Is my computer under performing?

GothicCorpse · 13 May 2011 at 04:41

Garonazz said:
Made you giggle why ? Instead of posting useless comments to get a higher post count,

and why would i want a higher post count for numb nuts?

Garonazz · 13 May 2011 at 07:25

Ehem... For those who thought I meant switch the monitor off, no, that is not what I meant.

Lol.

Above: If you didnt, why post something completely irrelevant to the situation and make yourself look clueless? :rolleyes:

Anyway, how hard is it to understand that V.Sync was locking his FPS ? It's as simple as that.

Hairybudda · 13 May 2011 at 10:51

LokiS said:
I'm no expert and someone could explain it better, but from my understanding on V-sync dropping the fps it drops in 10s, i.e if your getting 57 fps it will cap it at 50, drop to 49 fps and it will cap at 40 which is why you would get such big lose of fps with v-sync on. I could be wrong but I clearly remember similar topic that explained exactly how v-sync worked.

No, that's completely wrong, vsync works nothing like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_tearing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_synchronization

V-Sync

Vertical synchronization is an option found in most systems, wherein the video card is prevented from doing anything visible to the display memory until after the monitor has finished its current refresh cycle.

During the vertical blanking interval, the driver would order the video card to either rapidly copy the off-screen graphics area into the active display area (double buffering), or treat both memory areas as displayable, and simply switch back and forth between them (page flipping).

When vertical synchronization is in use, the frame rate of the rendering engine will exactly equal the monitor's refresh rate, if it was higher. Although this feature normally results in improved video quality, it is not without trade-offs in some cases. When one wishes to benchmark a video card or rendering engine, it is generally implied that the hardware and software render the display as fast as possible, without regard to monitor's capabilities or the resultant video tearing. Otherwise, the monitor and video card will throttle the benchmarking program, causing it to generate invalid results. Vertical synchronization also introduces visual delay that may be perceived as input lag, which is most noticeable when playing video games.[1]

Vertical synchronization can also lead to artifacts in video and movie presentations, as they are generally recorded at frame rates significantly lower than the typical monitor frame rates (24-30 FPS). When such a movie is played on a monitor set for a typical 60 Hz refresh rate, the video player will miss the monitor's deadline fairly frequently, in addition to the interceding frames being displayed at a slightly higher rate than they were intended for, resulting in an effect similar to judder.

Video games, which have a wide variety of rendering engines, tend to benefit well from vertical synchronization, as a rendering engine is normally expected to build each frame in real time, based on whatever the engine's variables specify at the moment a frame is requested. However, because vertical synchronization causes input lag, it can interfere with games which require precise timing or fast reaction times.

Garonazz said:
Anyway, how hard is it to understand that V.Sync was locking his FPS ? It's as simple as that.

Except it's not, it never was and now you're just stupidly and blindly trying to defend your (deluded) opinion.

thedoc46 · 13 May 2011 at 11:52

Garonazz said:
Made you giggle why ? Instead of posting useless comments to get a higher post count, elaborate why, because switching V.Sync off actually helped the OP.

Garonazz said:
And that is relevant how ?

His FPS was locked at 60 and therefore it dropped to low 40's etc. He disabled it it and it jumped back up, which is exactly what he wanted, v.sync being his problem locking the frames.

Garonazz said:
Ehem... For those who thought I meant switch the monitor off, no, that is not what I meant.

Lol.

Above: If you didnt, why post something completely irrelevant to the situation and make yourself look clueless?

Anyway, how hard is it to understand that V.Sync was locking his FPS ? It's as simple as that.

As an outsider to this thread, I would say its you that is making himself look completely clueless.

The the OP leave vsync on.

Metalface Mark · 13 May 2011 at 12:20

Why dont you overclock your cpu, bit of a waste having it sat at only 3.3ghz.

Delbert · 13 May 2011 at 14:47

Have you tried D3D Override to enable Triple Buffering in Assassins ? Helps with the tearing from what i have heard ( and works fine for me too ....

).
Your heaven bench looks a little low though for 580GTX... :confused:

KNiVES · 13 May 2011 at 14:58

I could have sworn vsync lowers FPS as well. I know that in a lot of my PC games, turning vsync on will lower my FPS from 40+ to the twenties in certain areas. It also makes mouse response less sharp and responsive, even with triple buffering. I tend to leave it off as a result.

Curio · 13 May 2011 at 16:42

thedoc46 said:
As an outsider to this thread, I would say its you that is making himself look completely clueless.

Agree - clueless and miserable.

Personally I always force vsync on - I can't stand all the tearing and wobbling.

thedoc46 · 14 May 2011 at 01:02

Curio said:
Agree - clueless and miserable.

Personally I always force vsync on - I can't stand all the tearing and wobbling.

Me too. I can understand that perhaps a competitive player may want to reduce the eye candy by having a tearing mess on his screen to give him that nano-second of extra response, but outside of the world class competive player, i can't understand why any LCD owner would put up with it???

To all those everyday players, who claim it reduces response. Just move your mouse across this screen if you will... Windows Vista onwards, BY DEFAULT has vsync enabled on the desktop..... Is your mouse lagging? I thought not.