Gaming and Vertical Sync

D

DandyBear

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
355
How many games forced you to turn on Vertical Synchronization? Ok, so nobody forces us to turn it on, but I cannot stand the jag's in the middle of the screen. In Doom 3 it was a must. Knights of the Old Republic, ditto. I turned it on in Far Cry, though it wasn't a major issue. UT 2004 and Call of Duty didnt need to. Most recently, Half Life 2, I am getting the dreaded jag's. I play all games at 1600x1200 with some degree of AA and AF. My monitor only has a refresh rate of 60hz at 1600x1200. With V-sync enabled my fps are then capped at 60. I just wanted to know in what games did you turn on V-sync? Am I the only one concerned about gaming, vertical sync and monitor refresh rates? :confused:
 
I think I've got lucky and have never had to use it. My monitor gets 85Hz at 1280x1024 and 72Hz at 1600x1200. I'm not sure if this has much affect on the tearing you see though.

I did have to fiddle around with Doom 3 a fair bit to get rid of the tearing, but can't actually remember what I did - I think I uncapped the FPS and increased the mouse smoothing. Not sure why it worked, but it runs pretty well now at 1600x1200.
 
Why would you want to play a game 1600x1200 @ 60 mhz? it will ruin your eyes. My monitor does 1024x768 @ 100mhz and I still get tearing with Vsync off. I always play with it on, Whats the issue?
 
penis enlargins FPS or normal sexy smooth gaming, hmm


kind like americans and penis enlarging SUV's

braggins rights, nothing more
 
Isaacav2 said:
My monitor does 1024x768 @ 100mhz and I still get tearing with Vsync off.
Click to expand...
Wow you must have a damn good monitor and video card... must look pretty lifelike :p
 
Isaacav2 said:
Why would you want to play a game 1600x1200 @ 60 mhz? it will ruin your eyes. My monitor does 1024x768 @ 100mhz and I still get tearing with Vsync off. I always play with it on, Whats the issue?
Click to expand...


You should assume 60Hz is an LCD refresh rate and therefore the eye strain issue doesn't apply.
 
My issue is, graphic intensive games such as Doom 3, Far Cry and Half Life 2 require me too enable vertical sync thus capping my frames per second at 60. Hardware enthusiasts such as myself, fueled by reviews of video cards, want more and more frames per second. Look at these forums for example, all people want is the fastest video performance money can buy,,,hence, SLI ! If games force us to enable Vertical Sync, are frames per second are capped at our monitors refresh rates. Wasting fps that my $500 dollar video card is producing. Who cares if my XT PE is capable of producing 150 fps throughout HL2, if I have to enable V-sync to get rid of the jaggies whats the point. By the way my monitor is a CRT and it doesnt hurt my eyes at all.
 
idk in some cases well im my case anyway, some ppl have a lower frequceny rate because if i go much higher my screen will begin to shake
 
anything below 85hz I tend to see the flicker. I can stand 765hz but after a while I can tend to get headaches.
 
First off, 60Mhz on a CRT is insane. However, if you set vsync and get 60fps at 60Mhz, then what frames do you think you're missing out on? Do you think your monitor can display 150FPS at 60Mhz? Methinks not.
 
It's HZ people, not MHZ. "Methinks" it will be a long time before the 1mhz refresh rate.
 
rcolbert said:
First off, 60Mhz on a CRT is insane. However, if you set vsync and get 60fps at 60Mhz, then what frames do you think you're missing out on? Do you think your monitor can display 150FPS at 60Mhz? Methinks not.
Click to expand...


or see 150 fps period

if you can, id like to know where you had your vision uupgraded as a normal human eye sees something like 35?

60 should be plenty... long as its butter smooth and looks great, who cares
 
human eye can see up to 125 HZ but the only way to get that high is to trian the eye by using over 95HZ for long periods of time as in years, I'll have to track down the psy pub where they did a test, to see what the eye can actually see, it was down as part of psycology test to see effects of sub msgs and few other things along those lines, but they found 10% of the people tested could notice a frame different when they flashed images at one frame per hz refresh, up to 125 Hz at which point they didn't get any more relible data. The people who noticed the frame at the fastest setting were all skitso, which was kinda intruging but most of the people 75 - 80 used a computer for the last five years or more.
 
I would hate being able to see all the light bulbs in my house flickering all the time. I "assume" all that can see above 60hz must go crazy watching all the lights in their house flicker on and off all night :D
 
I had this problem even with V-Sync on when I got my NEC 22" monitor. What I did was set my refresh rate to 100Hz or 120Hz depending on what resolution that particular game is using, and the problem went away.
 
rcolbert said:
First off, 60Mhz on a CRT is insane. However, if you set vsync and get 60fps at 60Mhz, then what frames do you think you're missing out on? Do you think your monitor can display 150FPS at 60Mhz? Methinks not.
Click to expand...

That's my point, if I didnt have to enable V-sync I would be getting alot more fps. With video cards getting faster and faster, there is going to be a greater imbalance between what the cards are producing and what our monitors can handle. We will have to enable V-sync in alot more games, maybe every game.
 
I always run my computers at or above 75hz because 60hz gives me headaches almost right away. I've never used VSync because the tears I see are usually not stopped by turning it on. Also I wouldn't mind capped FPS, I don't buy a card to get 500fps when looking at a wall I buy a card to have the maximum FPS I can have when the most action is going off.
 
DarthWombaT said:
I always run my computers at or above 75hz because 60hz gives me headaches almost right away. I've never used VSync because the tears I see are usually not stopped by turning it on. Also I wouldn't mind capped FPS, I don't buy a card to get 500fps when looking at a wall I buy a card to have the maximum FPS I can have when the most action is going off.
Click to expand...

Capped FPS is fine provided your not dropping below a noticable threshold.
 
DandyBear said:
That's my point, if I didnt have to enable V-sync I would be getting alot more fps. With video cards getting faster and faster, there is going to be a greater imbalance between what the cards are producing and what our monitors can handle. We will have to enable V-sync in alot more games, maybe every game.
Click to expand...

Why do you want your video card to output frames that will never appear on the display? I've got news for you. With Vsync ON OR OFF your monitor will never display more than 60 frames each second when your refresh rate is 60Hz, regardless of how many frames are being produced by your video card. You might see a number in the corner of the screen telling you you're getting 100FPS, but the reality is that your screen is only changing once every 1/60th of a second. Assuming your FPS is near or at your refresh rate with vsync on, the only benefit of turning vsync off is providing you with a bigger number in the corner of your screen to look at, and the satisfaction that your video card is producing a lot of frames that your monitor will never display.

I really don't understand what your objective is.
 
Sir-Fragalot said:
Capped FPS is fine provided your not dropping below a noticable threshold.
Click to expand...
I believe the default, 60hz is well above the noticable FPS threshold.
 
CanadaOwnsJoo said:
penis enlargins FPS or normal sexy smooth gaming, hmm


kind like americans and penis enlarging SUV's

braggins rights, nothing more
Click to expand...

Or kind of like Canadians thinking they're macho because they like to smack a puck around on ice.
 
wow, some peoples still think that since the human eye can only see like 20ish images per seconds, getting 25 fps will makes the game fluid.
 
If you have the money for a high end video card that does 150 fps then spend the money on a nice monitor. My 7 year old 21" viewsonic does 85 Hz at 1600x1200.
 
rcolbert said:
Why do you want your video card to output frames that will never appear on the display? I've got news for you. With Vsync ON OR OFF your monitor will never display more than 60 frames each second when your refresh rate is 60Hz, regardless of how many frames are being produced by your video card. You might see a number in the corner of the screen telling you you're getting 100FPS, but the reality is that your screen is only changing once every 1/60th of a second. Assuming your FPS is near or at your refresh rate with vsync on, the only benefit of turning vsync off is providing you with a bigger number in the corner of your screen to look at, and the satisfaction that your video card is producing a lot of frames that your monitor will never display.

I really don't understand what your objective is.
Click to expand...


Good point. Your statement then defeats the purpose of SLI. Upgrading our processors and memory in search of more frames per second is foolish for gamers because what we should all seek is monitors with greater and greater refresh rates at 1600x1200. Your statement surmised the purpose of this thread. Who cares if Nvidia produces a card next generation that can run Doom 3 at 180fps, we will never see em.
 
I don't think people buy new video cards so they can get say 120fps in their favorite game as opposed to getting 60fps, atleast I hope they don't, unless its just so the lowest fps doesn't dip too low. For me, 60fps is very fluid, 30 is not, and over 60 just seems to me as barely making a difference(if any at all, I can't tell).

The reason I get new cards is so that I can crank up the settings/resolution/AA/AF as high as I can while still getting 60fps.
 
spruce said:
I would hate being able to see all the light bulbs in my house flickering all the time. I "assume" all that can see above 60hz must go crazy watching all the lights in their house flicker on and off all night :D
Click to expand...

Think of us poor europeans, we have 50 Hz lightbulbs over here.
Do you run with v-sync on on you light bulbs, capping your real life frame rate.

On the serious side capping the frame rate at 60 fps isn't bad, considering that high minimum fps is the most important factor. 60 fps minimum, maximum and average frame rate is pretty good.

It's funny how fast your eyes adapt to something better. I'm only using LCD's right now and I just can't stand CRT's lower than 100 Hz anymore. However it's important to not set the refresh rate higher than the recommended on a given resolution on a CRT, since it tends to blur the image.
 
DandyBear said:
Good point. Your statement then defeats the purpose of SLI. Upgrading our processors and memory in search of more frames per second is foolish for gamers because what we should all seek is monitors with greater and greater refresh rates at 1600x1200. Your statement surmised the purpose of this thread. Who cares if Nvidia produces a card next generation that can run Doom 3 at 180fps, we will never see em.
Click to expand...

The only implication of higher and higher FPS is, as is stated above, increasing the minimum FPS during the most demanding moments. In other words, you want to throw the most demanding games at it with the highest possible quality settings and have the card not miss a beat when it's crunch time. That in a nutshell is the whole deal behind the pursuit of FPS. If you sold a (hypothetical) card that maxed out at 60FPS but you could guarantee it would never drop below 60FPS you'd be a very rich person.

SLI certainly has the potential to raise minimum FPS for some game situations significantly.

All anyone really wants is a card that performs many trillions of operations per second, and delivers photo-realistic 3D scenes on a 2400x1600 OLED display as smooth as butter. Is that too much to ask? Anything more would be overkill IMO.
 
spruce said:
I would hate being able to see all the light bulbs in my house flickering all the time. I "assume" all that can see above 60hz must go crazy watching all the lights in their house flicker on and off all night :D
Click to expand...
I can see lightbulbs flicker sometimes. :)
 
75 hz is around the threshhold for tolerability for me, most games I turn off vsync though.
 
I have to say that I do like watching my FPS counter up high and for several reasons that indicate why I don't use vsync often:

- Not appropriate to the majority of games, but I play a lot of ET - you can jump further and faster if you cap at 125fps
- Generally high fps suggests that the lowest fps (more important than the highest fps) won't be too low.
- Capping at say 72fps with vsynch on means that if I fall below that I'm getting only 36fps, which is lower than I want. Whe the fps dip, I'd rather they dip into the 50s and 60s than straight down to 36.
 
I'd say if it really bothers you that much, buy a 12ms lcd, put it at 75hz and you shouldn't be able to see the problem anymore. Only problem there is, the only 12ms ones I know of are 17", which leaves some larger 16ms panels that should be good enough for your overly sensitive eyes and FPS ego :D
 
mulpsmebeauty said:
I have to say that I do like watching my FPS counter up high and for several reasons that indicate why I don't use vsync often:

- Not appropriate to the majority of games, but I play a lot of ET - you can jump further and faster if you cap at 125fps
- Generally high fps suggests that the lowest fps (more important than the highest fps) won't be too low.
- Capping at say 72fps with vsynch on means that if I fall below that I'm getting only 36fps, which is lower than I want. Whe the fps dip, I'd rather they dip into the 50s and 60s than straight down to 36.
Click to expand...
higher fps != higher lows, infact, with vsync, your fps will be smoother, since it wont be boucing all around.
You only get fractions of your refreshr ate if tripple buffering is not enabled.
By any chance do you have an nvidia card? I hear they crappy vsync support.
 
CanadaOwnsJoo said:
penis enlargins FPS or normal sexy smooth gaming, hmm


kind like americans and penis enlarging SUV's

braggins rights, nothing more
Click to expand...

WTF?
 
Just another Fringlish Speaking Canuckleheaded Frog with a Napoleon complex. Nothing here to see. Move along.
 
Point is 160 fps is good for braggin rights, thats about it

Ignore the SUV joke, since Bush decided to invade small countrys the American jokes have been rampent up here
 
That's ok, Canada(Monday morning quarterback country) jokes have always run rampent everywhere else in the world.

I bet you love the fiction of Michael Moore too.

Now back to our regularly scheduled debate about vsync. :)
 
Sorry, but I'm a huge hockey fan and can honestly say that Bush's decision to invade Iraq had nothing to do with the proliferation of anit-American jokes in Canada. Canadians have been ripping on Americans ruthlessly for decades now. We just take it all in, then pat you quaint folks on the head like you would a small child, and say "That's ok, enjoy your freedom from having to actually spend money on a substantial military. We'll protect you in the spirit of being a good neighbor, and more importantly elightened self-interest"

The fact that you have only 5 million folks living in rural areas in the whole country, and yet Calgary has the audacity to throw a rodeo anyway is moderatly amusing. Hanging on to the mullet brings back fond memories of the 80's and we thank you for that. The fact that 80% of all Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border makes us feel like you're either somehow snuggling up to us, or unwittingly admitting that Canada is too damn cold even for Canadians.

And finally, Brett Hull can play for any country he damn well chooses. And if team Canada ever needs a forward who just stands around hiding at the top of the weak-side faceoff circle, you can have him back.
 
Boy's fight nicely, don't make me take off my belt. I've decided that pretty soon to get a new Monitor. I will probably go with a CRT at 85+hz 1600x1200, unless someone convinces me otherwise or shows me an LCD with decent refresh rates at 1600x1200. I'm in between a rock and a hard place with my current setup. I cant stand the visual tearing that occurs in games, and I hate having my fps capped at 60.
 
CanadaOwnsJoo said:
Point is 160 fps is good for braggin rights, thats about it

Ignore the SUV joke, since Bush decided to invade small countrys the American jokes have been rampent up here
Click to expand...

It wasn't just us.... and it wasn't Bush's decision to make, it takes a 2/3 vote of congress to declare war in America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top