SpyderTracks
We love you Ukraine
This is really interesting.
NVidia have always been touted as the premium option for variable refresh rate, and certainly when Freesync and GSync started hitting the market, I don't doubt that was true.
For those who don't realise, GSync uses a hardware model to achieve variable refresh rates, the hardware module is expensive, around £100 per module, so the price of true GSync monitors will always be more than a Freesync one.
Freesync monitors are purely software driven within the GPU driver itself. In the early days of Freesync, the range where Freesync would actually be able to run was usually pretty strict, ie from 80fps up to 120fps or something of that order and even then there was often stuttering.
Nowadays though, I would argue that Freesync is just as effective as GSync in the main, and it's becoming the case that you see far more "GSync Compatible" screens (which are actually Freesync screens that NVidia have tested and meet their criteria to have their name stamped on them) and full GSync very much appears to be disappearing. There are even some manufacturers like Samsung who actively refuse to release any GSync screens.
And now this, this is worth watching.
GSync Ultimate was the top tier of what true GSync could achieve, and USED to mean that the following basic criteria were met (remember Gsync Compatible is actually Freesync that NVidia have tested and deem worthy of their branding):
Now it seems, without publicly stating any change in their determination of what meets Ultimate status, they've certified the below monitor as GSync ultimate. It only has 56 backlighting zones which means it doesn't meet the basic HDR certification standards of 128. It's also edge lit instead of FALD which also means it doesn't qualify as HDR. It also failed to reach 1000 nits in a lot of metrics.
Now is this MSI's problem? Are they mis selling the monitor and stating things that aren't true? Well, no, it's purely down to NVidia slapping on a premium certified badge when the monitor fails to meet the basic requirements for that certification.
So why have NVidia lowered what was the ultimate monitor branding?
My guess is there are very few people buying full GSync screens anymore.
Freesync has come such a long way, you don't pay the bumped up premium for the NVidia licensing and hardware module, and you still get just as good performance.
NVidia have always been touted as the premium option for variable refresh rate, and certainly when Freesync and GSync started hitting the market, I don't doubt that was true.
For those who don't realise, GSync uses a hardware model to achieve variable refresh rates, the hardware module is expensive, around £100 per module, so the price of true GSync monitors will always be more than a Freesync one.
Freesync monitors are purely software driven within the GPU driver itself. In the early days of Freesync, the range where Freesync would actually be able to run was usually pretty strict, ie from 80fps up to 120fps or something of that order and even then there was often stuttering.
Nowadays though, I would argue that Freesync is just as effective as GSync in the main, and it's becoming the case that you see far more "GSync Compatible" screens (which are actually Freesync screens that NVidia have tested and meet their criteria to have their name stamped on them) and full GSync very much appears to be disappearing. There are even some manufacturers like Samsung who actively refuse to release any GSync screens.
And now this, this is worth watching.
GSync Ultimate was the top tier of what true GSync could achieve, and USED to mean that the following basic criteria were met (remember Gsync Compatible is actually Freesync that NVidia have tested and deem worthy of their branding):
| G-Sync | G-Sync Ultimate | G-Sync Compatible |
|---|---|---|
| Validated for artifact-free performance | Validated for artifact-free performance | Validated for artifact-free performance |
| Certified with over 300 tests | Certified with over 300 tests | |
| Certified for 1,000 nits brightness with HDR |
Now it seems, without publicly stating any change in their determination of what meets Ultimate status, they've certified the below monitor as GSync ultimate. It only has 56 backlighting zones which means it doesn't meet the basic HDR certification standards of 128. It's also edge lit instead of FALD which also means it doesn't qualify as HDR. It also failed to reach 1000 nits in a lot of metrics.
Now is this MSI's problem? Are they mis selling the monitor and stating things that aren't true? Well, no, it's purely down to NVidia slapping on a premium certified badge when the monitor fails to meet the basic requirements for that certification.
So why have NVidia lowered what was the ultimate monitor branding?
My guess is there are very few people buying full GSync screens anymore.
Freesync has come such a long way, you don't pay the bumped up premium for the NVidia licensing and hardware module, and you still get just as good performance.
Last edited: