Discussion in 'Graphics Cards' started by Neil79, Jan 14, 2020.
I just installed the latest drivers with it..
Do not know if its me or not but RTSS limiter with Gsync feels smoother than the Nvidia one with Gsync. Same settings on both and I do feel the RTSS solution feels better.
Interested to now what other peoples experiences with it are?
Am i right in thinking this whole frame rate limiter thing is only really of use to people with high refresh rate monitors?
No, not really. When using Gsync/vsync of any sort I always set the limiter to 57/58 or just under the actual refresh rate of your monitor and it reduces imput lag with the benefits of vsync still in place.
I have a 60Hz monitor so it's pointless playing games at 300fps.
An FPS limiter means my graphics card isn't running at full pelt for no reason, thus lowing temps and fan noise
I limit all my games to 60fps using the adaptive vsync setting unless games have their own settings
I wouldn't say pointless as you are reducing input lag when running high fps.
This is the most valid point in limiting fps.
I do that myself as do many others who have variable refresh rate monitors.
Am going use it as my OLED TV is only 60hz and you can get screen tearing if the FPS go over 60fps
Without vsync you will get screen tearing even when you cap frame rate at 60fps.
Albeit only one tear line moving across the screen so not too bad.
What about if you cap them at 56fps ?
Same. No vsync = tearing
Unless your screen supports variable refresh rate.
The only way I could ever play Skyrim was to limit to 57 FPS in combination with G-Sync (not on a 60Hz display though) as the mouse sensitivity has all kinds of problems when you go over 60 FPS in that game but 60Hz FPS cap with or without V-Sync just feels (input lag), or looks (tearing), nasty. (Also limiting to 57 FPS in that game avoids the physics bugs that happen at high framerate and allows you to run higher number of active grids without the game breaking for some reason).
Yep. Majority of my games I limit to 57.
Also another benefit of limiting fps is the card running cooler, quieter and using less energy. Oh and also not needing a powerful CPU. My 3600 hardly breaks a sweat at 4K 57fps.
I prefer higher - it is only in combination with G-Sync (or another form of adaptive sync) I find ~60 FPS playable - even then I'm happier around 80-100FPS for single player and above 100 for online FPS, etc.
I actually couldn't play Skyrim due to that until G-Sync came along LOL - trying to find a compromise between tearing, noticeable input latency or the mouse sensitivity being erratic above 60 FPS ruined the experience of it for me.
Yeah, very subjective stuff. This is why I think one should try and be less judgemental and not assume what works for them is the right way. I have no doubt that higher fps might be better, but there comes a point where there is diminishing returns and that point can be different for everyone. For me that is 57fps (some I have to leave at 60fps for the engine to work properly) for the games I play which are all single player offline. At this point the rest of the grunt goes into image quality
Running low fps at high resolution defeats the purpose of high resolution as it turns in to blurry mess in motion.
You actually get more resolution in motion when using high refresh rate/high framerate 1080p than low framerate 4K...
Nah. Nothing low or blurry about 60fps and 4K. Not for me anyways. But each to their own.
Been recently playing Horizon Zero Dawn, Spider-Man and God of War on my PS4 Pro on my OLED TV and they have been super fun to play with awesome graphics, all at a measly 30fps. So yeah 60fps is plenty fine for non twitch single player games for me.
Separate names with a comma.