Vsync, explain to me why so many recommend having it off....

I always hear of people having Vsync set to off in games. Even Nvdias website recommends Vsync off when you dive into its recommended settings area for most game titles.

I really am having a hard time understanding why... Whenever I have Vsync turned off I experience screen tearing. Sure I get much higher FPS readings, but that liquid like tear in the screen, when moving around in games, drives me crazy.

Is there perhaps a way to minimize the effects, or is it just so many people are more content with higher FPS that they settle for screen appearance that is greatly lackluster????

 

VSync, Stands for Vertical Sync. This is a mandoatory options for all the WideScreen Monitors, that includes M17x.

Widescreen monitors are different then the other standard 4:3 Ratio monitors, it has an extended Resolution. So enabling v-Sync could Eliminate the Video Shuttering and hence make the game to be smooth. It just adds another image for the pixels in the same line.

 

Vsync will cap your frame rate to 60fps to match the refresh rate of your display. Obviously, some games play at frame rates over 60, so in some cases, its good to take advantage of that by disabling Vsync. If the game doesnt play well, Vsync can be used to "match" those fps/refresh rates to enable better visuals.

Dont know how it works for R3 panels with 120hz 3d displays, probably caps the fps at 120 as opposed to 60 for us R2 owners.

 

I guess im just not playing the games that play at frame rates over 60, WOW, BFBC2, SC2, Crysis, COD games, etc... That, or I am being too picky. Either way I notice a loss of visual appeal imo. I dont know, I personally have yet to see the advantage of turning it off.

 

The main reason to use Vsync is to avoid things like you said in your original post. Capping the fram rate using Vsysc will reduce the tearing/flickering you may see in some titles because, think about it....if you are playing a game that, for example, is kicking out 140fps on a screen that only refreshes at 60fps, you may well experience artifacts or flickering or tearing.

By capping the rate, it will match fps to the same refresh rate of your monitor - the idea? - to reduce these nasties. Either way, use it at your own preference - if it doesnt look better, dont use it - if it does, then do!

Make sense?

 

Makes sense. So basically I was right in assuming that people like to see the higher FPS numbers, even tho their monitor is incapable of matching the higher number to its own refresh rate?

 

I personally always run with v-sync on. One thing that hasn't been touched on in this discussion (and the reason that I like using it), it lowers the temperatures on the GPUs and thus reduces the noise from the fans. If I play WoW with v-sync off, sure I can get 100-120 fps, but the GPU runs at 99% and the fans stay at full blast. With v-sync on, the GPUs run between 40-55% and the fans stay around medium speed and considerably quieter.

 

I am a software programmer... and I can tell you that vsync for the most part is a good thing.

If vsync is off... the program will never pause and keep creating new frames regardless of what the screen is doing.

If vsync is on... the program will stop until the screen tells the program to create a new frame.

Benefit of having your program pause is that the CPU will not be constantly running (i.e. 100%). The only problem really is that some games can actually have physics issues with vsync on. I think it was Fallout that you could run faster with vsync off. But that is a problem with the game... not vsync.

 

Thanks, good to know. Hearing so many people say they play with vsync of majority of the time had me scratching my head.

 

I get major mouse lag in Counter-Strike Source with vsync on - and still the screen tearing! I read somewhere that you must have triple buffering on to eliminate the mouse lag (which it did NOT in my case with 11.2 AMD drivers and crossfire 5870)

 

Alot of people run into problems like lets say using v-sync with Crysis warhead. If your card is only pumping out 34 or so fps and your experiencing screen tearing (even on 60hz screens) then when you put V-sync on , it caps it at 30fps and can dip under creating slow down and unsmooth gameplay. for myself , my work around is using D3Doverider, if the game runs without screen tearing I won't turn it on, but if there is , I don't bother with the in-game settings or the CCC settings, I will just turn on D3D and enable triple buffer.

 

i use d3doverrider. For me no vsync causes an assload of screen tearing in some games. Looks like crap.

 

Odd... When, for example, I don't hit 60 FPS, if I activate VSync, I have a FPS loss... And a BIG one...

 

Vsync/triple buffering also cause input lag.

 

I also don't see the benefit of having v sync disabled. With my observations all it does is increase the ceiling for max framerate count and uncaps the 60 fps limit. It DOES NOT increase the minimum framerate in game, which would make it beneficial, but as it is anything over 60 fps is not even perceptible as far as fluid smooth movement is concerned, 25 fps being the minimum at which the eye can't distinguish loss of missing frames.

 

I have not experienced input lag with vsync or triple buffer, even in online situations. and to Jacob808, one can argue 30fps is benificial, the thing with monitor refresh rates and frames per second, don't mathematicall compute to smooth motion in your eye necessarily. movies run at 24 fps, and the general accepted minimum frame rate for games is 30, so it depends on application and alot of personal preference.

 

for sure nothing under 30 fps is ideal when gaming, but as you stated film runs at 24 fps because it's sufficient in creating enough overlap that the human eye can't tell that the illusion of movement is being created with still picture frames generated every millis/thousandthsecond. Anything above is unnecessary.

Framerates in video games are sometimes purposely capped at 30 or even 60 because the unnecessary frames generated above those numbers start to corrupt the speed scale of the game, making it seem like it's running on fast forward. You can notice this when playing first person shooters with all graphics set to high and framerates averaging 30-60 fps and you start to walk your character around it feels like a believable 4-5 mph, but the moment you hit like 100+ fps and you walk your character it feels like he's moving at 15-20 mph along with the other animated objects onscreen. Speed scale would be the only noticeable difference, but as far as choppiness or missing frames, you would not be able to distinguish between 24 fps and 100 fps.

 

VSync causes some very noticeable lag for me in some games. As noted, if your card is pushing out less than 60 FPS, VSync will typically cut it to a maximum of 30 FPS.

Many, many people have the mistaken idea that "anything above 24 FPS cannot be detected by the human eye". While we're at it, why don't we also go ahead and believe that nobody has better than 20/20 vision, and that no man can hold his breath for more than 2 minutes?

Whether or not an FPS rising above 24 causes a significant difference depends on a huge number of factors: the frames that are being displayed, the speed at which objects in the frame are moving, and even each individual person's vision.

 

This is exactly why I always play with vsync on. A cooler GPU is a happier GPU.

 

Vsync is also the cause of some input lag depending on how the game is coded, and it can hit performance depending on the game.

One of the issues with Vsync is at which fps the game is sync'd. For example, some methods of vsync cap fps at 30, 45, 60 fps. So if you are not running the game at 60fps, you get a hit performance down to 45 fps, then jump back to 60 if the gpu can produce it.

If you are playing at a fast framerate, then enable vsync. if you have problems with some games maintaining a high fps, drop vsync to keep smoother, albeit screen tearing, experience.

Also, screen tearing can happen in well excess of fps, as well as uneven lower fps. Meaning, it is not exclusive to high fps counts.

Anyways, vsync off gives best performance, but at a loss of visual smoothness.

and yes... 120hz screens can cap up to 120fps with vsync, provided you have the hardware to reach that high.

 

One thing to note is that tearing is much worse in some games than others... In games in which the whole screen is moving at once (FPS, MMOs, etc), screen tearing is super obvious. In RTS's on the other hand, where for a large part of the game only little models on the screen move, its not as noticeable.

 

Speed scaling with fps depends on the engine and how the game was made. Not all games are affected by this, like going from 60 fps to 140fps won't increase the speed. Some are though, and become a rather amusing experience.

As for the other comment... sorry but it is wrong. Films are made in 24fps because the the bare MINIMUM required to have fluidity. Eyes don't see in fps, and can see well in excess of 120fps. However, most games are made up to 60 fps because most tv/LCDs around are 60hz only. Additionally, having high fps in movies dispells the "magic" of a movie, and becomes a soap opera like, looking overly fake.

No point in having more than 60fps if your panel/tv can't show them. But rest assured, you CAN see more than mere 60fps. And yes, you can not only see the missing frames between 24 and 100, but you can actually play better at high fps because you calculate things to the minute detail. One of the resons FPS junkies preffer insane speeds its because of that.

 

Yes this has been argued to death.

Keep in mind with vsync OFF-- if you play FPS games this is a must-- the ENGINE runs at the higher frame rate, which in quake engine based games (ALL COD games as well as many others), and Source games make you: a) run faster, b) shoot faster c) jump higher and farther.

It is no myth that the faster the engine runs the better it is for the player. In competitve FPS gaming, which is quit popular, this is very basic knowledge.

That being said, most games are a battle of conflict, having/allowing yourself to be on-par with other competitors is not only normal, it should be mandatory.

This is why ALL CEVO -- professional league, pay to play, sponsorship-- CSS server must be 100 tick and running 1000 frames-per-second.

Pleas dont kid yourself that getting higher frames, wont yield an advantage, it does. Period.

 

I don't think you and many other people who argue that 24 fps is not sufficient, don't really understand framerates and how they relate to motion picture where it creates the illusion of animation.

The analogy is simple as drawing a stick figure on each page of a booklet, where the next drawing coincides with how you want that stick figure to move then flipping through the pages to create an illusion of a moving stick figure, but doing this on a massive scale were the computer's CPU/GPU has to draw a minimum of 24 highly detailed scenes or picture frames per second, at the same time moving this scene around, 360 degrees, upside down, right side up, while keeping everything in sync.

It is only when you go below 24 fps, that the human eye can then perceive jerkiness/chopiness due to the CPU/GPU skipping frames because of not being able to compute and draw the scene while trying to keep up with the controller inputs of where the persons view should be to compensate for lag.

Again this is the only reason why framerates are so important into immersing you in a virtual world. Keeping a minimum framerate above 24 fps is all that matters, anything higher is just a buffer to not fall below this mark, or more likely just overkill.

If you played a motion picture at 19 fps you'd be able to tell that it was skipping frames, because movement would not be consistent, but if you played the same motion picture at 24 or even 100 fps, the animation would still look the same, because 24 fps is plenty enough to fool the human eye, anything beyond that results in minimal returns.

 

The "hole" in your argument is :

Movies/films/24fps moving pictures DO NOT HAVE AN INTERACTION FROM A THIRD PARTY LIKE GAMES DO. It is this interaction, character movement, movement in frame that make like abundant.

PLease make sure you "check out" how Frames and interactikon correlate and the basis of a "good" correlation is based on higher FPS. Its not rocket science, instead it is basic math.

Tell me the last time you interacted with your 24FPS movie, moving side to side....fluently.

 

true, those extra frames that the CPU/GPU are able to calculate is a good buffer and performance indicator telling us if the system is capable of sustaining that magic sweet spot of 24 fps. But again, my point is that anything above 24 fps is indistinguishable with human sight, and that maximum framerates are not as important as sustaining a minimum framerate that stays above 24 fps.

 

To say that anything above 24 FPS as a minimum for fluid gameplay is false.

Quake engine, for example runs the most fluid, and correctly at 125, and 250 FPS. This is basic knowledge of the engine itself, much like the source engine at 100 and 200 FPS.

Interaction and "watching" a moving picture are not the same.

 

Everything below 60 has input lag... more so the jump from 60-30 that happens a lot with Vsync.

 

But the thing is, that is not true a tall. Human sight CAN distinguish very well above 24 frames per second.

It is the ammount of information at your disposal that changes. We never argued about maintaining maximum framerate. Of course the minimum framerate is the most important, but that does not mean 24 is enough.

Draw a stick figure in 24 panels doing an extensive movement. Redraw the same stick figure but now in 60 panels, and run it in the same amount of time. You will be able to percieve the extra information provided by the extra panels.

Hell, if you watch any sport at 24 frames per second, you will loose a lot of information. Perhaps you won't even see the ball move between points if said points happned too fast.

Anyways, the point is that human sight does not "see" in frames per second, hence it is not limited to a particular number. If you are shown content in various fps, you will see the additional information processed by your brain becomes fluidity of movement and motion.

Hell, i'd say 24 is too much on the limit. for fast paced games, 30fps is already the minimum I can take to have fluid enough reactions. I try to stay above 45 fps for FPS and fast games, but for RTS it doesn't really matter much, so even 20 can do. Most movies are 24fps, tho it is also in 30fps. Those are the common fps.

Again, 24 fps for movies was chosen because it is the bare minimum before being too few to work well. That, and for costs reasons....

 

Fixed for you.

 

That link is not a good comparison at all. Infact it proves my point of not being able to distinguish more that 24 fps LOL

You need to compare a first person perspective where the whole screen and picture being animated within is rotated, up and down, down and up, looked from left to right, right to left in 360 degrees.

 

You cannot distinguish the difference between the 30FPS and 60 FPS from the link?

 

who can? lol

Besides, sustaining framerates of 24 fps aren't as important to 2D side scrolling sprites or strategy games, as it is to first person perspective 3d simulations/shooters/adventures.

 

To put it plain and simple most people tell you not to enable vSync because you can't get enough frames as your monitors refresh rate. So playing games lik CoD4 on an older machine will get you a smooth 30 frames, but your monitor is 60Hz so you're still 30 frames under your monitor (more or less). If you enable vSync it wont work because your card isn't powerful enough to Sync your monitors refresh rate and your cards frame rate.

That is why most people tell you to turn it off. If you are getting over 60 frames or whatever your monitors refresh rate is then turn it on to Sync the game at a rate that will be amazingly snappy, look awesome and prevent screen tearing.

However there are also games that run at over 60 frames, so turning it off and letting them do as they please is a good idea, and another reason why some suggest to leave it off. It's more or less rule of thumb, if the game seems to look better use it, if it doesn't keep it off. But make sure you test first. I think Oblivion and Fallout 3 looked amazing with vSync on and I got a clear 80fps anyway so capping to 60 was easy. But for some games like Crysis where you can barely get over 35 in some parts and still play smoothly enough (because of motion blur) at 20 you wont have the option to use it because your card just cant keep up. There are more benefits with it on if you can possibly do it and it looks good. Mirrors Edge for once had horrible tearing when you were falling due to a huge spike in frames, turning on vSync fixed that completely.

Otherwise keep it on. I'm sure other people have already mentioned this though.

 

Essentially Vsync is a feature for games where your video card simply is working past the refresh rate of the monitor, thus causing the screen tearing.

Do we need it always on? Definitely not, only when the fps produced are higher than the refresh rate, otherwise it is exactly doing nothing to improve the game experience.

 

Also remember that vsync causes excessive input lag so its highly adviced to have it disabled in those games where control responsiveness is the most important thing.
In online games its a vital thing to keep it disabled, like in FPS and Racing games. Imagine a game with ping problems and an input lag: unplayable.
Add stupid game problema like screwed up hitboxes (bc2) and youd rage quit in a split second.

As for single player games, smoothness is vital to enjoy the game, input lag cant be a problem. Therefore if you experience tearing in sp games keep vsync on.

To kill the input lag theres a technique called triple buffering. Basically is how vsync was always meant to be. You can force it using d3doverrider and having 3 buffers instead of 2 helps both framerates and input lag.

 

Whats the fps of reality?

 

Those that claim they can tell the difference between 30 and 60 usually are not getting 30 FPS. Since the FPS counters show the average for a period of time, say 1 second if the minimum drops below 24 at any given time you will see it. If your getting 30 FPS out of the game and not because the game supports frame limiting chances are you hit below 24 at some point or very often.

A solid 24 FPS is fluid motion for most people, that's why films were shot at 24 fps to save on film stock. As far as 30 versus 60. If you were truly getting 30 FPS 100% of the time it would be indistinguishable to almost any human. Though this whole buffering tv content to 120 hz from a 60hz source has presented some interesting effects, its not at all related to the subject. Thought I might mention that one if someone thinks on it.

I run VSYNC for the heat benefit with the laptop, I used to run it because of screen tearing.

 

I used to get mental screen tearing on HL 2 when my FPS hit 120+ or so. 120 isn't a 'brag-right'... I much prefered the game smoothly at 60. But I think the OP gets the point now.

 

I can tell the difference between 24fps / 30fps and 60fps in video games.

The people that say that the human eye can't distinguish between 24/30fps and 60fps only talk about video. That may be true for observers passively watching video.

But once you bring tactile response (mouse/keyboard/gamepad) into the picture, your brain has other input beyond simple passive observation. When you move your mouse in a game, you expect some kind of response on-screen. And your brain knows whether that response happens in 33ms (30fps), or in 16ms (60fps). In fact, your brain is so sensitive, that it knows the difference between 8ms response (a mouse with 125Hz USB polling rate), and a "gaming" mouse with 1ms response (1000Hz USB polling rate).

The claim that your brain can't distinguish between 24/30fps vs 60fps may apply when passively watching video on-screen. But once you start talking about framerates in video games, 60fps matters.

 

The difference between a video game and a movie is motion blur. 24fps on a movie looks smooth because each frame's movement blurs into the next frame, making it appear smooth. Video games don't do this, each frame is a sharp picture at a point in time, so you need more points in time to fool the eye into thinking it's smooth.

This here is edifying: How many frames per second can the human eye see?

 

and the other difference between a game and a movie is, we expect instant reaction on what we do. we're much faster at seeing that lag, than actual smoothness.

this is the reason to turn of vsync: there is less lag. so a more instant reaction on your movement. that can help feeling more "in the game".

i play only with vsync on. can't stand the tearing.

 

Aye. I also always triple-buffer when possible because it reduces the input lag as compared to straight vsync. In theory, it's just as fast as running without vsync at the cost of just a little more memory use.

 

that's another option, too. i use an ssd to reduce my lag .. just kiddin (it reduces all non-game-related lags, though).

i'm not much of a gamer, so i don't care that much about having the fastest gaming setup. i want a pretty one. in crysis, i was just walking around the beach, enjoying the graphics. never attacked anyone

can't wait for portal2, though..

 

It's a very detailed article, but it just complicates the situation and then leaves you hanging. We already know that 24 fps is standard for believable animation, and we also know that 30 fps is standard fare that gives the illusion and is enough to immerse you in a virtual world, heck even notebookcheck.com uses that as standard as far as a games playability.

 

Once again i still argue that some idiot getting 30 FPS Average is not actually getting a solid 30 FPS and therefore is having a different experience than 30 fps continuous.

 

30fps is far from an optimal frame rate for any fast-paced game. Any gamer will tell you that. I can easily tell the difference between 30 and 60fps. Hell, you can still feel the difference between 50 and 60.

I generally run without Vsync because the input lag is unbearable, and it will get you killed. Anything that adds time between the instant you click your mouse button and the moment it registers on the server is something to be avoided. Obviously some of it is inevitable (ping between you and the server, display latency, USB polling, etc.) but I would much rather be running a game at 200fps on my 60Hz monitor than have it locked at 60fps. Screen tearing is really not all that noticeable, and even if I can't see it, the game engine sure as hell does.

 

Someone has not experienced screen tearing problems then. While I havent dealt with it in 3 years it can be an absolutely horrific issue. Never seen this input lag related to Vsync.

 

right, if there was hardware that "locked" a steady 30 fps in every game, without it ever dropping or exceeding 30 fps, that would be ideal. That's why we have new powerful GPUs not because 200 fps is what games need, but because we need the extra power as buffer for those demanding scenes that drop the framerate below a playable 24 fps. The only reason why we have framerates all over the place is because there are alot of variables and factors that need to access and use a percentage of the computational resources on the fly when certain scenes need to be drawn i.e, input needs to be computed, artificial intelligence executed, etc. and this depends on how much full 100% power your system can generate, and how much the software program needs to access and delegate to the different tasks. The more power you have is necessesary, not so games will be more enjoyable at 100 fps, they can't, there won't be a noticeable difference, but so it won't drop below the target range of playable framerates which is in between 24-60 fps.

 

It's a personal preference thing. I know what screen tearing is, and I see it plenty when my games go over 60fps. I'm just not especially bothered by it. The input lag is very obviously tangible to me, and I would much rather have tearing than lag.

Ideal for you, maybe. Not for me, or the vast majority of PC gamers.