Why Aren't More People Talking About Fast-Sync?

cybereality

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,789
Been doing a lot of tweaks trying to get Deus Ex to run well, and I stumbled upon Nvidia's Fast-Sync. Though I had heard it mentioned maybe a few months ago, I didn't really notice it had launched or see much buzz at all.

However, it's really good. It basically eliminates screen tearing (which is a huge deal) and also brings latency close to V-Sync off levels. I was playing with Adaptive-Sync previously, which is better than V-Sync disabled but still not great cause tearing can happen unless you can maintain 60 FPS minimum. But Fast-Sync seems to be able to maintain a solid image in any case (even at, say, 45 FPS).

I know Nvidia says to use it for high FPS games, but it seems to be an advantage either way. With Deus Ex right now I am just riding the 60 FPS mark (maybe getting up to 75 in light scenes or dropping to 45 in dense environments) and Fast-Sync has given me the picture quality I wanted (meaning no tearing, tearing is the worst), and still seems not to add too much lag.

The best part: you can still benchmark with FRAPS, or whatever, and see the full unlimited frame counter but without any screen tearing. This alone seems like a killer feature.

Has anyone else tried it? What do you think?
 
cybereality said:
Been doing a lot of tweaks trying to get Deus Ex to run well, and I stumbled upon Nvidia's Fast-Sync. Though I had heard it mentioned maybe a few months ago, I didn't really notice it had launched or see much buzz at all.

However, it's really good. It basically eliminates screen tearing (which is a huge deal) and also brings latency close to V-Sync off levels. I was playing with Adaptive-Sync previously, which is better than V-Sync disabled but still not great cause tearing can happen unless you can maintain 60 FPS minimum. But Fast-Sync seems to be able to maintain a solid image in any case (even at, say, 45 FPS).

I know Nvidia says to use it for high FPS games, but it seems to be an advantage either way. With Deus Ex right now I am just riding the 60 FPS mark (maybe getting up to 75 in light scenes or dropping to 45 in dense environments) and Fast-Sync has given me the picture quality I wanted (meaning no tearing, tearing is the worst), and still seems not to add too much lag.

The best part: you can still benchmark with FRAPS, or whatever, and see the full unlimited frame counter but without any screen tearing. This alone seems like a killer feature.

Has anyone else tried it? What do you think?
Click to expand...

The problem with fast sync is that in order to use it you need to have higher FPS than your screen refresh rate. Otherwise it's not any different from AdaptiveSync from my understanding of it.
 
It seems it is different because with fast sync there is no tearing below the refresh rate, while on adaptive there is.

I understand you want the FPS to be above refresh in any case, but if it dips I might rather have some minor judder versus screen-tearing.
 
lol its hilarious to see people using and recommending it for gaming at 60 fps. It is NOT designed for that and can cause some hitching for those that are not oblivlous. Tom from Nvidia made it pretty damn clear that it is made for extremely high framerates and that at normal framerates is useless and can cause issues.
 
Adpative vsync is actually the mode you want if you looking to play around your monitors refresh rate. It's there as a option for those that would rather have some screen tearing instead of judder for the occasional drops below your monitors refresh. Basically its for those with borderline 60 fps (or whatever refresh rate) and want to minimize tearing. It also serves a "safety net" basically for the occasional performance dips.

Fast Sync is there for those that can and want to run well above their monitors fresh rate but do not want screen tearing while minimizing latency compared to traditional vsync. This is more of a mode aimed at competitive type games due to the higher priority on display lag and the typical performance demands allowing them to run at high fps given today hardware.
 
It's really nice in the very, very limited scenarios where it's actually usable.
You need like double your refresh rate in fps to make it worthwhile and in that case you're better off turning up DSR / higher settings. I've tried it at 60fps in a handful of games and it had no improvement, anything from 61-119 actually makes tearing and stuttering WORSE. At 120+, it's smooth as butter.

The only time it might be really nice is for old games that run @ 4K no problem, then you can crank up fast sync.
Also (apparently) if you put games in Windowed Mode in Windows 10, the desktop compositor will have the same effect. Nvidia has just built some default features of wddm into their driver.

I play all of my games at 62~63fps (vsync off) to minimize tearing. Never had a problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spine
like this
misterbobby said:
lol its hilarious to see people using and recommending it for gaming at 60 fps. It is NOT designed for that and can cause some hitching for those that are not oblivlous. Tom from Nvidia made it pretty damn clear that it is made for extremely high framerates and that at normal framerates is useless and can cause issues.
Click to expand...

Yeah I tried Fast Sync with Doom and my 60hz Sony TV. As long as frames were above 120hz everything was fine, but the moment fps dropped below that the screen started to judder like mofo. There was no tearing obviously but there was also no rhyme and reason in how stable the frames changed. I switched it off quite fast.
 
So I agree that fast sync seems to work better at high-FPS. I tried this in a few games getting over 120FPS and the experience was really smooth.

However, I also just played about 1 hour of Far Cry 3 getting around 90FPS with fast sync and it was really good. No tearing, and the controls felt more responsive than with vsync on.

With getting close to 60FPS (like I am with Deus Ex) there can be some judder when under 60FPS. But getting under 60FPS is going to have some problems either way.

The way I see it, you eliminate tearing in all cases (important for me), get low lag and nice responsiveness at well above 60FPS, and if you are under 60FPS then you may get some hitching but it's up to you to decide what is worse.

For me, this seems like a win overall, as in most games I would tweak the settings to be getting at least 90FPS (Deus Ex is the only example here where that's barely possible).
 
Hmm.. just went back and played Deus Ex again. It's definitely better with fast sync, even when dropping below 60FPS.

Tearing is gone, and the game feels responsive. There are only occasional hitches, but they are minor and not very noticeable when playing (and rare if the FPS stays above 60).

Let me see if I can record a video, because it's clearly working on my machine.
 
cybereality said:
Hmm.. just went back and played Deus Ex again. It's definitely better with fast sync, even when dropping below 60FPS.

Tearing is gone, and the game feels responsive. There are only occasional hitches, but they are minor and not very noticeable when playing (and rare if the FPS stays above 60).

Let me see if I can record a video, because it's clearly working on my machine.
Click to expand...
A video is not going to show anything noticeable. Really at this point you are being quite silly as what you are claiming is simply not true and Nvidia themselves have made it clear. Its a FACT that regular vsync is better at 60 fps than fastsync regardless of what you think you are experiencing.
 
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how it works, but it sounds to me like Fast Sync at below refresh rate would function exactly the same as normal V-Sync.

But the advantage being that if you go above refresh rate, you'll benefit from the reduced latency (and, of course, never get any tearing which is a huge deal).

I tried to do some A/B tests with Fast Sync versus V-Sync and there was not a huge difference either way around 60FPS. V-Sync maybe had less hitching / frame pacing issues and Fast Sync slightly better latency, but maybe it was placebo on my part.

But the point was that there is most definitely a benefit at high frame rates, and there may be a debatable difference at near refresh rate, so (to me) this seems safe to leave enabled. YMMV.
 
Last edited:
arestavo said:
There will always be doubters who, for whatever reason, simply cannot fathom that something works for others yet somehow not for themselves.

Like we are all supposed to be exactly the same or something. Ha!
Click to expand...
I don't get it, what could possibly be causing people to have different results with fast sync?
Different refresh rates, obviously. But if we're all talking about 60 Hz monitors...

Maybe it depends on the game? I mean vsync works the same way for everyone. There are LOTS of people who don't even notice vsync's input lag, so maybe some people just don't perceive things as well as others?

I remember complaining about vsync lag 10+ years ago on other forums and being flamed for it, like I was somehow wrong. Unbelievable we've come this far.
 
arestavo said:
There will always be doubters who, for whatever reason, simply cannot fathom that something works for others yet somehow not for themselves.

Like we are all supposed to be exactly the same or something. Ha!
Click to expand...
How about you use some common sense and pay attention to the context here. Nvidia has made fastsync for extremely high framerates and flat out said it is of no benefit at lower framerates and can even cause issues that you wont get with regular vsync at 60 fps. Just because someone is oblivious to that does not change the FACTS.
 
misterbobby said:
How about you use some common sense and pay attention to the context here. Nvidia has made fastsync for extremely high framerates and flat out said it is of no benefit at lower framerates and can even cause issues that you wont get with regular vsync at 60 fps. Just because someone is oblivious to that does not change the FACTS.
Click to expand...

Like the fact that it works just fine for me?

Or. Can. You. Not. Fathom. That?.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
I don't get it, what could possibly be causing people to have different results with fast sync?
Different refresh rates, obviously. But if we're all talking about 60 Hz monitors...

Maybe it depends on the game? I mean vsync works the same way for everyone. There are LOTS of people who don't even notice vsync's input lag, so maybe some people just don't perceive things as well as others?

I remember complaining about vsync lag 10+ years ago on other forums and being flamed for it, like I was somehow wrong. Unbelievable we've come this far.
Click to expand...

They are probably younger - 32 years old here.

They probably don't game on a 65" TV from ~6 feet away in a recliner.

They might not wear glasses.

They might not play the same games.

And so on and so forth.
 
Wow, guys, let's not make this personal.

I tested a few more games, and Fast Sync seems to be still mostly working for me. Tried the original Batman:AA (which seems to be frame capped at 62 FPS) and things were nice and smooth unless the FPS dropped below 60, then there was a brief hitch, but this is the same as would happen with V-Sync enabled, no different. Also tried the Ghost in the Shell game, getting in the 90 FPS range and things were smooth as far as I can tell.

I should probably note that I've used SLI on various machines for several years without any issue of micro-stutter. Though some people swear it's the worst thing, and some people don't see it. Same with frame tearing. I can't stand tearing, it ruins the game for me. Some people are fine turning V-Sync off and say they don't notice. Some people turn V-Sync on and don't notice or mind the lag. So people are definitely sensitive to different things.
 
cybereality said:
Wow, guys, let's not make this personal.

I tested a few more games, and Fast Sync seems to be still mostly working for me. Tried the original Batman:AA (which seems to be frame capped at 62 FPS) and things were nice and smooth unless the FPS dropped below 60, then there was a brief hitch, but this is the same as would happen with V-Sync enabled, no different. Also tried the Ghost in the Shell game, getting in the 90 FPS range and things were smooth as far as I can tell.

I should probably note that I've used SLI on various machines for several years without any issue of micro-stutter. Though some people swear it's the worst thing, and some people don't see it. Same with frame tearing. I can't stand tearing, it ruins the game for me. Some people are fine turning V-Sync off and say they don't notice. Some people turn V-Sync on and don't notice or mind the lag. So people are definitely sensitive to different things.
Click to expand...
That backs up exactly what I was saying about being oblivious to the issues. And yeah some people dont even notice screen tearing and some are even crazy enough to say they dont have it when they clearly do. Heck my parents used to run their CRT at 60 hz and never had an issues even though I wanted to vomit when I visited them back then.
 
misterbobby said:
How about you use some common sense and pay attention to the context here. Nvidia has made fastsync for extremely high framerates and flat out said it is of no benefit at lower framerates and can even cause issues that you wont get with regular vsync at 60 fps. Just because someone is oblivious to that does not change the FACTS.
Click to expand...

Try to be more meaner.

misterbobby said:
One fact here is that you are oblivious. This is why user reviews are usually not worth a shit due to their ignorance.
Click to expand...

No, meaner than that.
 
Everyone should just move to high refresh rates and use adaptive-sync :D

On that note, any1 seen any reviews for that ridonkulous 200Hz 1080p monitor yet?
 
Jeez, people, calm down. What is the big deal with arguing here? If cybereality likes the outcome better with FastSync, why is it bothering some people so much? We are all sensitive to different things, let each use whatever makes them happier. You could give me 7.1 audio or stereo, they would sound exactly the same to me. I know they're not, but I don't find a difference. I also barely notice tearing, so I'm happy gaming with VSYNC off at 40fps - nooooo problem at all. Some users' heads would explode if they did that.

It's not your way or the highway. We're all different, we have different sensitivities, thus different needs. Just accept that.
 
Last edited:
I will add, that I went back to my main machine (with a 144Hz G-Sync monitor) and it still blows everything else away in terms of responsiveness and smoothness.

I wouldn't even call Fast Sync a "poor man's G-Sync" as it's not even close. However, if you only have a standard 60Hz monitor or TV, this can at least get you a better experience in terms of eliminating tearing and reducing lag.

Granted, I understand some people have experienced stutter, so if that happens to you feel free to turn it off. But people should still be aware there is another option as I'm not sure everyone has tried it yet.
 
I did some testing in Saints Row 4 (since I have it installed atm) and I got the best results at 120fps and, oddly enough, 61fps.
60fps is perfectly smooth but stutters like crazy every 10 seconds or so.
61fps is perfectly smooth but skips a single frame every 5 seconds (this would be a tear w/o fast-sync I guess).

The frame skip increases in frequency from 62 to ~100fps, peaking @ 100fps where it stutters so much it actually feels like 30fps. It's awful.
Then from 100 to 119 fps, the stuttering slowly decreases and becomes less noticable until 120fps where it completely disappears and it runs perfectly.

And honestly I would not be surprised if results change based on game AND your monitor since in all my time swapping monitors over the years I noticed they all behave differently at 60+ fps (w/o fast sync).

Also to anyone who has no experience playing games above your refresh rate (60Hz in this case) then you might not be able to tell what exactly fast sync is doing. It's always been a viable choice to reduce the affect of tearing even before fast sync.

Overall I think it comes down to personal taste and you just have to play with it to find whatever settings work best for your eyeballs.
 
Check out the video. Running Deus Ex at custom 4K resolution, getting around 50 - 60 FPS and things still looked smooth.

 
cybereality said:
Check out the video. Running Deus Ex at custom 4K resolution, getting around 50 - 60 FPS and things still looked smooth.

Click to expand...
Sigh, as I already told you, a video is not going to show anything meaningful. You can watch a video of someone playing the game at 25 frames per second and it was still look smooth for the most part because it's playback and not actual gameplay. So many times I've tried to record stuttering hitching gameplay but the actual video of it will look no where near as bad and sometimes even perfectly smooth. It takes some severe hitching and massive frame rate changes to be noticed in the playback of a video.
 
Did you watch the video at 1080P60? If it was stuttering anywhere near as bad as people seem to claim, you should see that in the video, no?

Also, you have my word that everything was smooth, aside from a few occasional frame-rate dip related hitches (that would happen the same with V-Sync enabled).
 
Maybe a 60fps cam recorder can capture something showing what a viewing is experiencing better on a 60hz monitor but agree video capture can just be capturing at 30 fps (whole frames) from the frame buffer and not what the monitor is being feed out of sync between the monitor refresh rates.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Does fast sync do anything below refresh rate?
Click to expand...
From what I can tell, the behavior should be the same as V-Sync below refresh rate. It's most useful at high refresh rates (say twice refresh rate).

The point of the video was the show that, at least in my case, I'm not getting any bad effects at lower frame rates. Meaning there is still no tearing at all, and I'm not seeing the stuttering people are talking about.

noko The video was recorded at 60Hz, you can choose the YouTube quality icon and pick 1080P60 to see at the full speed.
 
There's no frametime spikes when the stutters happen, which means it's just a side-effect of how the frames are being displayed on the monitor. In other words, video capture won't show it.
 
cybereality said:
Did you watch the video at 1080P60? If it was stuttering anywhere near as bad as people seem to claim, you should see that in the video, no?

Also, you have my word that everything was smooth, aside from a few occasional frame-rate dip related hitches (that would happen the same with V-Sync enabled).
Click to expand...
I see a lot of judder (hitching) in the video at 60fps and it also does not appear to be captured at 60fps. For me that is not smooth game play but for me it is sufficient for immersion. I can spot variations pretty easily in frame rates but also can ignore them as well and enjoy games just fine. Everyone is very much different - lag induced by Vsync is so pronounced for me that I find it hard that others do not sense or notice it. Anyways the video is not buttery smooth - FreeSync/GSync would be the real ticket for smoother looking game play.

I use adaptive sync if my frame rates are around 60fps and it works well without the Vsync lag I notice with Vsync (even though it is Vsync when 60fps+)
 
Because it's limited to 1 generation(unless you use Inspector) and isn't very useful in most games. It might help in Overwatch since you can get super high FPS there, but in most other cases it causes hitching/juddering. If you can't see it, that's great, go ahead and use fast-sync, but most people notice it and it's annoying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top