Blur Busters Forums

Now that they fixed the cpu/gpu usage im trying it without vsync, i activated with gsync+141 fps limit +vsync and it feels smooth but seems slow than without, its maybe the vsync on who give this impression?

Higher fps beyond the panels refresh rate still give a more responsive feeling but with added tearing. So if you are used to running 200+ fps then capping at or near your 144 limit you should notice a tiny bit of extra delay. The pros outweigh the cons in most instances. The only game I can argue for really is CS:GO because of the extremely high fps you can push with a budget system. You can easily get 500+ fps in that which will end up in much faster frametimes over a capped fps, even without vsync/gsync. Capping at 141 instead of having a constant 180 only loses you about 1.5 ms in frametime if you use an ingame FPS limiter. If you use rivia tuner then it is speculated to have zero to 1 frame of additional lag. 1 frame has different timings depending on how high it is but at 144 its like 6-7ms. So definitely stay with an ingame if you can.

Also make sure vsync is ON in control panel, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>OFF<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< in the game. Use the ingame fps limiter to cap if possible. If not use rivia tuner. Do not cap fps from nvidia control panel. *edit* apparently may be able to cap it with control panel now, I can not find a credible source yet but people have mentioned here that they updated it to be the same as RTSS lag. Until we find a credible link or Chief weighs in I still recommend using RTSS instead of nvidia to cap fps if the game doesn't have a reliable way to do it for you. Always cap in game if possible because it has no lag penalty.

Use low latency mode "On" in nvidia control panel. Do not use "Ultra" unless you are GPU bound BELOW your 141 cap. (low latency mode only works for DX11 games...no vulkan or DX12)

PeppexITA wrote: ↑

13 May 2020, 12:40

Now that they fixed the cpu/gpu usage im trying it without vsync, i activated with gsync+141 fps limit +vsync and it feels smooth but seems slow than without, its maybe the vsync on who give this impression?

it's all in your head bro. I don't think I've noticed any performance improvements personally from S5.

Dmoney405 wrote: ↑

13 May 2020, 20:36

Use low latency mode "On" in nvidia control panel. Do not use "Ultra" unless you are GPU bound BELOW your 141 cap. (low latency mode only works for DX11 games...no vulkan or DX12)

The general recommendation from what ive read here is to turn it off unless you are GPU bound. Ultra mode caps your framerate below your max refreshrate automaticly.

What changes from gsync+ 141 fps limit + vsync on + low latency mode off and gsync + 141 fps limit + vsync on + low latency mode on?
And on apex limit from origin on the launch options or use rivatuner? thanks

Avean wrote: ↑

14 May 2020, 06:53

Dmoney405 wrote: ↑

13 May 2020, 20:36

Use low latency mode "On" in nvidia control panel. Do not use "Ultra" unless you are GPU bound BELOW your 141 cap. (low latency mode only works for DX11 games...no vulkan or DX12)

The general recommendation from what ive read here is to turn it off unless you are GPU bound. Ultra mode caps your framerate below your max refreshrate automaticly.

The recommendation is to leave it 'on' and 'ultra' for low fps gpu bound situations. I've never seen a suggestion of leaving it off, not to say there isn't one; just that I haven't seen it.

All turning low latency to 'on' does is reduce the amount of prerendered frames in the flip queue thus lowering latency. On rare cases this can cause stuttering and can be turned off in those situations, if needed. So why would you want to leave it off and potentially have added input lag for no reason?

Turning it to 'ultra' is okay on grandmas computer because it take the thought process out of it. Just set it and go. The issue with this is that in games where you can easily cap your refresh rate will be capped at 141hz instead of 144 by nvidia software instead of an ingame limiter, potentially giving up one to two frames of lag resulting in 6-12ms of added input lag at 144hz and like 8-16ms at 120hz. Leaving it set to 'On" instead of "Ultra" allows you to still choose how you want to cap the framerate for more flexibility and potentially lower lag. It is called low latency mode 'ultra' because it is still a net reduction in lag over the standard of not capping fps and allowing vsync to take over gsync at the monitors selected refresh rate, which gives 3 frames of input lag. Since 6-12ms < 18-21ms of input lag they are still correct by labeling it a low latency solution. But power users like most people here can squeeze more performance out of "on" and a manual -3fps cap ingame or with RTSS, if needed.

PeppexITA wrote: ↑

14 May 2020, 09:31

What changes from gsync+ 141 fps limit + vsync on + low latency mode off and gsync + 141 fps limit + vsync on + low latency mode on?
And on apex limit from origin on the launch options or use rivatuner? thanks

Nothing if its DX12. Flip queue is handled by the game instead of drivers. If it's DX11 then refer to my comment above this one for more info. If you feel that info isn't adequate enough then there are dozens of articles on this site about gsync and how to set it up; as well as deeper technical information pertaining to this subject.

And again, vsync needs to be on in your drivers and OFF in apex.

Dmoney405 wrote: ↑

14 May 2020, 12:27

Avean wrote: ↑

14 May 2020, 06:53

Dmoney405 wrote: ↑

13 May 2020, 20:36

Use low latency mode "On" in nvidia control panel. Do not use "Ultra" unless you are GPU bound BELOW your 141 cap. (low latency mode only works for DX11 games...no vulkan or DX12)

The general recommendation from what ive read here is to turn it off unless you are GPU bound. Ultra mode caps your framerate below your max refreshrate automaticly.

The recommendation is to leave it 'on' and 'ultra' for low fps gpu bound situations. I've never seen a suggestion of leaving it off, not to say there isn't one; just that I haven't seen it.

All turning low latency to 'on' does is reduce the amount of prerendered frames in the flip queue thus lowering latency. On rare cases this can cause stuttering and can be turned off in those situations, if needed. So why would you want to leave it off and potentially have added input lag for no reason?

Turning it to 'ultra' is okay on grandmas computer because it take the thought process out of it. Just set it and go. The issue with this is that in games where you can easily cap your refresh rate will be capped at 141hz instead of 144 by nvidia software instead of an ingame limiter, potentially giving up one to two frames of lag resulting in 6-12ms of added input lag at 144hz and like 8-16ms at 120hz. Leaving it set to 'On" instead of "Ultra" allows you to still choose how you want to cap the framerate for more flexibility and potentially lower lag. It is called low latency mode 'ultra' because it is still a net reduction in lag over the standard of not capping fps and allowing vsync to take over gsync at the monitors selected refresh rate, which gives 3 frames of input lag. Since 6-12ms < 18-21ms of input lag they are still correct by labeling it a low latency solution. But power users like most people here can squeeze more performance out of "on" and a manual -3fps cap ingame or with RTSS, if needed.

BattlenonSense

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CKnJ5ujL_Q

If youre enabling it when youre not gpu bound you get the opposite effect. You get worse input lag by having it on as shown in his tests here. Ive also read some comments about it from the staff here i think.

Avean wrote: ↑

14 May 2020, 15:17

BattlenonSense

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CKnJ5ujL_Q

If youre enabling it when youre not gpu bound you get the opposite effect. You get worse input lag by having it on as shown in his tests here. Ive also read some comments about it from the staff here i think.

All of his tests were done with low latency "Ultra" which we already know adds lag, and also caps fps on a driver level (slower but still faster than uncapped when paired with gsync) which I even already covered that in this very same topic;

Dmoney405 wrote: Use low latency mode "On" in nvidia control panel. Do not use "Ultra" unless you are GPU bound BELOW your 141 cap. (low latency mode only works for DX11 games...no vulkan or DX12)

Then I further explained it in in my next post on here;

Dmoney405 wrote: Turning it to 'ultra' is okay on grandmas computer because it take the thought process out of it. Just set it and go. The issue with this is that in games where you can easily cap your refresh rate will be capped at 141hz instead of 144 by nvidia software instead of an ingame limiter, potentially giving up one to two frames of lag resulting in 6-12ms of added input lag at 144hz and like 8-16ms at 120hz. Leaving it set to 'On" instead of "Ultra" allows you to still choose how you want to cap the framerate for more flexibility and potentially lower lag. It is called low latency mode 'ultra' because it is still a net reduction in lag over the standard of not capping fps and allowing vsync to take over gsync at the monitors selected refresh rate, which gives 3 frames of input lag. Since 6-12ms < 18-21ms of input lag they are still correct by labeling it a low latency solution. But power users like most people here can squeeze more performance out of "on" and a manual -3fps cap ingame or with RTSS, if needed.

I will now take an important part of out of the above quote you need to read again;

Dmoney405 wrote: It is called low latency mode 'ultra' because it is still a net reduction in lag over the standard of not capping fps and allowing vsync to take over gsync at the monitors selected refresh rate, which gives 3 frames of input lag. Since 6-12ms < 18-21ms of input lag they are still correct by labeling it a low latency solution.

Since this is a discussion about about input lag and gsync I was offering ultra mode as a lazy setting that technically gives you lower latency but isn't the fastest option. The lag you get from that mode is solely from the driver level frame cap and has nothing to do with lowering the queue size. Even with the added delay this is still lower input lag than using gsync at capped >>refresh rate<< *not fps* because gsync turns off and vsync takes over giving you the wonderful 3 giant frames of lag we all know and hate from it.

The queue in question is referencing how many frames the cpu can render before giving it to the gpu. It has no bearing on techniques the gpu uses to display a picture. When the gpu finishes a frame and asks the CPU for the next one the CPU will send the one at the end of the queue. With a frame buffer of 3 that frame is 2-3 frames behind the one the cpu is drawing currently. Allowing a large buffer with a cpu bottleneck or even a moderately stressed cpu allows it to pool these so it is more likely to have one ready exactly when the GPU calls for it, reducing stutters but adding lag. The stutter is the gpu sitting there with nothing to do waiting for the cpu to send the next job. If the gpu is at a high utilization and is severely bottlenecked you can use >Low latency: Ultra< because the gpu at this point has the highest delay in the system and the cpu can easily render one frame at a time for it in real time when called; or if the cpu and GPU are both equally stressed (or not stressed) you can use >Low Latency: On< to reduce this queue size since the cpu can easily keep up with a single frame buffer (not to be confused with zero buffers from low latency ultra) allowing a lower input lag. If at any point you start to stutter, that is a good sign that your CPU is having issues keeping up and you should increase the buffer by 1 until it smooths out. To think having a smaller buffer would INCREASE input lag is ridiculous. It is designed to do the exact opposite.

The best part is this works at all framerate but you get the highest benefit from lower framerates because......SCALING! Yes just like how going from 60hz to 120hz feels like a MASSIVE improvement but going from 120hz to 180hz feels better but definitely not on the same level. These frame buffer settings do not require some arbitrary number of frames to work. 1 frame at 60 fps saved is 16.67ms 1 frame at 144hz is 6-7ms. So while you do get more for your money at lower frames it is still 100% something you should be doing at all times, if you can manage this without the dreaded cpu bottleneck stutter. (cpu bottleneck is read as a PER USED CORE and not a TOTAL CPU usage, if the game uses a single core in your 10 core processor then you are considered bottlenecked when that single core reaches 100% usage and must increase frame buffers to avoid stutter)

So to recap; your youtube friend used "ultra", which adds some driver level frame cap hook that still seems to be in effect even if you use an ingame fps cap for whatever reason and got misleading results. I am quite certain that if he does the same tests with 'On' instead of 'Ultra' in a dX11 game he would see an inprovement.

..............can we please stop treating youtube as gospel and instead try to dissect their videos to validate their information before spreading it? All of this information is already on this website, you wouldn't even have to search very hard. https://blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101- ... ttings/14/ Hit ctrl + F and type in low latency. Read the article. Realize that the people who are in charge of this site do a crap load of research before posting a potentially bogus guide and probably know better than youtuber #232,389,178,194; especially when he admits he knows little about the subject. He didn't even mention the auto fps cap with Ultra a single time.