Can anyone who is sensitive to stutters, please tell me how bad are stutters, microstutters and stuff when you are in lightboost mode?
Asuming you play old games and 120fps/120hz with vsync on isnt a problem. Tearing is not acceptable.
And has anyone tried to cut away the vsync input lag with a 119fps cap?
how bad are stutters with lightboost?
- lexlazootin
- Posts: 1251
- Joined: 16 Dec 2014, 02:57
Re: how bad are stutters with lightboost?
Stutters are more noticeable with lightboost. With lightboost every frame that stutters is very noticeable to your eyes and with a 119fps cap there is going to be a small tear line slowly going up your screen constantly.
what are you going to do or play?
what are you going to do or play?
Re: how bad are stutters with lightboost?
I really wanted to see what lightboost looked like in person. I realized that since i play mostly old games and source, this might actually be the thing for me, not gsync. (since you have to choose)lexlazootin wrote:Stutters are more noticeable with lightboost. With lightboost every frame that stutters is very noticeable to your eyes and with a 119fps cap there is going to be a small tear line slowly going up your screen constantly.
what are you going to do or play?
But i remembered i have a CRT somewhere, so i`ll take a look @ that.
I played on it when i was a little bastard and didnt understand shit. And i dont remember anything either.
Re: how bad are stutters with lightboost?
Not op but I have a related question:
What's the best setup for playing a 100fps cap on a lightboost 120hz monitor? (cs 1.6 only functions correctly at 100fps)
I tried 120hz strobed, but I can easily see the 'gaps' between frames and occasional tearing lines going up the screen.
100hz strobed was a lot smoother but no matter what I tried with fps_max and fps_override I could still see tearing lines.
I don't currently have gsync.
Is my best bet to just go without lightboost @ 120hz?
What's the best setup for playing a 100fps cap on a lightboost 120hz monitor? (cs 1.6 only functions correctly at 100fps)
I tried 120hz strobed, but I can easily see the 'gaps' between frames and occasional tearing lines going up the screen.
100hz strobed was a lot smoother but no matter what I tried with fps_max and fps_override I could still see tearing lines.
I don't currently have gsync.
Is my best bet to just go without lightboost @ 120hz?
- masterotaku
- Posts: 436
- Joined: 20 Dec 2013, 04:01
Re: how bad are stutters with lightboost?
It's normal to have tearing at fps=Hz if vsync is disabled. If you don't want tearing, vsync is your only option unless you buy a G-Sync/Freesync monitor.landbased wrote: 100hz strobed was a lot smoother but no matter what I tried with fps_max and fps_override I could still see tearing lines.
CPU: Intel Core i7 7700K @ 4.9GHz
GPU: Gainward Phoenix 1080 GLH
RAM: GSkill Ripjaws Z 3866MHz CL19
Motherboard: Gigabyte Gaming M5 Z270
Monitor: Asus PG278QR
GPU: Gainward Phoenix 1080 GLH
RAM: GSkill Ripjaws Z 3866MHz CL19
Motherboard: Gigabyte Gaming M5 Z270
Monitor: Asus PG278QR
Re: how bad are stutters with lightboost?
After having used low persistence for some time now I can say I'm quite sensitive to stuttering.
If you're playing old games, for most old games, I've found stuttering to be non existent. I'm simply able to maintain a minimum framerate at all times with ease and very, very few old games have an engine that will stutter regardless of framerate.
For newer games, I simply drop the graphical quality to achieve as stable as a minimum framerate as possible. I've found that low persistence is visually superior to any other graphical setting. Blur is unplayable now.
I'll say this, a little stuttering is vastly superior to constant blurring of a high persistence monitor. Blurring is constant and it ruins everything at all times, stutter is annoying and can be minimized or eliminated. In either case, low persistence such as lightboost is superior, unless you can't achieve a somewhat stable minimum framerate, in which case, I'd argue it's not even worth playing the game at all as you get used to not having the blur.
If you're playing old games, for most old games, I've found stuttering to be non existent. I'm simply able to maintain a minimum framerate at all times with ease and very, very few old games have an engine that will stutter regardless of framerate.
For newer games, I simply drop the graphical quality to achieve as stable as a minimum framerate as possible. I've found that low persistence is visually superior to any other graphical setting. Blur is unplayable now.
I'll say this, a little stuttering is vastly superior to constant blurring of a high persistence monitor. Blurring is constant and it ruins everything at all times, stutter is annoying and can be minimized or eliminated. In either case, low persistence such as lightboost is superior, unless you can't achieve a somewhat stable minimum framerate, in which case, I'd argue it's not even worth playing the game at all as you get used to not having the blur.