Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2006
- Posts
- 5,769
so basically it is just vsync onwhich in fps = fail
in single player games doesnt really matter as much and if you get tearing you put v sync on
in games online that matter why would you limit your hardware
for eg in cod 4 or like you want high fps and most games that benefit from fps or high fps have the simple commands anyway.
maybe 15 years to late
also if you getting less than 60 fps in the game your playing its cause your hardware is to slow.
also you just said you cap your fps to 60 fps in bf3 so what about when it drops under 60 fps ? youll get lag and get the exact the same thing as vsync on which is why its totally pointless
set your settings so you dont go under 60 fps and solve all problems or just upgrade to better gear so you get the required fps in first place
From what I've read, this simply limits your fps to 60, it doesn't synchronise your frame output with the screen refreshes (what vsync does), hence you'll still get some screen tearing. The upside is that because you graphics card doesn't have to wait for the screen to refresh before it outputs a new frame, you won't get the usual lag associated with vsync.
Now you're probably asking, why even bother with this, I mean you're just limiting your fps and not even getting rid of screen tearing? True, but it turns out it's actally a good thing to limit fps to 60, even if it isn't as good as vsync 60fps (assuming you have a 60hz monitor).
On a 60hz monitor, you are only seeing a maximum of 60 frames of information from your graphics card (similiarly 120 frames of information on a 120hz monitor, etc). Trying to output anything more than 60 fps to the monitor will simply result in screen tearing, where each screen refresh is composed of horizontal strips taken from all those extra frames your graphics card is rendering. Whether each refresh is made from a whole frame from your graphics card (vsync on) or composed from different frames from your graphics card (vsync off), in the end you're still seeing 60 frames of information from your monitor. In other words, you're not seeing more information by having fps higher than your monitor refresh rate - all those frames are going to waste.
Futhermore, having more fps than you're screen refresh rate actually increases the tearing effect, which has the side effect of making motion seem less fluid. For example, assuming you have 60hz monitor and vsync is turned off, if you view 80fps on a 60hz monitor, it will look less fluid than 60fps. I think it starts to look more fluid as you approach 120fps or any other multiple of 60. I've noticed this myself in multiple games and so have many other people.
Lastly, even if you aren't seeing any extra information at higher framerates (higher than your screen refresh rate) you can still notice the change in frame rate due to the changing levels of screen tearing or various other things (depending on the game you play), hence it is always a good thing to have a stable and consistent frame output.
Combining all these facts, it's pretty clear that, where vsync is not an option (fps is too low, you don't like the input lag, etc), having a frame limiter (set to your screen refresh rate) is almost always preferable to no frame limit at all. More is not always better. You'll also be stressing your graphics card less, by discarding all those extra frames that you don't need.
Last edited:
