Blur Busters Forums

I have Overwatch locked at 240 FPS using NVidia Inspector frame rate limiter and am using the Asus VG248QE. I enabled both fast sync and lightboost 120hz, and I feel like my screen is randomly tearing due to fast sync. I'm not positive on this combo being more beneficial than just having 120hz enabled. I also have the "Reduce Buffering" option enabled in-game and disabled anisotropic filtering and anti-aliasing within the control panel. Max pre-rendered frames is using 3-D app settings, since OW uses 1 by default (idk if it would interfere with the reduce buffering option i have enabled in-game settings). Looking for feedback from others who tried this combo and if it's really better than just 120hz lightboost. I'm able to keep 240 fps consistent with fast sync enabled too

KevOW wrote:I have Overwatch locked at 240 FPS using NVidia Inspector frame rate limiter and am using the Asus VG248QE. I enabled both fast sync and lightboost 120hz, and I feel like my screen is randomly tearing due to fast sync. I'm not positive on this combo being more beneficial than just having 120hz enabled. I also have the "Reduce Buffering" option enabled in-game and disabled anisotropic filtering and anti-aliasing within the control panel. Max pre-rendered frames is using 3-D app settings, since OW uses 1 by default (idk if it would interfere with the reduce buffering option i have enabled in-game settings). Looking for feedback from others who tried this combo and if it's really better than just 120hz lightboost. I'm able to keep 240 fps consistent with fast sync enabled too

It's a matter of user preference --

... Are you reducing lag as much as you can (while keeping LightBoost/.strobing?)
... or are you aiming for best motion clarity (even with a little more lag)?

I am not familiar with how stable frametimes are in Overwatch, but LightBoost does amplify the visibility of microstutters. You may be reducing input lag by running at 240fps@120Hz (framerate cap method) but it's probably only about 2ms average savings relative to 120fps@120Hz (via same framerate cap method). VSYNC OFF can look very microstuttery with LightBoost, so there are pros/cons with different framerate capping methods. (In CS:GO, 1000fps VSYNC OFF looks less microstuttery than 240fps VSYNC OFF -- but Overwatch is different...)

Other Overwatch players are members of these forums, so I've added the word "Overwatch" to your topic thread to help attract their attention -- let's see what they say!

If the monitor can still LightBoost if you bump the refresh rate slightly with CRU (to 120.007Hz), then what you should do is cap to 120FPS with the in-game capper (it's low latency; RTSS adds 1 frame of lag) and use vsync instead of fastsync.

This will give you input latency that rivals vsync off and fastsync. I tried that myself in Overwatch when it had a "free weekend" and input lag was non-existent compared to RTSS.

If your monitor cannot do that, then still don't use RTSS. Enable fastsync and don't cap, unless the in-game limiter allows you to set a high cap (240 or more.)

RealNC wrote:If the monitor can still LightBoost if you bump the refresh rate slightly with CRU (to 120.007Hz), then what you should do is cap to 120FPS with the in-game capper (it's low latency; RTSS adds 1 frame of lag) and use vsync instead of fastsync.

This will give you input latency that rivals vsync off and fastsync. I tried that myself in Overwatch when it had a "free weekend" and input lag was non-existent compared to RTSS.

If your monitor cannot do that, then still don't use RTSS. Enable fastsync and don't cap, unless the in-game limiter allows you to set a high cap (240 or more.)

Yes, this is the technique for "ultra-low-lag VSYNC ON" using the Overwatch game. Downloading, installing and running ToastyX CRU to create a custom "slightly higher than 120Hz" refresh rate, then running Overwatch's built-in framerate cap.

Thank you Real and Chief for the quick response. I'm curious if any of you ran tests similar to Battle(non)sense

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sITJ3V_fyv4

We did G-Sync input lag tests for CS:GO. Nothing for fastsync at this point though, sorry.

Fastsync is fairly new, so im not expecting anything soon. it's not really all that useful without getting 240, 360, or 480 FPS consistent

If you can run 480fps or 500fps VSYNC OFF, that will reduce lag by roughly ~2-3ms over the ultra-low-lag VSYNC ON method. But if you can't maintain 480fps or 500fps, don't bother.

It's sometimes a tough call, VSYNC ON versus VSYNC OFF (less lag!!!!) because ULMB/LightBoost/etc often looks quite smoother with VSYNC ON.

So we've got to resort to those "ultra-low-lag VSYNC ON" tricks to attempt to try to get the cake AND eat it too. .... Some games are just impossible, VSYNC OFF just works much better, feels much less lag, but we're lucky several of us found a low-lag VSYNC ON trick for Overwatch. Hopefully it's 'good enough' for you!

haha, sadly im afraid not. During a competitive match, i was unable to flick towards an enemy genji who ulted. I just play with lightboost on and VSYNC off at 230 FPS, as I'm used it

KevOW wrote:haha, sadly im afraid not. During a competitive match, i was unable to flick towards an enemy genji who ulted.

I highly doubt that the cause is low-latency vsync. Flicks are in the ballbark of 50ms+.

You were probably using normal vsync and you did not modify your monitor's refresh rate.