frame generation AMD - A bit lost on Frame Generation and Input Lag

[ie-techtip]

I would like anyone to help me understand a couple of things?

 

I am playing with AFMF and FSR 3.0 Frame Generation. There are a few things I don't quite get in relation to Frame Generation and (input) latency. I use a fixed rate 60hz monitor.

 

For example, my first question, in the picture below, what "Frame Gen Lag" means exactly? does it mean the Frame Generation is lagging 26ms when creating the new AI frame to inject? or it is telling me the added input lag?

 

(Also, I see stuttering of 36% which seems a bit high but I have 118 FPS on a 60Hz so sounds like plenty enough even if there was a minor drop of 25FPS I am still past 60FPS; I understand it might drop from 200FPS to 150FPS at times but does the micro-stuttering percentage matter at all if you are still past 60FPS for my 60hz monitor?).

 

 

I can understand how VSYNC might increase input latency and I understand that injecting a frame comes with an added latency but it still confuses me quite a lot, I don't think 45FPS native to 60FPS generated frames should make a difference in input latency; let's say I play COD MWIII with FSR 3.0 and Frame Generation on my 60Hz monitor and I get 110 native FPS on Quality... in theory, the more FPS even beyond my monitor's refresh rate helps to decrease input latency but now I have introduced Frame Generation which adds some latency (reduced thanks to Anti-Lag) and I managed to double my FPS: from 110 to 220 FPS, am I reducing my input latency or in reality I am making things worse with Frame Generation given I was already past 60FPS in my fixed refresh rate monitor?

 

I have noted "FRAME GEN LAG" in the image above shows "N/A" when using FSR 3.0 Frame Generation, which is not the case when you use AFMF from the AMD Adrenaline driver. Why is that? I am guessing it is related to the fact that AFMF only reports real FPS via the performance overlay and not the in-game counter (whereas FSR3.0 Frame Generation reflects the added frames in the FPS counter correctly).

 

With regards to input latency I have various scenarios.

 

• Let's assume my fixed rate monitor at 60Hz AMD Anti-Lag is on, and FSR 3 on Quality gives me 120FPS on a game, say Call Of Duty but could be any other game where latency matters.
• Using Frame Generation (AFMF).
• How is the effect on input latency on each scenario, what is the benefit if any or why it could have an undesired impact in smoothness or input lag.
  
   

Scenario 1 - vsync off - enhanced sync on

 

I enable FSR3 with Frame Generation ON, no frame limit. Then I double my FPS from 120 to 240.

 

Scenario 2  - vsync off - enhanced sync on

 

I enable FSR3 with Frame Generation ON. I set an in-game frame limit to 60, doubling my FPS to just 120.

 

Scenario 3  - vsync off - enhanced sync on

 

I enable FSR3 with Frame Generation ON. I set an in-game frame limit to 30, matching my 60 FPS  to my monitor's refresh rate at 60Hz.

 

Scenario 4  - vsync on 

 

I enable FSR3 with Frame Generation ON. No frame limit. I get more than 100 FPS.

 

In these scenarios: enabling Frame Generation would make input latency to increase or decrease?

 

Thanks in advance, any advice or comment to clarify this will be welcome.

 

[Blazepoint5]

1 hour ago, ie-techtip said:

I would like anyone to help me understand a couple of things?

 

I am playing with AFMF and FSR 3.0 Frame Generation. There are a few things I don't quite get in relation to Frame Generation and (input) latency. I use a fixed rate 60hz monitor.

 

For example, my first question, in the picture below, what "Frame Gen Lag" means exactly? does it mean the Frame Generation is lagging 26ms when creating the new AI frame to inject? or it is telling me the added input lag?

 

(Also, I see stuttering of 36% which seems a bit high but I have 118 FPS on a 60Hz so sounds like plenty enough even if there was a minor drop of 25FPS I am still past 60FPS; I understand it might drop from 200FPS to 150FPS at times but does the micro-stuttering percentage matter at all if you are still past 60FPS for my 60hz monitor?).

 

 

I can understand how VSYNC might increase input latency and I understand that injecting a frame comes with an added latency but it still confuses me quite a lot, I don't think 45FPS native to 60FPS generated frames should make a difference in input latency; let's say I play COD MWIII with FSR 3.0 and Frame Generation on my 60Hz monitor and I get 110 native FPS on Quality... in theory, the more FPS even beyond my monitor's refresh rate helps to decrease input latency but now I have introduced Frame Generation which adds some latency (reduced thanks to Anti-Lag) and I managed to double my FPS: from 110 to 220 FPS, am I reducing my input latency or in reality I am making things worse with Frame Generation given I was already past 60FPS in my fixed refresh rate monitor?

 

I have noted "FRAME GEN LAG" in the image above shows "N/A" when using FSR 3.0 Frame Generation, which is not the case when you use AFMF from the AMD Adrenaline driver. Why is that? I am guessing it is related to the fact that AFMF only reports real FPS via the performance overlay and not the in-game counter (whereas FSR3.0 Frame Generation reflects the added frames in the FPS counter correctly).

 

With regards to input latency I have various scenarios.

 

• Let's assume my fixed rate monitor at 60Hz AMD Anti-Lag is on, and FSR 3 on Quality gives me 120FPS on a game, say Call Of Duty but could be any other game where latency matters.
• Using Frame Generation (AFMF).
• How is the effect on input latency on each scenario, what is the benefit if any or why it could have an undesired impact in smoothness or input lag.
  
   

Scenario 1 - vsync off - enhanced sync on

 

I enable FSR3 with Frame Generation ON, no frame limit. Then I double my FPS from 120 to 240.

 

Scenario 2  - vsync off - enhanced sync on

 

I enable FSR3 with Frame Generation ON. I set an in-game frame limit to 60, doubling my FPS to just 120.

 

Scenario 3  - vsync off - enhanced sync on

 

I enable FSR3 with Frame Generation ON. I set an in-game frame limit to 30, matching my 60 FPS  to my monitor's refresh rate at 60Hz.

 

Scenario 4  - vsync on 

 

I enable FSR3 with Frame Generation ON. No frame limit. I get more than 100 FPS.

 

In these scenarios: enabling Frame Generation would make input latency to increase or decrease?

 

Thanks in advance, any advice or comment to clarify this will be welcome.

 

Frame Gen Lag likely refers to the added input lag introduced by using frame generation technologies like AMD's AFMF or FSR 3.0. In your case, the "N/A" value could indicate that the software is not measuring or reporting this specific metric, possibly due to differences in implementation between AFMF and FSR 3.0.

 

Micro-stuttering can still affect the smoothness of your gameplay experience, even if your FPS is higher than your monitor's refresh rate. Although having more frames can help reduce input latency, the stuttering may be an indication of inconsistent frame pacing, which can result in a less smooth experience.

When using frame generation technologies like AFMF or FSR 3.0, you're essentially trading off some input latency for an increase in perceived smoothness. In your example, if you're already achieving 110 FPS on a 60Hz monitor without frame generation, you may not notice a significant improvement in smoothness or reduction in input latency by doubling your FPS with frame generation. The added latency from frame generation could potentially outweigh the benefits of higher FPS in this case.

 

It seems that the AMD Adrenaline driver's performance overlay reports real FPS without accounting for the generated frames when using AFMF, while FSR 3.0 Frame Generation correctly reflects the added frames in the FPS counter. This difference in reporting is likely due to the implementation of these technologies and how they interact with the game engine and the performance monitoring tools

 

Frame Generation is just becoming a thing and its still an unfinished thing for now, you would likely experience impute delays alot and this would reduce as we go into it more. enabling Frame Generation generally increases input latency to some degree, as it requires additional processing to generate intermediate frames. However, the impact on perceived smoothness and input lag can vary depending on factors such as frame rate, frame limit settings, and whether V-Sync or Enhanced Sync is enabled. Experimenting with different settings and observing the results in your specific games and hardware configuration will help you find the optimal balance between smoothness and input responsiveness.

 

If you think you can enable FSR 3.0 in competitive games for more fps i wouldn't recommend that because your game would feel like jelly, use FSR 2 instead for now atlist.

[Eigenvektor]

The primary point of frame gen is to increase motion fluidity. It does not increase actual performance, and it introduces additional lag. Anti-lag will mitigate some of that, but it won't solve it completely. If you want low lag, disable frame generation and enable anti-lag on its own.

 

There's no real point to frame generation to go beyond your monitor's refresh rate. Since you will never get to see more than 60 images per second, the additional images it produces beyond that won't increase perceived fluidity. You'll only get its drawbacks, which is additional latency.

 

With frame generation enabled, the engine will render frame 1, which gets displayed. The engine then renders frame 2, which is held back. The GPU renders and displays frame 1/2, which is the in-between frame generated by combining frame 1 and frame 2. After some delay it will display the engine generated frame 2.

 

Only engine generated frames take input into account. Which means by the time you get to see frame 2, the input that was taken into account to produce that frame happened several milliseconds ago. Which is lag added by frame generation on top of regular input lag, i.e. the time input happens and the time the engine actually takes it into account.

 

So when engine frame 2 is rendered, the input it takes into account is $input-latency old. By the time you get to see that frame, the input is $input-latency + $frame-gen-latency old.

[ie-techtip]

25 minutes ago, Blazepoint5 said:

If you think you can enable FSR 3.0 in competitive games for more fps i wouldn't recommend that because your game would feel like jelly, use FSR 2 instead for now atlist.

So, FSR 3.0 feels much better than FSR 2.1, enabling Frame Generation is optional, but the upscaling works perfectly fine.

 

Honest question, was your answer a paste from ChatGPT or that entirely yours?

[ie-techtip]

37 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

The primary point of frame gen is to increase motion fluidity. It does not increase actual performance, and it introduces additional lag. Anti-lag will mitigate some of that, but it won't solve it completely. If you want low lag, disable frame generation and enable anti-lag on its own.

 

There's no real point to frame generation to go beyond your monitor's refresh rate.. Since you will never get to see more than 60 images per second, the additional images it produces provide no increase in fluidity. You'll only get its drawbacks, which means additional latency.

 

With frame generation enabled, the engine will render frame 1, which gets displayed. The engine then renders frame 2, which is held back. The GPU renders and displays frame 1/2, which is the in-between frame generated by combining frame 1, frame 2. After some delay it will display the engine generated frame 2.

 

Only engine generated frames take input into account. Which means by the time you get to see frame 2, the input that was taken into account to produce that frame happened several milliseconds ago. Which is lag added by frame generation on top of regular input lag, i.e. the time input happens and the time the engine actually takes it into account.

Hey, that makes sense. However what I don't get then is... when it is ideal to use Frame Generation?

 

• Not in competitive games because of Input Lag.
• In single player games, if you have more than FPS than your monitor's max refresh rate (frequency) there is no point really as you use more GPU and CPU than you need, and if you are enabling it to reach 60FPS it might introduce some important input lag or causing micro stutters.

You would normally only use Frame Generation to get extra frames to reduce input lag or to reach your target FPS, however, if you are under 60FPS with your 60hz it might not be very responsive and if you get 120FPS in a 144Hz monitor enabling Frame Generation is a bit pointless as you are introducing again input lag when your FPS were good and did not require Frame Generation to feel good visually and in terms of input response.

 

I just don't understand when you will enable Frame Generation no matter how or which are objectively the right circumstances in which enabling it provides real benefits.

[Blazepoint5]

15 minutes ago, ie-techtip said:

So, FSR 3.0 feels much better than FSR 2.1, enabling Frame Generation is optional, but the upscaling works perfectly fine.

FSR 3 adds more frames to your game by generating new frames between the original ones rendered by your GPU. This results in a jelly like gaming experience with the draw back on increase in latency.

 

In contrast, FSR 2 runs the game at a lower resolution and uses AI to upscale it to a higher resolution. This method provides more latency free and clearer images without significantly affecting the frame rate and latency.

 

consider the process of spreading peanut butter on slices of bread. It takes time and effort to apply peanut butter to each slice individually, just like FSR 3 adds more frames in between your frames . However, dipping the bread in the jar of peanut butter your hands would be messy, like using FSR 2 to have more fps in trade off for visuals, its more efficient way to achieve a similar result, providing a smoother and more enjoyable experience.

[ie-techtip]

Just now, Blazepoint5 said:

FSR 3 adds more frames to your game by generating new frames between the original ones rendered by your GPU. This results in a jelly like gaming experience with the draw back on increase in latency.

 

In contrast, FSR 2 runs the game at a lower resolution and uses AI to upscale it to a higher resolution. This method provides more latency free and clearer images without significantly affecting the frame rate and latency.

 

consider the process of spreading peanut butter on slices of bread. It takes time and effort to apply peanut butter to each slice individually, just like FSR 3 adds more frames in between your frames . However, dipping the bread in the jar of peanut butter, like using FSR 2 to have more fps in trade off for visuals, its more efficient way to achieve a similar result, providing a smoother and more enjoyable experience.

Does it if you don't enable Frame Generation? So AMD has two things here FSR3 which is an upscaling technology and then you can enable also Frame Generation within FSR3 or you can use the AMD Driver and enable AFMF which is the same as FSR Frame Generation without the upscaling.

 

Also, unlike AFMF, the Frame Generation using FSR3 is superior and even reports FPS as it should. AFMF does inject the frame at the driver level without getting input from the game engine. It just uses the two frames rendered to calculate the third one.

[Blazepoint5]

4 minutes ago, ie-techtip said:

Does it if you don't enable Frame Generation? So AMD has two things here FSR3 which is an upscaling technology and then you can enable also Frame Generation within FSR3 or you can use the AMD Driver and enable AFMF which is the same as FSR Frame Generation without the upscaling.

 

Also, unlike AFMF, the Frame Generation using FSR3 is superior and even reports FPS as it should. AFMF does inject the frame at the driver level without getting input from the game engine. It just uses the two frames rendered to calculate the third one.

Yep

FSR3 can be used as a standalone upscaling technology or with Frame Generation enabled.

AFMF is a driver-level frame generation feature that works independently from the game engine, potentially resulting in less accurate generated frames.

 

you can use FSR3 as an upscaling technology without enabling Frame Generation. FSR3 consists of two main components: the upscaling feature, which improves image quality by upscaling lower-resolution frames to a higher resolution, and the Frame Generation feature, which generates new frames to increase the overall frame rate.

 

FSR 3 uses motion vectors to getting a more precisely frame gen. 

[ie-techtip]

8 minutes ago, Blazepoint5 said:

Yep

FSR3 can be used as a standalone upscaling technology or with Frame Generation enabled.

AFMF is a driver-level frame generation feature that works independently from the game engine, potentially resulting in less accurate generated frames.

 

you can use FSR3 as an upscaling technology without enabling Frame Generation. FSR3 consists of two main components: the upscaling feature, which improves image quality by upscaling lower-resolution frames to a higher resolution, and the Frame Generation feature, which generates new frames to increase the overall frame rate.

 

FSR 3 uses motion vectors to getting a more precisely frame gen. 

So then it is not like you said in the previous comment. FSR 3.0 is perfectly fine, no point in me going to use FSR 2.1 in competitive games if FSR 3.0 is available.

 

Since I don't need to enable Frame Generation if I don't want to, avoiding issues with input lag, etc. My question was more like... if I have a 60hz monitor and I get 120FPS without Frame Generation, am I getting a benefit in terms of input lag by going to 200FPS thanks to Frame Generation together with AMD Anti-lag?

 

[Eigenvektor]

34 minutes ago, ie-techtip said:

Hey, that makes sense. However what I don't get then is... when it is ideal to use Frame Generation?

When you're playing a single player game that is not latency sensitive and you are well below your monitor's maximum refresh rate. Say you have a 144 Hz monitor and the game runs at ~70 fps without frame gen. In that case frame gen can get you close to 144 fps. That's basically the only use case where it can make sense.

 

20 minutes ago, ie-techtip said:

Since I don't need to enable Frame Generation if I don't want to, avoiding issues with input lag, etc. My question was more like... if I have a 60hz monitor and I get 120FPS without Frame Generation, am I getting a benefit in terms of input lag by going to 200FPS thanks to Frame Generation together with AMD Anti-lag?

No. The additional frames produces by frame generation do not increase the game's actual performance. They are generated purely on the GPU. Which means the engine's frame rate is still whatever it was before you enabled FG and the input lag for in-engine frames is exactly the same as before. There is zero benefit to input latency by enabling frame generation.

 

The only possible benefit is from anti-lag, which you can enable separately. The reason you want anti-lag with frame generation is to mitigate some of its increase in latency. But if you simply enable anti-lag on its own, it results in a net-benefit, rather than a simple reduction of a drawback.

 

Say you have 20 ms input latency normally. Let's say enabling frame generation increases that to 40 ms (20 ms lag between input and frame getting rendered, then 20 additional ms before you see the frame).

 

Thanks to anti-lag it might go down to 35 ms (15+20 ms), mitigating some of its drawback. But if you had simply enabled anti-lag on its own, you might go down to 15 ms instead.

[Blazepoint5]

38 minutes ago, ie-techtip said:

So then it is not like you said in the previous comment. FSR 3.0 is perfectly fine, no point in me going to use FSR 2.1 in competitive games if FSR 3.0 is available.

 

Since I don't need to enable Frame Generation if I don't want to, avoiding issues with input lag, etc. My question was more like... if I have a 60hz monitor and I get 120FPS without Frame Generation, am I getting a benefit in terms of input lag by going to 200FPS thanks to Frame Generation together with AMD Anti-lag?

 

All dose extra frames are useless since you cant see them and its extra load on your hardware making them sound louder and have higher temps plus usage, assuming you have a higher hz monitor then that would be a benefit.

 

But if you want does fps for satisfaction or something is fine.

[Doobeedoo]

First why are you on 60Hz monitor? For frame gen, it's recommended to not usebit if native fps is low, like having 60fps and using frame gen to get 120fps is good for example. You will get better motion but basically input lag of 60fps, but to eyes at least it will look better. On 60Hz I wouldn't use it at all. If you are getting under 60fps and frame gen it, maybe for some games can be ok but it can look and feel bad so. On other side, if you are getting 120fps or so on your own I wouldn't also use it on 60Hz as it will not improve anything as you are already limited what you see and generated frames won't benefit here.

In the end it's a neat feature for some cases and sp games, where you have enough fps as baseline, as it is better before using frame gen, and you want to frame gen double it to say 120ish for higher Hz monitor to have better visual fluidity, but input lag will be that of lower fps of course.

Basically just get a proper monitor and use freesync.

[ie-techtip]

9 hours ago, Eigenvektor said:

Which means the engine's frame rate is still whatever it was before you enabled FG and the input lag for in-engine frames is exactly the same as before.

ah, that is a very important detail. I already read that the Game engine will still see its "native" framerate and that is mostly why adding Frame Generation on top, will increase input latency given there is a gap between what you see and what the engine responds to.

 

The internal FPS of the game is still what it was without Frame Generation but what you see is in theory "more fluid" as long as you cannot feel a huge input lag, which is why by default Radeon Anti-Lag is also enabled when you turn on AFMF (without FSR 3). 

 

Also people say the closer you are to the actual refresh rate of your monitor the higher is the input latency caused by Frame Generation, which I don't quite fully get from a technical point.

 

Am I right?

 

Also, this topic is very different if you are not using a fixed rate monitor where in theory not even VSYNC is needed in first place, how does this conversation varies if you are using a VRR monitor with FreeSync?

 

 

[ie-techtip]

2 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

First why are you on 60Hz monitor?

Money, because it is a nice IPS monitor which a nice soundbar which you can rotate, it is 1440p which I also use for working, etc. Too many reasons. I have it since many years and I would like to use it albeit it is not ideal for gaming these days.

 

But I understood your comment, if I am past 60 FPS I should not care about FSR or Frame Generation unless it is for saving resources and lower temperatures. Some games do need FSR however as 1440p is a bit hard to deal with like for example Cyberpunk 2077 on proper graphic quality (without ray tracing).

 

My question was just so to understand how Frame Generation works fully and how it impacts input latency when you are beyond your 60hz monitor or beyond your 165Hz VRR monitor compared to these scenarios when you barely arrive to the target frame rate.

 

Also, I wanted to know what "frame gen lag" exactly means in the performance overlay.

[Doobeedoo]

33 minutes ago, ie-techtip said:

Money, because it is a nice IPS monitor which a nice soundbar which you can rotate, it is 1440p which I also use for working, etc. Too many reasons. I have it since many years and I would like to use it albeit it is not ideal for gaming these days.

 

But I understood your comment, if I am past 60 FPS I should not care about FSR or Frame Generation unless it is for saving resources and lower temperatures. Some games do need FSR however as 1440p is a bit hard to deal with like for example Cyberpunk 2077 on proper graphic quality (without ray tracing).

 

My question was just so to understand how Frame Generation works fully and how it impacts input latency when you are beyond your 60hz monitor or beyond your 165Hz VRR monitor compared to these scenarios when you barely arrive to the target frame rate.

 

Also, I wanted to know what "frame gen lag" exactly means in the performance overlay.

I mean better monitors are so cheap nowdays though. Even 1440p 144Hz ones.

 

So FSR aside, the frame gen basically interpolates in between frame roughly doubling fps thus smoothness but retaining higher input lag of actual lower framerate. 

The frame gen lag would be additional input lag that is added as a result of enabling AFMF.

[ie-techtip]

3 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

I mean better monitors are so cheap nowdays though. Even 1440p 144Hz ones.

 

So FSR aside, the frame gen basically interpolates in between frame roughly doubling fps thus smoothness but retaining higher input lag of actual lower framerate. 

The frame gen lag would be additional input lag that is added as a result of enabling AFMF.

Thanks for the explanation confirming the few things. Yeah, if my monitor was in bad shape I would have considered but I always spend a lot of time researching a monitor before purchasing. I like good quality/price purchases.

 

Next monitor will be FreeSync for sure, what I don't know is if I will get a 4K monitor or not, it forces people to buy super expensive GPUs, 1440p already needs power.

[Eigenvektor]

1 hour ago, ie-techtip said:

The internal FPS of the game is still what it was without Frame Generation but what you see is in theory "more fluid" as long as you cannot feel a huge input lag, which is why by default Radeon Anti-Lag is also enabled when you turn on AFMF (without FSR 3).

What you see is more fluid only if you can actually see it, meaning your monitor is able to show those generated frames.

 

If your computer is able to run the game natively at 60 fps on a 60 Hz monitor, using frame generation to add interpolated in-between frames to get 120⁽¹⁾ fps does not increase fluidity, because you can't see those additional frames. You only get the downside, which is increased input lag.

 

Anti-Lag does not solve the lag issue, it only mitigates it to some extend. Meaning it gets rid of some of the latency penalty, but latency is still higher than what it would've been without FG.

 

AFMF is inferior to FG at the engine level, because it can only work off of finished frames. In-engine FG has access to additional information such as motion vectors to improve the interpolation. It can also happen before the HUD is drawn, which means it doesn't interpolate the UI, like AFMF does. Using AFMF only makes sense if a game doesn't natively support FG.

 

Quote

Also, this topic is very different if you are not using a fixed rate monitor where in theory not even VSYNC is needed in first place, how does this conversation varies if you are using a VRR monitor with FreeSync?

VRR synchronizes the monitor's refresh rate the the GPU's fps, instead of syncing the GPU's fps to the monitor's refresh rate. You will typically find it on monitors that can do 144 Hz or better.

 

If your computer can natively run the game at 60 fps, the monitor would run at 60 Hz to match. If frame gen would get you 120 fps, the monitor would increase its refresh rate to 120 Hz, so you would actually see the additional frames and get that increase in perceived fluidity.

 

But otherwise the same caveats apply. It only makes sense if the increase in fps is actually visible, meaning your monitor's refresh rate is able to go to that level. If monitor's maximum refresh rate is 144 Hz and the GPU can hit 144 fps or better without frame gen, using frame gen to go to 288⁽¹⁾ fps doesn't do anything useful.

 

-----

1) Note that FG has a performance cost of its own. If your computer is able to run at 60 fps without, enabling FG would not actually get you 120 fps. It would drop frame rate to some degree, than double that.

[Doobeedoo]

3 hours ago, ie-techtip said:

Thanks for the explanation confirming the few things. Yeah, if my monitor was in bad shape I would have considered but I always spend a lot of time researching a monitor before purchasing. I like good quality/price purchases.

 

Next monitor will be FreeSync for sure, what I don't know is if I will get a 4K monitor or not, it forces people to buy super expensive GPUs, 1440p already needs power.

Right, I mean I still find it odd people using two digit Hz displays though. They've been so cheap for a while if you're looking at entry models.

Depends on your PC hardware, I wouldn't go 4K if you don't have higher end PC so 1440p 144Hz+ is easy to drive now, especially vs 4K.

[ie-techtip]

2 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

Right, I mean I still find it odd people using two digit Hz displays though. They've been so cheap for a while if you're looking at entry models.

Depends on your PC hardware, I wouldn't go 4K if you don't have higher end PC so 1440p 144Hz+ is easy to drive now, especially vs 4K.

hehe yeah, and a Ryzen 1st gen. It is not like money is an issue really but maybe I am too stingy, you are right I should be looking at a new monitor but then what... I find very saddening to park this monitor that is fully working and it is an awesome IPS, I would not be able to use it as a secondary really as I prefer a single monitor for home.

 

Same with my current PC it can still do A LOT of things, replacing hardware it is not very productive at least for me that I should not play this much. Unlike other people I do not just play games with this PC.

 

And I have built much better PCs than mine for relatives, including 144Hz monitors so I have tested them and I know I would like it but... 

[Mark Kaine]

if your getting fps above you screen refresh rate it would be best to disable vsync and use fast sync instead,  that's by far the thing with the biggest impact on latency that you can do. 

 

not sure what's the amd equivalent to fast sync tho. 

[Doobeedoo]

3 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

if your getting fps above you screen refresh rate it would be best to disable vsync and use fast sync instead,  that's by far the thing with the biggest impact on latency that you can do. 

 

not sure what's the amd equivalent to fast sync tho. 

Enhanced sync.

[Doobeedoo]

13 hours ago, ie-techtip said:

hehe yeah, and a Ryzen 1st gen. It is not like money is an issue really but maybe I am too stingy, you are right I should be looking at a new monitor but then what... I find very saddening to park this monitor that is fully working and it is an awesome IPS, I would not be able to use it as a secondary really as I prefer a single monitor for home.

 

Same with my current PC it can still do A LOT of things, replacing hardware it is not very productive at least for me that I should not play this much. Unlike other people I do not just play games with this PC.

 

And I have built much better PCs than mine for relatives, including 144Hz monitors so I have tested them and I know I would like it but... 

If not use it as a side monitor I would give it or sell it. 

But if PC does what you require of it still fine, then upgrade when it doesn't. When time comes upgrade both, easy.

[ie-techtip]

9 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

Enhanced sync.

Yeah, I am using that since long ago.