Blur Busters Forums

Flip queue set to its minimum results in better frame-pacing on NVIDIA. You might want to check that.
Setting it to 5 would result in a lot of unnecessary input lag.

Triple buffering does nothing for smoothness, it just prevents tearing.

Glide wrote:Flip queue set to its minimum results in better frame-pacing on NVIDIA. You might want to check that.
Setting it to 5 would result in a lot of unnecessary input lag.

Triple buffering does nothing for smoothness, it just prevents tearing.

The thing is, when I cap at 60fps @ 120hz , it eliminites the frame queue almost completely, which is great for input lag, but I think is bad for stutter. I think we always want 1 or 2 frames prebuffered, otherwise there is the risk of stutter (unless you've got gsync/freesync). I've spent hours trying different combinations of frame queue sizes, triple buffering and different frame limiters. Just now I tried bioshock infinite. With RP capping at 60 it's a stuttery mess, but with rivatuner doing the capping its quite smooth. Complete opposite to how it is with some of my other games like Rift and iRacing where RP produces a smooth result but rivatuner is a stuttery mess. Seems to be dependent on the game engine.

Of course I can smooth it all out by letting it render as many fps as possible at 120hz, but then I feel like it's too much stress on my system and 60fps locked is actually visually smoother than a variable 60-120 (although, frame rates in the range of 65-90 @ 120hz are surprisingly not that juddery).

Just realised Bioshock Infinite is DX10/11 and therefore compatible with CCC's frame limiter. Result: smooth 60fps @ 120hz. But high input lag. Rivatuner's limiter is better with this game, smooth frame rate and low lag.

pneu wrote:The thing is, when I cap at 60fps @ 120hz , it eliminites the frame queue almost completely, which is great for input lag, but I think is bad for stutter.

Hmm, that may be true if you're using an external frame cap instead of V-Sync to cap it at 60.

pneu wrote:I think we always want 1 or 2 frames prebuffered, otherwise there is the risk of stutter (unless you've got gsync/freesync). I've spent hours trying different combinations of frame queue sizes, triple buffering and different frame limiters. Just now I tried bioshock infinite.

Well that does not match my testing at all: http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2052
Reducing the flip-queue size to its minimum was always smoother or no different, and never worse, in my testing.
And I've yet to encounter a game since then which has behaved any differently.
Perhaps that may be different with AMD, but I'd hope not.

Stutter happens when your framerate drops below 60, buffering a handful of frames rarely helps.
Typically when it drops below 60, it's going to drop for longer than that.
And if it's frequently dropping below 60, you need to reduce the settings. (or upgrade your PC)

pneu wrote:With RP capping at 60 it's a stuttery mess, but with rivatuner doing the capping its quite smooth. Complete opposite to how it is with some of my other games like Rift and iRacing where RP produces a smooth result but rivatuner is a stuttery mess. Seems to be dependent on the game engine.

In my experience, external frame caps rarely improve smoothness.
And capping close to your refresh rate will increase the likelihood of it skipping a frame.

I would either cap to something like 70 FPS and enable V-Sync, which should lock it to 60, or enable "double v-sync".
I don't know if AMD's "double v-sync" behaves the same as NVIDIA's 1/2 refresh V-Sync or not.
With NVIDIA, this is the smoothest way to display 60 FPS at 120Hz.

pneu wrote:Of course I can smooth it all out by letting it render as many fps as possible at 120hz, but then I feel like it's too much stress on my system and 60fps locked is actually visually smoother than a variable 60-120 (although, frame rates in the range of 65-90 @ 120hz are surprisingly not that juddery).

Unless you have a VRR display, 65-90 should be less smooth than a properly V-Synced 60 FPS.

Glide wrote: I would either cap to something like 70 FPS and enable V-Sync, which should lock it to 60, or enable "double v-sync".
I don't know if AMD's "double v-sync" behaves the same as NVIDIA's 1/2 refresh V-Sync or not.
With NVIDIA, this is the smoothest way to display 60 FPS at 120Hz.

Ah yes, double vsync. I tried that in radeon pro but it didn't work. CCC doesn't offer such a feature either. I think my next GPU is going to be nvidia

Glide wrote:

pneu wrote:Of course I can smooth it all out by letting it render as many fps as possible at 120hz, but then I feel like it's too much stress on my system and 60fps locked is actually visually smoother than a variable 60-120 (although, frame rates in the range of 65-90 @ 120hz are surprisingly not that juddery).

Unless you have a VRR display, 65-90 should be less smooth than a properly V-Synced 60 FPS.

Yeah that's the issue for me: getting a properly v-synced 60fps @ 120hz. I have the same issue with capping at 30fps @ 60hz, it will drop frames every few seconds which I find really jarring.

afaict some of these frame limiters work rather crudely by simply looking for the d3d present() call in a memory address and just blocking it until a certain amount of time has elapsed. If that's how they work it's not difficult to see how that could cause timing problems in the pipe line, maybe moreso with games that use multi threaded rendering.

One other thing I notice at 120hz is that 30fps youtube videos have a lot less dropped frames. This is in chrome.

In 60hz I have to use svptube to send the videos to media player classic, in order to avoid dropped frames.