The truth about PRE-RENDERING 0?

oh have no doubt that it happens, It just i think some people go out of there way to find it. I tried with 0 ~ 3 and never saw a diffrence. in any game or program i used in the last 5 years.

This topic is almost like pagefile topic, just not to that extreme yet

 

Agreed.

I only went out of my way during experiments to prove there is a major difference between 0 on r296 drivers and 0 on r300+ (maybe I will decide to provide some nice graphs after all, to silence the criticism from newbies). During gaming though, there's a balance between performance and input lag that I strive for.

Input lag and screen tearing do not exist for most gamers (at least, in their minds). That's what I mean by "ignorance is bliss". This must be why Nvidia doesn't care enough to make certain all control panel options function consistently.

Any time people (trolls?) begin to question facts, and pretend they are knowledgeable, topics eventually end up in the gutter (with everyone left confused from bad information). And it doesn't exactly help when Nvidia themselves provide conflicting/incorrect information right along side it (but as I don't shoot the messenger, I will not fault ManuelG for this).

 

I wish to help you there. But because i don't know what is GPU/GPU's you using, here is some tips i know (because i tested it). nVidia driver version 266.58 WHQL driver have difference between all 0, 1, 2, 3 etc. Most major dif. is between 0 and 1 (on mine system, under XP and 7), and some minor but yet important dif. between 1 and 3/2. You can also test it with app. engine with or without GPU to CPU synchronization, and see impact of all settings in both cases.

First compare dif. between 266 and 296, and if there is none (or just some small driver changes) then compare 296 to 300+ and see if there is a dif.

I don't have time ATM to do this for you (i would do it happily if i have), also have to swap GPU's etc. (too much work), and since here are people who have nVidia cards in their PC's, I'm sure someone will help you (if you are unable to do it for some reason ATM). If you need any help with testing effect of RFA on GPU when in synch with CPU and when is not, contact me, i will explain you trough PM.

 

I run this setting on 3 but not directly on nvidia control panel, i put it on command console on BF3 and the game runs smoother, very big diference. Other games i havent try it yet.. i run the game on ultra except mesh is low and antialiasing is off, and i have around 45-55fps on 64player maps its playable i think....

 

Thanks. I'm away on vacation atm, but I have experience with drivers ever since detonator series and earlier. Prior to r300 drivers a setting of 0 could negatively impact performance by 25% or more in games (which I mentioned earlier in the topic using Skyrim as an example). It just goes to show, 0 should never have been used in drivers before r300 unless minimizing latency was of utmost importance.

 

I managed to grab a screenshot of it for reference, and just in case Nvidia was still reading.



In previous generations, this optimization forced bilinear filtering on non-primary texture stages. Why Nvidia chose to kill it is anyone's guess. Perhaps advancements in texture caching made performance gains negligible.

 

There you go, that confirms it. In case anyone wonder why is this relevant, well, it's because setting 0 really reduce lag on nVidia cards (present in all nVidia cards i tested, some more, some less). It is not much important for current gen nV. cards, but for future will be (since they will not be supported with v2xx) if they don't change it back.

You can always test it with Mafia II game, gameplay (while driving) is changed (in better way) with 0 RFA, at least on mine system.

Also it helps to reduce lag when playing with V-SYNC, but it have quite big effect on performance. I doubt they will listen, but we (consumers/users) can only suggest to change that setting back, and for future to change the way drivers work, in order to remove lag, instead of hunting meaningless FPS, if not, i bet they will do a big favor to ATI/AMD.

 

I doubt they will, since they claim not to realize any difference.

A workaround which helps with a majority of game engines is to limit FPS such that the GPU is not overloaded. That typically prevents the CPU/driver from queuing up too many commands before the GPU is ready for them.

LOL at the person who gave this topic a one star rating. I might not hesitate to do it myself.

 

One can pick up the jar and notice it weighs a wee bit smaller. Think outside off your realm of just vision. I completely agree with you that a human eye isn't fast enough to notice 15 ms input lag, but with other senses combined one can actually feel the difference.

The more a seasoned FPS player his input lag increases, the more he'll start noticing something is "off" or you'll get comments like "my mouse feels a bit more sluggish then usual".

Of course he doesn't fully notice the input lag, but he feels something is wrong, he "senses" something:

"The player researches the issue on google, finds out a new setting or what not causes 15 ms input lag. Player changes the setting to what should get rid of the input lag. Player plays the game, notices the sluggish feeling is gone, feels releaved."

So humans can't pinpoint the exact issue at all times, but people that are good at something requiring reflexes will notice small changes for the worse.

I challenge you to do something nearly invisible to the naked eye that makes Federer's or Nadal's tennis racket less effective, trust me, after some time they'll be touching their racket wondering if there's something wrong with it.

 

Apples to pears noob.

 

^
But wait he's magic Johnson and Stephen Hawking all in one, he knows it all xD


btw Rewt,
Nvidia said 1 is the same as 0 when it comes to input lag, that's all. You should also compare 1 vs 1 not only 0 vs 1, otherwise yes that is like comparing apples to pears :grin:


And GF114 can act different then GF110 or GK104 chip.

Higher values will affect input lag and lower values might affect fps stability in certain games <= although this last part is not a fact.



Edit:

Dunno about you but here it describes it properly. Although you can't change it, its off by default and it appears only when you force AF.

 

I'm playing Skyrim with 1. Can REALLY notice the difference in input lag once you set it back to Auto.

 

i have to ask what pre render use for and what is the best value for reducing lag in games

 

That's different per game.

For example Skyrim lacks a Hardware Cursor so when you set it at 1 you almost eliminate the input lag. Performance wise i havn't tested it yet since i get 60 fps in most places except when closing in on towns, but that's because of bad optimization.

World of Warcraft does have a Hardware Cursor option. So you can leave it at Auto or if you want to squeeze out more FPS play with the settings.

 

so its use for hardware cursor nothing more what about stuttering in games like not full usage of gpu in games and fps going up and down

 

No. The lower the better in ALL games. The lower you set it the more stuttering (tendency not 100%) and generally the less performance (although its usually quite close performance wise. )

 

Nope, it's not "the same" in any form or fashion.

I was only interested in comparing 0 vs 0 and 0 vs 1. If you want to compare 1 vs 1, test it yourself but the results should already be obvious.

 

No. It's just that a hardware cursor generally suffers less input lag and is thus less affected by pre-render limit.

 

@rewt, won't it be better to compare 296.10 @1/0 instead of comparing it to a different driver? 304.87 has also had a lot of Skyrim optimisations compared to 296.10. Only asking because your graph has me curious and it might give a more accurate reading using the one driver.