Do you need Vsync with a 120Hz Lcd?

[dguy6789]

The drawbacks of having vsync on are far too great if you play shooters seriously. And no, triple buffering does not solve the problem at all, it only reduces the problem. There is no such thing as a vsync enabled setup with no input lag from the mouse. Anyone saying that triple buffering is just as lag free as vsync disabled is full of it.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

blah, blah , blah.. Bickering about who must be terrible competetive gamer....? come on guys, bored are we?

1. I never said terrible, I said he's either not one at all or at least not very good, that means he could still be good, just not very good, stop being so negative

2. it's ok to be terrible at video games as long as you have fun playing them. Most people are terrible, they generally don't like admitting it to anyone and especially to themselves, but its true.

Tearing looks like anus. This is why I use vsync. I don't understand people who can't play with anything less than 4xaa complaining about jaggies but don't mind when images virtually tear in half up and down the screen.

And input lag feels like anus. People who turn off vsync will likely also turn off AA if it means saving performance. I keep AA low on BC2 for performance reasons on top of the fact that its also a broken implementation and looks like garbage anyways. Besides, anti aliasing has no real competitive advantage, certainly not like anisotropic filtering might.

Now, the flip side.... I can and do notice the input lag associated with vsync and even more so triple buffered but that is definatley the lesser of the evils IMO

True triple buffering should have greatly reduced latency whereas "fake triple buffer" like we see in the Left 4 Dead games definitely has bad latency, its too bad we don't see true triple buffering implemented more readily.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Were you running vsync with triple buffering (whether real or queue flipping?) and comparing it during these tests? Triple buffering should clearly consume more power than double buffering, which was my point at that part.

Just to start back at the beginning, because I am not sure what you were trying to say.

Here is what I am saying and have tested: Vsync + TB or QF = Less Power Consumption/Work than with Vsync off. The only scenario where it won't save power is if you never exceed the refresh rate of the display.

My point was that TB or QF shouldn't matter from a power saving perspective unless you are merely trying to compare Vsync versus Vsync + TB or QF.

On another note, IIRC the extra memory for TB is rather minor when compared to the total GPU memory used in a game/scene.

 

[taltamir]

On another note, IIRC the extra memory for TB is rather minor when compared to the total GPU memory used in a game/scene.

32bit color * 1920 * 1200 = 8.8 MiB

 

[deepinya]

no vsync ever on any of my monitors.....especially on my new alienware 120hz.

 

[toyota]

I've ALWAYS disabled vsync and never had any tearing. I don't see any reason to enable it for that matter.

that is NOT true. you may be too blind to notice but you don't have some magical monitor that keeps games from tearing with vsync off.

 

[Athadeus]

No, assuming the computer the 120Hz monitor is attached to isn't a complete bottleneck and can actually feed the monitor over 100fps on average a 120Hz LCD will be less impacted by tearing regardless of vsync being off and less impacted by input lag if you choose to have vsync on. Its a win-win. That being said, I have almost always left vsync off regardless of 60 or 120Hz.

What about a computer that can only drive a game in the 30-60 fps range while connected to a 120hz monitor? Would screen tearing decrease compared to a 60hz monitor?

I don't have a good enough GPU to drive Crysis at nearly 100fps, and I am bothered by tearing in that game. The elevators in Portal have the worst screen tearing I've ever seen, enough that I wanted to jab my eyes out if I hadn't turned v-sync back on quickly.

 

[toyota]

just fire up Metro 2033 and you will see that game tears really bad in places even at 20 fps. some games like FEAR feel like they are going to give me a siezure because the tearing is so bad from things like flickering lights.

as already mentioned just take it on a game by games basis and make the best choice for you.

 

[zod96]

I saw the Benq at Frys yesterday. They had it on display. It has some really bad backlight bleed on the entire bottom part of the screen from left to right. Are most Benq users reporting backlight bleed as a problem?

 

[BFG10K]

There is no reason to turn of vsync, EVER! Anyone who tells you to disable it is just ignorant and wrong.

That’s quite a strong statement there chief, and I’d disagree.

There are several reasons to disable it including reduced mouse lag, the fractional framerate problem with double buffering, and increased VRAM usage from triple buffering.

I cannot stand mouse lag; it’s an absolutely atrocious problem compared to a little screen tearing. It’s especially problematic in twitch shooters of yesteryear that demand snappy mouse input. Vsync + triple buffering in the original Unreal feels like you’re running the camera through thick tar because it swims so much.

As for 120 Hz monitors, they’ll tear less than 60 Hz monitors on average so that makes them advantageous compared to 60 Hz displays when running without vsync.

 

[zod96]

Just not sure if a 120HZ monitor at 23 inch for $350 is worth it, when you can get a 27 inch for $300

 

[BFG10K]

Just not sure if a 120HZ monitor at 23 inch for $350 is worth it, when you can get a 27 inch for $300

This is up to personal opinion. For me 120 Hz doesn't offset [30" + 2560x1600 + IPS], but I can understand some existing TN users might be satisfied with their current setup and just want a higher refresh rate.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

What about a computer that can only drive a game in the 30-60 fps range while connected to a 120hz monitor? Would screen tearing decrease compared to a 60hz monitor?

I don't have a good enough GPU to drive Crysis at nearly 100fps, and I am bothered by tearing in that game. The elevators in Portal have the worst screen tearing I've ever seen, enough that I wanted to jab my eyes out if I hadn't turned v-sync back on quickly.

Yes, it should be less apparent, but I wouldn't pay the premium for a 120Hz just to play Crysis @ 30-60fps, I'd much rather pay for a comparably sized IPS panel for the overall image quality. A 120Hz LCD makes most sense when you're running well over 60fps

I saw the Benq at Frys yesterday. They had it on display. It has some really bad backlight bleed on the entire bottom part of the screen from left to right. Are most Benq users reporting backlight bleed as a problem?

I have the BenQ and have that issue but its ultimately not a deal breaker, I never notice it in the thick of gaming. The pros of this monitor far outweigh its cons if its the kind of monitor you're looking for, ie it is first and foremost a gaming oriented monitor.

This is up to personal opinion. For me 120 Hz doesn't offset [30" + 2560x1600 + IPS], but I can understand some existing TN users might be satisfied with their current setup and just want a higher refresh rate.

I enjoy the best of both worlds as I use a 120Hz BenQ XL2410T for online shooters while I have a Dell U2711 that I can use for more laid back gaming while maximizing eye candy.

I can't wait for the day where we can have the strengths of each all rolled into one.

 

[lavaheadache]

nm... i was wrong

 

[imaheadcase]

that is NOT true. you may be too blind to notice but you don't have some magical monitor that keeps games from tearing with vsync off.

Yes it is. I've always disabled it. Across countless monitors..high end to low end. Never saw any tearing. For that matter most gamers don't use it on.


I've yet to see a good reason to use it.

My eyesight is fine (actually better than fine since i had LASIK)..well it better be or i could cost the company millions of dollars if it is not.

 

[Throckmorton]

Also regarding input lag-- set the prerendered frames to 1. When it's set to 3, it takes 3 frames for each frame to get to the monitor.

 

[Throckmorton]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2803/1

Wait, so if your framerate is lower than the monitor refresh, vsync reduces input lag?

When framerate is lower than refresh rate, using either a 1 frame flip queue with vsync or triple buffering will allow the graphics hardware to continue doing rendering work while adding between 0 and 16.67ms of additional latency (the average will be between the two extremes). So you get the potential benefits of vsync (no tearing and synchronization) without the additional decrease in performance that occurs when no work gets done on the GPU.

 

[toyota]

Yes it is. I've always disabled it. Across countless monitors..high end to low end. Never saw any tearing. For that matter most gamers don't use it on.


I've yet to see a good reason to use it.

My eyesight is fine (actually better than fine since i had LASIK)..well it better be or i could cost the company millions of dollars if it is not.

what are you talking about? a game tears without vsync on and that is a FACT. how can you sit there and proclaim no game has ever torn on any monitor you have used with it off? again if you don't see it then you have some issues with your eyesight.

 

[JAG87]

Wait, so if your framerate is lower than the monitor refresh, vsync reduces input lag?

When framerate is lower than refresh rate, using either a 1 frame flip queue with vsync or triple buffering will allow the graphics hardware to continue doing rendering work while adding between 0 and 16.67ms of additional latency (the average will be between the two extremes). So you get the potential benefits of vsync (no tearing and synchronization) without the additional decrease in performance that occurs when no work gets done on the GPU.

Yes, which is why if you cap your games just below the refresh rate (like 59fps for 60hz) you have pretty much zero input lag while also having no tearing. If game devs (or nvidia/ati) always gave us an option to cap rendered frames (and if people knew how to use it) everyone would be using vsync and would never argue against it.

But most people don't, so the opinions are split up in 3 groups. Those who hate vsync because of the input lag (and will put up with the tearing or pretend like they don't see it), those who like vsync because it removes tearing (and put up with the input lag) and those who know how to use vsync, because it removes tearing without adding input lag.

 

[lavaheadache]

what are you talking about? a game tears without vsync on and that is a FACT. how can you sit there and proclaim no game has ever torn on any monitor you have used with it off? again if you don't see it then you have some issues with your eyesight.

I don't think anyone has ever been so wrong... ever. No tearing? he must have a magic monitor, or terrible eyesight.... or doesn't know what tearing is?

 

[toyota]

I don't think anyone has ever been so wrong... ever. No tearing? he must have a magic monitor, or terrible eyesight.... or doesn't know what tearing is?

yeah it would be one thing if he said the tearing did not bother him or he did not notice it most of the time. however, saying he has never had tearing ever with vsync off is so far beyond ridiculous that I would put stock in anything else he has to say when it comes to this topic.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

those who like vsync because it removes tearing (and put up with the input lag)

and those who know how to use vsync, because it removes tearing without adding input lag.

these two sentences are contradictory.

At any rate, all forms of vsync add input lag. True triple buffering adds the least amount but its still there.

 

[snuuggles]

Yes, which is why if you cap your games just below the refresh rate (like 59fps for 60hz) you have pretty much zero input lag while also having no tearing. If game devs (or nvidia/ati) always gave us an option to cap rendered frames (and if people knew how to use it) everyone would be using vsync and would never argue against it.

But most people don't, so the opinions are split up in 3 groups. Those who hate vsync because of the input lag (and will put up with the tearing or pretend like they don't see it), those who like vsync because it removes tearing (and put up with the input lag) and those who know how to use vsync, because it removes tearing without adding input lag.

This is very interesting to me, I've never heard this. Can you provide a link to a artcle or provide more information on this tweak? I'd love to try it out on some of my games, but I'm afraid I'm not sure how I would do it. Is it possible to set this in the ini files of certain games?

Thanks!

 

[snuuggles]

By the way, can anyone here recommend the best bang-for-buck gpu to get with a 120hz monitor. Since nvidia seems to have the 3d market cornered, I guess I'm going with them this time.

The display in question will be 1080p, and I'd like to get very good frame-rates in stuff like metro 2033 *in 3d*. Is that even possible with a single gpu? I'd prefer to get the 570gtx, but if that will be a dog in 3d, I'd consider the 580. I'm not interested in dual-gpu.

Is there something coming out soon I should just wait for?

Thanks for any advice!

 

[Ben90]

Wait, so if your framerate is lower than the monitor refresh, vsync reduces input lag?

When framerate is lower than refresh rate, using either a 1 frame flip queue with vsync or triple buffering will allow the graphics hardware to continue doing rendering work while adding between 0 and 16.67ms of additional latency (the average will be between the two extremes). So you get the potential benefits of vsync (no tearing and synchronization) without the additional decrease in performance that occurs when no work gets done on the GPU.

Yes, which is why if you cap your games just below the refresh rate (like 59fps for 60hz) you have pretty much zero input lag while also having no tearing. If game devs (or nvidia/ati) always gave us an option to cap rendered frames (and if people knew how to use it) everyone would be using vsync and would never argue against it.

But most people don't, so the opinions are split up in 3 groups. Those who hate vsync because of the input lag (and will put up with the tearing or pretend like they don't see it), those who like vsync because it removes tearing (and put up with the input lag) and those who know how to use vsync, because it removes tearing without adding input lag.

I believe you might have read it wrong Throck. I believe its saying that when your framerate is less than your refresh rate, Vsync adds 0-16.67ms on top of what you would be getting without it.

You are kinda almost right JAG. Capping the engine speed via the engine itself can sometimes have minimal advantages. However no matter what, if Vsync is off, you are tearing. No exceptions.

Another rule that has no real world exceptions is that Vsync creates additional input delay. You can create a scenario that it doesn't, but current technology requires a CRT to do it, and guess what? CRTs technically are basically always 1 giant tear, even with Vsync. Suggesting Vsync doesn't create input delay means you do not understand the process and the underlying technology in which frames are drawn onto the screen.

Snuggles: capping engine speed via the engine itself normally doesn't accomplish that much, unless you want to do something specific such as eliminating coil/cap whine with a minimal amount of input delay. Depending on the engine, it can have most of the negative's of Vsync without removing tearing. Close derivitives of the grandaddy Quake engine won't be too bad, but some will blow nuts. Google will help you for the specific command for whatever game/engine you are on. Try searching for "framerate cap" if you want to play around.

Pick your Poison:

Top: Double No Vsync
Middle: Triple Vsync
Bottom: Double Vsync