My 39 frames per second performance increase

[DandyBear]

39 frames per second? How you ask? A revolutionary new FX-61 3 gigs of super low latency ram with an SLI setup, nope. I upgraded my monitor, thats right, my monitor. I have been progressively been getting frustrated by the "visual tearing" we all hate, that occurs in gpu intensive games such as Doom 3, Far Cry and Half Life 2 to name a few. Enabling Vertical Synchronization would rectify the problem but it would also cap my frames per second. In my case, I game at 1600x1200, even online, at this resolution my monitors maximum refresh rate is 60hz. Enabling V-sync in any game would then cap my frames per second at 60. What good is spending 1000+ dollars for an SLI rig for example, getting 150fps in HL2 if you cannot see them? Even with V-sync turned off, the gamer is not seeing beyond his monitors refresh rate. I cannot stress enough the importance a quality monitor plays in high end gaming rigs. I simply cannot understand why this topic is not even mentioned by the hundreds of reviews that are written every time a new game or video card comes to market. Brent, my friend are you reading this? Now take a look at these specs:

http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/crtmonitors/proseries/p225fb/

Viewsonic P225FB 2048x1536 @ 79HZ
1920x1440 @ 84Hz
1856x1392 @ 87Hz
1600x1200 @ 99Hz (39 extra "viewable" fps)
1280x1024 @ 115Hz

Ok, so I didn't really get 39 extra frames per second, I got 39 extra viewable fps. Some would argue that the human eye cannot even see beyond a certain variable. Fueled by my frenzy, my obsession, for better gaming. I invested money in a high end monitor disregarding this claim. I hope that this thread gets my point across to the thousands of computing fanatics this site attracts.

 

[Marvelous]

what a joke.

For real you shouldn't even enable vsync.

 

[independantvariable]

I would rather have vsync on than some huge tear on the top of my screen on my 6600gt.

 

[outsida]

due to the fact that I have never built a system powerful enough to cause tearing I maybe slightly ignorant to this issue, but in most modern games cant you limit the frames via a console command?

 

[burningrave101]

due to the fact that I have never built a system powerful enough to cause tearing I maybe slightly ignorant to this issue, but in most modern games cant you limit the frames via a console command?

With most modern games your fps isn't going to be high enough to cause tearing if you have a quality monitor to start with.

I never enable v-sync.

 

[Dunamis]

I never enable v-sync.

Same here, I've never really find tearing all that annoying.

But spending the dough on something you stare for hours is not a bad investment

Btw, mine is 19" Dell, 1600x1200 @ 72Hz

 

[Brent_Justice]

The optimal solution is VSYNC enabled, your monitor at its highest refresh rate in each resolution, and Triple Buffering ENABLED.

Unfortunately the third stipulation isn't always available.

 

[DandyBear]

I for one cannot stand "visual tearing". It is very noticeable when making sharp turns. Brent, I feel that most gamers are simply not aware of the importance a quality monitor plays in gaming. It would be nice if [H]ardOcp did an article on it to get the word out.

"With most modern games your fps isn't going to be high enough to cause tearing if you have a quality monitor to start with.

I never enable v-sync." What about the games I mentioned? If you haven't had a problem with visual tearing consider yourself lucky.

 

[UltimateMan]

what a joke.

For real you shouldn't even enable vsync.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

 

[R1ckCa1n]

I never enable v-sync.

I'd be shocked if you actually game.........

I prefer Brents answer! Looks nice and clean.

 

[burningrave101]

I'd be shocked if you actually game.........

I prefer Brents answer! Looks nice and clean.

I'd be shocked if you actually knew how v-sync worked.

V-sync is one of the known causes for the stuttering issues in games and i dont have an issue with tearing so why should i enable an option that limits my FPS?

You realize that without Triple Buffering to negate the FPS loss that with V-sync enabled you will have low frame rates in alot of graphics intensive areas because V-sync attempts to equalize your FPS with the set refresh rate of your monitor at that resolution and when your FPS drops down below that refresh rate its automatically divided into proportions of the actual FPS which in turns leads to choppy performance.

 

[UltimateMan]

You realize that without Triple Buffering to negate the FPS loss that with V-sync enabled you will have low frame rates in alot of graphics intensive areas because V-sync attempts to equalize your FPS with the set refresh rate of your monitor at that resolution and when your FPS drops down below that refresh rate its automatically divided into proportions of the actual FPS which in turns leads to choppy performance.

And THAT, my friends, is a run-on sentence.

 

[Marvelous]

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Do you? So you get tearing too huh? I see you have a 6800gt.

And THAT my friends, is a run-on sentence.

And posting $hit like this isn't helping... Get a real hobby.



I never get tearing when I disable vsync. I don't have a GT so I wouldn't know about that. This post is a joke. Obviously because his title says 39fps increase because he enables vsync? LOL

You also get better performance with vsync disabled in critical parts of games. I know I've tried with it on and off.

 

[Ocean]

vsync is great if you never dip below the refresh rate.

if you dont care about tearing, big whoop.

though i do hate noobs who are so proud of their 108fps card being a huge step up from 70fps, with a refresh rate of 60Hz in game. "but i can SEE the difference".
yeah whoop tee do dipshit, you can read the number.

 

[UltimateMan]

what a joke.

For real you shouldn't even enable vsync.

This post is a joke, because you

a) make fun of his post (this $hit is not helping) and

b) do not justify why you shouldn't enable vsync at all.

Anyways, you can't come out and just say "you shouldn't enable vsync" as a general rule. He experienced tearing. He needed vsync because he demanded high IQ. By SWITCHING MONITORS he ended up increasing his max FPS by 39. He doesn't say he increased his FPS by ENABLING VSYNC. Read the post again, maybe a little slower this time. Doesn't sound like a joke to me. If you have the hardware, enabling vsync will increase IQ by eliminating tearing.

 

[muzzle79]

This post is a joke, because you
Doesn't sound like a joke to me. If you have the hardware, enabling vsync will increase IQ by eliminating tearing.

I find that i enjoy most the games i play more so with vsync enabled

 

[DandyBear]

Do you? So you get tearing too huh? I see you have a 6800gt.

The type of graphics card you use matters not. <--sounded like Yoda. "Visual Tearing" is a big problem for gamers who don't have decent monitors and want the best IQ possible. The monitor or maybe the power supply is the last thing the pc enthusiast looks at when building a performance pc. The fact is though, good monitors are very important. I bought a high end monitor with excellent refresh rates so I would no longer have problems with tearing. Even with V-sync enabled I will still get 99 fps!

Tearing is more likely to occur when your FPS is greater than Hz because it guarantees a lack of synchronization (and hence why v-sync caps your FPS). When you see tearing, you’re actually seeing a portion of the screen displaying the new frame (newly swapped buffer) with the other portion of the screen retains the previous frame. Graphics cards getting faster and faster, producing an ever increasing amount of frames per second, will ultimately lead to more instances were enabling V-snyc is needed.

Another point to look at is the role refresh rates play in gaming. No matter how high your FPS is, you’re still only seeing Hz number of changes per second. At higher FPS you may technically see “more frames,” but in reality the combination of all those frames over time is still equivalent to the refresh rate (so you see more parts of frames but it ends up being the same number of overall screen refreshes). Essentially your display simply gets updated before it is done drawing the initial frame. If this weren’t true, tearing wouldn’t exist. This may be why, back in 2000, Epic’s Tim Sweeney stated:

"There is no visual benefit to having a game render more frames per second than your monitor is displaying."

The number of Hz your monitor is capable of producing at any given resolution has a direct impact on the number of frames per second you can actually see!

 

[peleejosh]

can the human eye even distinguish a difference once you get above say 70 hz?

 

[DandyBear]

can the human eye even distinguish a difference once you get above say 70 hz?

Some say Yes, and others No. It is a highly contested topic, but not the purpose of this thread.

 

[peleejosh]

I understand that you are trying to stress the importance of a quality monitor. But if I have a monitor that can display 1600x1200 at 70hz why should I spend alot more to get a better monitor if my eyes can't tell a difference?

 

[DandyBear]

I understand that you are trying to stress the importance of a quality monitor. But if I have a monitor that can display 1600x1200 at 70hz why should I spend alot more to get a better monitor if my eyes can't tell a difference?

Your right there would be no benefit at all, but the number of frames per second the human eye can actually see is a highly debated topic. For example, most people would agree that moving from 70 fps to 99 is very percievable.

 

[arentol]

The reason it's a good idea to invest a large amount in a quality monitor is because once you buy it you are good for many years to come. Literally as long as the monitor lasts you never have to buy another because your PC is never going to be held back by your monitor.

However if you buy a monitor that can only do 1600x1200 at 60hz because all your PC can do in any games is 1280x1024 then what happens when you get a better PC in a year and want to go up to 1600x1200? Your stuck with a low refresh rate that is actually very painful to look at for an extended amount of time, and thus your monitor restricts you to 1280x1024, and now you have to burn hundreds more to bring your monitor up to snuff.

Also if you buy the cheap monitor and then want to run even one program at 1600x1200 then you pretty much have to run everything at 60hz because otherwise whenever you go up to 1600x1200 your screen will be distorted and you have to adjust everything. So basically your refresh rate at 1600x1200 controls your refresh rate at all other setting if you don't want to have to fix the screen ever 10 minutes. Therefore you can save yourself a lot of time and effort by getting a quality monitor.

Personally about 3.5 years ago I went out and spent $1000 (total, including tax) on 2 CM772B's from Hitachi. I got one for me and one for my wife so we would both have 19" screens capable of doing 1600x1200 at 85hz.

I could easily have saved about $250 by getting screens that would only do 1600x1200 at 60hz, but then I would have to run everything at 60hz, and that just wouldn't work for my wife. She would definitely have gotten headaches, and although I wouldn't have, I would have been annoyed by it.

Anyway, those monitors were the single best investment I have made in a PC ever. They literally never lose value until they break altogether... I can't say that about anything else I have bought. (Though technically my x800XT-PE has temporarily increased in value, which is pretty nice).

 

[texuspete00]

39 frames per second? How you ask? A revolutionary new FX-61 3 gigs of super low latency ram with an SLI setup, nope. I upgraded my monitor, thats right, my monitor. I have been progressively been getting frustrated by the "visual tearing" we all hate, that occurs in gpu intensive games such as Doom 3, Far Cry and Half Life 2 to name a few. Enabling Vertical Synchronization would rectify the problem but it would also cap my frames per second. In my case, I game at 1600x1200, even online, at this resolution my monitors maximum refresh rate is 60hz. Enabling V-sync in any game would then cap my frames per second at 60. What good is spending 1000+ dollars for an SLI rig for example, getting 150fps in HL2 if you cannot see them? Even with V-sync turned off, the gamer is not seeing beyond his monitors refresh rate. I cannot stress enough the importance a quality monitor plays in high end gaming rigs. I simply cannot understand why this topic is not even mentioned by the hundreds of reviews that are written every time a new game or video card comes to market. Brent, my friend are you reading this? Now take a look at these specs:

http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/crtmonitors/proseries/p225fb/

Viewsonic P225FB 2048x1536 @ 79HZ
1920x1440 @ 84Hz
1856x1392 @ 87Hz
1600x1200 @ 99Hz (39 extra "viewable" fps)
1280x1024 @ 115Hz

Ok, so I didn't really get 39 extra frames per second, I got 39 extra viewable fps. Some would argue that the human eye cannot even see beyond a certain variable. Fueled by my frenzy, my obsession, for better gaming. I invested money in a high end monitor disregarding this claim. I hope that this thread gets my point across to the thousands of computing fanatics this site attracts.

Maybe they didn't mention it because they thought you already knew. [H]ard|OCP called... they want their "gawd" title back.

 

[Bigjohns97]

I never enable vsync and i don't ever get tearing unless i run at default refresh of 60hz, and it's not really tearing it's more of a wobulation. Either way vync has never helped me and i have never seen anything better come out of it.

 

[DandyBear]

Maybe they didn't mention it because they thought you already knew. [H]ard|OCP called... they want their "gawd" title back.

That's a dumb, pointless remark. The point I am trying to get across, a point which seems to be being missed by everyone is the higher the Hz your monitor is capable of the more frames per second you will actually see on your screen. For example, a monitor with a refresh rate of 72hz will only be capable of producing 72 high IQ fps in games. A graphics card my actually be able to render 150+ fps in a certain game but thats not whats being produced on your screen.

 

[tsuehpsyde]

Horizonal tearing can be eliminated by balancing resolutions/settings/AA/AF etc. Even w/ a 3400+ and 6800U I still get tearing in some games, and since I use a 12ms response LCD I can only go up to 1280x1024. But vsync is generally ugly imo...if you drop down to say 59fps on 60Hz, boom you're down to 30fps....and your monitor screams in pain lol.

 

[Ocean]

the thread creator has a point, just some of you aren't literate enough to comprehend it.

a 60hz monitor can at max only display 60fps. 80fps 90fps, all wasted on that monitor
a 100hz monitor can at max on display 100fps. 80fps 90fps, all visable.

if your monitor is running at a 60hz refresh rate, you have no reason to brag that you can get 70 or higher fps. you are stupid for wasting the xtra $200 you spent on the card and not using it for gaming.

if i bought a x800 pe and said im gonna use it in my 1800+ athlon system, yall would call me a dumbass. those people who buy a powerful card and attach it to a crappy monitor are just as much of a dumbass.

 

[DandyBear]

Horizonal tearing can be eliminated by balancing resolutions/settings/AA/AF etc. Even w/ a 3400+ and 6800U I still get tearing in some games, and since I use a 12ms response LCD I can only go up to 1280x1024. But vsync is generally ugly imo...if you drop down to say 59fps on 60Hz, boom you're down to 30fps....and your monitor screams in pain lol.

V-sync does not work that way. If your resolution is 1280x1024 and your monitor has a refresh rate of 70hz than your maximum frames per second will be 70. Using Vertical Synchronization in games produces the best image quality your monitor is capable of producing. The higher the hz the higher the number of high quality fps you will see.

 

[Ocean]

V-sync does not work that way. If your resolution is 1280x1024 and your monitor has a refresh rate of 70hz than your maximum frames per second will be 70. Using Vertical Synchronization in games produces the best image quality your monitor is capable of producing. The higher the hz the higher the number of high quality fps you will see.

depends on the game, you both are right.

 

[Jerunk]

yawn.

 

[Sykil]

I wanted that monitor when I got my VeiwSonic E90f. I just couldn't justify the price, and my dad was the one paying for the parts. So, I cut as much slack as I could.

And THAT my friends, is a run-on sentence.

You forgot a comma when you were adressing your friends. I question the validity of your grammar advice.

j/k, but yeah. . . you did forget that comma. It's just funny to me. . .

 

[chrisf6969]

nice moniter

thats why I upgraded to a 22" Trinitron a while back. (also have a 19" flat panel at work, but not that great for gaming due to some ghosting)

looks like that moniter gets about 10-15 more Hz than mine at similar resolutions

 

[GVX]

if i bought a x800 pe and said im gonna use it in my 1800+ athlon system, yall would call me a dumbass. those people who buy a powerful card and attach it to a crappy monitor are just as much of a dumbass.

How so?

Basically, if you look at any of the [H]ardocp reviews you'll see that the "sweetspot" for gaming is at around 50fps. Anything more and IQ is raised to bring the fps back down into the 50fps range.

Take me for example, I have a 15 inch LCD that does 1024x768@72hz. I know that it's a crappy monitor, but I'm on a tight budget and I can either buy a new monitor and be stuck with a 9600XT for the next year (that I'll never be able to do anything more than 800x600 with) or keep my LCD and get a 6800nu. Personally, I'd much rather get a 6800nu because then I can play games like Far Cry at 1024x768 w/ 4xAA 16XAF. At those settings I will get avg framerates of 45fps that likely won't even skim the 72fps max that my monitor can support.

So do I have a crappy monitor? YES. Am I a dumbass for wanting a 6800nu? I personally don't believe so.

 

[Ocean]

How so?

Basically, if you look at any of the [H]ardocp reviews you'll see that the "sweetspot" for gaming is at around 50fps. Anything more and IQ is raised to bring the fps back down into the 50fps range.

Take me for example, I have a 15 inch LCD that does 1024x768@72hz. I know that it's a crappy monitor, but I'm on a tight budget and I can either buy a new monitor and be stuck with a 9600XT for the next year (that I'll never be able to do anything more than 800x600 with) or keep my LCD and get a 6800nu. Personally, I'd much rather get a 6800nu because then I can play games like Far Cry at 1024x768 w/ 4xAA 16XAF. At those settings I will get avg framerates of 45fps that likely won't even skim the 72fps max that my monitor can support.

So do I have a crappy monitor? YES. Am I a dumbass for wanting a 6800nu? I personally don't believe so.

actually, your lcd doesnt have a max of 72 fps, more than likely in the neighborhood of 40fps, or possibly even 25fps. thats why "response time" is important when purchasing an LCD. the LCDs pixels aren't capable of changing 72 times a second.

you would be wasting the power of the card on that monitor. at only 1024x768. youll just be redestributing what power you can by cranking up AA and aniso. playing at a higher rez with just mild aniso and AA would deliver a much more beautiful experiance.

you will be wasting the power of that card. higher rez is better than any amount of aniso or aa you can apply. notice the reviews jump up a lvl of resolution when the fps kinda goes way over.

 

[CRXican]

What does vsync do? I'm not even sure if I have it enabled or disabled.

 

[Ocean]

eliminates tearing (seen when fps and refresh rate dont occur at the same ratio) by finding ways to force the framerate match the frames per second.

 

[maniacplayer]

Wow. Lots of misinformation in this thread.. I'll try my best to clear some things up....

Q: What is Refresh rate (ie 60hz, 75hz, ect)

A: The freqency in which the rendered scene is transferred from the video memory (framebuffer) to the monitor. For example, at 72hz refresh rate, it takes 1/72 second to display the framebuffer (which has been rendered by the GPU). The framebuffer is scanned sequentially and transferred left to righ, and up to down on the monitor.

Q: What does vsync do?:

A: Waits until the beginning of the up/down monitor drawing cycle to start drawing the image from the framebuffer to the monitor. If VSync is disabled, you will see part of the previous frame, and part of the current one on the screen for an instant (this creates the phenominon known as "tearing")

Q: Is there any reason to disable VSync in games?

A: NO!. Simple reason is that the monitor cannot display images faster than the refresh rate anyway, so there is no good reason to have the video card "draw" them faster!

Q: But why ever turn VSync off then?

A: To benchmark the GPU. In order to get an accurate measure of how fast your GPU can render scenes, it must not be kept waiting for the monitor refresh cycle to begin. However, that still doesnt mean that the monitor is being updated any faster than the refresh rate (this is impossible).

Hope I cleared a few things up

 

[Dan_D]

Some say Yes, and others No. It is a highly contested topic, but not the purpose of this thread.

Yes. I can see a monitor at 60Hz, 70ish, 85Hz and 100Hz. I can tell the difference between all of them. I honestly can't tell above 100Hz. My monitor does over 120Hz and I can't tell the difference between that and 100Hz.

60Hz actually gives me headaches and 75Hz does the same although it takes longer. I have to have my monitor set at 85Hz or better or it bothers me.

Now in games I can't tell above say 75Hz. It's only looking at the Windows desktop and dialogue boxes that I can tell any kind of difference.

 

[GVX]

you will be wasting the power of that card. higher rez is better than any amount of aniso or aa you can apply. notice the reviews jump up a lvl of resolution when the fps kinda goes way over.

Then what do you recomend I do with my money? Drop down to a 6600GT and pick up a 17" CRT?

I can tell you this much: I'm sick of having to play my games at 800x600 w/ my crappy 9600XT.

 

[texuspete00]

That's a dumb, pointless remark. The point I am trying to get across, a point which seems to be being missed by everyone is the higher the Hz your monitor is capable of the more frames per second you will actually see on your screen. For example, a monitor with a refresh rate of 72hz will only be capable of producing 72 high IQ fps in games. A graphics card my actually be able to render 150+ fps in a certain game but thats not whats being produced on your screen.

No, thats what you're not getting about my comment. MOST enthusiasts are not "missing" this. Sorry you did. It was a joke but your comment makes me think you don't get it, you see I don't need you to explain this to me.... again. In fact it is intuitive to anyone who knows wtf a refresh rate is in the first place. Your thread title does not lead one to believe they are going to be told something as old as the first CRT monitor. Newsflash I'm not the one who is dumb... and this thread is pointless. I just love when people get all cutesy with their titles.


Video Card section slides more into nubes with 'tudes every day. I'm glad you have finally caught up. Honestly, welcome to gaming rigs 101. There are plenty of articles on this.... I don't think a site claiming to be for enthusiasts needs to run another.

saiuhgpaosijnm gp s;lgpa]kas

oh sorry, my head just fell on the keyboard as I passed out from boredom.