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.
By the way, you can use vsync in NVIDIA drivers and it works better than frame limiter but also does the same thing frame limiter does by keeping max fps below refresh limit of the monitor (167 in case of my oled instead of its 175). And it works fully with frame generation and other Nvidia tech.
There's no need to use frame limiter if you use Nvidia vsync in control panel. It limits frames by default below refresh rate of panel - mine stops at 167 on 175Hz panel. 0 issues in any game I've tried and works with dlss3 fg.Not 100% sure on amds freesync settings but vsync is recommended to be turned on in the nvidia control panel for gsync along with a fps limit 3-4 fps below your screen refresh rate so as to stop the traditional vsync kicking in, there is no latency associated this way, however, if you are hitting the refresh rate of your screen i.e. 144hz and exceeding fps here then you will get the latency hit from the traditional vsync method.
This is where all the main latency issues came from when dlss 3/FG was released as the fps was far exceeding the refresh rate of the display thus you weren't just getting the increased latency from frame generation but more so from vsync, only DF picked up on this, which meant all the others testing/reports were flawed:
One other thing which is required with frame generation on nvidia is that there should be no FPS limit when using frame generation along with reflex (apparently no fps limit should be set with reflex turned on even when not using frame generation), reflex acts as the fps limiter or so people are reporting on the likes of reddit anyway.....
Nope, it definitely does.
I turn it off, it goes to 175Hz with in-game vsync. I turn it on, it stops at 167 and works with DLSS 3 FG without additional latency (unlike normal frame limiter or vsync in game).That wouldn't happen in any game I tested, so might be a conflict with some other software you have installed? Also, don't forget to turn off vsync in game when you turn it on in NVCP. Mind you, I am testing this on 4090, it's possible it behaves differently on older gens.
Nope, it definitely does.
Yes, low latency on Ultra. If I recall correctly, that's necessary for the frame limit in vsync to work properly - I totally forgot about it. Sorry about that! It even says in NVCP "In addition, this mode minimises vsync latency when both vsync and g-sync are enabled.". It worked just as well on g-sync compatible monitor as it works on current full g-sync oled for me, so that should work fine on most (if not all) VRR monitors.
Yes, low latency on Ultra. If I recall correctly, that's necessary for the frame limit in vsync to work properly - I totally forgot about it.
I have never had any stutter with this on, neither on 4090 now nor earlier on 3080 Ti - worked fine on both, as far as I recall, in all games I've tested it on. Might be, they fixed it over time?
No, latency with FG is considerably higher because GPU needs to calculate 2 frames before it can then generate a frame in between and then it displays them all one by one. Effect is higher FPS (ergo, fluidity of the image) but also higher latency as you can't overcome waiting 2 frames, even with reflex enabled. Hence, for it to feel good you need a high enough input FPS already, so the latency per frame is low enough that adding more latency from FG operation won't really feel too bad. AMD claims 60FPS is that comfy minimum. If you also add vsync to the mix, latency is way higher still - unless it's the native one in drivers, with g-sync, as that seems to be working very well.
Tho its missing that other new thing where fsr isnt using upscale but the other stuff to make aa like nvidia does with their new aa thing.
