|
My monitor seemed to be weird, at least in my case enabling Gsync reset it back to 60Hz so if it seems weird, check if you haven't been moved off of whatever high refresh rates you're used to.
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:13 |
|
|
K8.0 posted:not Nvidia Inspector. Why not? Also why force Vsync? Everything I've read says to cap at a few frames under your max refresh, but never about forcing Vsync on UNLESS you get tearing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
I've never had problems capping frames with NVInspector on a G-Sync monitor, in fact I prefer it to RTSS for most applications.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
Using Nvidia Inspector to cap introduces a ton of latency, almost as much as not capping to begin with. Forcing vsync ideally will have no effect (since your framerate will hopefully always stay in VRR range), but in practice you might occasionally get a frame that accidentally comes out too quick and in that case vsync on/off determines whether you get a bit of delay or (hopefully just 1 frame) of tear. The reason to prefer forcing it in the control panel is that this keeps things double buffered, if you turn it on in games it may introduce additional framebuffers and create lag. OTOH there are some games where the control panel setting doesn't work, and they're often real technical messes with bad frame pacing where you want vsync on, so for those games you can just turn it on in-game and see how that feels. Like I said the last time I posted this stuff, battlenonsense is generally your best source for information on this kind of stuff, he does very good testing and puts all the information out there. K8.0 fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
NV Inspector has the same type of frame limiter as RTSS though... There are like 5 or 6 options for frame limiting in NV Inspector. It's worked really well for me so far so I guess whatever works 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
Unless something has changed in the last couple months that you can show me numbers on, no, that's not at all true. RTSS uses a very different method of limiting the framerate, which is why it performs much much better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
lllllllllllllllllll posted:GeForce 417.71 Driver is out, featuring adaptive sync. Only works with Diplay Port though, as expected. Screw me and my 2 x HDMI Asus VG245H. I read a comment that AOC AG271QX is working with  e: https://old.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/ag5z8m/nvidia_freesync_monitor_testing_master_list/ Risky Bisquick fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 16:34
|
|
|
Yeah, it seems like most monitors are working fine. I was expecting a poo poo show of problems and you could get some working by going through a 10 step process, but they seem to "just work". Edit: I like how one of the comments in that document is "I needed to enable it but then it worked". Drivers didn't read my mind to know I wanted Gsync enabled 4/5. craig588 fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
Risky Bisquick posted:I read a comment that AOC AG271QX is working with Yeah, but mine doesn't have DP (if that's what you meant). Thanks though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:Unless something has changed in the last couple months that you can show me numbers on, no, that's not at all true. RTSS uses a very different method of limiting the framerate, which is why it performs much much better. Hrrm apparently NVI is 2+ frames ahead and RTSS is only around 1. This is news to me and I might actually check out RTSS to see if I can even notice that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
I most likely jumped the gun, but I purchased a GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 2080 GAMING OC for $680 with the 2 free games from NewEgg. Am I going to regret this before seeing what the R7 has to offer?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
aluminumonkey posted:I most likely jumped the gun, but I purchased a GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 2080 GAMING OC for $680 with the 2 free games from NewEgg. Am I going to regret this before seeing what the R7 has to offer? I have the same video card and it's good. Which 2 free games did you get?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:I have the same video card and it's good. Which 2 free games did you get? anthem and BF5
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
aluminumonkey posted:anthem and BF5 That's not too shabby. At least you can check out some of the RTX stuff in BFV. Who knows how Anthem will turn out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
I'm not really sure if this is the correct place for this question, but I'll give it a shot: I'm considering picking up an RTX 2060 FE to replace my current 1060 and was wondering if my current PSU would be up to the task. Currently, my system is as follows: Intel i5 6600k 16 gigs of RAM Nvidia GTX 1060 (6gb version) EVGA SuperNOVA 650 G2. (650 watt) I'm not really sure how to calculate this stuff, but the 2060 reviews I've read online seem to indicate that it draws quite a bit more power than the 1060 does. Do I need a new PSU? Gunder fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:That's not too shabby. At least you can check out some of the RTX stuff in BFV. Who knows how Anthem will turn out. What monitor do you have it paired with? Looking for a 1440 120hz+ in a 27in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
aluminumonkey posted:What monitor do you have it paired with? Looking for a 1440 120hz+ in a 27in. Acer Predator 4k w/ Gsync but only 60Hz. It really depends on how much money you want to throw at your monitor. Now that team green has "support" for freesync your options are quite broad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
Gunder posted:I'm not really sure if this is the correct place for this question, but I'll give it a shot: Unless it's very old 650 watts is fine. I try to go by the warranty plus maybe 1 or 2 years. If it's the same power supply from 10 years ago when the Q6600 was new I'd look into replacing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
craig588 posted:Unless it's very old 650 watts is fine. I try to go by the warranty plus maybe 1 or 2 years. If it's the same power supply from 10 years ago when the Q6600 was new I'd look into replacing it. I hosed up the CPU. It's an i5 6600k, not the Q6600. The PSU was bought the same time that CPU came out, so about 2 years ago. Gunder fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
Gunder posted:I hosed up the CPU. It's an i5 6600k, not the Q6600. The PSU was bought the same time that CPU came out, so about 2 years ago. Then you're fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
aluminumonkey posted:I most likely jumped the gun, but I purchased a GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 2080 GAMING OC for $680 with the 2 free games from NewEgg. Am I going to regret this before seeing what the R7 has to offer? Nah, even if r7 equals 2080 in performance and there's no hidden issues the availability will be horrible. I was  through Lisa Su's keynote and was even considering the card but nothing I hear now makes it interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
Here’s a potentially dumb question for you all: I have a 4K monitor, which is a nice thing, and I’d like to play games in 4K on it. Problem is, shaky frame rate at that resolution tends to give me headaches. Would an RTX 2070 or 2080 provide significantly better performance than a GTX 1080 in that regard? Or should I just give up on the 4K gimmick?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:43
|
|
|
I have to run down to microcenter this afternoon since a friends
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:Here’s a potentially dumb question for you all: I have a 4K monitor, which is a nice thing, and I’d like to play games in 4K on it. Problem is, shaky frame rate at that resolution tends to give me headaches. Would an RTX 2070 or 2080 provide significantly better performance than a GTX 1080 in that regard? Or should I just give up on the 4K gimmick? 2070: no, same performance as 1080 2080: depends on what you mean by "significantly". You can get about 20-25% higher framerate in many cases, or close to 60fps instead of 45. If you don't have variable refresh rate already you're probably better off spending money on that. Or you can just turn down the settings. I can get 45-50fps pretty stable in AC:Origins with a 1080 at 4k, with very reasonable settings (that means most things on high). TheFluff fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:Here's a potentially dumb question for you all: I have a 4K monitor, which is a nice thing, and I'd like to play games in 4K on it. Problem is, shaky frame rate at that resolution tends to give me headaches. Would an RTX 2070 or 2080 provide significantly better performance than a GTX 1080 in that regard? Or should I just give up on the 4K gimmick? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
It's also worth noting that, sure, if you need a new GPU right now, buy one, but if you don't, late this year/early next year will probably be a much better time for GPU buying when Nvidia hits the die shrink (easy 35%+ performance gains at every level and probably slightly cheaper GPUs). I definitely agree with the VRR suggestion, we should soon be seeing a group of semi-reasonably priced 4k/120 freesync monitors come out that would make a lot of sense if you're looking to spend the next few years gaming at 4k. JIf you just have a plain old 60hz fixed monitor either using it as a secondary monitor or selling it and replacing it would be the most sensible upgrade in the short term.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
KodiakRS posted:I have to run down to microcenter this afternoon since a friends Probably the only reason not to is that 2080s from MSI and Gigabyte have been as low as ~$640 in the past month. If you don't ~need it now~, it honestly makes more sense to buy it from Newegg provided you're not in one of the two states they charge sales tax in, or wait for another eBay promo code (you likely won't get the free games going this route) or another ~$640 post-rebate deal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 21:08
|
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:Here’s a potentially dumb question for you all: I have a 4K monitor, which is a nice thing, and I’d like to play games in 4K on it. Problem is, shaky frame rate at that resolution tends to give me headaches. Would an RTX 2070 or 2080 provide significantly better performance than a GTX 1080 in that regard? Or should I just give up on the 4K gimmick? I upgraded from a 1080 to a 2080 specifically for 4k gaming (and the 1080 died). I'm on a Gsync monitor so anything between 40 to 60 FPS is good enough for me. The 2080 pulls in significantly better min FPS than the 1080. I used to have poo poo dip below 30 FPS at times. I don't think I've seen or even noticed anything drop below 45 now. All that being said a 2080 is the bare minimum I'd consider for 4k gaming.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
This loving cap thing again. Most competitive/esports titles have a built in cap. Overwatch does. Dota 2 does. Quake Champions does. League of Legends does. I never have played CSGO but I can't imagine it lacking one. Even Destiny 2 has one and that's the most PVP-as-afterthought gaming I've seen. Any game where you give a gently caress about input lag has a framerate limiter built in. Who cares if you are playing Hearthstone and Tomb Raider with input lag. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:This loving cap thing again. CSGO cap is piece of poo poo, I presume Doto2's is as well. Uncapped:  Capped using ingame method:  RTSS: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking at, but taking a wild guess I'll just say to me a cap is a cap. For example, the League cap is only a few pre-select rates, which means I pick 120 on a 144hz monitor but my eyes can't perceive the difference between 120 and 144 anyway. If you have the vision to be pedantic about 4FPS in the 100+ range then be my guest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking at, but taking a wild guess I'll just say to me a cap is a cap. For example, the League cap is only a few pre-select rates, which means I pick 120 on a 144hz monitor but my eyes can't perceive the difference between 120 and 144 anyway. If you have the vision to be pedantic about 4FPS in the 100+ range then be my guest. The frame rate graph is uneven in the left screenshot but there's no scale so it's very hard to tell how big the variances are. The graph is probably based on time between onPresent but who knows how much the samples are getting rounded. All of these "single-digit milliseconds difference" things should require double-blind tests before you are allowed to complain about them. Yes objective tests with an oscilloscope are good and scientific but can you actually see any difference? TheFluff fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking at, but taking a wild guess I'll just say to me a cap is a cap. You are supposed to look at the framerate and much more importantly the framerate graph on the top left side. RTSS gives a steady stable line while in-game cap is anything but that. Makes for very inconsistent feel. That's also why I don't leave the FPS uncapped. Sininu fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
Sininu posted:You are supposed to look at the framerate and much more importantly the frametime graph on the top left side. Does it matter? Isn't the entire point of variable refresh rate that you don't need to care about frame scanouts being an exact interval apart anymore? How big are the differences anyway? More importantly, is it noticeable? TheFluff fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
Waiting to see if there are any performance regressions on this driver before I install it. If there are, I will let you all know if Greensync over USB-C works or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Does it matter? Isn't the entire point of variable refresh rate that you don't need to care about frame scanouts being an exact interval apart anymore? How big are the differences anyway? More importantly, is it noticeable? I don't have hardware that can support VRR, (planning to change it this year.) And yes it is very noticeable in Source engine games. My point was that RTSS is way better than some of the in-game caps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
Sininu posted:CSGO cap is piece of poo poo, I presume Doto2's is as well. Did it ever occur to you that whatever point in the pipeline you are graphing there might be full of poo poo and not actually even remotely connected to when the frames are physically up on the screen? Basically unless you are graphing an output on FCAT, this means absolutely nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
Sininu posted:I don't have hardware that can support VRR, (planning to change it this year.) And yes it is very noticeable in Source engine games. If you don't have VRR then it's a different matter and then yes you need a buffer to smooth out the frame timings. If you didn't have at least one frame of buffer then you'd need to predict exactly how long rendering would take and start it at exactly the right moment. However, if you do have VRR (and that was kinda implied by the previous discussion), and you do care about input lag, then Craptacular is right, because the RTSS frame time smoothing is done by buffering (obviously), so it's introducing one frame of delay, which is what you're trying to avoid. So, tl;dr, the CS:GO framerate limiter is doing exactly what the competitive people want it to do. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
I'm not sensitive to tearing so I needed to use my monitors OSD to verify Free/Gsync was working. Normally I'm very against any objective measurements because if you can only notice up to 30 FPS knowing that you're not running at 120 FPS is only going to make you sad even if you can't see it. If some people can't see the difference in different caps then they're fine, no need to chase perfection if they can't see the difference.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:13 |
|
|
TheFluff posted:If you don't have VRR then it's a different matter and then yes you need a buffer to smooth out the frame timings. If you didn't have at least one frame of buffer then you'd need to predict exactly how long rendering would take and start it at exactly the right moment. However, if you do have VRR (and that was kinda implied by the previous discussion), and you do care about the RTSS frame time smoothing is done by buffering (obviously), so it's introducing one frame of delay, which is what you're trying to avoid. I'm aware of that and I've even linked Blurbusters here and in monitor thread more than few times before. CSGO's cap is so bad to me it can't even maintain smooth 60 FPS. I have no idea what is wrong with it, other games I've played with in-game caps have worked way better. E: more serious competitive people don't use caps at all in CSGO Sininu fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 23:26
|
|