How do you enable Vsync above 60FPS?

[Francis_Mallman]

Hi,

I've just this week, for the very first time, overclocked my 60Hz monitor to 75Hz (I had no idea you could do that!).

That extra 15 frames per second is making many of my games feel quite a bit smoother (it's actually quite surprising). I've noticed though that some of my games won't go above 60 FPS unless I disable Vsync. In which case the game studders like crazy. In which case I'm much better just staying at 60 FPS.

How the heck do you go above 60 FPS and have Vsync running at the same time?

[Hansje]

All I can say, I bought a G-sync Monitor using it with 144 HZ and Vsync ON and I love it !!!!

And I don't sell these monitors, just in case you think its promotion :)

Its a lot smoother then without even in the rain !!

Hansje

[󠀡Dibelabbes]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RE77ACTION:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Dibelabbes:

Only with Tripple Buffering activated (w/o it your fps drop from 60 to 30 to 15 to 10). For me its well worth it, on my low input lag monitor (no TN panel, its even AVMA) I don't see the difference.


I would never play w/o Vsync on.

Again, depends heavily on your display. My tv for example has a high input lag.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RE77ACTION:

It has nothing to do with your TV or monitor. That's another kind of lag introduced by the electronics and by the crystals (the later often measured in grey to grey response time and former muffled away from public).

The time the crystal takes to change the color is called responds time normally, the input lag I mentioned above is both the processing time by the electronics as well as the responds time. The complete time it takes from your monitor getting a new frame via HDMI to the frame is visible on screen.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RE77ACTION:

Input lag has to do with how a game is programed.

Input lag that isn't caused by the display as explained above has still the same effect on the game, you move your mouse and it takes a while until you see for example your perspective change in a FPS or your pointer move in Windows. The none display part is how long the game needs to render a new frame after made a new input. With Vsync off or Vsync on w/o tripple buffer thats at least one frame (16.6 ms when rendering 60 fps for example). With tripple buffer on its two frames (33.3 ms when rendering 60 fps). Keep in mind that with tripple buffer Vsync the game can often render more frames than with just Vsync (for example 50 frames (2*20ms) vs 30 frames (33.3 ms)). G-Sync enables you btw to use normal Vsync (one frame minimal lag) with only one frame minimum lag while still not having frames drop from 60 to 30 to 20 like with tripple buffer off. It also makes sure that each rendered frame is only displayed once.

[󠀡Dibelabbes]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Schumy:

You're wrong.

Around 2000 there was very little discussion about frame-rates. This didn't start happening till about 2005, and back then most people were aiming for 30 fps.

You're revising history.

I am not talking about discussion in a still not that organized internet, I was playing back than and wrote about that.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/full-review-nvidia,134-12.html

I was using the also tested Voodoo 3 3500 shortly after Quake 3 got released in 98 in my first computer with a cheap AMD K6-2 400. As you see it renders 47 frames in that test at 1024 * 768, I used still a 800*600 monitor at that time (so it should be easily above 50 frames). I also remember Unreal Tournament being sliggthly more laggy than Quake 3 (I would wager still above 40) while Half Life 1 and Counterstrike was smooth.

Also interesting: http://www.anandtech.com/show/505/8

At 640x480x16, the Mobility 128 with 16MB is capable of hitting the magical 60 fps mark under Quake 3.

...Unfortunately, we'll probably mainly see the 8MB configuration. Nevertheless, 47.5 fps is still playable performance.

...really hinder the 8MB version, which is far less acceptable at 32.4 fps.

BTW, most arcade games were 60 fps too AFAIK.

[-S★inted-]

playstation 2's shipped with 59.94 fps in the US region :) and that was in like march of 2000. So fps like that were achievable and a goal for the last 15 years. infact. if i remember correct the n64 ran at only 30fps and so people complained that its not a truly "frame perfect" imput game.

[pleclair]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Dibelabbes:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Schumy:

You're wrong.

Around 2000 there was very little discussion about frame-rates. This didn't start happening till about 2005, and back then most people were aiming for 30 fps.

You're revising history.

I am not talking about discussion in a still not that organized internet, I was playing back than and wrote about that.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/full-review-nvidia,134-12.html

I was using the also tested Voodoo 3 3500 shortly after Quake 3 got released in 98 in my first computer with a cheap AMD K6-2 400. As you see it renders 47 frames in that test at 1024 * 768, I used still a 800*600 monitor at that time (so it should be easily above 50 frames). I also remember Unreal Tournament being sliggthly more laggy than Quake 3 (I would wager still above 40) while Half Life 1 and Counterstrike was smooth.

Also interesting: http://www.anandtech.com/show/505/8

At 640x480x16, the Mobility 128 with 16MB is capable of hitting the magical 60 fps mark under Quake 3.

...Unfortunately, we'll probably mainly see the 8MB configuration. Nevertheless, 47.5 fps is still playable performance.

...really hinder the 8MB version, which is far less acceptable at 32.4 fps.

BTW, most arcade games were 60 fps too AFAIK.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Schumy:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Dibelabbes:

On PC? Not at all! I was playing Quake 3 at way above 30 fps for sure, and that was 98. Actually allot of people tried to reach 125 because of a physics bug.

Same with Counterstrike back when it was still beta.

I don't think any self respecting PC player tried to play at 30 fps from 2000 on.

Could it be that your opinion is biased by not have being (or not that much) on the internet back than? If you only have three or four PC playing friends you only got their opinion back then.

BTW, set your display to 74 HZ. Its perfect for movies (24 frames).

You're wrong.

Around 2000 there was very little discussion about frame-rates. This didn't start happening till about 2005, and back then most people were aiming for 30 fps.

You're revising history.

Wow, you would be a bad librarian..

Framerates have been a discussion ever since the first 3d games have appeared.. people were comparing voodoo to tnt, and you also had s3 that tried but failed... except for the texture compression stuff that I believe is still used today.

I started overclocking my cpu as soon as the pentium 90... and my best oc was a pentium mmx 166 that I was running at 300. When there was no 300mhz processor available... the max was 233... :)

But yeah, we were talking frame rates even before than 2000 ... get your history right mr...

[◥DaBeastKing◤]

I remember the goal of the 360 and PS3 gen was 60 frames per second. Obviously many games did not meet that goal (I also remember IGN complaining about the great NFS MW 2005 being 30 fps on 360).

[-S★inted-]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von DaBeastKing:

I remember the goal of the 360 and PS3 gen was 60 frames per second. Obviously many games did not meet that goal (I also remember IGN complaining about the great NFS MW 2005 being 30 fps on 360).

once again Playstation 2 ran at 59.94FPS. they were already there.

[toxicfiend]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Manwith Noname:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Schumy:

Then why are you bothering?

I'm simply pointing out that when people say "vsync causes input lag", it's not so black and white. It's always there regardless and having any kind of sync with your monitor only increases it by a miniscule margin when you set it up right.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RE77ACTION:

But the second you state is way too long for most concentrated people except elderly.

Fair point, when racing you are likely a lot more focused (hopefully) than an average driver.

For fun...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sleep/sheep/reaction_version5.swf

it was fun and for a 58 year old i did 0.177 so i was happy lol