Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Thread

V-Sync vs 60FPS Cap

Which graphics setting is better for 60hz monitor?  

23 members have voted

  1. 1. Which graphics setting is better for 60hz monitor?

    • Set FPS Cap at 60
      12
    • Enable V-Sync
      12


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Image result for Monitor icon WIndows 10

For a 60HZ Monitor which only sees 60fps in games? Which option is better to keep at 60fps?

Edited by Thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stupid question as neither of those options applies to many players ..

 

also how may frames your monitor can display is not the whole story more frames = less input lag = more accuracy, so even if your monitor can only handle 60 Hz then its still a benefit to you to get 100 frames a second as your game will work more smoothly.

 

but yeah my monitor does 165Hz.

 

I would never enable vsync due to adding input lag, but gsync is ok also I would never limit my fps to 60 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, DeadlyEggXoP said:

stupid question as neither of those options applies to many players ..

 

also how may frames your monitor can display is not the whole story more frames = less input lag = more accuracy, so even if your monitor can only handle 60 Hz then its still a benefit to you to get 100 frames a second as your game will work more smoothly.

 

but yeah my monitor does 165Hz.

 

I would never enable vsync due to adding input lag, but gsync is ok also I would never limit my fps to 60 

Leaving it at Unlimited FPS for a 60fps monitor would increase utilization for CPU and GPU making Fans run louder?

Edited by Thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thread said:

Image result for Monitor icon WIndows 10

For a 60HZ Monitor which only sees 60fps in games? Which option is better to keep at 60fps?

 

Vsync would prevent screen tearing but increase input lag however only capping the frame rate can result in other problems such as stutter and can still result in screen tearing anyway - however you don't get the added input lag that vsync/fastsync introduce. Its due to how the technology works with frame buffering.

 

You can choose to do either, but both have downsides still. Ideally, something that uses freesync or gsync are the best options due to the variable refresh rates.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to test this.

 

I have a 240hz monitor and on sanhok I've seen over 300fps in certain areas. So maybe the test would to turn off gsync and enable vsync to see if there is any difference.

 

Though I've never had issues of any kind playing the game as far as graphics are concerned. Used to have other issues but sorted those out. Crashes and lag and packet loss mostly that I've cleaned up. Perfect running game on my end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 60hz monitor, next item to upgrade. I cap my game at 75fps without freesync or gsync because they tend to increase visual lag. If I capped at 60 it would sometimes drop frames in high usage instances, like many grenades going off at the same time. With unlimited I would get screen tearing. Through testing I decided on the 75 cap.

 

It all depends on your hardware setup and your personal preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Avohei said:

I'll have to test this.

 

I have a 240hz monitor and on sanhok I've seen over 300fps in certain areas. So maybe the test would to turn off gsync and enable vsync to see if there is any difference.

 

Though I've never had issues of any kind playing the game as far as graphics are concerned. Used to have other issues but sorted those out. Crashes and lag and packet loss mostly that I've cleaned up. Perfect running game on my end.

 

Gsync doesn't work above your monitors refresh rate. It only activates when your framerate is lower than your refresh rate.

 

1 minute ago, ZMBU said:

I have a 60hz monitor, next item to upgrade. I cap my game at 75fps without freesync or gsync because they tend to increase visual lag. If I capped at 60 it would sometimes drop frames in high usage instances, like many grenades going off at the same time. With unlimited I would get screen tearing. Through testing I decided on the 75 cap.

 

It all depends on your hardware setup and your personal preference.

 

You won't get the input lag, but you will be getting screen tearing instead. For some it is more noticeable than others, but at 15fps over your refresh rate you will be drawing a partial frame every few cycles.

 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Takarii said:

...You won't get the input lag, but you will be getting screen tearing instead. For some it is more noticeable than others, but at 15fps over your refresh rate you will be drawing a partial frame every few cycles.

 

I don't notice it. Maybe shitty old monitor or shitty old eyes... I will try turning it down and see if it has an improved effect. I'll try out 65, since at times FPS will drop 5 points, based off of when I had it capped at 60. When capped at 60 my gpu didn't respond well to a required increase of frames.

 

Thanks @Takarii

Edited by ZMBU
Even with power options maxed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlimted and no V-Sync is by far the most optimal setting.

 

Capping FPS is only needed if you have insane fluctuations and then you want to cap it at the highest stable FPS. It can also be good if streaming as running the GPU on 100% load will cause a stream to lag in which capping the FPS solves the load issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Thread u can also give a shoot to the Scanline Sync option in Riva Tuner Statistic Server (RTSS). No tearing, minimal input lag and fps caped at 60 fps ( on 60Hz monitor ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

60Hz how do ppl live like that?! It's like being forced to use public transport :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, zollebolle said:

Unlimted and no V-Sync is by far the most optimal setting.

 

Capping FPS is only needed if you have insane fluctuations and then you want to cap it at the highest stable FPS. It can also be good if streaming as running the GPU on 100% load will cause a stream to lag in which capping the FPS solves the load issue.

 

11 hours ago, Gatsu said:

@Thread u can also give a shoot to the Scanline Sync option in Riva Tuner Statistic Server (RTSS). No tearing, minimal input lag and fps caped at 60 fps ( on 60Hz monitor ).

 

10 hours ago, JackBoot said:

60Hz how do ppl live like that?! It's like being forced to use public transport :(

65  or 66 FPS should be good as the game  going spike down 4 to 5 fps during gameplay? Keeping the CPU and GPU utilization  under full load for a 60 HZ Monitor. 

Edited by Thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use adaptive vsync.. its pretty much enjoyable with minimum lag. But the best bet is gsync.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Thread said:

 

 

65  or 66 FPS should be good as the game  going spike down 4 to 5 fps during gameplay? Keeping the CPU and GPU utilization  under full load for a 60 HZ Monitor. 

 

The Hz of the monitor is rather irrelevant as a higher FPS than refresh rate (no matter what that is) have several major advantages. For most unlimited would simply be the best, it's only if you encounter stutters if having it uncapped which most likely is a result of older hardware or a mix of older and newer hardware causing the FPS to fluctuate more drastically depending on if the rendering scene is reliant on CPU or GPU power. 

 

Now to the advantages. First being that higher FPS equals less rendering input lag which is good, mkay, because before your monitor gets something to display with your mighty refresh rate it has to be rendered by the GPU and faster is better. Now since most people wont really get much more then 100-120 stable FPS in PUBG we're not talking as great of numbers as we would in a game like CS in which most hardware can push out like 4-5 times as much frames however it's still rather noticable to play on 60-80 fps compared to 80-100.


Second we have the fact that each frame rendered is partially visible and this part is rather technical so I'm just gonna put a blurbusters link in the bottom which you can check out as it have diagrams of all of this info, benchmarked numbers and just much more details about everything but essentially what this means is that what cause tearing (which this basically does) also gives you faster on-screen changes which you can react on.

 

However this also brings me to the last argument which I kind of already explained but from a different perspective in the beginning of the post.  A higher FPS results in less microstutters, tearing and so on as it kind of get smooth out on higher FPS. 

 

Anyways, here's the link https://www.blurbusters.com/faq/benefits-of-frame-rate-above-refresh-rate/

There's lots of info about this and all aspects of how the rendering process works and so on if you google around and it's possible to run diagnostic tests on your own.

Edited by zollebolle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, zollebolle said:

 

The Hz of the monitor is rather irrelevant as a higher FPS than refresh rate (no matter what that is) have several major advantages. For most unlimited would simply be the best, it's only if you encounter stutters if having it uncapped which most likely is a result of older hardware or a mix of older and newer hardware causing the FPS to fluctuate more drastically depending on if the rendering scene is reliant on CPU or GPU power. 

 

Now to the advantages. First being that higher FPS equals less rendering input lag which is good, mkay, because before your monitor gets something to display with your mighty refresh rate it has to be rendered by the GPU and faster is better. Now since most people wont really get much more then 100-120 stable FPS in PUBG we're not talking as great of numbers as we would in a game like CS in which most hardware can push out like 4-5 times as much frames however it's still rather noticable to play on 60-80 fps compared to 80-100.


Second we have the fact that each frame rendered is partially visible and this part is rather technical so I'm just gonna put a blurbusters link in the bottom which you can check out as it have diagrams of all of this info, benchmarked numbers and just much more details about everything but essentially what this means is that what cause tearing (which this basically does) also gives you faster on-screen changes which you can react on.

 

However this also brings me to the last argument which I kind of already explained but from a different perspective in the beginning of the post.  A higher FPS results in less microstutters, tearing and so on as it kind of get smooth out on higher FPS. 

 

Anyways, here's the link https://www.blurbusters.com/faq/benefits-of-frame-rate-above-refresh-rate/

There's lots of info about this and all aspects of how the rendering process works and so on if you google around and it's possible to run diagnostic tests on your own.

Yea i think going leave at 65 Fps at this time as the "Tearing" is not really bothering. Just asking if FPS Limiter is better to use than V-Sync.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my test. I got better fps with gsync vs vsync with unlimited in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Avohei said:

In my test. I got better fps with gsync vs vsync with unlimited in game.

 

Note that gsync only activates when your frame rate is lower than your refresh rate. If it is higher, gsync won't enable at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

To ppl using Gsync: If you really want to have full benefits of Gsync, then you need to do Gsync On + NVCP Vsync On (NOT the ingame vsync) + framecap below max (input lag is almost the same as with all off).

Without the NVCP Vsync , you would still see a lot of tearing, so using Gsync like that doesn't make much sense at all.

https://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-and-settings/14/

 

Personally, I prefer Gsync off in games where I get >90 fps, since tearing is bearable enough and what I see still feels more "up to date" (not input lag, but just a feeling :S) without it (Pubg included).

Obviously, ingame Vsync (or any Vsync not in combination with Gsync) is big no-no for all action games due to the excessive increase in input lag (which to me feels like moving underwater or having my mouse drag through mud).

 

As for capped vs uncapped fps, I believe you can run into some serious problems when the performance is cpu-bottlenecked (stuttering, etc) and no problems if it's gpu-limited. Having that said, I personally don't see any difference in Pubg between capped (e.g. at 90) vs uncapped fps (90-200+), even though I'm 100% certain i'm cpu bottlenecked (i7-4771 + 1080Ti).

Edited by Biochemikas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2019 at 7:26 PM, Avohei said:

In my test. I got better fps with gsync vs vsync with unlimited in game.

 

On 5/18/2019 at 2:55 AM, zollebolle said:

 

The Hz of the monitor is rather irrelevant as a higher FPS than refresh rate (no matter what that is) have several major advantages. For most unlimited would simply be the best, it's only if you encounter stutters if having it uncapped which most likely is a result of older hardware or a mix of older and newer hardware causing the FPS to fluctuate more drastically depending on if the rendering scene is reliant on CPU or GPU power. 

 

Now to the advantages. First being that higher FPS equals less rendering input lag which is good, mkay, because before your monitor gets something to display with your mighty refresh rate it has to be rendered by the GPU and faster is better. Now since most people wont really get much more then 100-120 stable FPS in PUBG we're not talking as great of numbers as we would in a game like CS in which most hardware can push out like 4-5 times as much frames however it's still rather noticable to play on 60-80 fps compared to 80-100.


Second we have the fact that each frame rendered is partially visible and this part is rather technical so I'm just gonna put a blurbusters link in the bottom which you can check out as it have diagrams of all of this info, benchmarked numbers and just much more details about everything but essentially what this means is that what cause tearing (which this basically does) also gives you faster on-screen changes which you can react on.

 

However this also brings me to the last argument which I kind of already explained but from a different perspective in the beginning of the post.  A higher FPS results in less microstutters, tearing and so on as it kind of get smooth out on higher FPS. 

 

Anyways, here's the link https://www.blurbusters.com/faq/benefits-of-frame-rate-above-refresh-rate/

There's lots of info about this and all aspects of how the rendering process works and so on if you google around and it's possible to run diagnostic tests on your own.

 

On 5/20/2019 at 4:45 AM, Biochemikas said:

To ppl using Gsync: If you really want to have full benefits of Gsync, then you need to do Gsync On + NVCP Vsync On (NOT the ingame vsync) + framecap below max (input lag is almost the same as with all off).

Without the NVCP Vsync , you would still see a lot of tearing, so using Gsync like that doesn't make much sense at all.

https://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-and-settings/14/

 

Personally, I prefer Gsync off in games where I get >90 fps, since tearing is bearable enough and what I see still feels more "up to date" (not input lag, but just a feeling :S) without it (Pubg included).

Obviously, ingame Vsync (or any Vsync not in combination with Gsync) is big no-no for all action games due to the excessive increase in input lag (which to me feels like moving underwater or having my mouse drag through mud).

 

As for capped vs uncapped fps, I believe you can run into some serious problems when the performance is cpu-bottlenecked (stuttering, etc) and no problems if it's gpu-limited. Having that said, I personally don't see any difference in Pubg between capped (e.g. at 90) vs uncapped fps (90-200+), even though I'm 100% certain i'm cpu bottlenecked (i7-4771 + 1080Ti).

Not really caring about these G Sync cause i dont support mostly asking for V-Sync vs 60fps

As far for V-Sync being enable it will mostly cap it at 60fps....but sometimes it may cap at 30fps if v-sync was turned on during low fps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FPS cap 2-3 frames higher than refresh rate. 👍

 

Vsync increases input lag and gpu load.

 

Go with a config fps cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...