• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Vsync off? why?

P

Putz

I have a custom title
2FA
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
5,586
Curious, aside from benchmarking and obtaining uselessly high fps count, does the tearing on an LCD not get more annoying than a steady 60 fps?

have a 6800gt coming in and currently the 9700 pro with vsync off has a fair amount of tearing in gaming, assuming it from vsync being turn off?

any down side to vsync being locked on aside from no more than 60 fps max?

personaly i find a smooth 60 fps is better than 100+fps when you or no other human eye can notice it.
 
manily in fps games, the speed of guns etc is dependant on fps. atleast on the hl engine
 
vsync on is almost always better.. I say that after playing FPS games for about 9 years.. but as someone pointed out some games have what I consider to be poorly programmed physics(quake3, rtcw, etc) such that the physics change between computers and people can do different jumps on different computers and framerates. In those types of games, two players doing the same movements with their keyboard and mouse may result in different actions ingame. Counterstrike has a bug where smoke grenades can slow down your frame rate badly with vsync on, and I'm sure there's other scenarios where vsync off is better.. but I'd say overall vsync on is best.. definitely better for non first person shooter games
 
Personally, I've always preffered vsync on. I typically get headaches if I start noticing refreshes. Surprisingly, I can game for longer, without incident at 60hz refresh vsync on, acting as something of a frame rate limit. Any game I CAN specify a max framte rate, the refresh goes up, but dramatic ups and downs kill me head. :(
 
i just dont like the lines or tearing you get when the card over plays the monitor, just something ive always noticed with my lcd that bugs me

once my 6800gt comes in and i run a few banchmarks for $hits and giggles ill turn vsync on


still get a kick out of people who can tell me thay can see 300 fps... but think tv is silky smooth @ what 35 hz or something ?
 
the reason why you lock out at 60 fps with vsync is because youre refreshrate is 60hz.. do a refreshrate override and push it to its max.. More is better I run games at 1024x768 @ 85 hertz.. so basically i hit 85 fps.. Well at least that way with vsync on in CS.

So smooth.. i like it alot better than those people who want to run 100 fps with no vsync.. it makes it look soo choppy. i get frustrated.
 
JrCamacho said:
the reason why you lock out at 60 fps with vsync is because youre refreshrate is 60hz.. do a refreshrate override and push it to its max.. More is better I run games at 1024x768 @ 85 hertz.. so basically i hit 85 fps.. Well at least that way with vsync on in CS.

So smooth.. i like it alot better than those people who want to run 100 fps with no vsync.. it makes it look soo choppy. i get frustrated.
Click to expand...


I know that, but LCDS only display 60 or 75 hz, and ones that claim 75hz i beleive still only display 60

my new sony LCD claims 12 ms responce, but 60 hz, my old samsung was 75 hz and 25 ms, gaming and image is many times better on my sony even with the "lower" hz
 
CanadaOwnsJoo said:
still get a kick out of people who can tell me thay can see 300 fps... but think tv is silky smooth @ what 35 hz or something ?
Click to expand...

just like ive posted and a couple others posted about q3 and rtcw, the higher fps the less "limited" u are in the game

and for the guy with the sony lcd isnt the lower the MS better? its supposed to be rated as the time the pixels change from white to black to white again (or something) so i thought lower was better? always wondered
 
True. The lower the respones time, the better, but it doesn't go hand in hand with the refresh frequency. Largely just has more to do with how clear the image is, and how little ghosting there will be.
 
yeah the response time isnt the be all and end all, my point was if a 75 hz lcd was supposed to be capable of something LCDs arent capable of so im read anyways

if you get seamless gameplay @ 60fps why do you need 300 fps, im not worried about bugs or flaws in fps game engines and odds are they wont work online anyways

what i do waht is smooth consistant playback without the tearing of frames
 
This was my point a little while ago arguing about SLI and the great speed strides graphics cards have made, which nobody was able to discredit. As our graphics cards are able to turn out greater frames per second, this will lead to greater disparaties with our monitor's refresh rates. The visual tearing we all hate is a direct result of this. So what's next for the gamer? Eventually we will be forced to turn on V-sync in all our games as the frames per second gap between our graphics cards and our monitors widens.
 
DandyBear said:
This was my point a little while ago arguing about SLI and the great speed strides graphics cards have made, which nobody was able to discredit. As our graphics cards are able to turn out greater frames per second, this will lead to greater disparaties with our monitor's refresh rates. The visual tearing we all hate is a direct result of this. So what's next for the gamer? Eventually we will be forced to turn on V-sync in all our games as the frames per second gap between our graphics cards and our monitors widens.
Click to expand...
the monitor i want can support 85hz by default at 2052 x 1600 or whatever that res is


ok not to go to off topic but lower response time is better right so y are companys like benq advertising 12ms as being impressive?
 
12 ms good for an lcd, but it also depends how they measure it

personally my old samsung 17" 25ms never ghosted in games

as for the new card being fast, what i want is a 60 fps consistant 1280x1024 @ max graphics settings

not bragging rights on 3dmark, or 500 fps on q3 with crappy gaphic settings

on the other hand, if the card is locked at 60 fps, will that mean the extra horsepower its not wasted on useless fps will work on graphics or does it still try and reproduce all those frames?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top