Most people won't notice fps fluctuating above 90 so limiting a game to 120 seems like a wrong idea - unless you just need a fully consistent input lag for some reason.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Fluctuations of 1-2 FPS above 90 FPS likely wouldn't be noticeable for me. Fluctuations of 5-10 FPS above 90 FPS might be tolerable. Fluctuations of 10-30 FPS above 90 FPS would be absolutely horrible. That would feel basically the same as a 5-15 FPS fluctuation between 45 and 60 FPS.
I'd absolutely hate every single moment in a game that was doing that. It's the magnitude of the swings (say in a smallish 0.1 second window) combined with the overall range of the swings (say in a relatively larger 2 second window).
It's why I just stopped using VRR after using it for a couple of days at a variety of framerate ranges. I thought maybe I could get used to it, but I couldn't. It was such a relief when I just disabled it and the control feedback loop in games once again felt consistent and accurate. I didn't realize just how bad it was until I disabled it.
But as I said, I'll be doing that experiment again once I have an HDMI 2.1 GPU so I'm not limited to running at 60 FPS.
Regards,
SB
I legitimately can't notice them on m+k in an FPS game. Don't know what's so horrible about them.
Nothing even remotely close.
45-60 is a fluctuation of 5.5ms.
90-120 is a fluctuation of 2.8ms.
That's twice less in maximum frametime difference.
2.8ms down from 60 fps is 51.5 fps, and yes it is also hard to notice with VRR active albeit it is easier on m+k due to higher absolute input lag at such low framerate.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I never made any claims about how you feel about it or whether you would notice it. I'm not sure what that has to do with how I experience it?
Does that fact that I experience a fear of heights also imply that you also experience a fear of heights?
Perhaps this will clear up any confusion on your end.
A 10-30 FPS fluctuation in a 90-120 FPS window would feel roughly the same as a 5-15 FPS fluctuation in a 45-60 FPS window.
[edit] OK, thinking about it more, that might not have clarified it and looking back at my previous post, it definitely isn't entirely clear. The assumption being made by me is that whatever is impacting the rendering to cause it to drop to X frames per second at 60 FPS would persist for a similar amount of time at 60 FPS as it would be at 120 FPS.
Hence, the assumption being that when it dropped to say 55 FPS with a cap of 60 FPS, if I were to adjust settings so that the game would run at 120 FPS, that whatever part of the game causes that drop would persist for 2 frames at ~110 FPS (2 frames rendered at 9.09 ms consecutively) or something similar say 1 at 9.17 ms and the next at 9.01 ms.
That assumption may not be entirely correct, hence why I plan to experiment with it again to see if a significantly wider VRR window at 120 FPS compared to the 1-2 FPS window at 60 FPS would be tolerable.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
Most benchmarks leave out upscaling performance comparisons altogether and will commonly run higher resolutions and higher presets as much as possible ...
Sure you can point out the worst case current scenario as an example but it still doesn't really change my argument that the general trend we've been seeing is an increase in rendering resolution in benchmarks over the years despite introducing more complex rendering systems as well and we're still seeing high end graphical games featured in benchmarks that are being released without advanced features like ray tracing ... (nanite is still very much nonexistent in any real applications at this point)
Again spending hardware that's not going to be used in benchmarks won't help in comparisons between other vendors especially in your example where the game you pointed out is frequently criticized for it's questionable integration of the said technique. There's an argument to be had for improving ray tracing performance but that shouldn't be conflated as an argument for improving upscaling techniques because there's two entirely different basis behind their motivations. The former will have an actual tangible effect benchmarks while the latter won't be seen in benchmarks despite both being intended to improve performance ...
VRR is also useful for allowing you to lock framerate at an arbitrary level rather than just 30/60fps.
Look how excited the console guys got over Ratchet and Clanks 40fps mode.
On PC with VRR that's possible at any framerate in every game.
Look how excited the console guys got over Ratchet and Clanks 40fps mode.
On PC with VRR that's possible at any framerate in every game.
Today’s worst case scenario isn’t going to get any better tomorrow. We’re only at the tip of the iceberg for RT usage. DL2 has single bounce GI and still uses SSR in some places. We have a lot of evidence now that native 4K rendering is extremely inefficient and often produces a worse result than the best upscaling techniques. As a developer why would you continue to invest in an inferior approach when you can get prettier pixels and better performance going the upscaling route?
4K TAA isn’t the holy grail here.
I think you’re giving far too much weight to benchmarks. Real users do more with their hardware than reviewers do. They actually use the added features that most reviewers don’t cover. Upscaling included.
Resolution isn’t going to increase beyond 4K anytime soon. Rendering performance will be taxed due to an increase in pixel quality not count. Even if increased resolution was the target upscaling would still be a very valuable tool in the box.
They were pretty pumped about SSD and ray tracing too. Going from hdd to ssd back in 2008/2009 that was something, things loaded faster, no disk noise and everything was snappy. Problem was price/storage so usually the OS and one or two favourite games on it.
You should do that. I've explained why what you've said is wrong on a purely mathematical basis. But there's also the fact that fps is a relative metric, not absolute. The more fps you have - the smaller the impact of loosing the same number of fps is. Hence why it is noticeable when you get a slowdown from 60 to 45 but it is not when you get a slow down from 120 to 105. With higher fps numbers it is even less noticeable - if said slowdown happens over a course of several (dozens of) frames i.e. is not a hitch. I've been playing in 90-144 window for some time now and most of the time I can't tell the difference between 90 and 144 without toggling fps OSD. It's even harder on a gamepad - recently I've ran into a game which would disengage VRR during video cutscenes for some reason (some weirdness with using directflip I think) and it took me some time to even notice that I'm running at ~55 fps vsynced on a 120Hz TV now instead of running with VRR.
Yeah, but this is mostly usable for 40-55 fps locks I think. Anything which is able to run above 60 would probably be better off running unlocked - that's how I went through CP2077 at least, with fps being in 50-80 range, unlocked.
But maybe you guys are more sensitive to such fps changes.
WhiningKhan
Regular
Better off?
What is the exact benefit of running the game unlocked if you cannot tell the difference between 60fps locked vs 60-80 unlocked?
No worries about it going below the lock.
I could ask you the same - what are the benefits of running the game locked at 60 is the h/w is capable of running in at 70-80?
Don't care about power consumption and don't really notice any difference in noise and heat from locking to 60 a game which runs at 50-80 unlocked.
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
Many GPU's can have significant thermal differences with a varying ~80% load vs 100%. For my 3060 for example, a game running 99-100% GPU at all times means ~72-75C and a fan going 65% to keep it even at that - which is far more noticeable in terms of noise than one that bounces around 50% fan speed when the load is a variable ~80% and the temp is under 70.
WhiningKhan
Regular
Why would I worry about going below the lock? That makes no sense, if it can't keep 60 up then running it unlocked won't be better.
So it seems we reached the conclusion that there are no benefits from running unlocked, while there are benefits from running locked which you do not acknowledge. Let's just leave it there....
Sure, same "benefits" as from running a game at 15 fps...
If your concern in power/noise you'd be better off with downvolting/downclocking.
The idea here is that locking a game to some fps means that you're locking yourself out of a possibility that this game may run at a higher fps. While 50-60 may not be much of a difference 50-90 would be quite a big one and it's very possible that a game which at some scene runs at 50 will run at 90 in others. Whether you prefer to play with a gimped fps all the time simply because you can't bear them changing in this range is up to you of course.
Last edited:
WhiningKhan
Regular
Better off, again?
You can't possibly suggest downclocking is a good idea to get consistent jitter- and judder free results. That would not make sense.
You are getting jitter and judder free results thanks to VRR regardless.
Pay attention to the discussion if you're willing to participate in it.
Surely you see the possibility of this changing however?
The raw resolution was only used as a metric for optical clarity. More pixels = better, at the most basic of measurements. This is understandable to most people. But eventually, you're going to have to move into the territory of actual image clarity, which is entirely subjective, side by side image comparison and grading etc. If A can output a better image than B, it shouldn't matter if it's reconstructed or not. That's the direction we're headed. We need to move on from just making GPUs do computational work.
