NVIDIA’s New Control Panel FPS limiter VS Rivatuner VS In-Engine

What assumptions did I make exactly? Please read my posts again.

Besides, of course users can discuss a program and make assumptions on a forum even if the developer is present.

Anyway, I now connected the Corsair PSU again and will install WoW to add in-game limitation to my own comparisons.

 

So I had another look at the GPU and CPU power consumption of the NVidia v3 vs. RTSS limiter in Total War: Warhammer 2. Limiting to 30 fps while displaying the same save game position on the campaign map via a power + temp limited 2070 Super. CPU clocks were fixed (High Performance), but C1E + C3 c-states were enabled.

I recognize that I use these limiters for different purposes and reasons than most people around here. Nevertheless I did this comparison for myself anyway, so I can just as much share it with the community.

Fullscreen (exclusive) mode:

- Unlimited VSync only drops GPU power consumption slightly at full 1600p, because it is close to the GPU limit (62 fps without VSync). The lower the screen resolution the lower GPU power consumption. CPU power consumption does not drop considerably.

- RTSS' GPU power consumption at full 1600p resolution is only slightly lower (less than 4%) compared to using unlimited VSync. GPU consumption stays high despite GPU load dropping considerably. The lower the resolution is set the more GPU power is saved by RTSS' limiter compared to unlimited VSync, though. CPU power consumption stays the same as unlimited VSync all the way.

- NVidia v3's GPU + CPU power consumption drops by 20 - 25% at 1600p, GPU clock and voltage drops accordingly! The lower the resolution the closer GPU power consumption gets to RTSS' consumption. CPU consumption still remains lower, though.

Windowed (frameless) mode:

- Without limiting VSync only drops GPU power consumption slightly at lower screen resolutions, despite the GPU load / frame-rate difference increasing between VSync off and on with every drop of resolution.

- RTSS' GPU power consumption at full 1600p resolution is only slightly lower (~2%) compared to using unlimited VSync. GPU consumption stays high despite GPU load dropping considerably. The lower the resolution is set the more GPU power is saved by RTSS' limiter compared to unlimited VSync, just like in fullscreen mode. CPU power consumption stays the same as unlimited VSync all the way, though.

- NVidia v3' GPU power consumption, clock rate and voltage is similar to RTSS in windowed mode, so no considerable drop as in fullscreen mode. Only CPU consumption/load still remains lower, which is at least something.

Quick comparison at maximum Performance GPU mode (overclocked):

For better comparison of (overclocked) GPU load differences between VSync and the two limiters I set the NVidia driver to "Maximum Performance" to not allow the GPU to clock down during idle times. GPU clocks still vary depending on GPU temperatures, so I set the fans to 100% to keep variations minimal. Here are some screenshots, but unfortunately I did not add average GPU power to the OSD when I did this early on. Wall measurements varied every second, so I kept them in sight and wrote down a meaningful average. These were done in (exclusive) fullscreen mode, Windows 10 v1909, DirectX 11.









Turn times in strategy games:

I was curious if the lower CPU load from the NVidia limiter results in lower (CPU limited) AI turn times in strategy games. Unfortunately I don't have any TW:WH2 single player save-game that is so deep into late turns that turn times are long enough for proper testing, especially since the times need to be stopped manually via stop-watch. I did some tests with early turn times, which all stayed around 14 seconds, regardless of limiting. I will try a later and much longer turn later again.

So I thought to try the Civilization VI AI (turn time) benchmark test instead, pitting the CIV6 internal limiter against both RTSS and NVidia limiter. Well, results were within 2% (0.5 seconds) of each other, so it does not seem like it matters which limiter you use there. But turn times increased with longer frame-times / lower fps?! So the lower the fps limit the longer the turn times with all three limiters (even in-game!). I don't know if this is a bug of only the AI benchmark or if it also happens in-game. DirectX 11 vs. 12 made no difference.

Last remarks

0.1% lows seem to be better using RTSS, 1% lows are rather close but with a slight advantage for RTSS again (see screenshots). Frame-times seem to be stable using the NVidia limiter, but I noticed that it might to get easier "distracted" by outside effects compared to RTSS. I am not entirely sure, though. Someone playing fast paced shooters via a high refresh display surely can test this much better.

You may notice that the power/efficiency read-out of the Corsair HX750i power-supply via HWinfo does not match the measured power at the wall. I trust the wall measurements (± 1% ± 1 W typical) more than the Corsair in this regard, especially after reading about high measurement tolerances in reviews. It gives a clear picture about the overall power consumption differences and generally is still close enough to be useful.

 

And for the sake of completion, here are screenshots of power draw at NVidia "Optimal Performance" settings. I also threw VSync Adaptive Half Refresh Rate into the ring, which draws more power than using the v3 limiter. Out of curiosity I also tested RTSS Scanline Sync/2, which seems like a great feature, but for my purpose it drew as much power as normal RTSS.

The RTSS screenshots are from before I added GPU Power (about 100 W) to the OSD, but you can see that GPU clock and system power draw is higher compared to the NVidia v3 limiter. You can also see that my „at the wall“ value has a margin of error of a medium single digit watt. On the electric bill the difference between RTSS and v3 is less than 10 EUR per year. But the main idea is to keep temps, fans and thus noise down, even more so on notebooks.

My 2070 Super still reaches over 65C, even though I set MSI Afterburner to limit the GPU at 65C. So at some point its fan has to start spinning, no matter what. But since the Palit fans make some really ugly creaking noise whenever they start spinning from zero I might set the minimum higher than zero anyway.

Unfortunately Fullscreen mode does not like alt-tabbing right after "End Turn" is hit in TW:WH2, so I have to watch out to wait 1-2 seconds after that. This is the reason why I switched to windowed in the past, so I will have to use v3 in practice first.

 

My post wasn't directed only at you (see a couple of pages back), just replied to you.

Sure you can discuss internals but as for comparing the methods mentioned in title this thread has been highly uninformative, hence my remarks.

Anyhow you did good comparison above (exactly the kind of information I'd hope to see) and I'm perfectly aware I'm not contributing anything myself so I'll just stick to lurking this thread for the time being.

 

I went back to previous driver before trying this out as I had some issues (may not have been due to driver version after all) so missed this, but you probably don't need the information anymore.

 

The last two screenshots look slightly wrong with only 10 W difference at the wall. I likely messed that up and it should have been more like 20 W difference judging from the numbers in the screenshot.

 

Worth mentioning: RTSS' limiter only seems to be active when Nvidia‘s limiter is set to a higher FPS limit than RTSS.

 

And I would also assume NVidia's FPS limit only works when RTSS FPS limit is higher than NVidia's... Can't imagine it working any other way.

 

Probably. Once RTSS is set to a lower fps value than NVidia CPU and GPU load increase accordingly, when both are set to the same value CPU/GPU load remains lower and 0.1% low are not improved by RTSS anymore. Too bad that the NVidia limiter can only be changed by restarting the game.

 

This needs correction. Because RTSS does not allow me to use keyboard shortcuts including +-üöä# or the like I switched to ALT(Gr)+CTRL+Shift+ U/I/O/P instead. Turns out that the P is predefined to make the output wobbly in Furmark and even with all the modifier keys it is still recognized. So more or less my fault and nothing wrong with RTSS switching the limiter in an ongoing Furmark run.

 

Guys I need people to test a possible bug with nvidias fps cap setting, It seems that nvidia's fps cap works fine until you alt tab out to desktop from your "fullscreen mode" game and when you switch back into game the fps jumps from 700 down to the fps cap I set again. This does not happen at all when the game is running in "windowed fullscreen mode". Can anyone test it? Explains also why my gpu fans are going nuts and a strong coil whine appears, all this doesnt happen with rivatuners fps cap bc there the fps cap works properly all the time even when alt tabbing out of a fullscreen mode game.

Short: nvidias fps cap is NOT active while you alt tab out of a game which runs in "fullscreen mode", the other modes work fine like "windowed fullscreen mode"

 

Does not happen here. Make sure that you don't touch the "Frame Rate Limiter Mode" setting, but only change the "Framerate Limiter V3" setting. Else the driver seems to be using V2 instead of V3.

 

I dont see such settings, only "max frame rate" I use clean driver which means no geforce experience if thats where you have those settings?

edit: here a picture https://i.imgur.com/uamALlJ.jpg

 

Sorry, I meant within Inspector. I use that because I need 30 fps and the first drivers did not allow lower than 40 fps. New drivers will allow that.

This likely depends on the game. I tested Total War: Warhammer 2. When the fullscreen game is sent to the background then FPS even drop according to Afterburner and all animations seem to stop (restart where I left when I alt-tabbed out). I use a game specific profile instead of global one, but when I tried around with the global I did not notice anything obviously off.

 

Greetings. I really don't understand why, since the NVCP v3 limiter rolled out, there are people systematically spreading misconceptions, misleading and unfounded assertions about the RTSS FPS limiter and how it is supposed to works. It's shameful and disgusting and I'd like to think it's just an unfortunate coincidence.

However, I can understand if @Unwinder is also surprised, disgusted or just fed up with this whole unfounded but systematic and boring campaign agains RTSS, and specifically against its FPS limiter feature.

From what I read here it seems he prefers not to reply to all these falsehoods and nonsenses, as a kind of "Stop. I'm not going to feed these nonseses your are spreading around". However, in my humble opinion -of course, no one better than him to value and decide what to do in this regard -, I suggests that, at this point, a sort of "strong" and technical-based response or statement on his part would be worth it; refuting, for example, step by step the following wide-spread falsehoods I've been reading out there so far (YouTube and reddit seems to be their main current niche "markets"):

• It is supposed to adds input lag,
• Its stability graph it is supposed not to represent correctly,
• It is supposed to negatively affects stability as it causes some kind of high CPU usage level that causes stuttering in games,
• It has compatibility issues and causes games to crash.

That said, I would like to share my small, particular and humble contribution to the main, and most important, issue of this thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/allbenchmarks/comments/f5l6pk/nvidias_control_panel_fps_limiter_vs_rivatuner_vs/

 

You are literally the one to finally provide an in depth look into what the OP was asking. Thank you, sir, for your time and research!

 

Thank you for your words. I'm glad to help and contribute.

 

@Unwinder For what it's worth, I -- and I expect others too -- find your comments are very helpful and contain genuinely useful information which is appreciated.

 

@RodroG Thank you for that reddit post/link, that's just awesome For the input lag tests part at the end, I look forward to seeing further testing down the line. I know BattleNonSense did a test and found the input lag and framepacing was almost identical though RTSS had the more stable frametimes by a hair going off the overlay results to my eye at least. In the comments section, very helpful replies you made too I think so thanks for all your effort.

 

You are welcome. It was a research that I wanted to perform since the NV CP limiter was released, and finally, I had the time and motivation to carry it out. Usually, I'm busy with my regular NVIDIA driver analysis series. I don't know if they are very well known here (I used to publish them on the nvidia subreddit and, for a while now, on r/allbenchmarks only -I'm its creator and one of the moderators-), but I think they can be useful for many users here too.

The issue of the analysis of the approximate input lag is driving me crazy to be honest, and I've not yet managed to solve all the doubts that it raised on a practical level. In fact, I'm in contact with the developers of CapFrameX (CX) and PresentMon in order to try to solve them (but there are technical aspects that I don't understand well though...). If you have time, you can read this related issue-thread from PresentMon GitHUb page (@Unwinder I hope you have time to participate there, I'm sure you have a lot to say or clarify, especially in relation to the RTSS limiter hook).

It is a good video-analysis overall, but the part in which he evaluates the frametime stability of RTSS vs NVCP limiter left me quite "cold" and disappointed. I expected a more in-depth analysis on his part, showing and comparing stability or input lag results in more games, engines and 3D APIs. To be honest, I think that my analysis is more comprehensive stabilty-wise, although both are complementary.