Driver 441.08: Ultra-Low Latency Now with G-SYNC Support

Talk about NVIDIA G-SYNC, a variable refresh rate (VRR) technology. G-SYNC eliminates stutters, tearing, and reduces input lag. List of G-SYNC Monitors.
whitepuzzle
Posts: 27
Joined: 13 Jun 2019, 17:46

Re: Driver 441.08: Ultra-Low Latency Now with G-SYNC Support

Post by whitepuzzle » 04 Nov 2019, 20:13

What is the verdict on NULL Ultra in high-FPS, entirely CPU-driven games (e.g. CSGO)? Enable or disable?

User avatar
EeK
Posts: 18
Joined: 19 Jun 2019, 02:52

Re: Driver 441.08: Ultra-Low Latency Now with G-SYNC Support

Post by EeK » 04 Nov 2019, 20:19

jorimt wrote:Not with that game, but I have with several others. As I've (repeatedly) stated via previous comments in this thread though, until more testing is done, I can't guarantee what that combo is doing, and I can't currently recommend it over an FPS limiter.

Batle(non)sense is reportedly due to release a test video on it soon.
Looking forward to that video. Chris confirmed on Twitter that NULL "isn't a magic FPS limiter" (in his own words). He also recommended to have VSync enabled in-game, instead of at the driver level, because developers may "decide to trigger other optimizations in the engine when you enable VSync inside the game" (again, his words).

I haven't experimented with other titles, aside from The Outer Worlds, but I forgot that I'm playing the Microsoft Store version of the game, which, due to its fullscreen optimizations and "fake" exclusive fullscreen mode, probably has triple buffering applied to it by default, since Windows forces the use of DWM.

That may explain the odd frame limiting behavior. Or not. I honestly have no idea, and this new implementation of exclusive fullscreen still is a mystery to me. :lol:
jorimt wrote:I can't say I've experienced anything close to that after taking control over the WindowsApps folder for game exe access, but, yes, feel free to avoid the method if you're not comfortable with it.
I hadn't, either, until very recently. Although I'm convinced that what caused my saves to disappear was switching the ownership back and forth, and not simply taking ownership of the WindowsApps folder in the first place.

I regret giving in to scare tactics now. :(
tygeezy wrote:awesome to see you here too Eek. I'm patiently awaiting battlenonsense video. It would be great to just setup gsync + vsync + ultra low latency and forget it.

It would be nice to do less dicking around trying to hover under 97 % gpu usage as well as below the refresh rate ceiling to optimize input lag. I'm going to want to have less static elements on my screen now that i'm going to be gaming on the c9 oled.
Awesome to see you here, too, tygeezy! Be sure to check out the PCGamingWiki for potential fixes and workarounds for all games. And if you're planning on playing The Outer Worlds, I came up with some INI file edits to remove most of the HUD elements in that game, without affecting gameplay. Let me know via DM if you're interested, and I can link them to you.

User avatar
jorimt
Posts: 832
Joined: 04 Nov 2016, 10:44

Re: Driver 441.08: Ultra-Low Latency Now with G-SYNC Support

Post by jorimt » 04 Nov 2019, 20:37

EeK wrote:He also recommended to have VSync enabled in-game, instead of at the driver level, because developers may "decide to trigger other optimizations in the engine when you enable VSync inside the game" (again, his words).
Yup, I said something similar about NVCP vs. in-game V-SYNC in my article originally as well:
https://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync ... ttings/14/
Nvidia Control Panel V-SYNC vs. In-game V-SYNC

While NVCP V-SYNC has no input lag reduction over in-game V-SYNC, and when used with G-SYNC + FPS limit, it will never engage, some in-game V-SYNC solutions may introduce their own frame buffer or frame pacing behaviors, enable triple buffer V-SYNC automatically (not optimal for the native double buffer of G-SYNC), or simply not function at all, and, thus, NVCP V-SYNC is the safest bet.

There are rare occasions, however, where V-SYNC will only function with the in-game option enabled, so if tearing or other anomalous behavior is observed with NVCP V-SYNC (or visa-versa), each solution should be tried until said behavior is resolved.
--------
EeK wrote:I haven't experimented with other titles, aside from The Outer Worlds, but I forgot that I'm playing the Microsoft Store version of the game, which, due to its fullscreen optimizations and "fake" exclusive fullscreen mode, probably has triple buffering applied to it by default, since Windows forces the use of DWM.

That may explain the odd frame limiting behavior. Or not. I honestly have no idea, and this new implementation of exclusive fullscreen still is a mystery to me. :lol:
Again, DWM composition (which is the very thing that forces its own form of triple buffer V-SYNC in traditional borderless or windowed modes) is not engaged when the game window is focused/active with the hybrid borderless/exclusive fullscreen mode (only with actual borderless or windowed mode), so, G-SYNC or no G-SYNC, while it's not impossible, that shouldn't be the case if you're using the in-game "Fullscreen" option, even with fullscreen optimizations enabled for the exe.

If you want to check Outer Worlds for this specifically, disable G-SYNC and force V-SYNC off in the NVCP; you should see tearing in this scenario.
Author: Blur Busters "G-SYNC 101" Series

Display: Acer Predator XB271HU OS: Windows 10 Pro MB: ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero CPU: i7-8700k GPU: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti FTW3 RAM: 32GB G.SKILL TridentZ @3200MHz

User avatar
EeK
Posts: 18
Joined: 19 Jun 2019, 02:52

Re: Driver 441.08: Ultra-Low Latency Now with G-SYNC Support

Post by EeK » 04 Nov 2019, 22:19

jorimt wrote:Yup, I said something similar about NVCP vs. in-game V-SYNC in my article originally as well:
https://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync ... ttings/14/
But Chris made it sound like those optimizations are good, while, from your article, it's pretty clear that they're bad. Aside from tearing, what other "anomalous behavior" should we be looking out for when testing in-game VSync vs. NVCP VSync?
jorimt wrote:If you want to check Outer Worlds for this specifically, disable G-SYNC and force V-SYNC off in the NVCP; you should see tearing in this scenario.
Yep, it was a tear-fest. I may have disabled fullscreen optimizations for the game's executable prior to reverting ownership of the WindowsApps folder, but that shouldn't make any difference, as you mentioned. I thought that this could be related to the "magic" FPS limiting of NULL, but I was clearly incorrect.

As for G-Sync, I've only been playing around with it for a few days, so I'm learning as I go. :P

User avatar
jorimt
Posts: 832
Joined: 04 Nov 2016, 10:44

Re: Driver 441.08: Ultra-Low Latency Now with G-SYNC Support

Post by jorimt » 04 Nov 2019, 22:59

EeK wrote:But Chris made it sound like those optimizations are good, while, from your article, it's pretty clear that they're bad.
I interpreted it as him inferring that the "optimizations" may interfer, or basically, increased the possible variables when testing (and I quote):
https://twitter.com/BattleNonSense/stat ... 1056236544
the v-sync option in-game can also trigger other optimizations in the game-engine (which is why when comparing/testing end-to-end delay in different games nvidia recommends to use the nvcpl v-sync option).
But in further comments there, yes, it appears it's of his opinion that in-game V-SYNC is generally fine to pair with G-SYNC.

--------
EeK wrote:Aside from tearing, what other "anomalous behavior" should we be looking out for when testing in-game VSync vs. NVCP VSync?
Possibly increased stutter (micro or otherwise) and/or slightly more input lag due to possible extra buffer/flip queue behavior using the in-game solution. But, granted, this would be extremely rare.

Beyond that and tearing, the issues are theoretical, because 99% of the time, there's likely little practical difference between NVCP V-SYNC and in-game V-SYNC when pairing it with G-SYNC. I just view it as safer to use NVCP V-SYNC over in-game to cover those 1% of possible instances.

As for Chris' mention of in-game V-SYNC having "other optimizations" (with or without G-SYNC), I'm not saying what he suggests doesn't exist, I just don't personally have any direct evidence of this in my testing (or general experience) to either confirm or deny that.
Author: Blur Busters "G-SYNC 101" Series

Display: Acer Predator XB271HU OS: Windows 10 Pro MB: ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero CPU: i7-8700k GPU: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti FTW3 RAM: 32GB G.SKILL TridentZ @3200MHz

User avatar
tygeezy
Posts: 67
Joined: 29 Feb 2016, 21:56

Re: Driver 441.08: Ultra-Low Latency Now with G-SYNC Support

Post by tygeezy » 07 Nov 2019, 02:37

Battlenonsense video is live with tests for gsync + null+ vsync.


https://youtu.be/OAFuiBTFo5E

wist7
Posts: 3
Joined: 07 Nov 2019, 05:10

Re: Driver 441.08: Ultra-Low Latency Now with G-SYNC Support

Post by wist7 » 07 Nov 2019, 05:13

For years I'm using blurbusters recommendation
V-sync on in nvcp, off in-game, rtss fps cap at 141 and now I'm confused, why he cap it at 138?
Should i use v-sync and in-game limiter?
Now I don't know which are recommenced settings.

User avatar
jorimt
Posts: 832
Joined: 04 Nov 2016, 10:44

Re: Driver 441.08: Ultra-Low Latency Now with G-SYNC Support

Post by jorimt » 07 Nov 2019, 09:13

wist7 wrote:V-sync on in nvcp, off in-game, rtss fps cap at 141 and now I'm confused, why he cap it at 138?
It's simply an example of a safe limit.

Battle(non)sense doesn't say in the video that you must limit the FPS to exactly 138 @144Hz, he merely suggests limiting the FPS below the refresh rate when using G-SYNC to keep it within range. "138" happens to be the number he limits it to in this and many of his other videos during 144Hz tests.

In my original tests, -2 FPS was enough to avoid V-SYNC input lag and remain within the G-SYNC range with both RTSS and your average in-game limiter, thus I settled on a -3 FPS minimum as my recommendation. Anything at or below that -3 FPS minimum is typically safe to use.
wist7 wrote:Should i use v-sync and in-game limiter?
Now I don't know which are recommenced settings.
I already spoke on the NVCP V-SYNC vs. in-game V-SYNC point earlier in this thread:
jorimt wrote:
EeK wrote:Aside from tearing, what other "anomalous behavior" should we be looking out for when testing in-game VSync vs. NVCP VSync?
Possibly increased stutter (micro or otherwise) and/or slightly more input lag due to possible extra buffer/flip queue behavior using the in-game solution. But, granted, this would be extremely rare.

Beyond that and tearing, the issues are theoretical, because 99% of the time, there's likely little practical difference between NVCP V-SYNC and in-game V-SYNC when pairing it with G-SYNC. I just view it as safer to use NVCP V-SYNC over in-game to cover those 1% of possible instances.

As for Chris' mention of in-game V-SYNC having "other optimizations" (with or without G-SYNC), I'm not saying what he suggests doesn't exist, I just don't personally have any direct evidence of this in my testing (or general experience) to either confirm or deny that.
Battle(non)sense prefers to use V-SYNC in-game with G-SYNC, as it's more convenient to disable it in-game without closing and relaunching, and there is a slight possibility in his estimation that V-SYNC may (rarely) include further optimizations beyond the NVCP solution.

Again, refer to my above quote for my current stance on that. Though bottom-line, is using either with G-SYNC is honestly going to be identical 99% of the time.
Author: Blur Busters "G-SYNC 101" Series

Display: Acer Predator XB271HU OS: Windows 10 Pro MB: ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero CPU: i7-8700k GPU: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti FTW3 RAM: 32GB G.SKILL TridentZ @3200MHz

User avatar
jorimt
Posts: 832
Joined: 04 Nov 2016, 10:44

Re: Driver 441.08: Ultra-Low Latency Now with G-SYNC Support

Post by jorimt » 07 Nov 2019, 09:35

phpBB [video]

Alright, so I've viewed it, and all is as I expected...

1. NULL does limit the FPS below the refresh rate with G-SYNC + V-SYNC, and thus does prevent V-SYNC input lag, but, overall, not nearly as much as a good in-game limiters, and as such, is not a direct substitute to a dedicated limiter (nor, I assume, does it likely have as solid frametime consistency as RTSS).

2. Low Latency Mode (both "On" and "Ultra") does nothing to reduce input lag if you're already using an FPS limiter to keep G-SYNC in it's range and prevent your system from being GPU-bound (as I've already stated here and in my existing article/Closing FAQ), as the pre-rendered frames queue does not apply so long as your FPS is being limited by the cap.

3. Low Latency Mode only reduces input lag in GPU-bound situations, and typically only by up to 1 frame (also as I've stated in the past). Keeping the FPS limited by your (preferably in-game) FPS cap at all times is still going to give you the lowest input lag in all situations.

As for whether my optimal G-SYNC settings have change, overall, no:
G-SYNC + V-SYNC "On" (NVCP optimal in my opinion, with in-game likely safe 99% of the time as well) + -3 minimum in-game FPS limit or RTSS if "good" in-game limiter not available.

Regarding Low Latency Mode "Ultra" vs. "On" when used in conjunction with G-SYNC + V-SYNC + -3 minimum FPS limit, I'd currently recommend "On" for two reasons:

1. "On" should have the same effect as "Ultra" in compatible games (that don't already have a MPRF queue of "1") in reducing the pre-rendered frames queue and input lag by up to 1 frame whenever your system's framerate drops below your set FPS limit vs. "Off."

2. Since "Ultra" non-optionally auto-caps the FPS at lower values than you can manually set with an FPS limiter, for the direct purposes of point "1" above, you'd have to set your FPS limiter below that when using "Ultra" to prevent it from being the framerate's limiting factor, and allow the in-game (or RTSS) limiter to take effect. At 144Hz, you would need to cap a couple frames below 138, which isn't a big deal, but at 240Hz, "Ultra" will auto-cap the FPS to 224 FPS, which I find a little excessive, so "On" which doesn't auto-cap, but should still reduce the pre-rendered frames queue by the same amount as "Ultra" in GPU-bound situations (within the G-SYNC range) is more suited to such a setup.
Author: Blur Busters "G-SYNC 101" Series

Display: Acer Predator XB271HU OS: Windows 10 Pro MB: ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero CPU: i7-8700k GPU: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti FTW3 RAM: 32GB G.SKILL TridentZ @3200MHz

wist7
Posts: 3
Joined: 07 Nov 2019, 05:10

Re: Driver 441.08: Ultra-Low Latency Now with G-SYNC Support

Post by wist7 » 07 Nov 2019, 13:01

Then I will stay on my current settings 141 fps limit in RTSS because in CoD:MW In-Game limiter is broken spikes above the limit. (When I set 138, rtss shows 143). NVCP V-Sync ON, Null on/off (don't matter because of DX12)

Post Reply