled doing G-Sync sounds nice, that will only serve to drive the expense of that product into an even greater niche for an already niche product--not a great solution to settling something with a good return. And not a good solution for the impatient, either, when you could get the result just by upgrading to a new monitor (possibly along with your computer).

[Ed Oscuro]

Don't tell me you don't think that G-SYNC has no application for upscalers. Cost isn't the point - if cost was an issue you simply would forgo the upscaler box which is $400 to start with. Supporting G-SYNC at the device doesn't mean that other outputs can't be had, and (as I already stated) it's very doubtful that G-SYNC needs to add significant cost to the output device. The $175 (hopefully soon to be $100) module is just for the monitor.

[RGB32E]

While the G-SYNC tech sounds promising, Eizo has just announced their new Foris gaming monitor, the FORIS FG2421. It's a VA panel with up to 120Hz input over DVI-DL and Display port! Input lag is reported as extremely low ( < 8 ms).

http://www.eizo.com/global/products/for ... index.html

Review: http://flatpanelshd.com/review.php?suba ... 1383107475



Panel Type - VA
Size - 23.5" / 59.8 cm (598 mm diagonal)
Native Resolution - 1920 × 1080 (16: 9 aspect ratio)
Contrast Ratio (typical) - 5000:1 (15000:1 with ContrastEnhancer)
Response Time (typical) - Less than 1 ms (Turbo 240: ON, Monitor spec)

Video Signals

Input Terminals
PC: DisplayPort, DVI-D 24 pin (with HDCP)
PC / AV: HDMI × 1

Digital Scanning Frequency (H / V)
HDMI: 15 - 100 kHz, 23 - 122 Hz
DVI: 31 - 138 kHz, 59 - 122 Hz
DisplayPort: 31 - 138 kHz, 49 - 122 Hz

Sync Formats
PC: Separate

Audio

Input Terminals
PC: 3.5 mm stereo jack × 1, DisplayPort × 1
PC / AV: HDMI × 1

Output Terminals
PC / AV: 3.5 mm stereo jack, 3.5 mm headphone jack

Sound Adjustment
Volume, Sound Level, Source (DisplayPort, HDMI)

USB

Function
1-port for monitor control
2-port USB hub

[brownvim]

Beast, costs £544!

120fps with light boost in its "240hz" mode will surely look amazing.

[RGB32E]

I have one on order. Should be great for XRGB usage as well!

[brownvim]

If only it had VGA, I'm guessing you have the XRGB-Mini.

[Endymion]

Don't tell me you don't think that G-SYNC has no application for upscalers.

Well, it sure could have an application for upscaling. However, at this point, it is 100% required that anyone creating such a device operate by Nvidia's standards. Considering the technology involved, this would likely mean licensing from them. Doing this will invariably raise the cost of the product. Raising the cost of the product is bad, worse before it is even made.

Cost isn't the point - if cost was an issue you simply would forgo the upscaler box which is $400 to start with.

Cost is absolutely the point. Cost is an issue when you want to make the thing. You are confusing price with cost. There are lots of folks would would spend a great deal to eliminate video issues with their setup, you and I, and others on this board for instance. But even amongst ourselves, this product would be stillborn at a certain price. At a certain cost to develop and then manufacture, driven up by the need to license tech from nvidia, I could easily see this breaking the company's budget for starting up such a thing. That's why I said a consortium of vendors and suppliers is the best hope to see this standardized going forward. It will drive the price down and improve the implementation. But I don't know that there is enough demand for this to make it happen globally. We're about to jump into another console generation and nothing there has this technology, so it looks like nich/high-end PC gaming is the target.

Supporting G-SYNC at the device doesn't mean that other outputs can't be had, and (as I already stated) it's very doubtful that G-SYNC needs to add significant cost to the output device. The $175 (hopefully soon to be $100) module is just for the monitor.

What do you mean other outputs? It will eliminate the G-Sync feature if any other outputs are used.

If only it had VGA, I'm guessing you have the XRGB-Mini.

Impossible, the implementation as it is made will not function at all with any analogue output.

[Ed Oscuro]

Don't tell me you don't think that G-SYNC has no application for upscalers.

Well, it sure could have an application for upscaling. However, at this point, it is 100% required that anyone creating such a device operate by Nvidia's standards. Considering the technology involved, this would likely mean licensing from them. Doing this will invariably raise the cost of the product. Raising the cost of the product is bad, worse before it is even made.

Of course.

Cost isn't the point - if cost was an issue you simply would forgo the upscaler box which is $400 to start with.

Cost is absolutely the point. Cost is an issue when you want to make the thing. You are confusing price with cost.

I don't have any illusion that Micomsoft or other scaler makers wouldn't have to pass costs along, so your attempted pedantry has no target; please don't get bent out of shape over me using "cost" (in obvious reference to the costs a consumer is willing to bear) instead of price. On topic: No doubt the number of companies that are interested is quite small. But it's overly pessimistic to assume that Micomsoft wouldn't be able to justify a cost increase if they could also promise two incredibly important features: Elimination of one lag source and perfect support for unusual refresh rates. Just look at the discussions about the Framemeister versus the XPC-4: Micomsoft is no stranger to tailoring the capabilities of the device to the intended users. People who don't need quick resolution switching can buy a Framemeister. People who do need resolution switching on-the-fly will get an XPC-4. There's no reason Micomsoft can't (or won't) continue to create product tiers.

I am fairly sure I have already noted in this thread that nVidia is on the record right now saying that they've not determined if licensing will be done or what. But if they want this to take off it will be much easier if there is some way for other manufacturers to use it - not just display manufacturers.

The only questions here are whether nVidia will actually license the technology in a way that it can be used, and whether Micomsoft would be able to justify a price increase. There may be some unknown issues with implementation but at the moment there are no obvious hangups for the purpose of HDMI scaling.

What do you mean other outputs? It will eliminate the G-Sync feature if any other outputs are used.

Of course.

[brownvim]

I have one on order. Should be great for XRGB usage as well!

Got the monitor today, lightboost is sweet

[RGB32E]

Got the monitor today, lightboost is sweet

That's cool! Lightboost? Don't you mean Turbo240? I haven't tried the XRGB mini on it yet as the AC adapter is not easily accessible in my main setup. My only concern now is whether or not to get a better video card so that I can play some games at higher detail at 120fps.

[brownvim]

Haha ye turbo 240, I end up shifting windows left and right because the motion is so smooth.

Only downside is I can't get the colours to pop like my other monitor. There are profiles you can download, I haven't got round to checking them out yet. I also feel like it's laggier than my Dell.

But to be honest it's my brothers for PC gaming, I won't be using it much so I'm not complaining.

[RGB32E]

Only downside is I can't get the colours to pop like my other monitor. There are profiles you can download, I haven't got round to checking them out yet. I also feel like it's laggier than my Dell.

Which Dell are you referring to? Sounds like you don't have the monitor setup correctly.

[Ed Oscuro]

Or just got used to incorrectly set saturation / contrast settings.

[brownvim]

I have the Dell S2740L, it looks a lot better now after messing with the settings. I had it in the "FPS" mode which lowers the luminance for the 250hz option to work.

I reckon it was abit of me preferring a high contrast/saturated image too with the retro games I play on the Dell.

Any tips to get it calibrated right?

[RGB32E]

The FPS presets are kinda drab. I switch between User1 and User2 (Turbo240 Off/On respectively), and use settings similar to the ones found in the TFTCentral review (Brightness 25, Blacklevel 48, and Contrast 50).

[blizzz]

AMD has demonstrated a technique that is similar to G-Sync but not limited to Geforce GPUs and special monitors. It does require that the display support variable vblank on the monitor side.

http://anandtech.com/show/7641/amd-demo ... t-ces-2014

[Ed Oscuro]

"What appears to be the equivalent" - oh, the devil is in the details as always. AMD has been slow in getting adaptive v-sync to their official drivers but this does look like an improvement over that.

However G-SYNC still seems to be the superior alternative, but even that has some teething problems:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-C ... nce-Review

Importantly it should be noted that G-SYNC seems to be quite monitor-dependent in its specific implementation - the 30 Hz cutoff in the ASUS screen being used so far is based on the specifics of that panel type, not something else. (That said, 30Hz should be a figure any of us can live with: What games have refresh rates at, or would you choose to target a detail level that runs at, 30 frames a second or less?) The necessity of tweaks per panel should hopefully be done by the monitor manufacturer mainly, so that adoption can be quicker.

[Ed Oscuro]

The people over at Overlord Computer have shown how a few things (that I knew were true) are currently affecting the dissemination of G-SYNC technology:

So here is where GSYNC for Tempests stand: in queue.

Since Nvidia handles all the board design for all the OEMs on the planet, for any and all panels they request, Nvidia is a bit overwhelmed at the moment. I was told yesterday that Nvidia only has so much "bandwidth" (person hours) for GSYNC design and those engineers are working their tails off trying to get all the boards done as soon as possible.

What does this mean for our requested panel design? We are not in process yet, but their engineers want to get ours out. However, the larger OEMs are first to be served, which makes sense since Overlord is very small compared to all the others. For now it seems only TN-related panels are being designed.

It is good news that Nvidia's engineers want to tackle our panel and OC PCBs - it is somewhat bad news that there isn't enough hours in the day to get everything done! I was told our panel will be designed, but not when. There also seems to be some discussion as to what extent the overclock on the panel would be set and how that all would work. That discussion is for a later time once the engineers take a look at our gerbers and decide how to best tackle GSYNC and our panel.

Overall, this means once the design is complete we would offer the same deal going for the ASUS 248 panel (and others that will be coming in the next 6 months with GSYNC) - a pre-done panel with GSYNC, a mod service, and a kit (that is the plan at this moment). Of course, all of this can change at any time since we are at the mercy of Nvidia and their schedule.

and also this:

GSYNC does require an entirely new PCB with display port only. There is no module that clicks into any existing PCB since the entire board, with the module, must be tuned to the specific panel being used.

This is the cause for the delay. Nvidia has to hand tune every PCB (input and in some cases the timing controller) to match the panel every OEM wants to use.

Again, we are hoping to have something within the next few months to test, but aren't holding our breath. The goal is to have the new Gsync version available, with a mod service, and a standalone kit. How all this will work is still up in the air as it depends on PCB design, sizing, etc.

It's not clear to me that having the bottleneck at nVidia is bad - aside from the monopoly angle - because it does ensure that the settings used should be worthwhile from the standpoint of the gaming enthusiast. However, to really make the technology hit the prime time I think they will eventually need to shift more of those responsibilities over to the monitor manufacturers.

[blizzz]

From my understanding, AMD will support any monitor that supports variable vblanking. But there are none (or only very few?) that support it. DisplayPort 1.4 also seems to be required. NVidia's G-Sync module implements that tech and makes sure that it works as intended.

So it seems that NVidia is pushing the manufacturers into the right direction. I wouldn't be surprised if we see G-Sync certified monitors in 1-2 years that don't use a module from NVidia and work with both NVidia and AMD cards.

[Ed Oscuro]

I hope you're right. That it's a proprietary thing now doesn't bode well for AMD support, though. I agree that AMD is appearing to look for the easy way out here, which is disappointing.

[blizzz]

A small update: "Adaptive Sync" is now officially part of the DP 1.2a spec. It supports different modes, namely 36-240Hz, 21-144Hz, 17-120Hz and 9-60Hz. This might also be useful for movies.

It will take a while until we see monitors that supports it though. GPU support is present in GCN 1.1 chips on the AMD side (R9 290X, 260X, but not the rebranded cards like 280X). I would suspect that all NVidia cards that support G-Sync could also support Adaptive Sync in theory.

Source: VESA, PC Games Hardware

[Ed Oscuro]

Hey, sounds just as good as G-SYNC promised to be. Feeling hopeful again. There's this:

DisplayPort Adaptive-Sync enables the display to dynamically match a GPU’s rendering rate, on a frame-by-frame basis, to produce a smoother, low latency, gaming experience.

They don't specifically say anything about lag but it sounds like that shouldn't be a problem, if the display basically waits for every frame.

[blizzz]

Acer has announced a 28" 4K gaming monitor with G-Sync support, to be released before the end of June. If the panel is good, this could be an awesome display for MAME.

[source]