Why would you ever limit your Frames per Second?

[x1HxTakeNotez]

So I'm new to PC gaming and I see an option to lock FPS and this doesn't make sense to me. Why would you want to cap your FPS? I read a few post of people stating they set their caps to 60hz or 100hz. Why not let your PC try to get you as much as it can? Is there any benefits to this that I'm missing?

[Satoru]

引用自 Muppet among Puppets：

I see lets say 500 electric combo-events causing hundreds of millions events extra per second. Which i dont need.
Its rational to remove these events.

"i dont need" is not a rational reason. its simply an arbitrary line that has no basis in reality. Why do you 'not need it'. Is it to prevent damage to your components? That's not relevant. So why do you 'not need it'.

In a good software you would call that optimization. Thats what i think of it.

Its sort of bizarre in that 1000fps is ultra optimized to take full advantage of yoru CPU and GPU. the cycles are not wasted nor is it taking cycles away from other parts of the game. it is the very definition of optimized.

[Muppet among Puppets]

引用自 Satoru：

"i dont need" is not a rational reason

It is one of the basic rational reasons.

引用自 Satoru：

Its sort of bizarre in that 1000fps is ultra optimized to take full advantage of yoru CPU and GPU. the cycles are not wasted nor is it taking cycles away from other parts of the game. it is the very definition of optimized.

Maybe. If energy and wear were infinite and free, i could agree. Well, if i had a benefit of that optimization.

But i cant avoid to see a strong machine working at full load to turn a tiny wheel so it slowly turns a dynamo to make a lamp shine. Sure, it can run at 100% for years, but its just silly.

[Satoru]

引用自 Muppet among Puppets：

It is one of the basic rational reasons.

That is not an actual reason nor rational

Maybe. If energy and wear were infinite and free, i could agree. Well, if i had a benefit of that optimization.

Using your GPU/CPU does not 'wear it out'. That's not how electronic components work. Again you can run your GPU and CPU for years on end at 100% capacity with zero ill effects. You're not 'wearing it out' by having the CPU/GPU what is functionally designed to do.

[Muppet among Puppets]

引用自 Satoru：

That is not an actual reason nor rational

Desert and jungle would explain the rational character of that reason better than i could.

引用自 Satoru：

Using your GPU/CPU does not 'wear it out'. That's not how electronic components work

So, if you turn on a device after 20 years, and it works,
it would have worked 20 years on full load?

[shiel]

引用自 Muppet among Puppets：

引用自 Satoru：

Using your GPU/CPU does not 'wear it out'. That's not how electronic components work

So, if you turn on a device after 20 years, and it works,
it would have worked 20 years on full load?

Thermal expansion is far harder on components than them running full out for extended periods. That's what I believe Satoru is getting at.

[76561199052669622]

Your monitor is 60 hz , which means your monitor will only be able to display 60 fps no any higher thus capping it will reduce the load on your gpu and is especially helpful in laptops by reducing the use of battery , gpu , etc.

[Supafly]

引用自 - R O O K I E -：

Your monitor is 60 hz , which means your monitor will only be able to display 60 fps no any higher thus capping it will reduce the load on your gpu and is especially helpful in laptops by reducing the use of battery , gpu , etc.

Why necro a thread that is 3 years old?

And no uncapped is better, least for competitive games.Cap for non competitive fine but NOT for competitive.

For example

60 hz display and 60fps = 1 frame rendered per 1 frame drawn
60 hz display and 120fps = 1 frame rendered per 1 frame drawn. However this time the odd numbered frames, 1,3,5,7 and so get dropped and the even, 2,4,6,8..... are the ones drawn. That means each frame you see has more recent data/accurate image. Good for competitve games as the image you see is more recent than the frame/s that get dropped.

Same applies for 60 hz display and 180fps, 240fps, 300fps and so on. Yes the display can only draw 60 frames but each frame it actually draws is more recent and that means the gamer can SEE the most recent frame to base their choices on rather than out dated frames. Take 300fps on a 60hz display. That's 1 frame drawn, the 5th out of 5, meaning the game is dropping and doesn't see 80% of frames produced but that also means they don't see 80% of the outdated frames and get the most recent.

For non competitive games that really isn't an issue but for competitive games capping fps is lie shooting yourself in the before a race.

[[N]ebsun]

It depends on the game, but usually you don't need more frames to be rendered than you are able (as a human) to process. (certain exceptions on games where the fps is tied to game events processing, or where there is noticeable difference when reducing the fps)

Limiting the fps to a reasonable amount reduces the stress on the GPU - reducing heat and power, and can extend the life of your hardware.

[tonimark]

引用自 x1HxTakeNotez：

So I'm new to PC gaming and I see an option to lock FPS and this doesn't make sense to me. Why would you want to cap your FPS? I read a few post of people stating they set their caps to 60hz or 100hz. Why not let your PC try to get you as much as it can? Is there any benefits to this that I'm missing?

the most common reason i do and pretty much other gamers does is that without fps limit(no v-sync) you are telling your GPU to push as many frames as it can and has a high load as result a lot of noise is generated from gpu fans and can be annoying in quiet , stealthy games , when you limit your fps the gpu load is also limited and it runs much more quietly

[EliteGamer]

To prevent screen tearing and to stay in the G-SYNC range if you have a G-SYNC monitor, I use the NVIDIA max frame rate in NCP and what I do when it’s a 144hz game , I set it to 140 fps and when it’s a 165hz game I set it to 161fps.

[(っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Paper Bag]

Here is why I limit my in-game FPS to 60.

If the game is able to average FPS above 60, then what I do it go into Radeon software and enable Radeon Chill - I set both the min/max value at 60 FPS globally (you can also do this individually for each game). If you're on Nvidia, you can still do this using Nvidias software.

limiting FPS will lower the power consumption of your GPU as well as lower the heat produced. Your card will run a lot cooler because it no longer needs to render all the frames - just 60 frames per second and it's done, it can relax a little. Your card won't have to work at max all the time.

[Feesh]

引用自 M!st：

I ran a power monitor a while back, With limited FPS i saved something like 80 watts of power, Say someone plays games 12 hours a day, that's around a £5 a month / £60 per year saving in electric & less heat and had a quieter rig - until it got water cooled

Yes very good point, one of my favorite older games to play is Star Wars: The Old Republic, which is an MMO that came out in 2011. My latest computer that I built is massively overpowered (Ryzen 9 3950x 16-core CPU & GeForce RTX 2080Ti GPU) compared to this game's recommended requirements, so when running the game and I'm in an area where there aren't other players (like a phased instance) my GPU can render the game at up to 200 FPS, making my GPU draw around 225 watts of power, but by capping it at 60 FPS (which is also my refresh rate) it drops my power usage down to 75 watts, that's a BIG difference that can add up over time on a power bill; it also lowers my GPU temp from 68 °C to 45 °C, on a hot summer day that's also a big difference. Plus as soon as you enter any area with other players the frame rate will drop below 60 FPS anyways, and the framerate suddenly going from 150+ to below 60 will cause the game to tear and stutter. So capping framerate also makes it more stable.

[Feesh]

引用自 Satoru：

The only real 'good' reason is to limit screen tearing. Whcih is what vsync is for.

The 'other' reason is the bad one that 99% of people cite.

The main 'fake' reason is that one time some dumb game reviewer claimed that "Diablo2 killed my laptop". Basically Diablo2's main menu screen was uncapped for FPS and so basically just rendered the main menu at like 500 fps.

This generated a ton of heat which, 'supposedly', fried the reviewers laptop

Note this led to a flurry of basically dumb people insisting "Diablo killed my computer". To which Blizzard, despite this being pure nonsense, was forced to make a placebo fps limiter on the game.

So here's the thing. Heat is not a game problem. Its a COOLING PROBLEM.

Diablo did not 'kill' the reviews laptop

THeir laptops insufficient cooling killed it.

Your GPU and CPU are designed to run 100% 24 hours a day 7 days a week for YEARS. How do you think bitcoin miner work? Do you think they're 'downclocking' those 1080TIs? NO. Do you think IBM's Watson goes "holy these Jepoardy questsions are too hard! We need to downclock the CPU" NO. They're running full bore 100% all day long. That's because they are sufficiently cooled to address the heat. The GPU/CPU has no problem running at 100% for years. As long as you have the proper cooling its not an issue. Running your CPU and GPU at 100% does not damage them. Insufficient cooling damages them. Not the act of running at 100%. This is like saying you can only drive your Ferrari at 10mph because it will overheat, but ignore the coolant line that was sliced in hafl, then blaming the engine for beign defective.

FPS limiters are fix for the wrong problem. But people don't understand this and thus insist that the game fix the fact that their cooling fans are filled with cat hair and they put a space heater behind their computers and enclose them in air tight closets at 150F.

Yeah I used to do PC repair and custom builds, can't tell you how many times I dealt with someone ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about their computer overheating, and trying to blame me because I built the system, when the reason it was overheating is because the person owned 20 ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ cats and their fans and heatsinks were clogged with dust and hair, and/or they had the computer sitting inside a cabinet with no airflow and the fan exhaust shoved up against the wall.

[Kobs]

引用自 Satoru：

引用自 Muppet among Puppets：

It is one of the basic rational reasons.

That is not an actual reason nor rational

Maybe. If energy and wear were infinite and free, i could agree. Well, if i had a benefit of that optimization.

Using your GPU/CPU does not 'wear it out'. That's not how electronic components work. Again you can run your GPU and CPU for years on end at 100% capacity with zero ill effects. You're not 'wearing it out' by having the CPU/GPU what is functionally designed to do.

But you have to admit if it works more it will produce more heat and that's where the wear gets in. Agreed it was made to do that but just like formula 1 race cars it wears a lot faster when pushed to their limits plus, there's no real point to ask your PC to give you 250 frames per second when you can barely see the difference between 50 and 100, the action has to be REALLY fast for you to notice something above 50

[Haruspex]

引用自 Feesh：

Yes very good point...

Did you necro a thread from three years ago that was necroed from three years before that?

Let it rest. This poor corpse just keeps getting dug up.