V-Sync Vs. Frame Limiter

probably true but it would be nice if vsync got update so it stops cut the fps down to multiply of the refresh rate when it cant keep up. maybe in 10 years hahha that or all freaking programs/games need to start using multiply core correctly so those games that dont use multi cores correctly and barely using 1 core stop giving us bad fps cause devs cant be bother to give proper multi core support. (heres hoping new consoles being multicore fixes that issue.

Cant game with out vsync tearing just not something i will deal with

 

Closest we got now is in NVidia inspector you can set Vsync to do 1/2, 1/3, and 1/4 the refresh rate. Mostly useful if you have a 120hz monitor and can't do 120fps to use Vsync.

 

It's there, just less noticeable due to the double framerate, the tearing moves away twice as fast. If the tearing is bad you'd see it at even 600fps though.

 

sadly forcing vsync threw NVcp only works in fullscreen games, Windowed games dont seem to work with forced vsync atlest i not found any that do out side of forcing it threw the game which doesnt give adaptive vsync 90% of the time

 

No need for vsync when running games in window mode since DWM is vsynced.

 

i aware of that what i mean is if i want to use the adaptive vsync it it wouldnt work in windows mode games

 

IMO can't beat using adaptive vsync and EVGA's frame target in evga precision. It locks the frame rate to what you set it to but also adjusts the gpu frequency as needed. It adjusts the gpu speed automatically as demand increases/decreases. So if your running a less demanding game it will lower the gpu clock speeds to save power. For example in Civ 5 my 780's clock around 633MHz with like 1.02 volts. Very nice feature imo.

 

That's Boost, not adaptive Vsync. By using adaptive Vsync with a fps limiter you are effectively turning Vsync off, since adaptive Vsync turns Vsync off when the fps goes below the refresh rate.

 

No boost just pushes the card to its max clocks depending on temperature and power limit. The frame rate limit locks the frame rate to what you set it to and also reduces/raises the cards clocks to maintain that frame rate.

 

Oh ok, I thought you were talking about adaptive vsync. But that option still limits the FPS, and with adaptive vsync, it should have no vsync applied.

 

There may be a technical aspect to it but I don't see the "actual" difference between adaptive vsync and a framerate limiter.
I use the latter for all my games and it works very nicely. There's no stuttering or hitching involved, everything is kept fast and snappy.

 

Even if you lock the frame rate to your monitors refresh rate it is still not synced. Vsync does that.

 

If you are happy with tearing then sure no need for VSYNC

I myself have to use both limiter and vsync or I will not play, as I do not play with stutters or tearing, I think it is different on a tiny ass monitor though, I use a 55" HDTV so I have no place for tearing or stutters.

 

As said above tearing really isn't an issue with a 120Hz screen. Input lag, on the other hand, might be even easier to spot.

 

You have less input lag @ 120 hz compared to 60.

 

Yes, exactly. That's why it's easier to spot additional lag.

 

Not sure, but when your FPS is at or above the refresh rate using adaptive vsync, it's just regular old vsync, the input lag is not altered (just non-existent when the FPS goes down), it's purpose is not input lag it's for preventing the FPS from halving when you go below the refresh rate.

 

Yes, guess you're right there. "Regular" vsync without triple buffering is a real pain for various reasons.

 

I HATE color banding!!! It completely ruins gameplay experience. Especially when you are FORCED to look at EVERY. FREAKIN'. TIME. AND. EVERYWHERE.

 

¿Why u waste money on a 144hz if u wanna play at 85hz?, its another world

play at 120hz, i cant imagine 144hz.

Bye