V-Sync Vs. Frame Limiter

Why should this happen?
Worked fine for me in Dishonored with 72fps. With Vsync it should only be "choppy" if you can't keep the refresh rate in fps which is fully normal because frames have to be repeated.

 

With Triple Buffering on: VSync @ 60FPS @ 120Hz is identical to VSync @ 60FPS @ 60Hz. This implies that VSync @ FPS > 60 will have less input latency than VSync @ 60FPS but obviously more than VSync at 120FPS.

With Triple Buffering (actually, render-ahead) on for the >60FPS scenarios but off for the 60FPS scenarios, you have an additional frame of latency for the TB scenarios so the calculations differ.

True Triple Buffering keeps the first conclusion the same. You won't see true Triple Buffering being used much in DirectX.

 

Fps and Screen Refresh Rates are totally different things.Vertical Sync matches (or at least tries to) your fps to the vertical refresh rate of your monitor.Eliminate vsync and you get full throughput from your gpu to your display.In this instance, the higher your monitors' refresh rate, the smoother your image will be no matter the amount of FPS your gpu is producing.

@yasamoka - Agreed!

 

120Hz, Vsync and fps-cap at 60fps isn't the same like using the 1/2 refreshrate feature of the driver.
With a fps-cap you aren't guaranteed that every frame is presented synced with refreshrate (refreshrate isn't exactly 120Hz, it's 120.00xxx).
afaik the 1/2 refreshrate feature should prevent this.

It doesn't matter in terms of repeated frames when fps don't match refreshrate.

 

Exactly! Removing v-sync at a higher refresh rate will eliminate the need of your gpu to repeat frames....full output.

 

So in other words: yes, it will. Which means 144 Hz monitor is a no go for me, as I don't want to decrease rendering quality for the sake of smooth gameplay and I will not tolerate screen tearing for the sake of smooth gameplay. IPS it is then.

 

IPS is the way to go for superior rendering quality, yes.Better yet if you can get one that connects via display-port. :thumbup:

 

Of course it will, but at the same time whole purpose of using these high refresh rate monitors, at least in my opinion, is that you don't have to deal V-Sync (and its baggage) again, trust me, the tearing is pretty much unnoticeable and the smoothness created by a 120/144Hz panel is like nothing I've experienced before, not to mention that you'll get absolutely no input lag.

After using my BenQ XL2411T @ 144Hz I'll never go back down to 60Hz, the difference is just too much (even in non gaming scenarios).

If your priority is pitch perfect color reproduction, 10 bit panels, etc, then go the IPS route, if you're more into super smooth responsive gaming, then you know where to go

 

True. I didn't mention capping FPS, but it might have been implied in my response. Capping FPS even 1FPS less than the refresh rate, with Triple Buffering off, will send FPS straight to exactly half the refresh rate, whatever it is, so that works too.

The half refresh-rate solves the problem of having Triple Buffering or multi-GPU enabled, so that's the way to go. But then, one would just run the monitor at 60Hz and that's that.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that.

 

So true and I wish this was common knowledge.

Manual caps aren't the same as forced (v-sync or double v-sync) caps.

A manual framerate cap below the refreshrate of the monitor with v-sync enabled will ALWAYS result in some form of judder, even when you think it's exactly half (it isn't).

Luckily you nVidia users have this feature that can auto cap anything at exactly half the refreshrate, I'm still pushing for that feature on AMD but seems like people are not seeing the benefits, at least not understanding them.

RadeonPro has this double v-sync thing, which should work like the nVidia option, but it only works in 1% of the games I tried it on.

 

Unfortunately, this doesn't work. Not for me at least. I wish it did, because then I would have a perfect v-synced 30 fps at 60Hz without judder, like on consoles. No, when I cap the fps at 58 with v-sync enabled, triple buffering disabled and no (or 1-5, doesn't matter) frames rendered ahead, it will always result in a v-synced 58 fps (which translates to slight juddering), not 30 fps. On my system I only get the double buffered 30 fps effect when my videocard is literally unable to keep up, not when I manually cap the fps. I've tested this on quite many games in my quest to achieve a perfect v-synced framerate at half the refreshrate.

That's why the 1/2 refreshrate feature is there, because a manual cap doesn't achieve a perfect framerate at exactly half of the refreshrate.

Might really be a reason for me to go to nVidia, that feature sounds great. Not all my games can keep up 60fps, a perfect 30 would be very tolerable in those cases, but it's either with v-sync disabled (not tolerable) or with judders (not tolerable either), while on consoles this isn't a problem.

 

Then RadeonPro's Double VSync option might be just for you. Try it and tell me how it goes.

EDIT: Ah, I see you mentioned that you have tried it in your previous post. I'll try at my side tomorrow to see if it works here.

EDIT2: What about using CRU to get a 30Hz refresh rate option? Then you can use that in games with regular VSync. Wouldn't that work?

 

I'm not interested in "pretty much unnoticeable". I'm not interested in any tearing of any kind whatsoever. Not now, not ever.

Furthermore, 120/144 Hz monitors are pointless when your GPU(s) can't handle it. What's the point of spending hundreds of EUR for such monitor when TWO GPUs can barely render Alan Wake above 70 FPS? The point is there isn't one.

 

CRU? Never heard of that! Can't find it either, but sounds like a real option, I wanna try it. Please elaborate.

I tried forcing 30Hz through Powerstrip, but my monitor becomes unstable and produces weird artifacts. CRU might be able to do it though.

I agree on the tearing thing, I find it pretty unbearable too, even at 144Hz (been there, done that).

However, there are reasons why someone would prefer 144 or 120Hz over 60Hz, even when the target framerate isn't met. Less monitor lag, for one, which is essentially halved, results in faster feedback from input. Also, 30fps on 120Hz looks smoother and exhibits less strobing artifacts than on 60Hz.

I'm in the same boat, these points become meaningless to me if it means I can't have my judderfree v-sync. I prefer a little delay over screentearing anyday, 'cept when I play competetive

 

Whoa, I tried CRU! Too bad 30Hz still doesn't work no matter what timings I use (always get the out of range result). But the lil program did manage to get 50Hz PAL working! Never could figure out the proper timings for that with Powerstrip, but with CRU, I don't even need to know those, program does it all

Thanks for the heads up, a nice new tool to play with.

 

Which is why I'll go for Eizo Foris F2333 instead. It's a gaming IPS monitor. The only gaming IPS monitor.
In the feature, when I'll upgrade my rig to something more powerful, I'll switch to 144 Hz. But until then I want buttery smooth gaming without a single hiccup or **** going on.

 

It may be buttery but for being really smooth it's too "slow" At least if you've seen/tried a 120/144Hz screen.

 

As I said, I saw what Vsync and <60 FPS is doing. I'm not interested in that. Besides, I'll be staying at 60 Hz, so there will be no difference for me.

 

Vsync really isn't needed on a 120Hz screen. You really should try it out, once.

 

It is, and without it tearing is basically just as noticable at 120Hz as it is on 60Hz. The only difference is less strobing, and you have twice the frames for the tear to stabilize. The tear is usually less prominent at 120Hz, it jumps around less when the timings are proper and the framerate is stable. But to me, it's still tearing, still unbearable.

Tried out 120Hz for two months, went back to my Dell 2209WA. For some stuff I do miss the 120Hz though, and when a game is able to keep up 120fps, well, nothing can quite beat that smoothness (cept for 144fps at 144Hz, naturally)