Nvidia’s new GeForce driver includes highly-requested max frame rate feature

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
2,476
Cool about time they added that, will have to go upgrade my driver now.
 

cyclone3d

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
13,284
Well... this latest driver release seems to have issues with Destiny 2 when Alt-Tabbing and leaving the game inactive for more than about 30 seconds to a couple minutes. It has stopped responding multiple times. Never happened with the previous driver.

The last time it happened , I had to initiate a restart with my second monitor because the screen that had Destiny 2 running on i wouldn't even let anything else display on it. Bleh.

Maybe a reboot will have fixed it. I'll test for a while and report back.

Edit: Nope, Alt-Tab with Destiny 2 with this new driver set is a no-go. It has a very good chance to freeze the game to a black screen and it will require a reboot if task manager opens up on the same screen that Destiny 2 is open on because the screen stays black.
 
Last edited:

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,219
Good, but what I really want is a "max GPU utilization" feature in the driver.
You can essentially do this by limiting the power usage

VRR isn't just about frame tearing...

The best attribute is the smoothness feel
The second best attribute is not having to buy the absolute newest hardware to pin your FPS to cap and it still feeling perfectly smooth in game when your FPS dip down to the 40s and 50s on occassion.
Third best attribute is eliminating screen tear.

but I like the idea of this driver fps cap, absent vsync, to save a couple frames of frame buffer that V-sync requires. This is good to eliminate that wee bit of mouse delay/lag that vsync introduces.
So where does the "fast sync" option fit in, compared to a framerate limiter?

I mean, of course the limiter will be nice if you want to say, smooth out a game from having huge spikes. But otherwise, I struggle to see a general advantage over fast sync?


Also, it bears repeating but----dang is it great all of the competitive attitude happening right now. AMD is really pressuring both Intel and Nvidia to add more value.
 
Last edited:

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,349
You can essentially do this by limiting the power usage
Not at all a reliable way to accomplish the end goal of keeping GPU utilization 95% or below to prevent the frame-buffer input lag from increasing.
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,219
VRR isn't just about frame tearing...

The best attribute is the smoothness feel
The second best attribute is not having to buy the absolute newest hardware to pin your FPS to cap and it still feeling perfectly smooth in game when your FPS dip down to the 40s and 50s on occassion.
Third best attribute is eliminating screen tear.

but I like the idea of this driver fps cap, absent vsync, to save a couple frames of frame buffer that V-sync requires. This is good to eliminate that wee bit of mouse delay/lag that vsync introduces.
The main use of the framerate limiter, will be for framerates under the monitor's refresh rate. As Nvidia already has a "fast" sync mode, which allows the GPU to run full blast and simply drop frames which exceed the output refresh rate. Essent
Not at all a reliable way to accomplish the end goal of keeping GPU utilization 95% or below to prevent the frame-buffer input lag from increasing.
can you explain what you mean?
 

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
9,885
The main use of the framerate limiter, will be for framerates under the monitor's refresh rate. As Nvidia already has a "fast" sync mode, which allows the GPU to run full blast and simply drop frames which exceed the output refresh rate. Essent

can you explain what you mean?
Thats not how fast sync works. I use fast sync as short of frame capping it is the best solution, and we didnt have a reliable frame capping experience for nvidia before (IMO) but its still not as good as frame capping for gsync. Fast Sync adds more frame buffer lag than just gsync alone.

I will be frame capping my 120hz monitor at somewhere between 115 and 118hz to start. You want to pick a bit lower than your maximum gsync FPS if its like the FreeSync capping tool I previously used. The reason was with the AMD FPS capping tool it wasn't a hard limit. I used to set my FPS cap in the AMD drivers to 72 FPS (on my 75hz freesync monitor) Which was implemented in the AMD drivers as more of a soft target and the FPS would occasionally exceed the limit I set by a fps or two—thus you set your cap below maximum.

I’ll test this to see if its the same functionally and will ensure the target FPS is always be within my gsync range and thus the FPS will always be synced 1:1 with the hz of the display producing the least input and frame lag possible, and no screen tearing.

Here is information and test results with fastsync vs gsync vs vsync and various combinations.
https://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-and-settings/8/
 
Last edited:

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,067
Frame rate limiting does NOT eliminate tearing. You can still get tearing when frames are drawn that are not in sync with the monitor's sync rate.
Isn't the whole point of this feature, that it be combined with a VRR monitor, and thus keep frames within the VRR range of your monitor sync rate?

So with frame rate limiting and VRR, how do you get frames not in sync range of your monitor???
 
  • Like
Reactions: Parja
like this

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,130
Isn't the whole point of this feature, that it be combined with a VRR monitor, and thus keep frames within the VRR range of your monitor sync rate?

So with frame rate limiting and VRR, how do you get frames not in sync range of your monitor???
Easy, trying to push a game through a video card that will all features enabled can't meet the minimum refresh rate of the VRR monitor in question. Short of that... you'll be fine.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,067
Easy, trying to push a game through a video card that will all features enabled can't meet the minimum refresh rate of the VRR monitor in question. Short of that... you'll be fine.
Most VRR monitors now have LFC, which means that is a non issue as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Parja
like this

Thunderdolt

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
434
It would be nice if we could set a minimum VRR, too. Some of us have monitors that "support" VRR but go wonky below, for example, 45Hz. I primarily notice this in low-power 3D apps (or rather, high power 3D apps when they're in low power states, such as displaying a static image). I have to keep VRR disabled on my current screen due to this.
 

HAL_404

Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
686
NVIDIA Control Panel just came to mind and I don't see where anyone mentioned it yet (I read most but not all comments thus far) ? How is FPS capping different from say ... Fast , Adaptive or Full in NCP ?
 

pendragon1

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 7, 2000
Messages
16,012
NVIDIA Control Panel just came to mind and I don't see where anyone mentioned it yet (I read most but not all comments thus far) ? How is FPS capping different from say ... Fast , Adaptive or Full in NCP ?
instead of syncing frames it just limits them to what you set it at.
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,349
The main use of the framerate limiter, will be for framerates under the monitor's refresh rate. As Nvidia already has a "fast" sync mode, which allows the GPU to run full blast and simply drop frames which exceed the output refresh rate. Essent

can you explain what you mean?
Battlenonsense found that no matter what type of rendering, if your GPU goes over 95% utilization an extra layer of input lag is introduced. It "bogs down" the frame-buffer. So ideally you don't want to play with your GPU maxed out if possible.
 

TheToE!

[H] Brewmaster
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
6,942
I do some form of that now by having a "1GHz" profile in afterburner I use for low-demand games (I have a blower-1080ti, I'd prefer the hairdryer is not on when not really needed).

Might be cool to have something more integrated, but this solution does work well too.
This reminds me, I actually need a hair dryer. Whats a good one?
 

Krenum

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
15,826
Cool, setting framerate limit is really helpful in older games like UT99.
 

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
9,885
NVIDIA Control Panel just came to mind and I don't see where anyone mentioned it yet (I read most but not all comments thus far) ? How is FPS capping different from say ... Fast , Adaptive or Full in NCP ?
none are as good as capping
Cool, setting framerate limit is really helpful in older games like UT99.
fast worked fine already for older games where FPS was 2 to 3xs what your monitor refresh rate was.

You just didn’t want your FPS going over and under your max gsync fps limit IIRC.

edit: opps may not have recalled completely correctly. Fast sync helped eliminate tearing above gsync range but introduces lag and small amounts of stuttering. Adaptive sync seemed to mostly fix my issues — my primary complaint with gsync alone being that frame rate hitch that occurred when I cross the threshold of the 120hz refresh rate of my monitor. Looking back at this thread fastsync and perhaps better, adaptive sync resolved that.

https://hardforum.com/threads/my-experience-with-freesync-vs-g-sync.1952358/
And
https://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-and-settings/8/

This is hopefully a once and done setting — good for everything with gsync on.
 
Last edited:

Furious_Styles

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
1,575
Fast isnt as good as capping unless you had sky high FPS.

fast worked fine already for older games where FPS was 2 to 3xs what your monitor refresh rate was. This is hopefully a once and done setting — good for everything with gsync on.
Have you had problems just running gsync + vsync and capping only when in-game allows it? I may have a rare issue but most of the time I've found stuff works well. The driver level cap is nice but I'll probably wait another month before updating just in case there is issues with it.
 

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
9,885
Have you had problems just running gsync + vsync and capping only when in-game allows it? I may have a rare issue but most of the time I've found stuff works well. The driver level cap is nice but I'll probably wait another month before updating just in case there is issues with it.
I stayed away from vsync for the subtle mouse lag I can feel.

see if you can feel the mouse lag with vsync

I tested like this. Load up Tomb Raider or some third person perspective game. Move the mouse around quickly to change camera perspective. Then turn vsync off and do the same. My friend Stitch1 and I tested this way going back and forth and it was pretty easy to tell when vsync was on. It felt delayed.
 

Furious_Styles

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
1,575
I stayed away from vsync for the subtle mouse lag I can feel.

see if you can feel the mouse lag with vsync

I tested like this. Load up Tomb Raider or some third person perspective game. Move the mouse around quickly to change camera perspective. Then turn vsync off and do the same. My friend Stitch1 and I tested this way going back and forth and it was pretty easy to tell when vsync was on. It felt delayed.
I probably could if I did that, I'll try it and see. But I play low sensitivity and haven't really seen any big delays when going from a game where I can cap in-game to one where I can't. It could also be I don't care as much because lots of the games where I don't care are SP only ones.
 

Stitch1

n00b
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
58
I thought my mouse was broken with VSync on. It caused me to A) buy a new mouse and B) switch to AMD card with Freesync.
 

RPGWiZaRD

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
1,076
I didn't upgrade my driver for aaaaages but this feature makes me wanna do it :)
 

samops03

Gawd
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
786
So far i tested the FPS cap in Modern Warfare and it does not work. Set it to 163, 2 less than my refresh rate as recommended. In game FPS counter hits 165.
 

pendragon1

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 7, 2000
Messages
16,012
So far i tested the FPS cap in Modern Warfare and it does not work. Set it to 163, 2 less than my refresh rate as recommended. In game FPS counter hits 165.
set it to 144 and see what it does. 163 and 165 are pretty close together.
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,219
So far i tested the FPS cap in Modern Warfare and it does not work. Set it to 163, 2 less than my refresh rate as recommended. In game FPS counter hits 165.
That is working. Setting it 1 or 2 less than your refresh rate is recommended, because there can be 1 or 2 frames overshoot. Setting it for 163 and getting 165 is generally expected behavior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Parja
like this

5150Joker

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
3,590
I'm already using this to put a fps cap in Apex Legends. If you watch battlenonsense's videos, he recommends keeping the cap 5-10 fps below max so that your input lag doesn't go through the roof w/the gpu maxed out.
 

sharknice

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
1,894
Fps caps generally work by tracking how long the last frame took to render then instead of immediately beginning to render the next frame they wait based on that time and your cap.

Frame rates can fluctuate quite a bit so a cap is never going to be exact.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,269
No FPS limiter (even ones built into games) is frame perfect. There is always some deviation.
You could make one, using real-time code*, but then more work would be done to reign in FPS than to run the game itself...

So yeah, the solutions currently available are good enough with the proper tuning ;)


[*think Linux real-time kernels with lots of waits coded in and so on]
 

samops03

Gawd
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
786
That is working. Setting it 1 or 2 less than your refresh rate is recommended, because there can be 1 or 2 frames overshoot. Setting it for 163 and getting 165 is generally expected behavior.
That does not really make sense. The point of setting your limit to 163 is not to hitting 165. This is done to prevent VSYNC from kicking in from what i understand.

When i set is to 144 in the NV control panel, it never goes above 144. Why cant it hold it at 163?

I suspect it has something to do with the game engine itself, but im no expert in this topic.

I did some digging and found these to be pretty informative:


Also, Blurbusters updated settings for GSYNC and new drivers/RTSS

https://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-and-settings/14/
 
Last edited:

dgz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
5,713
Battlenonsense found that no matter what type of rendering, if your GPU goes over 95% utilization an extra layer of input lag is introduced. It "bogs down" the frame-buffer. So ideally you don't want to play with your GPU maxed out if possible.
Interesting. Could you please share a link?
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,349
Yes, everyone in this topic is aware it exists. It's been mentioned at least half a dozen times. Having it built into the driver is better than needing another application to do it.
One thing of note though is that RTSS can go down to 0.001 FPS cap accuracy, something that no other method can. And the RTSS FPS cap also smooths out the frame pacing.
 
Top