1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NVIDIA's NEW FPS Limiter vs. RTSS & In-Engine Limiters / Input Lag Results

Discussion in 'Graphics Cards' started by Neil79, Jan 14, 2020.

  1. Neil79

    Caporegime

    Joined: Sep 8, 2006

    Posts: 34,329

    Location: On Ocuk

     
  2. chaparral

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 27, 2005

    Posts: 20,207

    Thanks :)

    I just installed the latest drivers with it..
     
  3. oldestgregg

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 4, 2011

    Posts: 5,642

    Location: Durham

    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?
     
  4. Cooper

    Mobster

    Joined: Jun 16, 2004

    Posts: 2,602

    Am i right in thinking this whole frame rate limiter thing is only really of use to people with high refresh rate monitors?
     
  5. oldestgregg

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 4, 2011

    Posts: 5,642

    Location: Durham

    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.
     
  6. no_1_dave

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 7, 2004

    Posts: 6,520

    Location: Gloucestershire

    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
     
  7. z10m

    Hitman

    Joined: Dec 31, 2008

    Posts: 969

    I wouldn't say pointless as you are reducing input lag when running high fps.
     
  8. z10m

    Hitman

    Joined: Dec 31, 2008

    Posts: 969

    This is the most valid point in limiting fps.
    I do that myself as do many others who have variable refresh rate monitors.
     
  9. chaparral

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 27, 2005

    Posts: 20,207

    Am going use it as my OLED TV is only 60hz and you can get screen tearing if the FPS go over 60fps
     
  10. z10m

    Hitman

    Joined: Dec 31, 2008

    Posts: 969

    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.
     
  11. chaparral

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 27, 2005

    Posts: 20,207

    What about if you cap them at 56fps ?
     
  12. z10m

    Hitman

    Joined: Dec 31, 2008

    Posts: 969

    Same. No vsync = tearing
    Unless your screen supports variable refresh rate.
     
  13. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 66,762

    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).
     
  14. TNA

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 13, 2008

    Posts: 13,353

    Location: London

    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.
     
  15. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 66,762

    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.
     
  16. TNA

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 13, 2008

    Posts: 13,353

    Location: London

    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 :)
     
  17. z10m

    Hitman

    Joined: Dec 31, 2008

    Posts: 969

    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...
     
  18. TNA

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 13, 2008

    Posts: 13,353

    Location: London

    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.