Reading that, it sounds like triple buffering is already a better solution to this problem. It sounds simpler than requiring a specially embedded DSP from Nvidia in your monitor to talk with your Nvidia card (and only with your Nvidia card).

Triple buffering does not solve the problem. If your monitor is locked at 60Hz and your rendering can't produce more than, say, 55 frames per second then you're going to have to display the same frame for multiple monitor refresh cycles. The monitor will typically show every rendered frame for 2 refresh cycles, with triple buffering you may be able to occasionally show a frame for just one cycle.

With something like G-Sync you can instead show 55 frames per second.

My understanding from nivla's link is that triple buffering does solve the problem. Rather than experiencing the Frequency/N fps drop when the card can't push out enough frames, triple buffering lets the display's framerate stay at the framerate the card is pushing, with the price being VRAM overhead.

But perhaps I'm misunderstanding the problem statement. The link talks merely about fps drops and how triple buffering can permit the display to be more efficient than Frequency/N fps by essentially pipelining the frames over 3 buffers to keep the monitor's framerate at the graphic card's framerate. However, it accomplishes this by having some frames stay for 2 cycles and others for 1. I don't know how noticeable this is. Perhaps it's a perceptible problem, in which case being able to dynamically manipulate the display's refresh rate is a suitable solution. Granted, at the current price range it sounds like a cheaper solution would be to simply buy a newer model graphics card that can maintain an FPS greater than or equal to your monitor's refresh rate. Though of course I'm sure the goal is to drive the price down and it appears they already have display partners lined up to integrate their embedded DSP.

Triple-buffering doesn't help that much, and it adds an extra frame of latency, which is really bad.