Guru3D.com Forums

Go Back   Guru3D.com Forums > Videocards > Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce Drivers Section
Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce Drivers Section In this section you can discuss everything GeForce driver related. GeForce ForceWare and GeForce Exerience drivers are for NVIDIA Quadro and all GeForce based videocards.



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old
  (#26)
jorimt
Newbie
 
jorimt's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 1080 FTW 8GB
Processor: i7-4770k @4.2GHz
Mainboard: ASRock Z87 Extreme4
Memory: 16GB G.SKILL Sniper @1866
Soundcard: Creative Sound Blaster Z
PSU: EVGA SuperNOVA 750W G2
Default 07-04-2017, 04:27 | posts: 24

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mda400 View Post
Where's the "use 3d application setting" variable
Erm, I tested V-SYNC OFF (“Use the 3D application setting” + in-game V-SYNC disabled) with Nvidia Inspector's stock v1 and v2 limiters in my article:
https://i.gyazo.com/7c350d643d8cb551...81f0ee5059.png

That's exactly the scenario you specified, and it adds up to two frames, even with V-SYNC OFF.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mda400 View Post
You know what I mean. I mean, you keep advocating for that article and in it explains why "use 3d application setting" isn't used. If all possible variables are not used, its not a fair experiment.
The above quote shows you claim to have read the article, but you obviously didn't (or didn't pay attention), because I never said anything about not using "use 3d application setting," so your "its not a fair experiment" comment doesn't have a foundation here, at least in that context.

In fact, all the V-SYNC OFF results in the article (including G-SYNC + V-SYNC "Off") were “Use the 3D application setting” + in-game V-SYNC disabled.

I noted this directly in my article:

Quote:
and “V-SYNC OFF” or “G-SYNC + V-SYNC ‘Off'” signify that “Use the 3D application setting” was applied w/V-SYNC disabled in-game.
And:

Quote:
Yet again, the results for V-SYNC and V-SYNC OFF (“Use the 3D application setting” + in-game V-SYNC disabled) show standard, out-of-the-box usage of both Nvidia’s v1 and v2 FPS limiter introduce the expected 2 frames of delay.
The image RealNC linked was a forum-exclusive chart that I did after all of my other tests. I had to retain a proper control while testing, and couldn't update drivers until I was finished. That new setting has a 1 frame latency reduction when combined with G-SYNC (more likely a driver flag responsible, not Fast Sync itself, who knows), but that's not saying much, since stock v1 and v2 add up to 3 1/2 frames of delay with G-SYNC enabled. I ran out of time to test all variables for that very specific scenario in the forum post.

That new setting may or may not allow a reduction over the stock v1/v2 with standalone V-SYNC or V-SYNC OFF. All I know is the stock, out-of-the-box v1 and v2 limiters (sans the new setting, which hasn't fully been tested and may not stick/last for later driver releases) add at least two frames of latency no matter what syncing method or lack thereof you use.

I think there is a reason Nvidia doesn't expose the limiter officially; it isn't ready for primetime, especially when used with G-SYNC.

Last edited by jorimt; 07-04-2017 at 05:02.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#27)
Mda400
Master Guru
 
Mda400's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 980 1519/7906mhz
Processor: i7-4790k @ 4.7ghz 1.29v
Mainboard: Asus z97-E LGA 1150
Memory: 16GB Corsair DDR3 2400mhz
Soundcard: LG LHB326 Receiver (HDMI)
PSU: Ultra X4 1050w (76A 12v)
Default 07-09-2017, 06:20 | posts: 596 | Location: Minnesota

All i will say is that when VRR becomes a connection medium feature and not a GPU driver feature that requires extra hardware in the display, there will be a change in these results as anything driver controlled (including G-Sync) adds overhead/delay to an application.

Taking as much work off of interpreting hardware into software needs is what needs to be focused on overall.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#28)
jorimt
Newbie
 
jorimt's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 1080 FTW 8GB
Processor: i7-4770k @4.2GHz
Mainboard: ASRock Z87 Extreme4
Memory: 16GB G.SKILL Sniper @1866
Soundcard: Creative Sound Blaster Z
PSU: EVGA SuperNOVA 750W G2
Default 07-09-2017, 15:42 | posts: 24

I don't want to argue here, or drag this out longer than needed, but I'm slightly confused by your "All i will say is that when VRR becomes a connection medium feature and not a GPU driver feature that requires extra hardware in the display, there will be a change in these results" comment.

If you are saying that if Nvidia finds a way to limit framerate outside of the driver, then yes, I agree, the results will change, but if you're saying if Nvidia finds a way to achieve G-SYNC outside of hardware AND the driver, that the results of my test would change with the Nvidia framerate limiter, then no, they wouldn't.

V-SYNC OFF is literally no sync. This means it's not being controlled at a hardware or driver level, in fact, there is nothing to control, as it merely represents the raw output of the system. Even there, the framerate limiter adds "overhead/delay."

FreeSync's driver-level limiter (which, unlike Nvidia's, is officially supported/exposed) adds 2 frames of delay as well.

If a framerate limiter can't intercept render time at the engine-level (dictate render time before the frame is rendered), then it can't avoid delay, or at least reduce latency, whereas in-game limiters can, plain and simple.

RTSS can basically break even in this respect being at CPU-level, but I personally don't see how Nvidia or AMD can create an as low or lower latency limiter, since they only have access to the system through drivers/GPU.

Last edited by jorimt; 07-09-2017 at 15:59.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#29)
Mda400
Master Guru
 
Mda400's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 980 1519/7906mhz
Processor: i7-4790k @ 4.7ghz 1.29v
Mainboard: Asus z97-E LGA 1150
Memory: 16GB Corsair DDR3 2400mhz
Soundcard: LG LHB326 Receiver (HDMI)
PSU: Ultra X4 1050w (76A 12v)
Default 07-10-2017, 18:25 | posts: 596 | Location: Minnesota

v1 is the CPU limiter. v2 is the driver limiter.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#30)
jorimt
Newbie
 
jorimt's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 1080 FTW 8GB
Processor: i7-4770k @4.2GHz
Mainboard: ASRock Z87 Extreme4
Memory: 16GB G.SKILL Sniper @1866
Soundcard: Creative Sound Blaster Z
PSU: EVGA SuperNOVA 750W G2
Default 07-10-2017, 19:38 | posts: 24

Are you saying the new v1 option is on CPU side, or are you saying the v1 limiter has always been on CPU side? If it's the latter, it does a poor job of reducing latency over the v2 driver side limiter, at least going by my tests, where they are basically a wash.

Again, I'd have to test the new v1 option more thoroughly with non-G-SYNC scenarios, but I don't have an ETA on that. All I know now, is CPU side or not, Nvidia's limiter should not be paired it with G-SYNC, at least where RTSS can be used instead.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#31)
Mda400
Master Guru
 
Mda400's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 980 1519/7906mhz
Processor: i7-4790k @ 4.7ghz 1.29v
Mainboard: Asus z97-E LGA 1150
Memory: 16GB Corsair DDR3 2400mhz
Soundcard: LG LHB326 Receiver (HDMI)
PSU: Ultra X4 1050w (76A 12v)
Default 07-17-2017, 17:33 | posts: 596 | Location: Minnesota

Quote:
Originally Posted by jorimt View Post
Are you saying the new v1 option is on CPU side, or are you saying the v1 limiter has always been on CPU side? If it's the latter, it does a poor job of reducing latency over the v2 driver side limiter, at least going by my tests, where they are basically a wash.
It's the latter. Somewhere after driver 368 or 2.1.x.x profile inspector both limiter options produce the same limiting behavior (force vsync off and both limiter versions would hold the tearing line like there was a third buffer being used).

v1 (with profile inspector 2.1.3.6+) now limits the framerate like it did before those versions (inconsistent frametime but less delay with variating tearing line just like RTSS produces). It was around the time Fast-Sync was introduced into the driver (which also uses a third buffer). It was probably a flag issue with profile inspector or a problem in the drivers itself. A good indicator of this is if you use GoW 4's benchmark (yes i know this has an in-game frame-limiter), v1 limiter should throttle at the CPU/Draw stage and v2 should throttle at the RHI.

Since G-Sync and profile inspector's frame-rate limiters work through the driver (although one controls the rate at which the CPU feeds the driver frames and one controls how fast the GPU renders them), I would concur that it might have a different effect than using a different limiting method such as RTSS, when using G-Sync.

I make the claim that since G-Sync is not universal, people should not use these test results as universal proof that the driver's limiters are worse than an external program such as RTSS.

G-Sync aside, using RTSS means the program will need to be kept running and poll/hook the application its limiting in the background. This creates a seperate process as it takes CPU cycles (delay). The v1 or v2 limiter work from the driver and does not create a seperate process for it to take CPU cycles from, rather it throttles it in the render pipeline. The difference between the versions is at what stage it throttles.

Last edited by Mda400; 07-17-2017 at 17:55.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#32)
RealNC
Maha Guru
 
RealNC's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW
Processor: Intel Core i5 2500K
Mainboard: MSI P67A-C43
Memory: DDR3 16GB
Soundcard: Asus Xonar D1, JBL Spot
PSU: Corsair HX650
Default 07-18-2017, 20:06 | posts: 1,096

I don't think the RTSS frame limiter runs in a separate process. It should run in the same process as the game its applying the frame limit to.

It is my understanding that when you hook a function call, the game calls the function, not RTSS. (That's the whole point of hooking a function.) The function call is executed in the game's process.

That means there should be no delay due to process scheduling and the RTSS process has no impact on game performance.

Last edited by RealNC; 07-18-2017 at 20:10.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#33)
Mda400
Master Guru
 
Mda400's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 980 1519/7906mhz
Processor: i7-4790k @ 4.7ghz 1.29v
Mainboard: Asus z97-E LGA 1150
Memory: 16GB Corsair DDR3 2400mhz
Soundcard: LG LHB326 Receiver (HDMI)
PSU: Ultra X4 1050w (76A 12v)
Default 07-18-2017, 20:55 | posts: 596 | Location: Minnesota

Quote:
Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
I don't think the RTSS frame limiter runs in a separate process. It should run in the same process as the game its applying the frame limit to.

It is my understanding that when you hook a function call, the game calls the function, not RTSS. (That's the whole point of hooking a function.) The function call is executed in the game's process.

That means there should be no delay due to process scheduling and the RTSS process has no impact on game performance.
RTSS.exe will be running in your task manager which is a 'separate' process. When it hooks and polls an application, it basically inserts itself between the driver and application. When the driver's frame limiters are enabled, they don't create a separate process.

Any software that polls hardware will cause delay as it has to travel through the processor to read the other components in your PC. For example, netgraph in source (polls the network interface), Statnet/StatFPS in Unreal Engine (polls the network interface or GPU).

This is why I don't leave RTSS for onscreen resource usage or game specific commands to observe my latency/fps running all the time.

Last edited by Mda400; 07-18-2017 at 21:00.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#34)
RealNC
Maha Guru
 
RealNC's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW
Processor: Intel Core i5 2500K
Mainboard: MSI P67A-C43
Memory: DDR3 16GB
Soundcard: Asus Xonar D1, JBL Spot
PSU: Corsair HX650
Default 07-18-2017, 21:11 | posts: 1,096

The frame limiter doesn't poll the application. It runs in the process of the application.

If you're referring to the OSD statistics, that is a separate thing. You can use the frame limiter even with OSD support set to "disabled".

If on the other hand you're referring to application launch detection, why would RTSS poll for that if it can just use WMI to get notified of process starts? That's how I do it. Polling all the time for that doesn't make sense, and it's less accurate (you can miss events.)

Last edited by RealNC; 07-18-2017 at 21:13.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#35)
jorimt
Newbie
 
jorimt's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 1080 FTW 8GB
Processor: i7-4770k @4.2GHz
Mainboard: ASRock Z87 Extreme4
Memory: 16GB G.SKILL Sniper @1866
Soundcard: Creative Sound Blaster Z
PSU: EVGA SuperNOVA 750W G2
Default 07-18-2017, 22:43 | posts: 24

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mda400 View Post
G-Sync aside, using RTSS means the program will need to be kept running and poll/hook the application its limiting in the background. This creates a seperate process as it takes CPU cycles (delay). The v1 or v2 limiter work from the driver and does not create a seperate process for it to take CPU cycles from, rather it throttles it in the render pipeline. The difference between the versions is at what stage it throttles.
Now I think we're getting to the crux of your personal issue with using RTSS; you contend it has a performance impact.

My understanding is that RTSS performs the injection process once; it is not continual. Also, I'm pretty sure RTSS only takes up idle CPU cycles in-between game processes, and while this can show as higher CPU usage in overlays, it isn't actually affecting performance, otherwise this would show on benchmarks (which to my knowledge, it doesn't).

G-SYNC or no G-SYNC, the Nvidia limiter may have obscure uses, and it of course may be the only option if an in-game limiter isn't present, or RTSS can't be used for whatever reason, but I have yet to come across a scenario where the Nvidia limiter matches RTSS latency levels, let alone beats them.

My question at this point is if you personally can't discern a latency difference between RTSS and Nvidia's limiter, why do you care to defend the latter?

I'm all for choice (the user may implement whatever method they wish), but thus far, Nvidia's limiter is plain old laggier than RTSS, and I'm not certain why this fact has become so contentious.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#36)
theahae
Newbie
 
Videocard: Nvidia Geforce GTX 1060
Processor: Intel Core i5 4460
Mainboard: Asus H97m-e
Memory: 8GB Kingston 1333Mhz
Soundcard: Built in
PSU: Corsair CX750M
Default 07-19-2017, 02:06 | posts: 14

Delete

Last edited by theahae; 07-19-2017 at 02:37.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#37)
Mda400
Master Guru
 
Mda400's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 980 1519/7906mhz
Processor: i7-4790k @ 4.7ghz 1.29v
Mainboard: Asus z97-E LGA 1150
Memory: 16GB Corsair DDR3 2400mhz
Soundcard: LG LHB326 Receiver (HDMI)
PSU: Ultra X4 1050w (76A 12v)
Default 07-19-2017, 13:17 | posts: 596 | Location: Minnesota

Quote:
Originally Posted by jorimt View Post
Now I think we're getting to the crux of your personal issue with using RTSS; you contend it has a performance impact.

My question at this point is if you personally can't discern a latency difference between RTSS and Nvidia's limiter, why do you care to defend the latter?
Well i personally can, but thats just me right? Without executing anything, RTSS is sitting there polling for something to hook onto. You close it and notice a slight reduction in delay from your mouse.

The latter is just a set and forget. It works without needing a process running. Again because used in tandem with G-Sync which also works in the driver, it could have negative effects (as shown by your data) than using it with a non-G Sync display.

Last edited by Mda400; 07-19-2017 at 13:22.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#38)
jorimt
Newbie
 
jorimt's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 1080 FTW 8GB
Processor: i7-4770k @4.2GHz
Mainboard: ASRock Z87 Extreme4
Memory: 16GB G.SKILL Sniper @1866
Soundcard: Creative Sound Blaster Z
PSU: EVGA SuperNOVA 750W G2
Default 07-19-2017, 16:21 | posts: 24

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mda400 View Post
Without executing anything, RTSS is sitting there polling for something to hook onto. You close it and notice a slight reduction in delay from your mouse.
I don't believe RTSS is affecting the mouse response at all when being used as an overlay only, or idle on the desktop. It only adds <1 frame of delay when being used to limit the framerate, and only when it is the limiting factor.

As for Nvidia's limiter, what's the use of its process-less "set and forget" over RTSS if it adds at least 1 more frame of delay, even in non-G-SYNC modes? And for arguments sake, let's say RTSS is adding polling delay to the mouse (which I can't prove at this point one way or the other); if it's still lower latency than the Nvidia limiter, even with the supposed mouse lag, what does that or the fact that RTSS is a separate process matter?

The bottom-line is RTSS currently has less net lag than Nvidia's limiter. Your distaste on how it achieves this doesn't change that fact.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#39)
Mda400
Master Guru
 
Mda400's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 980 1519/7906mhz
Processor: i7-4790k @ 4.7ghz 1.29v
Mainboard: Asus z97-E LGA 1150
Memory: 16GB Corsair DDR3 2400mhz
Soundcard: LG LHB326 Receiver (HDMI)
PSU: Ultra X4 1050w (76A 12v)
Default 07-19-2017, 17:39 | posts: 596 | Location: Minnesota

Quote:
Originally Posted by jorimt View Post
The bottom-line is RTSS currently has less net lag than Nvidia's limiter. Your distaste on how it achieves this doesn't change that fact.
With G-Sync maybe so, but universally?
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#40)
jorimt
Newbie
 
jorimt's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 1080 FTW 8GB
Processor: i7-4770k @4.2GHz
Mainboard: ASRock Z87 Extreme4
Memory: 16GB G.SKILL Sniper @1866
Soundcard: Creative Sound Blaster Z
PSU: EVGA SuperNOVA 750W G2
Default 07-19-2017, 18:03 | posts: 24

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mda400 View Post
With G-Sync maybe so, but universally?
So again, you didn't look at my standalone V-SYNC OFF results?

Nvidia's limiter with V-SYNC OFF showed nearly a 2 1/2 frame delay (both v1 and v2) over V-SYNC OFF with an in-game FPS limit (https://i.gyazo.com/7c350d643d8cb551...81f0ee5059.png), which was about a 1 1/2 frame delay over RTSS in the same scenario (https://i.gyazo.com/babe29dc93820cdc...e9677b5c4d.png).
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#41)
Agent-A01
Ancient Guru
 
Agent-A01's Avatar
 
Videocard: 1080Ti H20
Processor: i7 5930K 4.7GHz H20
Mainboard: ASUS X99-AU31
Memory: G.Skill 32GB 3200C12
Soundcard: ASUS Phoebus
PSU: EVGA P2-1200W
Default 07-19-2017, 18:42 | posts: 9,487 | Location: USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mda400 View Post
With G-Sync maybe so, but universally?
Yes, for the hundredth time.
RTSS is superior in every way compared to NV inspector.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#42)
RealNC
Maha Guru
 
RealNC's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW
Processor: Intel Core i5 2500K
Mainboard: MSI P67A-C43
Memory: DDR3 16GB
Soundcard: Asus Xonar D1, JBL Spot
PSU: Corsair HX650
Default 07-19-2017, 19:38 | posts: 1,096

To me, this sounds like a smoker who's being told to hang an air freshener on the mirror, but refuses to do so because the air freshener adds weight to the car and thus will increase fuel consumption and lower car acceleration.

The claim that closing RTSS somehow lowers latency on the mouse is like saying that removing the air freshener makes the car accelerate faster.

We don't know if RTSS is polling for processes. Even if it did, that doesn't affect anything. Lots of processes and drivers in Windows are polling for random things all the time. It does not affect anything.

But is RTSS even polling at all? Why would it? As said previously, Windows can tell you when a process is starting. You register a callback, and Windows will call it, telling you which process is starting. There is no polling required.

All of this doesn't take anything away from nvidia's driver-level limiter, btw. It's a perfectly fine user preference, everyone can use their computer however they please. People have been using profile inspector to enable the limiter for a long time now, and they're happy with it. Again, that's perfectly fine and no one has the right to force anyone to use something they don't want. However, misinformation is not a good thing. If you say that RTSS is increasing mouse latency and lowers performance, that claim needs to be backed up. Either with data, or if that's not possible, then with some repeatable test that people can perform.

RTSS might in fact lower game performance. I don't know. But I would like some test to go along with that claim. Like a benchmark or something.

Last edited by RealNC; 07-19-2017 at 19:40.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#43)
Agent-A01
Ancient Guru
 
Agent-A01's Avatar
 
Videocard: 1080Ti H20
Processor: i7 5930K 4.7GHz H20
Mainboard: ASUS X99-AU31
Memory: G.Skill 32GB 3200C12
Soundcard: ASUS Phoebus
PSU: EVGA P2-1200W
Default 07-19-2017, 20:49 | posts: 9,487 | Location: USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
To me, this sounds like a smoker who's being told to hang an air freshener on the mirror, but refuses to do so because the air freshener adds weight to the car and thus will increase fuel consumption and lower car acceleration.
Hah, that reminds me of an episode in That 70s show where kelso removed car's seatbelts to make it go faster.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#44)
jorimt
Newbie
 
jorimt's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 1080 FTW 8GB
Processor: i7-4770k @4.2GHz
Mainboard: ASRock Z87 Extreme4
Memory: 16GB G.SKILL Sniper @1866
Soundcard: Creative Sound Blaster Z
PSU: EVGA SuperNOVA 750W G2
Default 07-20-2017, 03:29 | posts: 24

My intention has not been to demean or "one up" Mda400.

I truly have wanted to communicate. I just wish he would pay more attention to the results we have been discussing.

I post results and references (multiple times), and the contents of his replies make it seem like I've never offered them.

Mda400, your communication style is a bit perplexing; it's like you're never fully paying attention, let alone bothering to study the sources we are referencing. Every reply is like a reset back to the initial conversation.

I feel like I'm talking in circles at this point...

Last edited by jorimt; 07-20-2017 at 03:32.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#45)
Mda400
Master Guru
 
Mda400's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 980 1519/7906mhz
Processor: i7-4790k @ 4.7ghz 1.29v
Mainboard: Asus z97-E LGA 1150
Memory: 16GB Corsair DDR3 2400mhz
Soundcard: LG LHB326 Receiver (HDMI)
PSU: Ultra X4 1050w (76A 12v)
Default 07-20-2017, 16:25 | posts: 596 | Location: Minnesota

Quote:
Originally Posted by jorimt View Post
My intention has not been to demean or "one up" Mda400.
I hope not. I'm trying to keep myself as formal about this as possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jorimt View Post
I truly have wanted to communicate. I just wish he would pay more attention to the results we have been discussing.
This isn't communicating? You're saying you want me to take your results at face value when I know there's other variables that aren't detailed in your articles. "Good enough" is a very opinionated statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jorimt View Post
Mda400, your communication style is a bit perplexing; it's like you're never fully paying attention, let alone bothering to study the sources we are referencing. Every reply is like a reset back to the initial conversation.
In other words, let's agree to disagree. We are discussing two sides and I choose to advocate the inspector side while you advocate the RTSS side. Yes you have colorful graphs and I only have words, but that doesn't bar me from putting in my opinions. You want me to eat crow, video is the only thing that is believable for something this specific and caused by many factors.

Last edited by Mda400; 07-20-2017 at 17:41.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#46)
Mda400
Master Guru
 
Mda400's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 980 1519/7906mhz
Processor: i7-4790k @ 4.7ghz 1.29v
Mainboard: Asus z97-E LGA 1150
Memory: 16GB Corsair DDR3 2400mhz
Soundcard: LG LHB326 Receiver (HDMI)
PSU: Ultra X4 1050w (76A 12v)
Default 07-20-2017, 16:45 | posts: 596 | Location: Minnesota

Quote:
Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
To me, this sounds like a smoker who's being told to hang an air freshener on the mirror, but refuses to do so because the air freshener adds weight to the car and thus will increase fuel consumption and lower car acceleration.
That's ironic, considering we have gone into such detail about what causes input delay that anything like a "car freshener" would skew the results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
But is RTSS even polling at all? Why would it? As said previously, Windows can tell you when a process is starting. You register a callback, and Windows will call it, telling you which process is starting. There is no polling required.
While the application is hooked to another process, it needs to poll that process and the hardware its using for its state. RTSS may take very little cycles to limit the framerate and poll the application, but it is doing so nonetheless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
All of this doesn't take anything away from nvidia's driver-level limiter, btw. It's a perfectly fine user preference, everyone can use their computer however they please. People have been using profile inspector to enable the limiter for a long time now, and they're happy with it. Again, that's perfectly fine and no one has the right to force anyone to use something they don't want.
If it was perfectly fine, then we wouldn't be trying to prove which one is better. People don't use a lesser product for the same cost (in this case, free). Until that end is why we debate..

Quote:
Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
However, misinformation is not a good thing. If you say that RTSS is increasing mouse latency and lowers performance, that claim needs to be backed up. Either with data, or if that's not possible, then with some repeatable test that people can perform.
Finally something we agree on. I have given these and so have you. I need to make some colored graphs though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
RTSS might in fact lower game performance. I don't know. But I would like some test to go along with that claim. Like a benchmark or something.
I did say that was on old hardware and it would not be very noticeable with today's hardware. Like running a 1000hz mouse on an old 1.6ghz pentium M versus an i7-3770k.

Last edited by Mda400; 07-20-2017 at 16:52.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#47)
jorimt
Newbie
 
jorimt's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 1080 FTW 8GB
Processor: i7-4770k @4.2GHz
Mainboard: ASRock Z87 Extreme4
Memory: 16GB G.SKILL Sniper @1866
Soundcard: Creative Sound Blaster Z
PSU: EVGA SuperNOVA 750W G2
Default 07-20-2017, 17:49 | posts: 24

I tried Mda400, but since I know you aren't actually going to read through or acknowledge any of my further clarifications or explanations, and you haven't bothered to assimilate my previous points (going so far as to completely misquote my article), I'm checking out of this conversation now; it has gone on long enough.

Hopefully other users will be able to draw their own conclusions on this subject from our posts thus far; there is plenty of material.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#48)
Mda400
Master Guru
 
Mda400's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 980 1519/7906mhz
Processor: i7-4790k @ 4.7ghz 1.29v
Mainboard: Asus z97-E LGA 1150
Memory: 16GB Corsair DDR3 2400mhz
Soundcard: LG LHB326 Receiver (HDMI)
PSU: Ultra X4 1050w (76A 12v)
Default 07-20-2017, 19:37 | posts: 596 | Location: Minnesota

Quote:
Originally Posted by jorimt View Post
Hopefully other users will be able to draw their own conclusions on this subject from our posts thus far; there is plenty of material.
Which is what I basically have said in the end to everybody I have debated these two solutions with. There are many variables to reducing latency, some you may not use that I use otherwise and vice versa.

If you set a latency floor you are trying to achieve with a certain group of settings then it may be easier to debate which is the more superior solution, but latency is a major component of computing and with the claim of settings depending on other settings (fast sync + v1 limiter for example), then we don't know what other settings might depend on other settings.

I still discover settings that affect delay that I never realized were there before...

Last edited by Mda400; 07-20-2017 at 19:43.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#49)
RealNC
Maha Guru
 
RealNC's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX 980 Ti FTW
Processor: Intel Core i5 2500K
Mainboard: MSI P67A-C43
Memory: DDR3 16GB
Soundcard: Asus Xonar D1, JBL Spot
PSU: Corsair HX650
Default 07-20-2017, 20:05 | posts: 1,096

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mda400 View Post
Finally something we agree on. I have given these and so have you. I need to make some colored graphs though.
That's just insulting. You don't even realize the tremendous amount of work that went into producing those graphs. How much time it took, and the amount of data it required.

You're insinuating that all that was done is "draw some colored graphs".

You have NO idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mda400 View Post
If it was perfectly fine, then we wouldn't be trying to prove which one is better. People don't use a lesser product for the same cost (in this case, free). Until that end is why we debate.
No, that is not why we debate. We debate the issue of having provided proof, and you claiming it's not proof, and furthermore downplaying the proof as "colored graphs", while having no clue what it took to produce them.

Last edited by RealNC; 07-20-2017 at 20:10.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#50)
Agent-A01
Ancient Guru
 
Agent-A01's Avatar
 
Videocard: 1080Ti H20
Processor: i7 5930K 4.7GHz H20
Mainboard: ASUS X99-AU31
Memory: G.Skill 32GB 3200C12
Soundcard: ASUS Phoebus
PSU: EVGA P2-1200W
Default 07-20-2017, 21:01 | posts: 9,487 | Location: USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
That's just insulting. You don't even realize the tremendous amount of work that went into producing those graphs. How much time it took, and the amount of data it required.
Just ignore this dude, let him live in his own little world.

He says all the work that jorimt has done is just pretty coloured graphs.
He also said battlenonsense was making up **** with his graphs too.

Yet he makes all these claims about RTSS but does not even provide proof.

He is hopelessly dense.

@jorimt sorry you have to deal with people like this, I guess that's life though.
   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright (c) 2017, All Rights Reserved. The Guru of 3D, the Hardware Guru, and 3D Guru are trademarks owned by Hilbert Hagedoorn.