VESA Launches Compliance Test Specification For AdaptiveSync, MediaSync Displays

[ssokolow]

Looking at the testing criteria, you should pretty much always prefer the "gaming one" over the media one. if the panels are otherwise equal

I'm guessing MediaSync is for when you're helping your grandparents pick a display, knowing that movie-watching is the only thing they really do outside Facebook or MS Office. No doubt, it'll be cheaper than AdaptiveSync.

[kiffmet]

That's why I recommend G-SYNC Compatible monitors, which NVIDIA tested and usually don't have those problems while still being "just FreeSync".

Unfortunately that's not true in my case. I have such a monitor (AG241QX) that was tested and vertified by NVIDIA as "G-Sync compatible" and certified by AMD as "Freesync Premium". When I get down to the lower end of the VRR range or below (30FPS), where LFC should kick in, I get brightness flickering. It's not as bad as I've seen on other panels, but it's still noticable.

In all fairness, it might be a driver issue though, which I can't verify atm.

[Quackdoc]

I'm guessing MediaSync is for when you're helping your grandparents pick a display, knowing that movie-watching is the only thing they really do outside Facebook or MS Office. No doubt, it'll be cheaper than AdaptiveSync.

seems like it. even for consoles I think it will be a nice go for mediasync, another thing is with adaptive sync you will be relying on device side things for frame compensation. since the min enforced VRR is 60hz, which will be fine on desktops and stuff, but I would be hesitant in trusting consoles and TV OS to handle it properly. mediasync VRR is 48, which since the lowest fps you will get in media is 24, allows frame doubling to handle it perfectly.

with adaptivesync since the range is 60hz -> 144hz, it can be done perfectly by quadrupling frames the needed range being 96fps -> 120fps. and most media players should be able to implement this (IE. VLC, MPV etc.). but standard frame doubling won't do it, and as I said, I wouldn't trust vendors to do it properly anyways.

I'm hoping it will become the standard for TV's. one of the largest issues I've seen is VFR -> CFR. it's why a lot of videos have that choppy look to them. VRR helps immensely. I hope the standard of CFR everywhere dies (since VFR can accommodate CFR, but not vice versa)

[zxy_thf]

Looking at the testing criteria, you should pretty much always prefer the "gaming one" over the media one. if the panels are otherwise equal

They're targeting different audiences. If you don't play hours of FPS games everyday the AdaptiveSync is mostly a waste of money.

To me MediaSync + 4K monitors are sweet spots. Not sure why Ultrasharp doesn't have such things in its product line

[caligula]

Because not even AMD cares about Mantle now that they have Vulkan. They recognized that the value of an API is in not being tied to a single hardware vendor.

We should really thank AMD for inventing Vulkan and AMD64 instruction sets.

[Quackdoc]

They're targeting different audiences. If you don't play hours of FPS games everyday the AdaptiveSync is mostly a waste of money.

To me MediaSync + 4K monitors are sweet spots. Not sure why Ultrasharp doesn't have such things in its product line

what I meant is that you get nearly all of the benefits in adaptivesync that you do in mediasync. so if you are looking at getting one or the other, as I said, if panels are otherwise equal, adaptivesync will be the way to go. you don't need to be conflicted with one or another. you won't lose out by getting an adaptivesync monitor over a mediasync one.

But even then I wouldn't say it's a waste of money, we are even seeing consumer smartphones with 90hz displays now, since 60fps just isn't that smooth. honestly even day to day use at a desktop 120hz is way better then 60hz, this is just anecdotal, and could possibly be placebo. but a higher FPS I find to lower eyestrain. and is overall more pleasant to use.

[grung]

After using 144hz screen on daily basis I can say that over 120hz screens should be a standard. It is very difficult to come back to 60hz as you can see mouse stuttering and it is very painful.
Regarding adaptive sync I think that it mostly benefits low end hardware so it would be best if laptop monitors had it as it eliminates tearing and lets you play many demanding games comfortably even in low spec computer.

[billyswong]

what I meant is that you get nearly all of the benefits in adaptivesync that you do in mediasync. so if you are looking at getting one or the other, as I said, if panels are otherwise equal, adaptivesync will be the way to go. you don't need to be conflicted with one or another. you won't lose out by getting an adaptivesync monitor over a mediasync one.

But even then I wouldn't say it's a waste of money, we are even seeing consumer smartphones with 90hz displays now, since 60fps just isn't that smooth. honestly even day to day use at a desktop 120hz is way better then 60hz, this is just anecdotal, and could possibly be placebo. but a higher FPS I find to lower eyestrain. and is overall more pleasant to use.

According to adaptivesync.org there are requirements in MediaSync that are tighter than AdaptiveSync

Test	AdaptiveSync	MediaSync
Adaptive-Sync operation minimum refresh rate range	≤ 60 Hz	≤ 48 Hz
If SuccessiveFrameDuration IncreaseTolerance is present, minimum duration for variable	8.5 ms	1 ms
If SuccessiveFrameDuration DecreaseTolerance is present, minimum duration for variable	9.75 ms	1 ms

So it is possible for a monitor to apply for both certifications. AdaptiveSync is not a strict superset of MediaSync.

[Quackdoc]

So it is possible for a monitor to apply for both certifications. AdaptiveSync is not a strict superset of MediaSync.

I don't see much benefit in it tbh the minumum refresh range is the important factor, but you can just use LFC to boost into range anyway.

the other two could make it worth while, but I doubt many will miss it all too much

[billyswong]

I don't see much benefit in it tbh the minumum refresh range is the important factor, but you can just use LFC to boost into range anyway.

the other two could make it worth while, but I doubt many will miss it all too much

Hmm, maybe for mobile GPU that want to conserve battery? Lower refresh rate means less work to do. Or just because the first badge is advertising itself for "gaming" while the second badge is advertising itself for "movie watching". Having both of them means it is easier to sell to customers "hey, I can do both!"