AMD Frame Rate Targeting Control

tommybhoy · 22 Aug 2015 at 02:36

AMD Frame Rate Targeting Control

Frame Rate Targeting Control is a feature that enables users the ability to set a maximum target frame rate when playing an application in fullscreen exclusive mode. The benefits that this may allow a user to experience are reduced GPU power consumption (great for games running at frame rates much higher than the display refresh rate) and reduce heat generation and as a result of that, lower fan speed/noise on the graphics card.

Frame rate targeting control caps performance not only in 3D rendered in-game scenes, but also in splash screens, loading screens and menus, where framerates often run needlessly into the hundreds of fps.
Users might wish to set a very high cap just to limit wasteful fps like that seen in menus and such, while still taking advantage of the responsiveness given by fps well beyond 60.

Frame Rate Targeting Control is especially useful when rendering relatively ‘easy’ content on powerful hardware, e.g. when you've got a relatively low resolution monitor connected to a higher end graphics board, or when playing an older title, or a game with a relatively lightweight graphics load. Limiting the framerate not only saves power, but also heat and noise, keeping your GPU cool and quiet.

https://community.amd.com/docs/DOC-1332

shankly1985 · 22 Aug 2015 at 03:38

Wow! Didn't know it made that much difference.

Rroff · 22 Aug 2015 at 04:00

Yeah can be quite a bit - IIRC BF4 on my setup capped at 120fps draws like ~360watt at the wall rather than ~419watt if left at the default cap (200fps or something).

shankly1985 · 22 Aug 2015 at 04:06

Rroff said:
Yeah can be quite a bit - IIRC BF4 on my setup capped at 120fps draws like ~360watt at the wall rather than ~419watt if left at the default cap (200fps or something).

The thing I am surprised about, is look at say 60fps without and 60fps with FRTC

I always knew capping your frame rate reduced GPU power and lowered overall Wattage but AMD seem to have something else happening here??

How does 60fps FRTC give 151w vs 60fps without 242w

Stunning :cool:

Edit
@AMDMatt... Is they a reason why max frame rate is 90fps? would 144fps be possible in future driver releases?

Dicehunter · 22 Aug 2015 at 04:48

This is awesome but I'd love it if the cap could be increased to 144

LtMatt · 22 Aug 2015 at 07:54

shankly1985 said:
@AMDMatt... Is they a reason why max frame rate is 90fps? would 144fps be possible in future driver releases?

It's just the first implementation. No promises, but it's likely it the feature will be improved and expanded upon over time, the same as we've done and are continuing to do with Virtual Super Resolution.

kunoichia · 22 Aug 2015 at 10:42

Yeh nice stuff but needs a 144 cap for sure, that 95 number isnt really usefull on 144hz.

Other then that good going mattholamew

Martini1991 · 22 Aug 2015 at 10:44

AMDMatt said:
It's just the first implementation. No promises, but it's likely it the feature will be improved and expanded upon over time, the same as we've done and are continuing to do with Virtual Super Resolution.

From where I'm standing, AMD are still lagging behind Nvidia, I still have no VSR on my 2560x1080.

JediFragger · 22 Aug 2015 at 10:55

Martini1991 said:
From where I'm standing, AMD are still lagging behind Nvidia, I still have no VSR on my 2560x1080.

I'm guessing it's because it's a little used resolution and they're concentrating on the more 'used' ones at present. Here's to them getting it sorted soon though!! Even 3440x1440 downscale would be sweet for you :cool:

p5ychonaut · 22 Aug 2015 at 10:56

shankly1985 said:
The thing I am surprised about, is look at say 60fps without and 60fps with FRTC

I always knew capping your frame rate reduced GPU power and lowered overall Wattage but AMD seem to have something else happening here??

How does 60fps FRTC give 151w vs 60fps without 242w

The 60fps cap @ 151W is during Campaign Intro,which I would imagine is something like a menu or video where the gpu is rendering hardly anything but fully utilising the card to throw out 310fps @ 355-390W.

The 60fps cap @ 242W scenario is during gameplay, where uncapped the gpu can only attain 105fps @ 344W consumption due to the workload not saturating gpu components in the same way the menu does.

That's my theory anyway.

StriderX · 22 Aug 2015 at 10:57

Could be worse, could be several thousand frames per second... that hurts my ears something fierce.

Martini1991 · 22 Aug 2015 at 11:07

JediFragger said:
I'm guessing it's because it's a little used resolution and they're concentrating on the more 'used' ones at present. Here's to them getting it sorted soon though!! Even 3440x1440 downscale would be sweet for you

Which can be used as an excuse if AMD had been the first to officially support downsampling, but they're not, they're second (And by many many months) to come out that late and lacking in support is inexcusable, it's just poor, as Nvidia do support 21:9 downsampling, and have done since inception.

shankly1985 · 22 Aug 2015 at 11:07

AMDMatt said:
It's just the first implementation. No promises, but it's likely it the feature will be improved and expanded upon over time, the same as we've done and are continuing to do with Virtual Super Resolution.

That would be sweet, if they added 144hz as the max I be all over this.
Also a must Matt is game profiles based.

JediFragger · 22 Aug 2015 at 11:10

Martini1991 said:
Which can be used as an excuse if AMD had been the first to officially support downsampling, but they're not, they're second (And by many many months) to come out that late and lacking in support is inexcusable, it's just poor, as Nvidia do support 21:9 downsampling, and have done since inception.

Fair enough!! With having 4k it's just something I've never used tbh

Gregster · 22 Aug 2015 at 11:26

shankly1985 said:
That would be sweet, if they added 144hz as the max I be all over this.
Also a must Matt is game profiles based.

You can do that with MSI AB in the rivaTuner settings Shanks.

Martini1991 · 22 Aug 2015 at 11:31

I just use MSI's frame rate limiter, don't see the point in AMD's when it even limits how low it can go to 55 for me personally (Which was required to make Witcher 3 smooth on a single 290X at my resolution with good IQ), just another feature which lags behind competing implementations.

GoogalyMoogaly · 22 Aug 2015 at 11:34

shankly1985 said:
That would be sweet, if they added 144hz as the max I be all over this.
Also a must Matt is game profiles based.

I agree that being able to apply this on a game by game basis might be nice, not sure I'd say it's a must though.

Also the quote says

Users might wish to set a very high cap

So I'm assuming there is a way to go over 95fps (or whatever the limit is) as I can't imagine who would consider 95fps to be 'very high'.

Well, I guess console users, but anyone used to 60fps probably wouldn't. People used to 120fps (which has been around a long time AMD) or 144fps definitely wouldn't consider if very high. I mean those of use that use those refresh rates would probably consider this 'low' because it means less than the monitor could display.

Or was 'very high cap' just a poor choice of words by marketing, much like 'Overclockers Dream'?

Martini1991 said:
I just use MSI's frame rate limiter, don't see the point in AMD's when it even limits how low it can go to 55 for me personally (Which was required to make Witcher 3 smooth on a single 290X at my resolution with good IQ), just another feature which lags behind competing implementations.

The nice thing is that it means you don't have to install or run RivaTuner Statistics Server just to limit fps.

JediFragger · 22 Aug 2015 at 11:39

I used to use the AB/Riva settings until I switched to nVidia and now I just use 'Adaptive vsync'

shankly1985 · 22 Aug 2015 at 11:48

Gregster said:
You can do that with MSI AB in the rivaTuner settings Shanks.

Yeah I already do this! But having this in Driver software would be one less program running in the background.

Anything AMD or Nvidia add to stop you using other software is a good thing in my eyes.

tommybhoy · 22 Aug 2015 at 11:53

Martini1991 said:
Which can be used as an excuse if AMD had been the first to officially support downsampling, but they're not, they're second (And by many many months) to come out that late and lacking in support is inexcusable, it's just poor, as Nvidia do support 21:9 downsampling, and have done since inception.

Surprised you've not swapped over to a 970 to get that resolution tbph, you've never came across happy at all with your gpu.

As it stands both implementations aren't perfect, all credit to Nvidia for introducing Downsampling CP integration though.

Nvidia's DSR resolution range and AMD's VSR CC implementation, would be all round perfect imo.