Experiences with non-techies

[Bananasplit_00]

1 hour ago, Chaos_Sorcerer said:

I just had a conversation with a friend on refresh rate. A while back, I saw that he had his FPS uncapped in CS:GO when he seemed to be playing on a simple 60Hz HP monitor and asked him why he needed to do that. He told me that "you need high FPS for CS:GO", and that although he knows that the monitor is clocked at 60Hz, he can somehow tell the difference between 60 FPS and 150 FPS. I asked him whether he had the FPS counter up or not, and he said he could tell the difference even with the counter off. 

 

I have my FPS capped at 60 for every single game I play...minimizes screen tearing and reduces load on the GPU...............................................................................

i notice a clear differance, its all about frame latancy. i would want to have about 200fps minimum playing any shooter for example. 

[themctipers]

6 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Lol I'm too lazy to watch the video. Care explaining?  

 

I guess we're just different. I don't see stuttering, and you don't see tearing. And 75 fps (75 hz is the refresh rate of my monitor) is fine for me. Heck 60 fps is fine for me. I guess you're more sensitive to smoothness and I'm more sensitive to the image itself.

tldr

computer renders frames, and its sparatic

monitor refreshes frames at a constant rate

more fps = more chance that the monitor choses the frame which you've done the action/something happens (frame 1-5 you didnt do something but frame 6 you did, and monitor choses frame 6 to display in a refresh cycle)

tiny bit more fluidity.

 

then again my monitor is overclocked to 68hz (probably can get more)

so ill be aiming for ~80 now?

[themctipers]

2 minutes ago, Chaos_Sorcerer said:

 

The guy just basically talked about latency and how if your computer produces more FPS than your monitor can display, it'll display the latest frame, resulting in smoother gameplay. I still don't understand why you can't just cap it at your monitor's refresh rate, especially if your rig is powerful enough to deliver a consistent FPS, since you prevent screen tearing, reduce load on your GPU, and have your frames in sync with how often your monitor refreshes.

 

I had the FPS uncapped for a while in my games. Couldn't tell the difference between it and 60 capped, and my temps were hotter. No point. 

for me i need it to be above my monitors refresh rate

ill just lower the settings, no problem

[Bananasplit_00]

4 minutes ago, Chaos_Sorcerer said:

 

The guy just basically talked about latency and how if your computer produces more FPS than your monitor can display, it'll display the latest frame, resulting in smoother gameplay. I still don't understand why you can't just cap it at your monitor's refresh rate, especially if your rig is powerful enough to deliver a consistent FPS, since you prevent screen tearing, reduce load on your GPU, and have your frames in sync with how often your monitor refreshes.

 

I had the FPS uncapped for a while in my games. Couldn't tell the difference between it and 60 capped, and my temps were hotter. No point. 

because capping will introduce frame latency seeing as its not syncing the fps it pumping out with the screen which can result in some frams beeing produced not beeing displayed at all and stuff like that. 

[Chaos_Sorcerer]

5 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

because capping will introduce frame latency seeing as its not syncing the fps it pumping out with the screen which can result in some frams beeing produced not beeing displayed at all and stuff like that. 

OK. I'm definitely not the most knowledgeable about this kind of thing, so please forgive me for any misunderstanding. 

 

When you have, say, 120 FPS being pumped out by your video card, won't your 60Hz monitor only display 60 per second, those frames being the latest produced by the card for each refresh cycle? And isn't that why some people claim to be able to tell the difference between uncapped and capped FPS - that the monitor will display whichever frame the GPU rendered last? But won't capping the FPS have the rendered frames align with how fast the monitor refreshes?

 

So, I'm guessing that, when the FPS is capped, although the GPU and the monitor display/render at the same speed, the rate at which the information is fed into the monitor doesn't necessarily match up with how fast it's refreshing, and the cycles don't align. Is that what you're trying to say? So, when you move your mouse, although the GPU renders a new frame, the time it hands the frame to the monitor doesn't match up with when the monitor displays it? 

 

Sorry for my ignorance. Like I said, I don't know the most about displays and refresh rates and whatnot. 

[DocSwag]

35 minutes ago, Chaos_Sorcerer said:

 

The guy just basically talked about latency and how if your computer produces more FPS than your monitor can display, it'll display the latest frame, resulting in smoother gameplay. I still don't understand why you can't just cap it at your monitor's refresh rate, especially if your rig is powerful enough to deliver a consistent FPS, since you prevent screen tearing, reduce load on your GPU, and have your frames in sync with how often your monitor refreshes.

 

I had the FPS uncapped for a while in my games. Couldn't tell the difference between it and 60 capped, and my temps were hotter. No point. 

Ohhh that kinda makes sense. So if you have a 60 hz monitor capping it at 120 fps might make sense.

[Chaos_Sorcerer]

46 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

because capping will introduce frame latency seeing as its not syncing the fps it pumping out with the screen which can result in some frams beeing produced not beeing displayed at all and stuff like that. 

Also, won't you still get screen tearing if you try and display more frames than your monitor can display? Won't that give you a competitive disadvantage? I've never noticed much input lag when playing at 60 capped vs. uncapped, where I would get these weird torn-up images. 

[DocSwag]

3 minutes ago, Chaos_Sorcerer said:

Also, won't you still get screen tearing if you try and display more frames than your monitor can display? Won't that give you a competitive disadvantage? I've never noticed much input lag when playing at 60 capped vs. uncapped, where I would get these weird torn-up images. 

Not if it's perfectly lined up (120 fps on 60 hz wouldn't give you screen tearing).

[Chaos_Sorcerer]

1 minute ago, DocSwag said:

Not if it's perfectly lined up (120 fps on 60 hz wouldn't give you screen tearing).

But when you have your FPS uncapped, I find that the framerates are extremely variable. Sometimes, it'll go to 180, and then down to 120, and whatnot. When I have it capped at 60, my GPU is more than capable of rendering that fast, so my framerates are consistently 60 FPS. 

[Bananasplit_00]

39 minutes ago, Chaos_Sorcerer said:

OK. I'm definitely not the most knowledgeable about this kind of thing, so please forgive me for any misunderstanding. 

 

When you have, say, 120 FPS being pumped out by your video card, won't your 60Hz monitor only display 60 per second, those frames being the latest produced by the card for each refresh cycle? And isn't that why some people claim to be able to tell the difference between uncapped and capped FPS - that the monitor will display whichever frame the GPU rendered last? But won't capping the FPS have the rendered frames align with how fast the monitor refreshes?

 

So, I'm guessing that, when the FPS is capped, although the GPU and the monitor display/render at the same speed, the rate at which the information is fed into the monitor doesn't necessarily match up with how fast it's refreshing, and the cycles don't align. Is that what you're trying to say? So, when you move your mouse, although the GPU renders a new frame, the time it hands the frame to the monitor doesn't match up with when the monitor displays it? 

 

Sorry for my ignorance. Like I said, I don't know the most about displays and refresh rates and whatnot. 

your frames wont line up. thats the problem. the longer a single frame stays displayed the less smoth experience you will have. the monitor will, each time it refreshes, take the latest frame from the GPU, and if that frame was right after the last one. just watch the video that was sent here earlier, its explans everything verry well

[Chaos_Sorcerer]

14 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

your frames wont line up. thats the problem. the longer a single frame stays displayed the less smoth experience you will have. the monitor will, each time it refreshes, take the latest frame from the GPU, and if that frame was right after the last one. just watch the video that was sent here earlier, its explans everything verry well

I did watch it...I was a little confused, however. Like, what about screen tearing? And what about those frames in between the refresh cycles? So those won't be displayed at all?

[Bananasplit_00]

1 minute ago, Chaos_Sorcerer said:

I did watch it...I was a little confused, however. Like, what about screen tearing? And what about those frames in between the refresh cycles? So those won't be displayed at all?

no the frames between cycles wont be displayed at all. screan tearing is rare in fast pased games, you rarely notice any and V-synck if anything makes it worse and more noticable. 

[RahulR]

13 hours ago, NunoLava1998 said:

I still don't know how you got those headphones, Air France first class is so expensive.

I went economy class. Our ticket from Toronto to Paris to Mauritius and back still cost like $6,000 total though. (for all 4 of us)

[Chaos_Sorcerer]

20 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

no the frames between cycles wont be displayed at all. screan tearing is rare in fast pased games, you rarely notice any and V-synck if anything makes it worse and more noticable. 

I'm going to have to start a new thread for this. I'm not getting it. 

[BingoFishy]

3 hours ago, DocSwag said:

Really?

 

I don't see how 150 fps on a 60 hz monitor results in extra fluidity. Correct me if I don't understand your point.

 

And also screen tearing reallllyyyy bothers me. V-sync doesn't seem to bother me as much as screen tear for some reason though so I always keep v-sync on.

I haven't noticed this in all games, basically only Minecraft back when I played it a lot. When you turned on VSync, I would get probably 1/6 the fps I would get with my fps uncapped. While it was smoother and with less tearing, there would be a significant increase in input lag. I could feel it. This is probably the main reason people might think an uncapped framerate feels smoother. In a game where you don't have a significantly higher framerate uncapped though, I would definitely cap it for greater fluidity.

[Bananasplit_00]

3 minutes ago, BingoFishy said:

I haven't noticed this in all games, basically only Minecraft back when I played it a lot. When you turned on VSync, I would get probably 1/6 the fps I would get with my fps uncapped. While it was smoother and with less tearing, there would be a significant increase in input lag. I could feel it. This is probably the main reason people might think an uncapped framerate feels smoother. In a game where you don't have a significantly higher framerate uncapped though, I would definitely cap it for greater fluidity.

caping it brings more stutters, thats why you have it caped at ateast two times your monitors refreshrate. VSync is crap and dosent do it job right either. uncaped, should bring MORE fluidety seeing as you have a more recent frame

[BingoFishy]

15 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

caping it brings more stutters, thats why you have it caped at ateast two times your monitors refreshrate. VSync is crap and dosent do it job right either. uncaped, should bring MORE fluidety seeing as you have a more recent frame

As I said, uncapped brought me lots of tearing. Capped was significantly smoother.

[DocSwag]

3 hours ago, Chaos_Sorcerer said:

But when you have your FPS uncapped, I find that the framerates are extremely variable. Sometimes, it'll go to 180, and then down to 120, and whatnot. When I have it capped at 60, my GPU is more than capable of rendering that fast, so my framerates are consistently 60 FPS. 

Then cap it at 120  

[Bananasplit_00]

1 hour ago, BingoFishy said:

As I said, uncapped brought me lots of tearing. Capped was significantly smoother.

then cap at atleast doubble your monitors refreshrate

[BingoFishy]

 

GJ Newegg

[Bananasplit_00]

3 minutes ago, BingoFishy said:

 

GJ Newegg

well they are correct tho...

[BingoFishy]

5 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

well they are correct tho...

Translucent means semitransparent. Even if it was made of glass, some light would be reflected back. Nothing is 100% transparent, so light levels would be reduced.

 

[DocSwag]

1 minute ago, BingoFishy said:

Translucent means semitransparent. Even if it was made of glass, some light would be reflected back. Nothing is 100% transparent, so light levels would be reduced.

 

Well... A vacuum is 100% transparent 

[Bananasplit_00]

1 minute ago, BingoFishy said:

Translucent means semitransparent. Even if it was made of glass, some light would be reflected back. Nothing is 100% transparent, so light levels would be reduced.

 

its as good as they are going to get, litteraly nothing but vacum is 100% transparent but if i recall correctly if it lets more then 60% of all light that hits it through its conciderd transparent, not that thats relevant here though seeing as they are labled translucent anyway. its all just marketing anyway

[themctipers]

3 hours ago, BingoFishy said:

 

GJ Newegg

4 days ( ಥـْـِـِـِـْಥ)