Problem is, especially in some Breath of the Wild areas, the Switch takes a considerable hit when rendering too many entities and particles, dropping well below 30 fps occasionally, which is jarring and choppy at times. Locking fps only helps so much if you already can't support a higher refresh rate.
Switch is 10 year old hardware. These “fixes” make reference to software that was designed over the last 5 years without the switch in mind. Nintendo needs to upgrade.
Funny enough I was playing tears of the kingdom at a hotel once (I took my switch and dock with me) and the tv in the room was new and had smooth motion technology (built in frame gen basically) and the game felt so GOOD compared to normal. I think it was outputting 50-60 fps and it eliminated all the stutters in the game, especially the big one that happens when you use master hand. It might have a had a little more latency but it was still a way better experience than the switches native output. I think gaming can be a real balancing act to get everything right for the best experience. Best part of pc gaming is the options we have to customize our experience
Graphics cards are like people that drive as fast as they can till they hit traffic and have to slow down. Would you rather ride with the guy who is constantly going from 70 mph down to 40 mph back and forth or the person that just cruises at 50 the whole time.
Glad that this is being brought up more. I've been capping my frame rate individually for all my games for a very long time now using RTSS. And I found out the consistency is SO MUCH better than squeezing out every frame possible. For instance a game like let's say "The Finals" I will get around ~100-110 frames mostly, I would cap my frame rate to 90 and the frame time becomes completely flat and it feels amazing. I feel like we are in another era similar to undervolting vs overclocking (undervolting aka pushing a certain/highest clock speed at its lowest stable voltage vs pushing the highest possible clock the card can supply power to reach). A key rule I have went by is that I would tweak the settings in a game to my liking, then I would monitor an estimated average frame rate and cap it around that value.
New tech eta indeed. Laptops sell quite well and undervolting is a more viable option while keeping in the thermal limits. Undervolting doesn't raise your fan noise
i always uncap my framerate and aim to get 160fps at the cost of looks as i want to be always above 144fps as i have a 144hz monitor and i want to use it to its full potential
@@roblogez That's completely fine, it is preference afterall. I prefer to sacrafice the higher spike of frames for consistency both frame time and rendering latency. Especially if there are games that I won't reach a high refresh experience anyways. All that matters is that you are having a good time.
The difference between 60fps and 120fps is much less noticeable when you use a controller instead of a mouse as well. The most noticeable thing when it comes to motion smoothness is camera movement. So despite it being 30fps on switch, it's locked and steady, while also having smoother inputs to make it feel more consistent. When you run a locked framerate, you can tune your eyes to it and get used to it. You can't do that if it's constantly changing, because you notice the changes.
You could notice it anywhere, because the entire game changes. It is harder to aim and react with a lower framerate, which is why games like CoD offer a way to play at like 120 fps, but it is also very noticeable in hack and slash games, 3rd person shooters, action RPGs, etc. Hell, you can notice the difference in Baldur's Gate 3, where you don't even need a really high number of fps. You could be standing there in a game, not moving your character, and lookin at how the wind moves something, and you would be able to notice the difference. I don't think you notice the difference more with fast camera movement. I think it is just more useful for that. What you can notice more is how it affects your performance, but not how it looks, so, playing with a controller, 144 fps looks exactly the same. It is not like suddently 30 fps would become playable for you. This is why Frame Generation is so nice for high refresh rate gaming (144hz, 240hz, etc). It is really difficult to get that framerate in curren AAA games, lile Alan Wake 2, Lords Of The Fallen, Jedi Survivor, etc, specially when they are poorly optimized, but at least it's possible to get a minimum of 144 fps in most games with mid-range hardware, and 120 fps with low-end, or what would be a little better than a console like a PS5 (maybe 4060 + Ryzen 4500 $600 PC, with a good NVMe SSD OF 1TB for fast loading times). Over 100 fps for mid-range, if we are talking about Dragon's Dogma 2 in the city area, which is arguably the worst case you'll find, and over 140 fps anywhere else, because, for every 20 real fps, you get another 20 AI generated ones, so you get a total of 40 fps. People are buying PureDark's mods to implement it in games like The Last Of Us, Jedi Survivor (back when it didn't have an official implementation), Elden Ring, Baldur's Gate 3, Assassin's Creed Mirage, GTA V, Dragon's Dogma 2, Red Dead Redemption 2, Palworld, etc, only because the difference between 60 fps and 120 fps, or 75 fps and 144 fps, or 120 fps and 240 fps, matters a lot to them, and in any game. This is why people who are playing Dragon's Dogma 2 at over 100 fps with Frame Gen are still complaining. You can also feel the drops from 144 fps to 100 fps with a 144hz monitor. Most people ignore this because they are using 60hz monitor. The vast majority of PC gamers use one.
@@joseijoseifor real dude well writing. Dude I notice every lil framedrop under my 165hz monitor. It drives me crazy. That’s why I update my gtx 970 to rx 6600 :)
@@joseijosei its funny you mention pure dark because because resolution upscale and framerate cap paired with reprojection in occulus is how I achieved a smooth render latancy in a highly modded skyrim VR with frankly underpowered hardware (running native quest res on a 3060 with about as good visuals as can be modded) upscaling and clever pipeline setup goes such a long way. it makes high end VR developement possible and way more accesible
@@joseijosei VR is a usecase IMO where visual smoothness is much less important than than render or input latency. large frame drops feel absolutely AWFUL in VR. (whipping your head around can be blurry and thats fine. it feels like real life anyway. but if you drop frames and get black portions of screen it feels bad) IMO 60 has always been good enough, i really dont understand the obsession with frames outside of competitive games. they always felt like a mess of diminishing returns for the games i like to play. mainly rpgs and high visual fidelity focused titles
I am actually always capping the framerate to the refresh rate of the monitor on the driver-level. Not to reduce the latency but to reduce the work that the CPU + GPU have to do, since I feel like it would be unnecessary (+ the bonus of reduced tearing because the framerate is in sync with the monitor) That I'd also get a strongly reduced latency is actually very interesting! And a great benefit to have. ^^ I didn't know that I would have an advantage, I thought having like 6ms latency is normal tbh. xD Thank you very much for making this educational content and the commentary, it really can help to put the information out there into the right perspective! ☺
It’s disingenuous to jump to that conclusion in my opinion but it could be the case. At 60 fps I get 18ms at 300 fps I get 4ms. Vsync off reduces latency because it’s not capping the fps. People use gsync and freesync instead of vsync to lower latency. Turning off triple buffering reduces latency but dips and spikes are more prevalent with triple buffering off. If your GPU can render 300 fps and you tell it to only show 60 its most likely still going to shove more frames in the Que now because it can easily generate more frames than it’s allowed to render increasing the buffer and latency. So assuming you’re not using any features and just going default it’s still a balancing act from what I can tell depending on the system and game.
Capping your framerate doesn't time the frames though, if you wanted to eliminate tearing, G-Sync + V-Sync + Reflex set to On + Boost will give you the lowest latency, and best image quality on NVIDIA gpus assuming you have a monitor that supports adaptive sync.
Yeah less work for GPU, CPU less heat produced and you also get a lower power bill. That is why I do it as well. Plus you can get away with cheaper GPU if you learn to not be too obsessed about FPS.
@@quintrapnell3605 GPU doesn't generate frames it wasn't requested to. If you set it to only generate 100 frames, it WILL only generate 100 frames. It's not a setting to only SHOW 100 frames. It literally tells the GPU to generate 1 frame every 10ms, no more. Also, it's not the GPU that 'shoves' frames into the queue. It's the CPU. I don't know whether the CPU will follow a GPU drivers frames cap, but if you set a cap in game, then CPU WILL only send those frames that are needed to reach it. In case of 100 FPS, that's one frame every 10ms.
@@SurferXVIIThat is why I mainly meant reduced tearing. I am using an AMD-GPU so Freesync and AntiLag are the tools I have on hand. But 6ms on 240 FPS sounds good to me (especially on my WOLED), though I gotta see if it was the render latency of the interval of the frames being rendered...
It's the first time I see someone actually recommand motion blur to increase smoothness in a long time. It's basically the next best thing compared to using frame gen for smoother visual experience without affecting latency as much.
Yeah, no. Motion blur is pretty terrible. I know it's not everyone, but when he turned motion blur in the video above, I've begun feeling nauseous. The image maybe have become 'smooth', but it has become a smooth smudge, instead of a smooth image. You can't actually make out details whenever he moves, and my body reacts as if it saw constantly blinking lights 'swimming' around the screen. So yeah, there's a good reason why a lot of people turn off motion blur. It does not work the same way that the blur you see when looking at a fast-moving object at all. It's the difference between the brain deciding to 'ah, whatever', it's not worth the effort' and not 'generating' the image fully, and the brain seeing the smudge and thinking 'what the hell is this?!'. Two different thing.
@@kikixchannel true. But for me, even with a smooth 120 fps and vsync on, the image is choppy. Too sharp imo. That’s why I like motion blur. Can’t discredit our opinions by saying “yeah, no.”
But if you look at the frametime, you can see that when he is locking the framerate, the average frametime almost always goes up. To me, a more steady and low frametime will always look smoother than a slightly lower latency.
Frame times are determined by fps. The formula for frametime is (Frametime= 1000/fps). So if you lower the fps the frametime will of course go up. 60 fps equals an expected frametime of 16.66. If you locked your Framerate to 60 and had a frametime of 8 something is wrong. The point is if you’re locked at a lower fps your frametime will go up but it will stay consistent instead of jumping all over because your fps is going from 120 down to 90 and everything in between. For a frametime graph it’s more important that it be a flat line than it be a low number because it helps give an indication more of consistency not performance (though it kind of shows both). Let’s say you wanted 120 fps in your game, you can do the math yourself to get your frametime. 1000/120=8.3, so you would expect a frametime of 8.3 ms. If your gpu can keep the frametime at 8.3 at all times that’s great you’ll have a great experience. But if your fps isn’t locked the gpu will try to do the maximum it can and the frame times will naturally stutter a lot as it outputs 150 fps one second and 90 or less another. Granted if you already have a very low frametime if it goes up a couple ms, from 8-10, you might not even notice. It’s a balancing act of finding the best fps to stay consistent and that can change a lot from game to game. If you happen to have a game that looks a little choppy, locking the fps can give you a much better experience. I think in most cases many people won’t notice if the fps stays roughly the same, around a 20-30 fps difference, but for people on lower end or medium budget cards this can do a lot to help things feel smoother, which I think is more important than a slight change in latency also. I think he should have focused more on how locking the fps helps the game feel consistent rather than on the lower latency. I think the big point we can take from the video is that with a pc we can do so much more to change how our games play and feel, but most of us aren’t taking advantage of it like we could.
I've been frame capping all my games for YEARS. Probably a decade now. Less latency, consistency, lower power draw, heat, etc. Another point to add: Always try to use in-game frame caps if available. If the game doesn't, you can use radeon chill or rivatuner to do so. Edit: This is why I find frame gen so flawed. Yes, the image will look "smoother", but there is more input latency and less consistency. This is what we are trying to avoid, not add into the game. Not to mention the artefacts FG introduces. Bigger number isn't always better. They are using marketing to trick people into new cards.
@signe_stilett Technically, frame gen shouldn't really be used at lower frame rates anyway (sub 60, maybe less) so it seems a bit harsh to complain about needing frame gen to play a game at probably a high resolution (at least after upscaling), very demanding settings like ray/path tracing, all at 60-120+ fps. If that's not good enough just compromise on visuals a bit for a higher frame rate. Even upscaling like DLSS or FSR is quite reasonable if not implemented poorly. At least with DLSS, it can actually look better than standard TAA and is basically free performance. With something like ray tracing, it can be such a demanding feature that it's almost necessary to use upscaling but again, if that bothers you then you just have to compromise certain aspects of image quality for a native (or closer to native) resolution / higher FPS. There are definitely games that you can justifiably call poorly optimized but also not every game needs to be playable at 4k120 at ultra settings. In fact that just means the quality ceiling is probably set way too low and visually the game has no room to scale on better/future hardware.
@@ReptilezDzn It's better if you like looking at ruler flat frametimes in RTSS. Otherwise, use the in-game limiter if it works well. It's not as flat, but it's basically flat enough in practice compared to uncapped. There may be some optimizations to the in-game limiter that a driver-level limiter doesn't have. (src: Battle(non)sense)
@@JapesZXalmost always I've witnessed most in-game frame caps to not be as consistent as RTSS, I've tested this on 3 nvidia gpus(1650super,3060,3070).
For me it depends, I've been gaming on 1440p@144Hz for 8 years or so, and while I got used to it for fast paced games like OW, I'm still happy with 60 on my 4k monitor for non shooter games. It's not really like "60 feels like garbage" now, for me.
The FPS capping for input latency improvement is highly game specific. In many cases it makes input latency worse. Check out the Hardware Unboxed exploration of it.
And Hardware Unboxed doesn't know anything about CRT monitors so i can game at 60Hz or 75Hz with the framerate capped and feels lightyears better than LCDs at 300Hz or 165Hz (i know because i tried those).
I've capped my fps ever since i bought my first pc. I prefer a better looking game runing smoothly instead of a fast paced, but choppy gameplay. Also capping the fps helps me ramp up the resolution and graphics without falling below the sweet 60fps even in render-heavy areas.❤
Yeah, I discovered this years ago. Capping the frame rate to a value where the GPU is, say, only about 90% loaded most of the time will reduce input lag and make your game feel more responsive. The issue is that you have to lower the frame rate to a number that you can stay above 100% of the time while also not maxing out your GPU. Because of this, you may have to play with frame rates that are in many cases 20% or more lower than what your GPU can put out, and that just feels bad...emotionally.
500 fps that has every 5th frame be double length will probably look a lot worse than smooth 250 fps or even 120 fps. If lower fps produces more even frames, I'll always prefer that. It will not just feel more smooth and responsive, but look that way too. Granted, fps cap is not a magic bullet, but I feel like ppl focus way too much on number of frames and way too little on frame consistency. More frames is only better if you don't pay in frame consistency for it.
Wow oh yeah latency metric in afterburner? Why isn't this talked about more?? Great video! Dare I say... ... "game changer?" (Boooo) okay gotta check this out
I play FPS games since 2003, and I also have some study in game dev and human performance in games here in Brazil, and the most important question that I found out is that where all the tech improvements stop to really improving something? And I believe that have something to do with the range of time that a person can make a decision (like when the target changes dir to the left than you move your aim to the left too) there's a curve at when FPS and Hz and latency stops to do something to your skills, and there's a lot of placebo and marketing with Nividia, Ultra-Polling Rate mouses and lots of stuff, and sometimes you can feel the diffrence between 1000 Hz and 4k, but the key is again not if u feel something, but if its doing something, the improvement have to be something that a human can interact with, its hard to self-test and require a lots of knowledge and you have to consider placebos, and your training routine, a lot of variables, but helps a lot ot identify what does a drastic, gigantic diffrence, like for example trying to aim with 24/30 FPS with V-Sync and them u progress to that gray range that u think that something made a litte diffrence or not.
I agree. Thanks for the explanation. The demand for super high FPS has always bothered me. It made no sense to me. I am old school, literally, lol. You explaned it perfectly. Thank you so much.
This is probably the best explanation of this topic for people that don't understand it well, like my friends. I've been capping my fps for many years for the reasons in this video. When I tell my friends that frame times are more important than frame rates and to cap their fps, they're like, 'HUH? Get outta here.' Then they wonder why my games are visually much, much smoother than theirs even if they are running higher frame rates. This will be my go-to video from now on for my friends and others who just don't get it.
You may limit it to slightly above your lowest FPS and it will still stay consistent. Part of the dips is actually the GPU trying to catch up to the queue. If it never ends up having a queue, it will have more power available to render those difficult frames, and as such, it will not have those dips in the first place. You can see that on this video at 8:15. So yes. FPS goes as low as it does in a game ONLY if it has to work at maximum all the time (uncapped frame rate) and thus end up having a queue of frames to fulfill. If you set your cap below that minimum FPS, then you're losing out on frames. Potentially several percent.
This isn't a new concept, and is pretty commonly used by gamers, though you don't really get the consistency advantage from locking FPS if you have something like G-Sync or Free-Sync, but you'd of course still get the advantage of Lower power consumption, lower temps ect from locking your FPS, But IMO if you have a high refresh rate monitor with Free-Sync or G-Sync then you should just cap fps at the monitor refresh rate. As for the switch, The issue people have for the switch isn't that it runs at 30FPS its that it fails to even maintain 30FPS there are several games where frame rates will drop into the low 20s which is genuinely unacceptable to charge nearly 300 dollars for a console then 60 for a game only for you to get an inferior experience to emulating it on the phone you most likely already have.
I find Gsync to produce even more frame inconsistencies and sometimes even severe micro-stutters (haven't tried freesync, but I imagine it's even worse). I've stopped using it long ago (not even for ultra RT 4k cyberpunk that barely runs at 60 fps; a little screen tearing >> micro-stutters in my book).
"charge nearly 300 dollars for a console then 60 for a game" We gotta be fair here. Where in the world are you able to get a PS5 for $300, even used? And are we talking about a $300 phone or a $1000 iPhone?
The latest version of RTSS has support for enabling Reflex in any DX11 and DX12 game. How well it works depends on how the game samples input. In the settings you need to switch the FPS limiter mode from "async" to "Reflex". If you want Reflex but without FPS capping, you can set a very high cap (like 480FPS) that can't be reached. The new Reflex limiter can also be used to cap FPS when using DLSS 3 frame gen.
The latest Nvidia App's fps limiter has the lowest latency of all the frame limiters I tested. It's similar to Special K. You can see it behaves exactly the same as if you had Reflex enabled in DX games (which automatically limits your fps to 116 on 120hz panel, or 158fps on 165hz panel, etc..) IF you have VSync enabled. You have to have ULLM enabled in Nvidia App too. RTSS has the highest latency of them all, even if you use the Reflex option. In Reflex limited games you should see the frame time fluctuate ever so slightly by few 0.1ms up and back. If you limit your fps with RTSS, the frame times are super flat, but the latency is higher. So what you have to do: Have a VRR compatible screen and enable G-SYNC in NVIDIA control panel / NVIDIA App Enable VSync Enable Ultra Low Latency Mode in NVIDIA App In DirectX game it will work automatically In Vulkan games limit your fps to that value that it automatically limits in DirectX games (e.g. 116fps on a 120hz ; 158 on a 165hz; etc..)
I dont know what the point of this video is. You should just be using Vsync (in Nvidias control panel, global) + Gsync active (or whatever you use). Battle(non)sense and Blurbusters have discussed this years ago. Theres no need to manually cap your fps in 2024, unless you're going for 60 fps on a 100+ hz display (why? you get a blurrier experience) or you want to save power (why you barely save anything on your actual bill) or temperature (I only really get this one if you're on an old dusty GPU with bad cooling on it or a 7900XT/XTX with bad mem cooling) Most of VEX's videos seem to be in good faith but are usually misinformed. Hes obsessing over latency in this video, we're talking differences of like 1 ms, average human reaction time is about well over 200 ms, with the ideal being around < 180ms. No one, not even the most obsessive ESPORT gamer would notice the difference in that latency.
I usually cap to 120FPS on a 165Hz display. Sometimes I cap even a bit lower, depending on the game. I don't like it when a game runs at 90FPS in one location, then jumps to 160FPS when I look towards something else that has less stuff to render. I prefer some consistency. FPS variance of about 15% or so is fine. But huge jumps in FPS is something I just don't like. A game feels very different to me when it runs at 90 and then feels different again when it jumps to 160. I want to feel about the same all the time.
Just capping the FPS doesn’t always help latency. Frame cap just puts more frames in the buffer waiting on the cap to show increasing latency. Reflex or antilag are the real mvp.
Thank you so much for doing this video, I've been advocating for more than a decade about locking the FPS, it's better for frame pacing, it's better for the system (less stress), it's better for latency, and it's also better for consistency, because when latency fluctuates even a little bit, it does make an actual difference in how the game controls, it's subtle but I can notice it sometimes.
Your videos are fantastic, I've gone through some of your videos and you breakdown quite technical and "nerdy" stuff in a really easy to understand way.
I dislike the title but there is some good information in the video. Worth noting in some situations capping framerate for consistent latency is not actually worth it. It depends on the relative frametime and the how much fps you are getting in the first place. Sometimes trading latency consistentcy for a lower frametime most of the game is worth it for a far better experience and people overrate the effects of dips as they are looking at graphs of fps rather than frametimes. Optimum Tech did a good analysis of an example in Apex Legends where some people preach framecaps but after doing loads of research/testing came to the conclusion that for competitive players (without heat or power problems) if you are getting an inconsistent 140-165fps average, sometimes it's better to have an uncapped framerate with a slightly more inconsistent latency, than a capped framerate at 144fps for example. An important myth to dispell is that higher fps than your monitors refresh rate doesn't help. This isn't true as often exceeding the monitors refresh rate allows your monitor to get more up to date frames when it does refresh, lowering your latency experience in a roundabout way. Hardware Unboxed has a good video on it and if exceeding your monitors refresh rate makes sense for you in some situations. While latency consistently is important and I do use caps sometimes there are different times fps caps are not the right decision where high fps overrides it at certain breakpoints as more important. Lower end-to-end latency, higher fps, and consistency all matter together in balance. Halo Infinite for example is a game that will destroy it's latency trying to hit fps targets if you set the target framerates wrong, so I believe capping it is better because the engine can't take care of itself perfectly iirc. I partially disagree with the end conclusion of the video that we shouldn't be pushing to closer to 90fps instead of 60fps in some scenarios for some game standards. While some games I think should be 60 or even 30 for standard I think some pushing to 90 or 120 is the more important improvement on many others. I don't think just a rock solid 60 as the only option is optimal decision.
Ive always limited my fps to my monitors refresh rate for less power usage and always noticed (on apex at least) that it gave me a better experience than leaving it uncapped.
Yeah but apex is weird. They give people using V-sync better fps boost. 144hz vsync off looks bad. And yeah, capping to monitors hz is really good as long as it doesnt create input lag or screen tearing. Thats the cons that come with it, and also you remove render queue by not running gpu at 100%
I've been telling people to use a 59 FPS cap for 60 hz vsync with Pre Rendered Frames 1 for years. Occasionally I got "thank you"s, but mostly it gets me shouted down by morons on Steam that don't test anything and have nothing to say to me but hypothericals, not actual results. I guess Nvidia rebranding their own driver functionality finally made this an acceptable topic to talk about.
@@XenoSpyroWouldn't that cause screen tear? I have an old 60Hz monitor, and I make sure it's not using the 59.94hz fractional framerates. I would love an explanation of this is not the case!
I ran some personal tests in my own in space engineers and found that antilag+windows game mode on vs off gave me 10fps more on 0.1% lows.. CapFrameX is amazing tool I deff recommend using
This is caused by people who don't play games, reporting as the authority in games. Meanwhile the only thing they can do is run cinebench and monkey renders
the trick is to cap ur fps to half of what your screen is capable of, that way you can have frames in sync with ur refresh rate (if you dont have gsync or freesync) for example, 72fps locked on a 144hz monitor is smoother than 100fps on a 144hz monitor. this is for single player games only btw and if you can reach 144fps locked then all the better.
The reason I limit fps is purely to save power..!! I run my entire computer rack and most of my house on solar power so these days I'm all about saving energy..!! It makes a difference..!! Especially when gaming in 1080 resolution with all the settings at max..!! I'm running 5900x or 5800x3d with rx6800 or rx6750xt..!! Gotta Love the AM4 platform..!! Killer combos..!! Also been running completely virtualized with Proxmox hardware passthrough for last 4 months.....no problems..!! Great video..!! I like your style of video..!! Keep it up..!!
Rule of thumb is always cap the fps at the lowest it drops in any given game, Luckily for me thats usually 120 or higher. Uncapped unstable frames are bad yes, but a capped stable high frame rate is good.
As a steam deck user and an AMD user, I've often used frame rate limiters or radeon chill during gaming. I have never known that you get that extra latency benefit! Now I gotta start testing when the fps drop has less of a latency penalty than the impact of the overall latency benefit
I for myself do limit fps to 60 fps for light to medium game and maybe 45 or 30 for heavier game if using ultra with my 1080 ti. My motives are: 1. to get more stable fps, I felt uncomfy when sometime we get to heavy load area and felt the fps drop coz I just realize it especially with my older card which is 1050 ti. 2. I don't want to stress my GPU to it's limit considering it's lifespan and power consumption and heat it cause and most importantly the fan noise. 3. I feel like not seeing my GPU suffer too much is makes me feel my GPU is strong enough to carry me on games for next several years and won't makes me feel disappointed soon. 4. My cheap monitor only support 60 hz. so I thought why would I let my pc send more frame just to be wasted by my monitor (maybe) I'm just casual pc user not really sure bout that but after experimenting with lowering the fps limit to some point like 57 or 58 fps or more like 90 fps I felt more comfortable at 60. And here I found another new motives for me the latency oh wow it's nice to know
I got my first 120hz monitor in 2010. It's a 3D vision monitor. From that moment on, 120hz was the new 60fps for me. I've always done everything I can to keep my frame rate over 100 ever since that change. I used to get motion sick quite often through the 90s and 2000s. Since going 120 I noticed it less. I've attributed it to FPS. However more recently as my monitors have gone up in frame rate capability, I do still occasionally get motion sick. I'm not of the opinion it's frame time consistency more than anything that is important to prevent motion sickness whilst gaming. I now lock my frame rate down if my 4090 can't hold a really consistent frame rate, I lower it so it can keep it very consistent. Haven't gotten motion sick since I made this change. Could be the type of games im playing. It's hard to say for certain. At the very least a high frame rate that is very consistent has definitely reduced the frequency in which I get sick.
Wait, is any of this actually news to people? I struggle to accept that anyone who grew up playing console games wouldn't have figured out most of what you were "surprised by" in this video. Delivering frames at consistent intervals gives you a smoother experience. Amazing, such groundbreaking, much impressed.
Good video topic --- I've been doing frame rate capping for quite some time now... Love it! You should do a continuation video discussing AMD's Radeon Chill...
You said all in the beginning, solid frame rate. Caping will ensure the game is running consistent all the time. The switch could push some games to 60fps, but it would be deficult to accomplish 90% of the time with demanding games. Then you get to other problem, power consumption. On handled devices this is common sense, but on home consoles it makes sense to keep the system from throttling from heat and by default making the frame rate stable and consistent. The latency, well you must be super human to tell the difference between 12ms and 9ms, but it's normal to improve because the system it's not working on its peak performance all the time, and it's where the system it's more vulnerable to bottleneck
Nvidia kicked this whole craze about high refresh rate gaming into overdrive around 2018 when they paid Linus in particular and some other channels to talk about it. People bought it whole sale but at the end of the day, its just another way for them to sell more GPUs. They did a favor for Monitor manufacturers too obviously. Now some people are so obsessed with FPS they want minimum 120 fps even in a game like Starfield or Alan Wake or even in a top down game like BG3 or Total War WH3. These games feel fine even at 50 fps!
It may feel fine to you but feels like total shit to me. What's wrong with wanting or preferring 100fps? If it's possible to reasonably run that way then it should be as simple as that, end of story but for some reason it's a polarizing topic it seems. In 10 years running 30-60fps will likely be considered stone age just like how we look back on the days before 1080p. Everyone enjoys higher res picture and it's natural to advance as time goes by
@@B-ROYalty Takes all of 5 minutes for your eyes and reactions to adjust. After that even 45 - 60 fps feels smooth. BUT, if you cant be bothered to play at anything below 100 fps then be ready to keep Nvidia or AMD too for that priviledge. Its been a bit more than 10 years since 1080p became the mainstream standard resolution but they are still selling 1080p cards at the $400 and even $500 tier in 2024. They will likely milk us in the same way for wanting 100 fps for a long time too.
Great Topic. I always cap my FPS with Rivatuner and configured a shortcut to increase/decrease the fps cap +/-30fps on the fly. I see no benefit in running uncapped and dealing with big frametime fluctuations during gameplay. Also: running high fps and having a CPU limit feels a lot choppier than limiting the fps to a stable value.
Holy shit i learned alot in this video thank you! Also really excited to try that frame time software from nvidia, i didnt even realize that existed. Huge game changer considering I’m not a huge fan of rivatuner
great vid can you test something for me, might make interesting vid, I have a theory that 4k content might look better on a 1080p screen rather than 1440p screen because of the simpler scaling factor, it divides perfectly each pixel into 4 while with a 1440p the down scale doesnt divide to a whole number and u have to trust scaling algorithms . I was wondering if 4k content looks better on 1080p monitors vs 1440p
I had tested this and is true what you said. 4K looks excellent for 1080p monitor. But how about 8K on 1080p monitor? I had tested that too, and quality looks absolutely perfect.
Most likely not, 1440p is just a much more pixel dense resolution compared to 1080p (as long as the 1440p monitor is under 32"), so 4k downscaled to 1440p will still look better. As far as how accurate the end result is actually is.. 1080p probably comes out on top in that regard just due to the downscale factor being an even number, but that's basically going to be imperceivable to the naked eye anyways. Basically then answer to your question is no, it won't look better. Along with that, a 1080p panel will never look better than 1440p unless you find a monitor that has a 1080p pixel density more compact than whatever 1440p monitor you use to compare. So basically you'd have to use a 30" 1440p panel, and put it against a 24in 1080p panel. Pixel density for the 1080p monitor is 97.91, for the 30" 1440p is also 91.97. I tried to keep the sizes of the panels realistic for this as well. Anything over 30" and its pointless to go from 1080p to 1440p if you want things to look sharper (better). 32" 1440p & 24" 1080p have the exact same pixel density. Basically its like they took a 1080p panel, and just added pixels until it gets to 32", it doesn't look any better, the extra pixels just compensate for the extra 8". 24" is the absolute smallest I'd go for a monitor in general, and anything less than 1080p just doesn't make sense due to how affordable GOOD 1080p panels are now.
@@rusakko91 Yes, but not because your monitor gets extra pixels when rendering it. On RUclips, even if you render a 4k vid on a 1080p panel, youtube still sends all of the data, and your pc downscales and outputs to your monitor. Firstly, downscaling like this already has a major bump in quality, but you also still get the bitrate of a 4k video as well. It's basically a double whammy, you get 4k resolution AND bitrate, and get to downscale that as well. A 4k video or image will look better on a 1440p panel that's less than 32" (most 1440p panels are) than it would on any 1080p monitor 24" or above (most 1080p monitors are).
@@SurferXVIIYou don't really seems to know, what you are talking about. Monitors don't get any extra pixels, but instead GPU render more virtual pixels. And don't compare RUclips resolution to gaming resolution. With DSR or VSR you might don't need any anti-aliasing, if the rendering resolution is four times more than monitor resolution and same time it gives more information to monitor. DSR and VSR shows what monitor really capable for, when speaking of picture quality. Typical anti-aliasing just make 1080p resolution panel looks like native 900p panel. Yes, on 1440p monitor 4K content look better, but 1080p has better fitting for 4K content (in gaming is more easily to seen) even without the extra sharpness.
@@rusakko91 Well I actually said, "your monitor DOESN'T get extra pixels", so both of us actually agree on that lol. I also used a RUclips video just as an example, not the only thing you would be downscaling. But yes, in a certain gaming scenarios 4k downscaled to 1440p could look worse than 4k downscaled to 1080p. But that has to be a particularly still image for anyone to even notice that, and honestly the difference would be at a pixel to sub-pixel level anyways, which is pretty much impossible to see at any distance with the human eye. Lets say you take an optimal panel size for 1440p, and an optimal panel size for 1080p. 1440p should be 27", and 1080p should be 24". The pixel density of the 1440p monitor has close to 20% more pixels per inch than the 1080p monitor. The already nearly impossible to see worse downscaling on a 1440p panel from 4k would be so hard to see or notice without it being a still frame that it's not even worth discussing. The 18% more pixels is much more worth it than small gains you would get from using a 1080p panel where everything has less overall detail, and is typically the same size, if not a smaller panel in general. Another point to make is almost no one is downscaling a game, that would be highly inefficient. I mean I bet some people definitely are, but why? If you have the rasterization power to natively render 4k, and then downscale it to 1440p.. why not just get a 4k panel, or even something in between if that's not something you're willing to pay for? It doesn't really make any sense to downscale for gaming, it really only makes sense for squeezing a little bit of extra detail out of videos, like how I mentioned for RUclips. But even then, its not even that big of a difference. If you meant upscaling, then I could understand that, maybe having a 1440p, or 4k panel, and than upscaling by 1.5x - 2x from a respectable resolution. But then again.. DLSS/FSR would be MILES better at upscaling and you wouldn't need to worry about it at all. Pretty much Upscaling isn't something you have to worry about due to DLSS/FSR, and downscaling literally doesn't make any sense for gaming. If you can game at 4k, then downscale it to 1440p/1080p, just get a 4k panel. You won't see a single difference in FPS. You actually will get less latency that way as well since your GPU doesn't have to spend those extra milliseconds rescaling. None of this makes sense for gaming lol! And just to add to what I said in the first part, its not worse downscaling, its just not a whole number so it can be less accurate sometimes. I guess that's worse, but less downscaling preserves more detail. Yeah don't downscale for gaming, if you can do that without tanking FPS.. its time to upgrade your monitor!
I have a very high end system and play Fortnite. I try to get the most consistent frame rate that hits the monitors Refresh rate, I even use V-sync. There is something very magical about having a very flat line for your game, you forget about the frames completely.
@@TheKims82 Depends if your GPU and monitor support some form of variable refresh rate or not. If yes, then limiting in the game is best. Lowest latency possible.
@@TheKims82V-Sync adds one frame of latency so at 60 fps you add up to 16ms of latency, 8ms at 120 fps etc. Though turning V-Sync off might induce screen tearing if you don't own a good freesync monitor.
I always cap my FPS to either monitor refresh or 120. For more demanding games I cap it at half refresh (72). I didn’t know the technical side of why but the games just look smoother to me when capped.
Always capping the frame rate :D In drivers or in-game! Benefits power consumption / temps as well, especially if your pushing a crazy amount of frames
You should not buy any card you can't afford to run. If the power bill if a concern you shouldn't have bought whatever card is consuming so much power.
@@AlucardNoir So you should just use more power for no reason? If you can get the same experience while using less power then that is the logical thing to do. If I need to get from point A to point B and there’s 2 identical buses following the same route, except one costs 10$ and the other one costs 20$, do I take the 20$ fare just because I can afford it?
@@alexmcn5939 That depends, do they offer the exact same service or is one a 50 year old run down bus with shot suspension while the other is a 4 year old bus with air conditioning and modern amenities? If a game runs at 1000fps in the menu that's a problem with the game not your hardware. But if you play an FPS then you want it to run at the highest possible frame rate so that the frames shown on screen, even if they're only 60, present the newest possible information. If you bought a 4090 and then are limiting the FPS in CS:GO, well, then you frankly wasted your money on that card. I also lock frames in a lot of games, but not for power reasons, I lock them because I want stability. I'd rather have a stable 60 or 72 than have my frame rate drop from 144 to 80 and back again. But to drop the frame rate to preserve power? Why the fuck did you buy a card you clearly can't afford to run? To use a metaphor more in line with yours, why would you buy one of those giant american SUVs if you can't afford the gas and have to take the bus to your local hypermarket?
Commuting can be fun. Laptops: A 99wh battery only runs 1.5-2 hrs capped @30fps for GPU intensive stuff. Handhelds: are a joy but are power limited too on the go.
While most of the video is pretty informative and on point, the reason zelda TOTK is locked at 30fps on the switch, it's because the game runs like ass, it often dips to under 30 fps in different zones, which is probably the 2nd biggest reason (behind piracy) that people want to play it on an emulator. If I wanted to play a switch game (god help me) I'd just run it on my PC at 4K60 or higher, no way in hell I'm getting a game to play it at 30fps with potato graphics.
Great video, on amd capping frame rates doesn't work on certain games (in game settings). Solution is to use RTSS but it will crashes for time to time with Antilag on. Wish they fix that soon.... MW3 is one of the game having the issue.
I noticed in some games that having high FPS can get some dips in FPS, micro stuttering i would call them ( prolly mostly due to CPU bottleneck, as it used to happen on my older PC ), which can be fixed by limiting the FPS to make it more stable. Having unlocked FPS can be annoying, especially if not getting above the Hz of the monitor the whole time, as it can feel BLEGH moving from 60 to 45 FPS, for example. In that case it might be better to lock it at 45. A stable framerate is better then a high one. Also if you are getting more then the Hz of your monitor, then capping the framerate to the Hz you would also reduce stress and heat from the graphics card...
This depends on the game. Modern-day games are so unoptimized that you must optimize them for hours for better fps consistency. Finding the balance is the hardest part.
When you limit your FPS, you give your system not just the GPU time to prep for the next few frames, you also leave head room if you hit an unusually high Level of Detail / LOD moment. Instead of your computer tripping over a rock its has performance in reserve to prevent that studer, play leaving this headroom you give the PC more room to prevent lag. Also a huge advantage if you're running off of battery power or a RTX4090, theoretically you will have less of a chance of burning a pure power cables. As the maximum power draw is reduced far more often. Reducing the strain on the copper and heat.
You focus too much on the render latency. Which is only a part of the render pipeline. "The Average PC latency" figure should be closer to the end to end latency - thus is more useful. But even still your reasoning behind frame capping omits the effect that it has on pacing after being drawn to the monitor, so that decision will need to take into account your monitors refresh rate along side with its freesync/gsync range (usually 60-144Hz). Also some of these methods only work in GPU bound scenarios and some only in CPU bound scenarios. You also didn't mention the second frame queue that will add huge latency - vsync will also hold frames after being rendered further increasing the latency. It's good that this discussion is getting to gamers who wouldn't really think about it on their own, but I think you are simplifying it too much.
Yeah, this is what I was about to say - he focused only on one part of the pipeline, which is render latency. Optimum tech explained it much better with regards to end-on-end latency alongside actual LDAT results. I personally just prefer uncapped when playing competitively, which is same conclusion from Optimum's video.
I adjust for sharpness. This is to reduce eye fatigue. Your eyes don't know about digital artifacts and does whatever it does to sharpen. That means if there is something blurry like being caused by motion blur and anti-aliasing your eyes will work to sharpen what is being soften. Your eyes don't know that is what it supposed to look like. That sharpness is helped by having higher frame rate. I've been gaming on consoles. After long sessions I notice when looking around the room everything is a bit out of focus. That problem went away when I started gaming above 60 fps on a PC. The reason why consoles lock to 30 and 60 is consoles are designed primarily for TV's which are 60Hz. Only until recently VRR is available to some.
When it comes to Bethesda Games, I always go with what mod game guides say because they have the more experience and knowledge on what is best for the game. This also includes setting up the game in Launcher pops for Fallout Series and Legacy of the Dragonborn or as it is widely know LOTD for Skyrim SE/AE.
Also when we say 60 FPS isn't enough, there's an additional reason to that, it depends on the monitor technology too. For example my monitor has good latency at 144Hz, but TERRIBLE latency at 60 Hz (more than 16 ms of display lag). A trick is to force low framerate compensation to have 120 Hz for 60 FPS, which works, but can have issues sometimes and is a bit of a pain to set up / unset.
Super super interesting video, thanks a lot ! I'd just like to know, is capping with VSync gonna work the same or do we need to cap frames alone ? I play World of Tanks and I hate playing it without VSync, with all the tearing that happens. But the devs don't offer any way to cap the FPS ingame. VSync and triple buffering are the only frame limiters you can find in this game. Currently I'm getting between 130 and 165 FPS, but the frame times are all over the place (the game being mostly single threaded doesn't help much) and it feels more like 50 FPS tbh.
If you play with an uncapped framerate, you may max our your GPU and/or CPU. If there are no resources left for any additional work (OS, etc) you open up some processing power. Neither of your parts end up having to wait before being able to generate another frame. This is way more relevant to CPU processing than GPU though.
The frame time itself - is where the latency is perceived. Your frametime nearly doubled, going from 9 MS to 17 MS. It's not just the input delay on your keyboard or controller - the two latencies are synonymous in terms of overall latency.
console probably lock the fps for frame consistence, since usually console players play on a 60hz tv without variable refresh rate, so vsync is the best way to get smooth frames
If you're a PC gamer and you go from a lower-end PC to something much more capable, you quickly learn that a more stable game is much better than the raw higher numbers or extreme details. The higher spec just raises the point at which the game can be stable. A shame, not all people can experience it to understand and appreciate it.
VRR is still amazing. Best settings I've found is Gsync/Freesync + Vsync + Framecap (something below monitor's max refresh rate and that I can maintain). VRR makes it so any framecap is viable. The framecap doesn't have to be above the monitor's refresh rate. Framecap does roughly correlate to % utilization.
@@WooweeYT Note that if the framecap is something you can maintain, you can just create a custom refresh rate in any monitor (only becomes a hassle to manage if you have multiple options), like the steam deck does. Idk about the monitor market now but I had to pay extra for gsync back then haha
What I dont understand is, why when I lock my fps using VSYNC to 60 and THAN also limit the FPS in Rivatuner to 60, I get smoother framepacing and lower latency, than when Im only using VSYNC. Since I found this out, I locked all progs to 60 using RivaTuner "general" tab so I dont need to set it at per-program basis. This is on a old monitor which does not have VRR or anything like that.
If youre frame rate is locked to 60 fps then you should change your monitor settings to 60hz.. which would mean you have no reason to use v sync. You should only be using v sync when your frame rate is different than your monitor refresh rate as this can cause screen tearing
This is one of the reasons all fighting games run at 60 fps locked where less latency possible is required. I've always capped my games because of this and I honestly am completely satisfied in any game at 90 fps. Btw putting a cap in the ncp geverally adds a small anount of latency you are generally best to do it in game if possible.
I believe that high fps is not needed in single player games. For this you need an expensive processor and gpu. If you have a high-hertz monitor is better to get 60-80 fps and enable frame generation, with technology like reflex or anti-lag
On the latency aspect, not because your run the game on higher framerates the less responsive they are. If you cap your FPSs closer to the average that you can get you'll get rid of any latency and play the game smoothly.
I did know capping fps in game makes smoother experience for like 2 years thanks to minecraft(i was pushing limits before but i did see that causes fps drop even if your system is balanced good so i turned on vsync on it and it became stable and super smooth) and another factor for smooth fps is your monitor refresh rate and reason is simple even if your game has 400 fps in 120 hz monitor, your monitor gonna show it like 120 fps because of refresh rate of monitor is 120. Thats why vsync is good thing actually, if in game your system can't get stable fps on monitors refresh rate just use fps capping to limit it solid point and you feel game is smooth and responsive.
I've known about frame capping since I needed to figure out how to make Minecraft run better on my Macbook air back in 2014. I was playing around in the graphics settings and I found out that by capping my frame rate to 30 FPS it would run better then when it was uncapped.
I've always capped my FPS in Nvidia Control Panel/Radeon Chill at 140FPS on a 1440p 144hz panel and I also cap background tasks and in game lobby to 30FPS, there is absolutely no reason to allow the FPS to exceed your panels refresh rate also Freesync/Gsync work within their parameters so they wont work when exceeding your panels refresh rate. Reduction in power consumption, less CPU load, smoother gaming experience, even on 1080p 240hz panels its still wise to cap at 230FPS. Every one of my friends I've helped configure their driver settings have been amazed at how much smoother their games run.
Problem is, especially in some Breath of the Wild areas, the Switch takes a considerable hit when rendering too many entities and particles, dropping well below 30 fps occasionally, which is jarring and choppy at times. Locking fps only helps so much if you already can't support a higher refresh rate.
i think game development wise, it makes sense to do it if the hardware your designing for is limited
Just disliked the vid
Switch is 10 year old hardware.
These “fixes” make reference to software that was designed over the last 5 years without the switch in mind.
Nintendo needs to upgrade.
Funny enough I was playing tears of the kingdom at a hotel once (I took my switch and dock with me) and the tv in the room was new and had smooth motion technology (built in frame gen basically) and the game felt so GOOD compared to normal. I think it was outputting 50-60 fps and it eliminated all the stutters in the game, especially the big one that happens when you use master hand. It might have a had a little more latency but it was still a way better experience than the switches native output. I think gaming can be a real balancing act to get everything right for the best experience. Best part of pc gaming is the options we have to customize our experience
@@jonservowoah a tv that can frame gen? Never heard of that honestly
Friends don't let friends play with inconsistent frame pacing.
Graphics cards are like people that drive as fast as they can till they hit traffic and have to slow down. Would you rather ride with the guy who is constantly going from 70 mph down to 40 mph back and forth or the person that just cruises at 50 the whole time.
@@jonservoGotta love those drivers speeding up to get to the red lights first. lol
thats the best way to put it!@@jonservo
fps frame graph looking like a japanese seismograph lookin ass
@@Great.GospelLow IQ drivers be like..
I don't want to be capped at 60, I was kind of hoping I could die in my sleep at 80?
Loll
Sad, you should really cap your expectations.
cap your life at 80, lul
run your gpu at cooler temps for more longevity
Glad that this is being brought up more.
I've been capping my frame rate individually for all my games for a very long time now using RTSS.
And I found out the consistency is SO MUCH better than squeezing out every frame possible.
For instance a game like let's say "The Finals" I will get around ~100-110 frames mostly, I would cap my frame rate to 90 and the frame time becomes completely flat and it feels amazing.
I feel like we are in another era similar to undervolting vs overclocking
(undervolting aka pushing a certain/highest clock speed at its lowest stable voltage vs pushing the highest possible clock the card can supply power to reach).
A key rule I have went by is that I would tweak the settings in a game to my liking, then I would monitor an estimated average frame rate and cap it around that value.
New tech eta indeed. Laptops sell quite well and undervolting is a more viable option while keeping in the thermal limits. Undervolting doesn't raise your fan noise
i always uncap my framerate and aim to get 160fps at the cost of looks as i want to be always above 144fps as i have a 144hz monitor and i want to use it to its full potential
Just use Radeon Chill
Tbh this already has been proven to be false, locking frames is temporary and hole uncapped actually gives more room to be smoother
@@roblogez That's completely fine, it is preference afterall. I prefer to sacrafice the higher spike of frames for consistency both frame time and rendering latency. Especially if there are games that I won't reach a high refresh experience anyways.
All that matters is that you are having a good time.
The difference between 60fps and 120fps is much less noticeable when you use a controller instead of a mouse as well. The most noticeable thing when it comes to motion smoothness is camera movement. So despite it being 30fps on switch, it's locked and steady, while also having smoother inputs to make it feel more consistent. When you run a locked framerate, you can tune your eyes to it and get used to it. You can't do that if it's constantly changing, because you notice the changes.
You could notice it anywhere, because the entire game changes. It is harder to aim and react with a lower framerate, which is why games like CoD offer a way to play at like 120 fps, but it is also very noticeable in hack and slash games, 3rd person shooters, action RPGs, etc. Hell, you can notice the difference in Baldur's Gate 3, where you don't even need a really high number of fps. You could be standing there in a game, not moving your character, and lookin at how the wind moves something, and you would be able to notice the difference. I don't think you notice the difference more with fast camera movement. I think it is just more useful for that. What you can notice more is how it affects your performance, but not how it looks, so, playing with a controller, 144 fps looks exactly the same. It is not like suddently 30 fps would become playable for you.
This is why Frame Generation is so nice for high refresh rate gaming (144hz, 240hz, etc). It is really difficult to get that framerate in curren AAA games, lile Alan Wake 2, Lords Of The Fallen, Jedi Survivor, etc, specially when they are poorly optimized, but at least it's possible to get a minimum of 144 fps in most games with mid-range hardware, and 120 fps with low-end, or what would be a little better than a console like a PS5 (maybe 4060 + Ryzen 4500 $600 PC, with a good NVMe SSD OF 1TB for fast loading times). Over 100 fps for mid-range, if we are talking about Dragon's Dogma 2 in the city area, which is arguably the worst case you'll find, and over 140 fps anywhere else, because, for every 20 real fps, you get another 20 AI generated ones, so you get a total of 40 fps. People are buying PureDark's mods to implement it in games like The Last Of Us, Jedi Survivor (back when it didn't have an official implementation), Elden Ring, Baldur's Gate 3, Assassin's Creed Mirage, GTA V, Dragon's Dogma 2, Red Dead Redemption 2, Palworld, etc, only because the difference between 60 fps and 120 fps, or 75 fps and 144 fps, or 120 fps and 240 fps, matters a lot to them, and in any game. This is why people who are playing Dragon's Dogma 2 at over 100 fps with Frame Gen are still complaining. You can also feel the drops from 144 fps to 100 fps with a 144hz monitor. Most people ignore this because they are using 60hz monitor. The vast majority of PC gamers use one.
@@joseijoseifor real dude well writing. Dude I notice every lil framedrop under my 165hz monitor. It drives me crazy. That’s why I update my gtx 970 to rx 6600 :)
@@joseijosei its funny you mention pure dark because because resolution upscale and framerate cap paired with reprojection in occulus is how I achieved a smooth render latancy in a highly modded skyrim VR with frankly underpowered hardware (running native quest res on a 3060 with about as good visuals as can be modded) upscaling and clever pipeline setup goes such a long way. it makes high end VR developement possible and way more accesible
@@joseijosei VR is a usecase IMO where visual smoothness is much less important than than render or input latency. large frame drops feel absolutely AWFUL in VR. (whipping your head around can be blurry and thats fine. it feels like real life anyway. but if you drop frames and get black portions of screen it feels bad)
IMO 60 has always been good enough, i really dont understand the obsession with frames outside of competitive games. they always felt like a mess of diminishing returns for the games i like to play. mainly rpgs and high visual fidelity focused titles
I am actually always capping the framerate to the refresh rate of the monitor on the driver-level.
Not to reduce the latency but to reduce the work that the CPU + GPU have to do, since I feel like it would be unnecessary (+ the bonus of reduced tearing because the framerate is in sync with the monitor)
That I'd also get a strongly reduced latency is actually very interesting! And a great benefit to have. ^^
I didn't know that I would have an advantage, I thought having like 6ms latency is normal tbh. xD
Thank you very much for making this educational content and the commentary, it really can help to put the information out there into the right perspective! ☺
It’s disingenuous to jump to that conclusion in my opinion but it could be the case. At 60 fps I get 18ms at 300 fps I get 4ms. Vsync off reduces latency because it’s not capping the fps. People use gsync and freesync instead of vsync to lower latency. Turning off triple buffering reduces latency but dips and spikes are more prevalent with triple buffering off. If your GPU can render 300 fps and you tell it to only show 60 its most likely still going to shove more frames in the Que now because it can easily generate more frames than it’s allowed to render increasing the buffer and latency. So assuming you’re not using any features and just going default it’s still a balancing act from what I can tell depending on the system and game.
Capping your framerate doesn't time the frames though, if you wanted to eliminate tearing, G-Sync + V-Sync + Reflex set to On + Boost will give you the lowest latency, and best image quality on NVIDIA gpus assuming you have a monitor that supports adaptive sync.
Yeah less work for GPU, CPU less heat produced and you also get a lower power bill. That is why I do it as well.
Plus you can get away with cheaper GPU if you learn to not be too obsessed about FPS.
@@quintrapnell3605 GPU doesn't generate frames it wasn't requested to. If you set it to only generate 100 frames, it WILL only generate 100 frames. It's not a setting to only SHOW 100 frames. It literally tells the GPU to generate 1 frame every 10ms, no more.
Also, it's not the GPU that 'shoves' frames into the queue. It's the CPU. I don't know whether the CPU will follow a GPU drivers frames cap, but if you set a cap in game, then CPU WILL only send those frames that are needed to reach it. In case of 100 FPS, that's one frame every 10ms.
@@SurferXVIIThat is why I mainly meant reduced tearing.
I am using an AMD-GPU so Freesync and AntiLag are the tools I have on hand.
But 6ms on 240 FPS sounds good to me (especially on my WOLED), though I gotta see if it was the render latency of the interval of the frames being rendered...
It's the first time I see someone actually recommand motion blur to increase smoothness in a long time. It's basically the next best thing compared to using frame gen for smoother visual experience without affecting latency as much.
Digital foundry talks about this as well.
I think Vex has a video on motion blur.
I’ve always loved motion blur. Some games take it a bit too far, but every game that has that option, I’ll turn it on.
Yeah, no. Motion blur is pretty terrible. I know it's not everyone, but when he turned motion blur in the video above, I've begun feeling nauseous. The image maybe have become 'smooth', but it has become a smooth smudge, instead of a smooth image. You can't actually make out details whenever he moves, and my body reacts as if it saw constantly blinking lights 'swimming' around the screen.
So yeah, there's a good reason why a lot of people turn off motion blur. It does not work the same way that the blur you see when looking at a fast-moving object at all. It's the difference between the brain deciding to 'ah, whatever', it's not worth the effort' and not 'generating' the image fully, and the brain seeing the smudge and thinking 'what the hell is this?!'. Two different thing.
@@kikixchannel true. But for me, even with a smooth 120 fps and vsync on, the image is choppy. Too sharp imo. That’s why I like motion blur. Can’t discredit our opinions by saying “yeah, no.”
But if you look at the frametime, you can see that when he is locking the framerate, the average frametime almost always goes up. To me, a more steady and low frametime will always look smoother than a slightly lower latency.
I came looking for this comment and found it…
Frametime IS framerate. Locking your framerate will increase your frametime because you have less frames.
Frame times are determined by fps. The formula for frametime is (Frametime= 1000/fps). So if you lower the fps the frametime will of course go up. 60 fps equals an expected frametime of 16.66. If you locked your Framerate to 60 and had a frametime of 8 something is wrong. The point is if you’re locked at a lower fps your frametime will go up but it will stay consistent instead of jumping all over because your fps is going from 120 down to 90 and everything in between. For a frametime graph it’s more important that it be a flat line than it be a low number because it helps give an indication more of consistency not performance (though it kind of shows both).
Let’s say you wanted 120 fps in your game, you can do the math yourself to get your frametime. 1000/120=8.3, so you would expect a frametime of 8.3 ms. If your gpu can keep the frametime at 8.3 at all times that’s great you’ll have a great experience. But if your fps isn’t locked the gpu will try to do the maximum it can and the frame times will naturally stutter a lot as it outputs 150 fps one second and 90 or less another. Granted if you already have a very low frametime if it goes up a couple ms, from 8-10, you might not even notice. It’s a balancing act of finding the best fps to stay consistent and that can change a lot from game to game. If you happen to have a game that looks a little choppy, locking the fps can give you a much better experience. I think in most cases many people won’t notice if the fps stays roughly the same, around a 20-30 fps difference, but for people on lower end or medium budget cards this can do a lot to help things feel smoother, which I think is more important than a slight change in latency also.
I think he should have focused more on how locking the fps helps the game feel consistent rather than on the lower latency. I think the big point we can take from the video is that with a pc we can do so much more to change how our games play and feel, but most of us aren’t taking advantage of it like we could.
But Will It fell smother
Your monitor refresh rate plays a role in this too.
I've been frame capping all my games for YEARS. Probably a decade now. Less latency, consistency, lower power draw, heat, etc.
Another point to add: Always try to use in-game frame caps if available. If the game doesn't, you can use radeon chill or rivatuner to do so.
Edit: This is why I find frame gen so flawed. Yes, the image will look "smoother", but there is more input latency and less consistency. This is what we are trying to avoid, not add into the game. Not to mention the artefacts FG introduces. Bigger number isn't always better. They are using marketing to trick people into new cards.
And worse still, making it viable to push out the games so unoptimized that you need frame gen to get adequate framerates
the best you can do in general is to not use the ingame setting. driver locking is much better.
@signe_stilett Technically, frame gen shouldn't really be used at lower frame rates anyway (sub 60, maybe less) so it seems a bit harsh to complain about needing frame gen to play a game at probably a high resolution (at least after upscaling), very demanding settings like ray/path tracing, all at 60-120+ fps. If that's not good enough just compromise on visuals a bit for a higher frame rate. Even upscaling like DLSS or FSR is quite reasonable if not implemented poorly. At least with DLSS, it can actually look better than standard TAA and is basically free performance. With something like ray tracing, it can be such a demanding feature that it's almost necessary to use upscaling but again, if that bothers you then you just have to compromise certain aspects of image quality for a native (or closer to native) resolution / higher FPS.
There are definitely games that you can justifiably call poorly optimized but also not every game needs to be playable at 4k120 at ultra settings. In fact that just means the quality ceiling is probably set way too low and visually the game has no room to scale on better/future hardware.
@@ReptilezDzn It's better if you like looking at ruler flat frametimes in RTSS. Otherwise, use the in-game limiter if it works well. It's not as flat, but it's basically flat enough in practice compared to uncapped. There may be some optimizations to the in-game limiter that a driver-level limiter doesn't have. (src: Battle(non)sense)
@@JapesZXalmost always I've witnessed most in-game frame caps to not be as consistent as RTSS, I've tested this on 3 nvidia gpus(1650super,3060,3070).
Your content is top notch. Hope you're gonna blow up soon, you deserve it
after purchasing a 165Hz monitor, 60fps is perceived as a strong slideshow. My minimum comfort has increased to 80-90. But more - better.
Half refresh can still look smooth. ie 72fps on a 144hz monitor. Especially when vsync is turned on and gsync off.
@@irvintang2751Excellent, 82.5 FPS.
For me it depends, I've been gaming on 1440p@144Hz for 8 years or so, and while I got used to it for fast paced games like OW, I'm still happy with 60 on my 4k monitor for non shooter games. It's not really like "60 feels like garbage" now, for me.
60 fps can still be nice if it doesn't fall below that, and you have freesync/g-sync enabled (non shooters). Shooters really need 120+ fps
A have mine at 120hz but i don't feel uncomfortable playing at 60 fps. I'm sure it depends on the game though
The FPS capping for input latency improvement is highly game specific. In many cases it makes input latency worse.
Check out the Hardware Unboxed exploration of it.
Can you link the video please?
@@B-ROYalty youtube doesn't like me linking it, apparently. Search "hardware unboxed capping framerate"
Name of the video please.
The name is "Does Capping Your Frame Rate Really Reduce Input Lag?"
And Hardware Unboxed doesn't know anything about CRT monitors so i can game at 60Hz or 75Hz with the framerate capped and feels lightyears better than LCDs at 300Hz or 165Hz (i know because i tried those).
I've capped my fps ever since i bought my first pc. I prefer a better looking game runing smoothly instead of a fast paced, but choppy gameplay. Also capping the fps helps me ramp up the resolution and graphics without falling below the sweet 60fps even in render-heavy areas.❤
Yeah, I discovered this years ago. Capping the frame rate to a value where the GPU is, say, only about 90% loaded most of the time will reduce input lag and make your game feel more responsive. The issue is that you have to lower the frame rate to a number that you can stay above 100% of the time while also not maxing out your GPU. Because of this, you may have to play with frame rates that are in many cases 20% or more lower than what your GPU can put out, and that just feels bad...emotionally.
500 fps that has every 5th frame be double length will probably look a lot worse than smooth 250 fps or even 120 fps. If lower fps produces more even frames, I'll always prefer that. It will not just feel more smooth and responsive, but look that way too. Granted, fps cap is not a magic bullet, but I feel like ppl focus way too much on number of frames and way too little on frame consistency. More frames is only better if you don't pay in frame consistency for it.
Yall finally figured out about frame disparity and render lag... ive been preaching this.
Wow oh yeah latency metric in afterburner? Why isn't this talked about more?? Great video! Dare I say... ... "game changer?" (Boooo) okay gotta check this out
I play FPS games since 2003, and I also have some study in game dev and human performance in games here in Brazil, and the most important question that I found out is that where all the tech improvements stop to really improving something? And I believe that have something to do with the range of time that a person can make a decision (like when the target changes dir to the left than you move your aim to the left too) there's a curve at when FPS and Hz and latency stops to do something to your skills, and there's a lot of placebo and marketing with Nividia, Ultra-Polling Rate mouses and lots of stuff, and sometimes you can feel the diffrence between 1000 Hz and 4k, but the key is again not if u feel something, but if its doing something, the improvement have to be something that a human can interact with, its hard to self-test and require a lots of knowledge and you have to consider placebos, and your training routine, a lot of variables, but helps a lot ot identify what does a drastic, gigantic diffrence, like for example trying to aim with 24/30 FPS with V-Sync and them u progress to that gray range that u think that something made a litte diffrence or not.
Fps games are best uncapped with freesync/gysync/vysync off and highest polling rate that doesn’t cause fps drops does help
I agree. Thanks for the explanation. The demand for super high FPS has always bothered me. It made no sense to me. I am old school, literally, lol.
You explaned it perfectly. Thank you so much.
g-sync 101 on blur busters, friend. check it out. it applies to all forms of VRR too.
This is probably the best explanation of this topic for people that don't understand it well, like my friends. I've been capping my fps for many years for the reasons in this video. When I tell my friends that frame times are more important than frame rates and to cap their fps, they're like, 'HUH? Get outta here.' Then they wonder why my games are visually much, much smoother than theirs even if they are running higher frame rates. This will be my go-to video from now on for my friends and others who just don't get it.
Vex is one of us. Great video again!
I always limit my framerate to just below my lowest fps.
Dude what GPU do you have damn
@@rchgmer863 Nothing special. 3070 @1440p. The framerate caps I set range from 30fps to 240fps.
You may limit it to slightly above your lowest FPS and it will still stay consistent. Part of the dips is actually the GPU trying to catch up to the queue. If it never ends up having a queue, it will have more power available to render those difficult frames, and as such, it will not have those dips in the first place.
You can see that on this video at 8:15.
So yes. FPS goes as low as it does in a game ONLY if it has to work at maximum all the time (uncapped frame rate) and thus end up having a queue of frames to fulfill. If you set your cap below that minimum FPS, then you're losing out on frames. Potentially several percent.
@@Fearless13468 30 fps on a 3070???? I'd feel scammed lmao. I almost never go below 60 on my 4060 ti
@@Phenom98 it all depends on what you're comfortable with. When playing on my 4k TV I'm more than comfortable 30fps and a controller.
This isn't a new concept, and is pretty commonly used by gamers, though you don't really get the consistency advantage from locking FPS if you have something like G-Sync or Free-Sync, but you'd of course still get the advantage of Lower power consumption, lower temps ect from locking your FPS, But IMO if you have a high refresh rate monitor with Free-Sync or G-Sync then you should just cap fps at the monitor refresh rate.
As for the switch, The issue people have for the switch isn't that it runs at 30FPS its that it fails to even maintain 30FPS there are several games where frame rates will drop into the low 20s which is genuinely unacceptable to charge nearly 300 dollars for a console then 60 for a game only for you to get an inferior experience to emulating it on the phone you most likely already have.
Yep. Personally I don't have a problem with 30 fps in some old games, as long as it's frametime is set in stone.
I find Gsync to produce even more frame inconsistencies and sometimes even severe micro-stutters (haven't tried freesync, but I imagine it's even worse). I've stopped using it long ago (not even for ultra RT 4k cyberpunk that barely runs at 60 fps; a little screen tearing >> micro-stutters in my book).
"charge nearly 300 dollars for a console then 60 for a game"
We gotta be fair here. Where in the world are you able to get a PS5 for $300, even used? And are we talking about a $300 phone or a $1000 iPhone?
I heard you have to cap your FPS 2-3 below the monitors maximum refresh rate so it doesn't switch to V-Sync which can cause some latency.
The biggest problem with game performance is see is that games don’t get optimized as they used to and just ask for ever more computing power.
(Laughs in Factorio)
The latest version of RTSS has support for enabling Reflex in any DX11 and DX12 game. How well it works depends on how the game samples input. In the settings you need to switch the FPS limiter mode from "async" to "Reflex". If you want Reflex but without FPS capping, you can set a very high cap (like 480FPS) that can't be reached. The new Reflex limiter can also be used to cap FPS when using DLSS 3 frame gen.
The latest Nvidia App's fps limiter has the lowest latency of all the frame limiters I tested. It's similar to Special K.
You can see it behaves exactly the same as if you had Reflex enabled in DX games (which automatically limits your fps to 116 on 120hz panel, or 158fps on 165hz panel, etc..) IF you have VSync enabled. You have to have ULLM enabled in Nvidia App too. RTSS has the highest latency of them all, even if you use the Reflex option.
In Reflex limited games you should see the frame time fluctuate ever so slightly by few 0.1ms up and back. If you limit your fps with RTSS, the frame times are super flat, but the latency is higher.
So what you have to do:
Have a VRR compatible screen and enable G-SYNC in NVIDIA control panel / NVIDIA App
Enable VSync
Enable Ultra Low Latency Mode in NVIDIA App
In DirectX game it will work automatically
In Vulkan games limit your fps to that value that it automatically limits in DirectX games (e.g. 116fps on a 120hz ; 158 on a 165hz; etc..)
I stopped using RTSS and now use Radeon chill instead by setting the minimum as the maximum.
I dont know what the point of this video is.
You should just be using Vsync (in Nvidias control panel, global) + Gsync active (or whatever you use). Battle(non)sense and Blurbusters have discussed this years ago.
Theres no need to manually cap your fps in 2024, unless you're going for 60 fps on a 100+ hz display (why? you get a blurrier experience) or you want to save power (why you barely save anything on your actual bill) or temperature (I only really get this one if you're on an old dusty GPU with bad cooling on it or a 7900XT/XTX with bad mem cooling)
Most of VEX's videos seem to be in good faith but are usually misinformed.
Hes obsessing over latency in this video, we're talking differences of like 1 ms, average human reaction time is about well over 200 ms, with the ideal being around < 180ms. No one, not even the most obsessive ESPORT gamer would notice the difference in that latency.
I usually cap to 120FPS on a 165Hz display. Sometimes I cap even a bit lower, depending on the game. I don't like it when a game runs at 90FPS in one location, then jumps to 160FPS when I look towards something else that has less stuff to render. I prefer some consistency. FPS variance of about 15% or so is fine. But huge jumps in FPS is something I just don't like.
A game feels very different to me when it runs at 90 and then feels different again when it jumps to 160. I want to feel about the same all the time.
Just capping the FPS doesn’t always help latency. Frame cap just puts more frames in the buffer waiting on the cap to show increasing latency. Reflex or antilag are the real mvp.
Thank you so much for doing this video, I've been advocating for more than a decade about locking the FPS, it's better for frame pacing, it's better for the system (less stress), it's better for latency, and it's also better for consistency, because when latency fluctuates even a little bit, it does make an actual difference in how the game controls, it's subtle but I can notice it sometimes.
Thank you, it was interesting to know about latency. Regards to You
Great job talking about computer latency with related settings. 👍 Quite a few things I haven't looked at that sound interesting to tinker with.
Thanks for finally putting together mostly interesting content as opposed to simply doomslaying everything Nvidia does.
Good job kid, you'll go far!
Your videos are fantastic, I've gone through some of your videos and you breakdown quite technical and "nerdy" stuff in a really easy to understand way.
I dislike the title but there is some good information in the video.
Worth noting in some situations capping framerate for consistent latency is not actually worth it. It depends on the relative frametime and the how much fps you are getting in the first place. Sometimes trading latency consistentcy for a lower frametime most of the game is worth it for a far better experience and people overrate the effects of dips as they are looking at graphs of fps rather than frametimes.
Optimum Tech did a good analysis of an example in Apex Legends where some people preach framecaps but after doing loads of research/testing came to the conclusion that for competitive players (without heat or power problems) if you are getting an inconsistent 140-165fps average, sometimes it's better to have an uncapped framerate with a slightly more inconsistent latency, than a capped framerate at 144fps for example.
An important myth to dispell is that higher fps than your monitors refresh rate doesn't help. This isn't true as often exceeding the monitors refresh rate allows your monitor to get more up to date frames when it does refresh, lowering your latency experience in a roundabout way. Hardware Unboxed has a good video on it and if exceeding your monitors refresh rate makes sense for you in some situations.
While latency consistently is important and I do use caps sometimes there are different times fps caps are not the right decision where high fps overrides it at certain breakpoints as more important. Lower end-to-end latency, higher fps, and consistency all matter together in balance.
Halo Infinite for example is a game that will destroy it's latency trying to hit fps targets if you set the target framerates wrong, so I believe capping it is better because the engine can't take care of itself perfectly iirc.
I partially disagree with the end conclusion of the video that we shouldn't be pushing to closer to 90fps instead of 60fps in some scenarios for some game standards. While some games I think should be 60 or even 30 for standard I think some pushing to 90 or 120 is the more important improvement on many others. I don't think just a rock solid 60 as the only option is optimal decision.
Ive always limited my fps to my monitors refresh rate for less power usage and always noticed (on apex at least) that it gave me a better experience than leaving it uncapped.
Yeah but apex is weird. They give people using V-sync better fps boost. 144hz vsync off looks bad.
And yeah, capping to monitors hz is really good as long as it doesnt create input lag or screen tearing. Thats the cons that come with it, and also you remove render queue by not running gpu at 100%
I already knew those stuffs about latency but people don't want to talk about that mus. I am glad that you did in detail.
I've been telling people to use a 59 FPS cap for 60 hz vsync with Pre Rendered Frames 1 for years.
Occasionally I got "thank you"s, but mostly it gets me shouted down by morons on Steam that don't test anything and have nothing to say to me but hypothericals, not actual results.
I guess Nvidia rebranding their own driver functionality finally made this an acceptable topic to talk about.
@@XenoSpyroWouldn't that cause screen tear? I have an old 60Hz monitor, and I make sure it's not using the 59.94hz fractional framerates. I would love an explanation of this is not the case!
Now I'm getting why capping framerates in single player games felt better.
I ran some personal tests in my own in space engineers and found that antilag+windows game mode on vs off gave me 10fps more on 0.1% lows.. CapFrameX is amazing tool I deff recommend using
I put a frame cap on my eyeballs so my brain doesn't have to work as hard.
This guy is taking about things nobody is talking about. This is a genuine a question i had. Nobody talks about this
This is caused by people who don't play games, reporting as the authority in games. Meanwhile the only thing they can do is run cinebench and monkey renders
the trick is to cap ur fps to half of what your screen is capable of, that way you can have frames in sync with ur refresh rate (if you dont have gsync or freesync)
for example, 72fps locked on a 144hz monitor is smoother than 100fps on a 144hz monitor.
this is for single player games only btw and if you can reach 144fps locked then all the better.
The reason I limit fps is purely to save power..!! I run my entire computer rack and most of my house on solar power so these days I'm all about saving energy..!! It makes a difference..!! Especially when gaming in 1080 resolution with all the settings at max..!! I'm running 5900x or 5800x3d with rx6800 or rx6750xt..!! Gotta Love the AM4 platform..!! Killer combos..!! Also been running completely virtualized with Proxmox hardware passthrough for last 4 months.....no problems..!! Great video..!! I like your style of video..!! Keep it up..!!
Rule of thumb is always cap the fps at the lowest it drops in any given game, Luckily for me thats usually 120 or higher. Uncapped unstable frames are bad yes, but a capped stable high frame rate is good.
Finally someone it's talking about cap the frame rate.. I always talk to my friends to cap fps for better game play
As a steam deck user and an AMD user, I've often used frame rate limiters or radeon chill during gaming. I have never known that you get that extra latency benefit!
Now I gotta start testing when the fps drop has less of a latency penalty than the impact of the overall latency benefit
Steam decks fps capper adds a lot of latency sadly. It's gotten better with updates, it used to he unusable
@@sengan2475 and i did not know that either
Thanks for the info, i really gotta read up on this stuff
I for myself do limit fps to 60 fps for light to medium game and maybe 45 or 30 for heavier game if using ultra with my 1080 ti. My motives are: 1. to get more stable fps, I felt uncomfy when sometime we get to heavy load area and felt the fps drop coz I just realize it especially with my older card which is 1050 ti. 2. I don't want to stress my GPU to it's limit considering it's lifespan and power consumption and heat it cause and most importantly the fan noise. 3. I feel like not seeing my GPU suffer too much is makes me feel my GPU is strong enough to carry me on games for next several years and won't makes me feel disappointed soon. 4. My cheap monitor only support 60 hz. so I thought why would I let my pc send more frame just to be wasted by my monitor (maybe) I'm just casual pc user not really sure bout that but after experimenting with lowering the fps limit to some point like 57 or 58 fps or more like 90 fps I felt more comfortable at 60.
And here I found another new motives for me the latency oh wow it's nice to know
Very interesting, didn't even think capping FPS could reduce latency, even after watching Prof GNSteve ^^
I got my first 120hz monitor in 2010. It's a 3D vision monitor.
From that moment on, 120hz was the new 60fps for me.
I've always done everything I can to keep my frame rate over 100 ever since that change.
I used to get motion sick quite often through the 90s and 2000s. Since going 120 I noticed it less. I've attributed it to FPS.
However more recently as my monitors have gone up in frame rate capability, I do still occasionally get motion sick.
I'm not of the opinion it's frame time consistency more than anything that is important to prevent motion sickness whilst gaming.
I now lock my frame rate down if my 4090 can't hold a really consistent frame rate, I lower it so it can keep it very consistent.
Haven't gotten motion sick since I made this change. Could be the type of games im playing. It's hard to say for certain. At the very least a high frame rate that is very consistent has definitely reduced the frequency in which I get sick.
Capping your frames using RTSS Rivatuner would be a better option. Nevertheless, good and well informed video!
Wait, is any of this actually news to people? I struggle to accept that anyone who grew up playing console games wouldn't have figured out most of what you were "surprised by" in this video. Delivering frames at consistent intervals gives you a smoother experience. Amazing, such groundbreaking, much impressed.
Good video topic --- I've been doing frame rate capping for quite some time now... Love it! You should do a continuation video discussing AMD's Radeon Chill...
You said all in the beginning, solid frame rate. Caping will ensure the game is running consistent all the time. The switch could push some games to 60fps, but it would be deficult to accomplish 90% of the time with demanding games.
Then you get to other problem, power consumption. On handled devices this is common sense, but on home consoles it makes sense to keep the system from throttling from heat and by default making the frame rate stable and consistent.
The latency, well you must be super human to tell the difference between 12ms and 9ms, but it's normal to improve because the system it's not working on its peak performance all the time, and it's where the system it's more vulnerable to bottleneck
Nvidia kicked this whole craze about high refresh rate gaming into overdrive around 2018 when they paid Linus in particular and some other channels to talk about it. People bought it whole sale but at the end of the day, its just another way for them to sell more GPUs. They did a favor for Monitor manufacturers too obviously. Now some people are so obsessed with FPS they want minimum 120 fps even in a game like Starfield or Alan Wake or even in a top down game like BG3 or Total War WH3. These games feel fine even at 50 fps!
It may feel fine to you but feels like total shit to me. What's wrong with wanting or preferring 100fps? If it's possible to reasonably run that way then it should be as simple as that, end of story but for some reason it's a polarizing topic it seems. In 10 years running 30-60fps will likely be considered stone age just like how we look back on the days before 1080p. Everyone enjoys higher res picture and it's natural to advance as time goes by
@@B-ROYalty Takes all of 5 minutes for your eyes and reactions to adjust. After that even 45 - 60 fps feels smooth. BUT, if you cant be bothered to play at anything below 100 fps then be ready to keep Nvidia or AMD too for that priviledge.
Its been a bit more than 10 years since 1080p became the mainstream standard resolution but they are still selling 1080p cards at the $400 and even $500 tier in 2024. They will likely milk us in the same way for wanting 100 fps for a long time too.
Man, amazing videos!
Wish you best
Great Topic. I always cap my FPS with Rivatuner and configured a shortcut to increase/decrease the fps cap +/-30fps on the fly. I see no benefit in running uncapped and dealing with big frametime fluctuations during gameplay. Also: running high fps and having a CPU limit feels a lot choppier than limiting the fps to a stable value.
Holy shit i learned alot in this video thank you! Also really excited to try that frame time software from nvidia, i didnt even realize that existed. Huge game changer considering I’m not a huge fan of rivatuner
great vid
can you test something for me, might make interesting vid,
I have a theory that 4k content might look better on a 1080p screen rather than 1440p screen because of the simpler scaling factor, it divides perfectly each pixel into 4 while with a 1440p the down scale doesnt divide to a whole number and u have to trust scaling algorithms . I was wondering if 4k content looks better on 1080p monitors vs 1440p
I had tested this and is true what you said. 4K looks excellent for 1080p monitor.
But how about 8K on 1080p monitor? I had tested that too, and quality looks absolutely perfect.
Most likely not, 1440p is just a much more pixel dense resolution compared to 1080p (as long as the 1440p monitor is under 32"), so 4k downscaled to 1440p will still look better. As far as how accurate the end result is actually is.. 1080p probably comes out on top in that regard just due to the downscale factor being an even number, but that's basically going to be imperceivable to the naked eye anyways. Basically then answer to your question is no, it won't look better.
Along with that, a 1080p panel will never look better than 1440p unless you find a monitor that has a 1080p pixel density more compact than whatever 1440p monitor you use to compare. So basically you'd have to use a 30" 1440p panel, and put it against a 24in 1080p panel. Pixel density for the 1080p monitor is 97.91, for the 30" 1440p is also 91.97. I tried to keep the sizes of the panels realistic for this as well. Anything over 30" and its pointless to go from 1080p to 1440p if you want things to look sharper (better). 32" 1440p & 24" 1080p have the exact same pixel density. Basically its like they took a 1080p panel, and just added pixels until it gets to 32", it doesn't look any better, the extra pixels just compensate for the extra 8". 24" is the absolute smallest I'd go for a monitor in general, and anything less than 1080p just doesn't make sense due to how affordable GOOD 1080p panels are now.
@@rusakko91 Yes, but not because your monitor gets extra pixels when rendering it. On RUclips, even if you render a 4k vid on a 1080p panel, youtube still sends all of the data, and your pc downscales and outputs to your monitor. Firstly, downscaling like this already has a major bump in quality, but you also still get the bitrate of a 4k video as well. It's basically a double whammy, you get 4k resolution AND bitrate, and get to downscale that as well.
A 4k video or image will look better on a 1440p panel that's less than 32" (most 1440p panels are) than it would on any 1080p monitor 24" or above (most 1080p monitors are).
@@SurferXVIIYou don't really seems to know, what you are talking about.
Monitors don't get any extra pixels, but instead GPU render more virtual pixels.
And don't compare RUclips resolution to gaming resolution. With DSR or VSR you might don't need any anti-aliasing, if the rendering resolution is four times more than monitor resolution and same time it gives more information to monitor. DSR and VSR shows what monitor really capable for, when speaking of picture quality.
Typical anti-aliasing just make 1080p resolution panel looks like native 900p panel.
Yes, on 1440p monitor 4K content look better, but 1080p has better fitting for 4K content (in gaming is more easily to seen) even without the extra sharpness.
@@rusakko91 Well I actually said, "your monitor DOESN'T get extra pixels", so both of us actually agree on that lol. I also used a RUclips video just as an example, not the only thing you would be downscaling. But yes, in a certain gaming scenarios 4k downscaled to 1440p could look worse than 4k downscaled to 1080p. But that has to be a particularly still image for anyone to even notice that, and honestly the difference would be at a pixel to sub-pixel level anyways, which is pretty much impossible to see at any distance with the human eye. Lets say you take an optimal panel size for 1440p, and an optimal panel size for 1080p. 1440p should be 27", and 1080p should be 24". The pixel density of the 1440p monitor has close to 20% more pixels per inch than the 1080p monitor. The already nearly impossible to see worse downscaling on a 1440p panel from 4k would be so hard to see or notice without it being a still frame that it's not even worth discussing. The 18% more pixels is much more worth it than small gains you would get from using a 1080p panel where everything has less overall detail, and is typically the same size, if not a smaller panel in general.
Another point to make is almost no one is downscaling a game, that would be highly inefficient. I mean I bet some people definitely are, but why? If you have the rasterization power to natively render 4k, and then downscale it to 1440p.. why not just get a 4k panel, or even something in between if that's not something you're willing to pay for? It doesn't really make any sense to downscale for gaming, it really only makes sense for squeezing a little bit of extra detail out of videos, like how I mentioned for RUclips. But even then, its not even that big of a difference. If you meant upscaling, then I could understand that, maybe having a 1440p, or 4k panel, and than upscaling by 1.5x - 2x from a respectable resolution. But then again.. DLSS/FSR would be MILES better at upscaling and you wouldn't need to worry about it at all. Pretty much Upscaling isn't something you have to worry about due to DLSS/FSR, and downscaling literally doesn't make any sense for gaming. If you can game at 4k, then downscale it to 1440p/1080p, just get a 4k panel. You won't see a single difference in FPS. You actually will get less latency that way as well since your GPU doesn't have to spend those extra milliseconds rescaling. None of this makes sense for gaming lol!
And just to add to what I said in the first part, its not worse downscaling, its just not a whole number so it can be less accurate sometimes. I guess that's worse, but less downscaling preserves more detail. Yeah don't downscale for gaming, if you can do that without tanking FPS.. its time to upgrade your monitor!
I have a very high end system and play Fortnite. I try to get the most consistent frame rate that hits the monitors Refresh rate, I even use V-sync. There is something very magical about having a very flat line for your game, you forget about the frames completely.
I wouldn't use V-Sync when you just can cap your fps and have way less input lag.
@@TheKims82 Depends if your GPU and monitor support some form of variable refresh rate or not. If yes, then limiting in the game is best. Lowest latency possible.
@@TheKims82V-Sync adds one frame of latency so at 60 fps you add up to 16ms of latency, 8ms at 120 fps etc. Though turning V-Sync off might induce screen tearing if you don't own a good freesync monitor.
@@kathleendelcourt8136 From tests i've seen V-Sync can add up to 50ms of latency.
I always cap my FPS to either monitor refresh or 120. For more demanding games I cap it at half refresh (72).
I didn’t know the technical side of why but the games just look smoother to me when capped.
Frame pacing most likely
11:30 pc gamer card revoked. Motion blur? No, no no no. Smoother? Blurry is smoother? What?
Always capping the frame rate :D In drivers or in-game! Benefits power consumption / temps as well, especially if your pushing a crazy amount of frames
You should not buy any card you can't afford to run. If the power bill if a concern you shouldn't have bought whatever card is consuming so much power.
@@AlucardNoir So you should just use more power for no reason? If you can get the same experience while using less power then that is the logical thing to do. If I need to get from point A to point B and there’s 2 identical buses following the same route, except one costs 10$ and the other one costs 20$, do I take the 20$ fare just because I can afford it?
@@AlucardNoir Buddy I bought a 4090 just so I can downclock and downvolt it. And cap the frame rate. Fite me.
@@alexmcn5939 That depends, do they offer the exact same service or is one a 50 year old run down bus with shot suspension while the other is a 4 year old bus with air conditioning and modern amenities?
If a game runs at 1000fps in the menu that's a problem with the game not your hardware. But if you play an FPS then you want it to run at the highest possible frame rate so that the frames shown on screen, even if they're only 60, present the newest possible information.
If you bought a 4090 and then are limiting the FPS in CS:GO, well, then you frankly wasted your money on that card.
I also lock frames in a lot of games, but not for power reasons, I lock them because I want stability. I'd rather have a stable 60 or 72 than have my frame rate drop from 144 to 80 and back again. But to drop the frame rate to preserve power? Why the fuck did you buy a card you clearly can't afford to run? To use a metaphor more in line with yours, why would you buy one of those giant american SUVs if you can't afford the gas and have to take the bus to your local hypermarket?
Commuting can be fun.
Laptops: A 99wh battery only runs 1.5-2 hrs capped @30fps for GPU intensive stuff.
Handhelds: are a joy but are power limited too on the go.
While most of the video is pretty informative and on point, the reason zelda TOTK is locked at 30fps on the switch, it's because the game runs like ass, it often dips to under 30 fps in different zones, which is probably the 2nd biggest reason (behind piracy) that people want to play it on an emulator.
If I wanted to play a switch game (god help me) I'd just run it on my PC at 4K60 or higher, no way in hell I'm getting a game to play it at 30fps with potato graphics.
The pokemon music from diamond /pearl in the background is just perfect
Great video, on amd capping frame rates doesn't work on certain games (in game settings). Solution is to use RTSS but it will crashes for time to time with Antilag on. Wish they fix that soon....
MW3 is one of the game having the issue.
GPU architecture is not designed for latency, otherwise you would not require all this engineering from the user
This dude knows more about these technologies than does some of the biggest trch channels. Love the content.
I noticed in some games that having high FPS can get some dips in FPS, micro stuttering i would call them ( prolly mostly due to CPU bottleneck, as it used to happen on my older PC ), which can be fixed by limiting the FPS to make it more stable. Having unlocked FPS can be annoying, especially if not getting above the Hz of the monitor the whole time, as it can feel BLEGH moving from 60 to 45 FPS, for example. In that case it might be better to lock it at 45. A stable framerate is better then a high one.
Also if you are getting more then the Hz of your monitor, then capping the framerate to the Hz you would also reduce stress and heat from the graphics card...
This depends on the game.
Modern-day games are so unoptimized that you must optimize them for hours for better fps consistency.
Finding the balance is the hardest part.
Awesome video Vex!
When you limit your FPS, you give your system not just the GPU time to prep for the next few frames, you also leave head room if you hit an unusually high Level of Detail / LOD moment.
Instead of your computer tripping over a rock its has performance in reserve to prevent that studer, play leaving this headroom you give the PC more room to prevent lag.
Also a huge advantage if you're running off of battery power or a RTX4090, theoretically you will have less of a chance of burning a pure power cables. As the maximum power draw is reduced far more often. Reducing the strain on the copper and heat.
Use RTSS for frame capping. It makes the Frametime graph way smoother.
You focus too much on the render latency. Which is only a part of the render pipeline. "The Average PC latency" figure should be closer to the end to end latency - thus is more useful. But even still your reasoning behind frame capping omits the effect that it has on pacing after being drawn to the monitor, so that decision will need to take into account your monitors refresh rate along side with its freesync/gsync range (usually 60-144Hz). Also some of these methods only work in GPU bound scenarios and some only in CPU bound scenarios. You also didn't mention the second frame queue that will add huge latency - vsync will also hold frames after being rendered further increasing the latency.
It's good that this discussion is getting to gamers who wouldn't really think about it on their own, but I think you are simplifying it too much.
Yeah, this is what I was about to say - he focused only on one part of the pipeline, which is render latency. Optimum tech explained it much better with regards to end-on-end latency alongside actual LDAT results. I personally just prefer uncapped when playing competitively, which is same conclusion from Optimum's video.
I've been telling people about this for years. I'd rather play with a perfect clean 30fps than a dirty all over the place 60fps anyday.
I adjust for sharpness. This is to reduce eye fatigue. Your eyes don't know about digital artifacts and does whatever it does to sharpen. That means if there is something blurry like being caused by motion blur and anti-aliasing your eyes will work to sharpen what is being soften. Your eyes don't know that is what it supposed to look like. That sharpness is helped by having higher frame rate. I've been gaming on consoles. After long sessions I notice when looking around the room everything is a bit out of focus. That problem went away when I started gaming above 60 fps on a PC.
The reason why consoles lock to 30 and 60 is consoles are designed primarily for TV's which are 60Hz. Only until recently VRR is available to some.
When it comes to Bethesda Games, I always go with what mod game guides say because they have the more experience and knowledge on what is best for the game. This also includes setting up the game in Launcher pops for Fallout Series and Legacy of the Dragonborn or as it is widely know LOTD for Skyrim SE/AE.
Also when we say 60 FPS isn't enough, there's an additional reason to that, it depends on the monitor technology too. For example my monitor has good latency at 144Hz, but TERRIBLE latency at 60 Hz (more than 16 ms of display lag). A trick is to force low framerate compensation to have 120 Hz for 60 FPS, which works, but can have issues sometimes and is a bit of a pain to set up / unset.
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍 Learning a lot. GN was talking about the same with Tom from INTEL. But you make it more simple to understand. Great.
Super super interesting video, thanks a lot !
I'd just like to know, is capping with VSync gonna work the same or do we need to cap frames alone ?
I play World of Tanks and I hate playing it without VSync, with all the tearing that happens. But the devs don't offer any way to cap the FPS ingame.
VSync and triple buffering are the only frame limiters you can find in this game.
Currently I'm getting between 130 and 165 FPS, but the frame times are all over the place (the game being mostly single threaded doesn't help much) and it feels more like 50 FPS tbh.
If you play with an uncapped framerate, you may max our your GPU and/or CPU. If there are no resources left for any additional work (OS, etc) you open up some processing power. Neither of your parts end up having to wait before being able to generate another frame. This is way more relevant to CPU processing than GPU though.
The frame time itself - is where the latency is perceived.
Your frametime nearly doubled, going from 9 MS to 17 MS.
It's not just the input delay on your keyboard or controller - the two latencies are synonymous in terms of overall latency.
If your on AMD. Cap your FPS to 60 on the chill thing. Then also turn frame gen on. It'll double the set cap up to 120. 120 feels perfect.
console probably lock the fps for frame consistence, since usually console players play on a 60hz tv without variable refresh rate, so vsync is the best way to get smooth frames
If you're a PC gamer and you go from a lower-end PC to something much more capable, you quickly learn that a more stable game is much better than the raw higher numbers or extreme details. The higher spec just raises the point at which the game can be stable. A shame, not all people can experience it to understand and appreciate it.
Why. Are. You. Still. Awake. Kid!
It was 5:30 pm when this got uploaded, tf u talking abt.
Ever heard of sheduled uploads?
shush hater
He said that he lives in Pakistan, different time zone
Because it was 10:30 am for me when the video released
This kind of renders useless the beauty of variable refresh rate monitors.
Is there any way to cap your GPU by workload? Something like 90%?
VRR is still amazing. Best settings I've found is Gsync/Freesync + Vsync + Framecap (something below monitor's max refresh rate and that I can maintain). VRR makes it so any framecap is viable. The framecap doesn't have to be above the monitor's refresh rate. Framecap does roughly correlate to % utilization.
@@WooweeYT Note that if the framecap is something you can maintain, you can just create a custom refresh rate in any monitor (only becomes a hassle to manage if you have multiple options), like the steam deck does.
Idk about the monitor market now but I had to pay extra for gsync back then haha
@@Nico1a5 Pretty much every decent monitor today has VRR (Freesync and Gsync compatible).
Yes Radeon Chill which is an amazing AMD feature that no one talks about. I use it all the time, specially on older or less demanding indie games.
Man i locked it to 120 but it can't even get 100
"The test with the finals "On a laptop with 3060
What I dont understand is, why when I lock my fps using VSYNC to 60 and THAN also limit the FPS in Rivatuner to 60, I get smoother framepacing and lower latency, than when Im only using VSYNC. Since I found this out, I locked all progs to 60 using RivaTuner "general" tab so I dont need to set it at per-program basis. This is on a old monitor which does not have VRR or anything like that.
If youre frame rate is locked to 60 fps then you should change your monitor settings to 60hz.. which would mean you have no reason to use v sync. You should only be using v sync when your frame rate is different than your monitor refresh rate as this can cause screen tearing
at the same time the frame time goes up so where should be the benefit ?
RTSS is much better than in-game fps limiters. Use that instead
ALWAYS leave 10-15% of the GPU underutilized. Been doing it for years and it gives better latency and less stutter.
great video, looking forward to more
1% framerates are also very important because the moments you experience action FPS spikes up and down a lot and create uneven smoothnes in gameplay.
The last time I watched, you had 3080. Now it is 4070 Ti Super. So, do you now use AV1 for recording and streaming ?
As a dev if you cant make your game run STABLE run at 60fps 1080p at the very least, that's not the hardware problem
This is one of the reasons all fighting games run at 60 fps locked where less latency possible is required. I've always capped my games because of this and I honestly am completely satisfied in any game at 90 fps. Btw putting a cap in the ncp geverally adds a small anount of latency you are generally best to do it in game if possible.
I believe that high fps is not needed in single player games. For this you need an expensive processor and gpu. If you have a high-hertz monitor is better to get 60-80 fps and enable frame generation, with technology like reflex or anti-lag
Capping in game or Can i get the same results capping on Nvidia Control Panel (per game basis)?
On the latency aspect, not because your run the game on higher framerates the less responsive they are. If you cap your FPSs closer to the average that you can get you'll get rid of any latency and play the game smoothly.
I think i'll cap my games at a framerate that i can achieve consistently while being high (7800xt shouldn't have a problem)
This is why we variable refresh rate, but best to cap in many situations.
I did know capping fps in game makes smoother experience for like 2 years thanks to minecraft(i was pushing limits before but i did see that causes fps drop even if your system is balanced good so i turned on vsync on it and it became stable and super smooth) and another factor for smooth fps is your monitor refresh rate and reason is simple even if your game has 400 fps in 120 hz monitor, your monitor gonna show it like 120 fps because of refresh rate of monitor is 120. Thats why vsync is good thing actually, if in game your system can't get stable fps on monitors refresh rate just use fps capping to limit it solid point and you feel game is smooth and responsive.
Hi, your video save my gameplay in ranked mw3. I am from Brazil. I love you
I've known about frame capping since I needed to figure out how to make Minecraft run better on my Macbook air back in 2014. I was playing around in the graphics settings and I found out that by capping my frame rate to 30 FPS it would run better then when it was uncapped.
I've always capped my FPS in Nvidia Control Panel/Radeon Chill at 140FPS on a 1440p 144hz panel and I also cap background tasks and in game lobby to 30FPS, there is absolutely no reason to allow the FPS to exceed your panels refresh rate also Freesync/Gsync work within their parameters so they wont work when exceeding your panels refresh rate. Reduction in power consumption, less CPU load, smoother gaming experience, even on 1080p 240hz panels its still wise to cap at 230FPS. Every one of my friends I've helped configure their driver settings have been amazed at how much smoother their games run.