• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Working on "Dynamic Frame Rate Control" Feature

BS Dave said:
are tech powerup idiots? surely it won't downclock the gpu, just idle when frame 1 has rendered until the required interval has passed to start on frame 2... why downclock the core to an estimate of what it needs to be?

Most games support this thru the console OR you can already do it through afterburner right. I want proper Nvidia adaptive sync ie v sync if the card can render in time non vsync if it can't.

I know shankly and humbug don't like it, but they don't speak for everyone, i want to see what it's like.
Click to expand...

You can use RadeonPro right now for that feature mate.. What this sounds like it does.. If say you running an old game and easy keep solid 60fps I guess you tell the driver what frame rate you want.. Lets say am running 290 @ 977/1250

Why should the GPU run at this clock speed to keep a frame rate of 60fps when maybe it could keep the same performance by running say 700/1250 etc
This will lower power usage and temps.. Its a clever idea

Adaptive or Dynamic Vsync wasn't really that good tbh it was better just running with vsync on or limit the frame rate to 1 frame under your refresh rate with normal Vsync.
 
andybird123 said:
U wot m8?
Never heard of GPU Boost then? That is exactly what that does, the gpu only ramps up its clock speed when it is needed, when there's any kind of fps limit in place it stays clocked down as low as 500mhz and only clocks up when needed, same with power, even if its clocked at 800, 1000, 1500, whatever, if it doesnt want to downclock it can still draw less power to get you your fps limit even at the higher clock rate
Click to expand...

Yep, with 60fps V-sync on my 970's only run at max boost clocks on the most demanding of games.

Older games they run at 500Mhz and on really old games they stay at 135Mhz idle clocks.
 
shankly1985 said:
You can use RadeonPro right now for that feature mate.. What this sounds like it does.. If say you running an old game and easy keep solid 60fps I guess you tell the driver what frame rate you want.. Lets say am running 290 @ 977/1250

Why should the GPU run at this clock speed to keep a frame rate of 60fps when maybe it could keep the same performance by running say 700/1250 etc
This will lower power usage and temps.. Its a clever idea

Adaptive or Dynamic Vsync wasn't really that good tbh it was better just running with vsync on or limit the frame rate to 1 frame under your refresh rate with normal Vsync.
Click to expand...

Well, the r290 already downclocks dynamically when it's not in full load, either in CPU limiting scenarios either in v-sync ones. Also, last time I've tried setting a dynamic frame rate with a program, when the FPS went under that value, it had a great deal of stutter, much more than the game would have without that option enabled, up to a point which made the feature useless. I don't know if the same phenomena happens on the adaptive v-sync side or with this new AMD feature, however, as long as I can't keep a certain frame rate, I rather let him "go wild".
 
Ok just tried running couple really old games and I guess I was wrong then because they was only running at 300/1250 - PowerTune thing working there?
Load up say BF4 and it will be back into 3D clocks I set.

O'well Guess we just after wait and see when its release what ever it does.

I know for sure though Dynamic vsync or adaptive don't lower clock speed though! least from my testing a while back.
 
Are we possibly missing something here, maybe this ties in with FreeSync somehow ?

I do hope I'm wrong, it's just I have this image of this working in conjunction with FreeSync, so you have to set the frame rate you want to use rather than it automatically adjusting it the way GSync does.

I must be wrong, as that is a scary thought.
 
bru said:
Are we possibly missing something here, maybe this ties in with FreeSync somehow ?

I do hope I'm wrong, it's just I have this image of this working in conjunction with FreeSync, so you have to set the frame rate you want to use rather than it automatically adjusting it the way GSync does.

I must be wrong, as that is a scary thought.
Click to expand...

Defo wrong!
 
This could potentially be a good seller, load and power consumption are tied into frame rate to a large degree anyway, reducing this further could benefit Hawaii users a great deal when on air
 
They should just focus on overall energy efficiency and cooler noise/quality but this is quite a neat workaround for inefficient, hot and noisy cards and will probably provide benefits throughout their whole lineup and long into the future.

One question though, for years AMD fanboys have been saying that AMD's drivers didn't have a simple 'force vsync' option for D3D because it goes against Microsoft's DX spec or some such nonsense, now suddenly AMD pops up with an even more advanced solution.. so what has changed other than AMD finally pulling their finger out?
 
Last edited:
mmj_uk said:
They should just focus on overall energy efficiency and cooler noise/quality but this is quite a neat workaround for inefficient, hot and noisy cards and will probably provide benefits throughout their whole lineup and long into the future.

One question though, for years AMD fanboys have been saying that AMD's drivers didn't have a simple 'force vsync' option for D3D because it goes against Microsoft's DX spec or some such nonsense, now suddenly AMD pops up with an even more advanced solution.. so what has changed other than AMD finally pulling their finger out?
Click to expand...

Lots of user-base nagging to have all this stuff.
 
humbug said:
Lots of user-base nagging to have all this stuff.
Click to expand...

The userbase has been nagging for more than 5 years even though they had to contend with AMD's attack dogs (fanboys on this very forum I'm sure they remember the "it goes against MS's DX spec" line) defending AMD's lack of such an option.

So in summary, when their user base wanted a very simple but highly useful 'force vsync' option that works with D3D adding AMD couldn't be bothered to add it, but years later when their cards are being routinely embarrassed by NVidia on the energy efficiency front and because it might impact their sales they are quickly able to come up with an even more advanced version.
 
mmj_uk said:
The userbase has been nagging for more than 5 years even though they had to contend with AMD's attack dogs (fanboys on this very forum I'm sure they remember the "it goes against MS's DX spec" line) defending AMD's lack of such an option.

So in summary, when their user base wanted a very simple but highly useful 'force vsync' option that works with D3D adding AMD couldn't be bothered to add it, but years later when their cards are being routinely embarrassed by NVidia on the energy efficiency front and because it might impact their sales they are quickly able to come up with an even more advanced version.
Click to expand...

Yawn
 
wazza300 said:
just buy a cheaper less powerfull card??

paying more to do less doesn't make sense
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. It's not about buying more to do less. If you're capping the frame rate at the refresh rate whilst also reducing GPU load in the process, then what is the point if the card isn't capable of even holding 60/120/144fps half the time? None, is the answer. If that was ever in doubt.


Although to be fair AMD struggle with power states with their drivers at the best of times. I'd be more pleased if this solved a lot of the issues with ULPS in the first place
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom