What's the best FPS limiter these days?

[RealNC]

Assuming that the timing was perfect - and it certainly is not - the game would be stuttering every 20s when presenting 60 FPS at 60.05Hz.

But it doesn't. It looks fine. And there's less input lag.

If you record the footage, and go through it frame by frame, slowly, then yes, you will see the frame skip every 20 seconds. But in reality, there's absolutely zero stutter.

The accuracy thing is the reason why 60.05 is the value where input lag sees a reduction. Otherwise, I would be using 60.001. That's not enough. It only starts working around 60.050.

Can't say I've ever seen that, but it's not like I would ever want to cap at 55 FPS on a 60Hz display when V-Sync is enabled.

It doesn't matter if you would want it or not. If you don't want it, then don't select 55. Select 60. If I select 55, no matter why I would want that, the limiter should limit to 55. Period. There is zero excuse for this.

And 55 was only an example. The issue here is that I want to cap to 60 on 60.05Hz. But since the nvidia limiter is broken, it caps to 60.05 instead.

I cannot understand why you don't see that this is a broken tool. It does not work correctly.

[Glide]

Assuming that the timing was perfect - and it certainly is not - the game would be stuttering every 20s when presenting 60 FPS at 60.05Hz.

But it doesn't. It looks fine. And there's less input lag.

If you record the footage, and go through it frame by frame, slowly, then yes, you will see the frame skip every 20 seconds. But in reality, there's absolutely zero stutter.

What you're saying is that you don't notice it stuttering. It is stuttering though.

Can't say I've ever seen that, but it's not like I would ever want to cap at 55 FPS on a 60Hz display when V-Sync is enabled.

It doesn't matter if you would want it or not. If you don't want it, then don't select 55. Select 60. If I select 55, no matter why I would want that, the limiter should limit to 55. Period. There is zero excuse for this.

Seems like it's working perfectly here.

And 55 was only an example. The issue here is that I want to cap to 60 on 60.05Hz. But since the nvidia limiter is broken, it caps to 60.05 instead.

I cannot understand why you don't see that this is a broken tool. It does not work correctly.

Again: NVIDIA have different goals from you. NVIDIA like to focus on smoothness so they have some hidden behaviors in how some of their software works.
Fast Sync tries to lock to multiples of your refresh rate instead of being totally unlocked for example.
It's not broken, it just doesn't work the way you want it to.

[masterotaku]

60fps at 60.05Hz should stutter every 20 seconds, as Glide said. It's just one lost frame, so if you blink, stop looking or don't pay attention, it's easy to miss. Or you may think it's because of an asset loading. Media Player Classic can inform you about when a frame repeat is going to happen, and you can also see a graph showing the accumulation of input lag until the drop happens. It's cool.

But I agree that limiters should limit perfectly to what you tell them. Anything else is wrong. And if it wants to cap to the refresh rate with a margin of error, it should inform the user and the user should have the possibility of disabling it.

[Glide]

it should inform the user and the user should have the possibility of disabling it.

The framerate limiter is not a feature that NVIDIA exposes to users, it's only available via the NVIDIA Profile Inspector tool.

[Sparky]

60fps at 60.05Hz should stutter every 20 seconds, as Glide said. It's just one lost frame, so if you blink, stop looking or don't pay attention, it's easy to miss. Or you may think it's because of an asset loading. Media Player Classic can inform you about when a frame repeat is going to happen, and you can also see a graph showing the accumulation of input lag until the drop happens. It's cool.

But I agree that limiters should limit perfectly to what you tell them. Anything else is wrong. And if it wants to cap to the refresh rate with a margin of error, it should inform the user and the user should have the possibility of disabling it.

In that circumstance, input lag would creep down until you miss a frame and then jump up by 1 frame when a repeat gets displayed.

Ideally there would be a framerate cap early in the render pipeline that's synchronized to refresh rate, as you're always going to have drift if you're running the limiter based on the system clock instead of the pixel clock.

[RealNC]

What you're saying is that you don't notice it stuttering. It is stuttering though.

Try it, and then come back to me and tell me "it stutters."

It doesn't. And I should know. I'm the hugest pixel whore the universe has ever seen. If you think YOU care about that stuff, you have NO idea.

Seems like it's working perfectly here.

"There is no hunger problem in this world, because I'm eating a sandwich right now."

Or in other words, I'm so happy it works for you. I have no issues anymore. Thank you, thank you from the bottom of my heart for posting that screenshot. You made the problem go away. You're awesome.

Again: NVIDIA have different goals from you. NVIDIA like to focus on smoothness so they have some hidden behaviors in how some of their software works.
It's not broken, it just doesn't work the way you want it to.

It's broken. I'm sorry, it just is.

Tools should not presume what the craftsman is going to use them for. He knows better.

Nvidia should presume that their behavior is "better" for me. That is broken design. It is objectively broken. It's not even up for debate, because it cannot do what I tell it to do, even though it pretends to give that option.

Also, you're being hypocritical here. You post a screenshot where it works the way I describe as correct, but then argue that it shouldn't behave that way to begin with and that nvidia has different priorities and that the correct behavior should be to always cap to vsync rate... This is actually proof that your goal here is not to argue about the correct behavior of the frame limiter, but to defend nvidia regardless of their software's behavior. It doesn't matter how their software behaves, you're out to defend them in either case. And you proved that with the screenshot you posted.

And that my friend, is what we call a fanboi.

[HenrikE1234]

Still looking for a framerate capper that will allow me to cap at the maximum Hz of my monitor for all games. Is there a trick with RTSS that I'm missing?? (Regarding the Global option there...)

Else I guess I'll use RTSS & just have to slog through adding game after game since DXtory crashes my fave game.

Because: frame cap 1 FPS below an acceptable Hz (> 60) plus the oomph to drive it is the absolute solution to all my blur/stagger woes, I have forgotten all about ULMB and G-Sync.

This is my pro tip for everyone. This is how to really make all your games smooth and beautiful

[Sparky]

Still looking for a framerate capper that will allow me to cap at the maximum Hz of my monitor for all games. Is there a trick with RTSS that I'm missing?? (Regarding the Global option there...)

Else I guess I'll use RTSS & just have to slog through adding game after game since DXtory crashes my fave game.

Because: frame cap 1 FPS below an acceptable Hz (> 60) plus the oomph to drive it is the absolute solution to all my blur/stagger woes, I have forgotten all about ULMB and G-Sync.

This is my pro tip for everyone. This is how to really make all your games smooth and beautiful

A few things:
An in-game cap, if available, is going to be lower latency than anything else, all else being equal.

Refresh rate -1 is going to cause 1 dropped frame per second. This causes one hitch per second, and results in some additional variability in input lag. Anything over refresh rate isn't going to help.

If using v-sync in a potentially high framerate game, using a utility that can flush the gpu every frame instead of a framerate cap(GeDoSaTo will do this if you add FlushGPUEveryFrame = true to the .ini). This will knock 2 or 3 frames of latency off v-sync, get rid of stutter, and won't drop frames, but may knock your framerate down to unacceptable numbers in more demanding games. It's slightly higher latency than v-sync + framerate cap, but the variance in latency is much lower. Though you're probably better off just running a high framerate game at a high framerate.

The perfect option would be a synchronous framerate cap implemented by the game developers.

As far as third party framerate caps go, RTSS is ok, radeonpro adds more latency than RTSS.

[RealNC]

Still looking for a framerate capper that will allow me to cap at the maximum Hz of my monitor for all games. Is there a trick with RTSS that I'm missing?? (Regarding the Global option there...)

I'm not sure what you mean. I have never created any profiles in RTSS. I always just use the global one. I start RTSS, enter my FPS limit, play the game.

[HenrikE1234]

Still looking for a framerate capper that will allow me to cap at the maximum Hz of my monitor for all games. Is there a trick with RTSS that I'm missing?? (Regarding the Global option there...)

Else I guess I'll use RTSS & just have to slog through adding game after game since DXtory crashes my fave game.

Because: frame cap 1 FPS below an acceptable Hz (> 60) plus the oomph to drive it is the absolute solution to all my blur/stagger woes, I have forgotten all about ULMB and G-Sync.

This is my pro tip for everyone. This is how to really make all your games smooth and beautiful

A few things:
An in-game cap, if available, is going to be lower latency than anything else, all else being equal.

Refresh rate -1 is going to cause 1 dropped frame per second. This causes one hitch per second, and results in some additional variability in input lag. Anything over refresh rate isn't going to help.

If using v-sync in a potentially high framerate game, using a utility that can flush the gpu every frame instead of a framerate cap(GeDoSaTo will do this if you add FlushGPUEveryFrame = true to the .ini). This will knock 2 or 3 frames of latency off v-sync, get rid of stutter, and won't drop frames, but may knock your framerate down to unacceptable numbers in more demanding games. It's slightly higher latency than v-sync + framerate cap, but the variance in latency is much lower. Though you're probably better off just running a high framerate game at a high framerate.

The perfect option would be a synchronous framerate cap implemented by the game developers.

As far as third party framerate caps go, RTSS is ok, radeonpro adds more latency than RTSS.

Vsync is not used on my gaming PC anymore

And with that off, if the cap is near the Hz, you will get slight tearing, which is not noticable at 120Hz. If the cap is exactly 120 FPS at 120 Hz though, the tearing can stay at the same vertical position on the screen, and then it's noticable. You want to be off by 1-2 FPS, to avoid that.

Also, no game can be expected to output perfectly even framerates at all times. But if you can push your FPS to be above your Hz 95% of the time, you can cap near your Hz globally and get a soft, responsive gaming experience, whatever game you pick to play at any time.

I tried G-Sync, which didn't do anything since my games didn't struggle, and ULMB only fixed contours of distant objects that didn't move across the screen (as most of the scene does in all first/third person 3D games).

To me, this was the actual solution to reduce the blurry impression and get something palatable. Push up the FPS and cap it.

So my recommendation is, if you already have a low response time monitor (<=4ms), don't buy a new monitor hoping for G-sync and blur reduction features to fix some of the blurry impression some of the time, spend the money on a graphics card instead to push up the FPS to above a decent Hz (I think 75Hz could still look good, but the higher the crisper everything is.)