How many frames per second is enough.. ??

[trog100]

most gpu tweaking software has a frame rate target.. by default its set at maximum.. i have just tried capping mine at 75 fps.. as a result i see a nice steady 75 fps with far less heat being generated less power usage and less fan noise..

does anyone think i am losing something (apart from high benchmark scores) with capping at 75 fps.. my monitor is running a 120 hrz refesh rate..

trog

 

[NdMk2o1o]

I wouldn't cap it at lower than your refresh rate, you have 120hz so just run with vsync enabled

 

[RandomSadness]

Given your specs, locking your frame rate to 75fps seems like a ridiculous waste. If your monitor is operating at 120Hz, your goal should be displaying 120fps. Enable VSync in-game and enjoy your purchase.

 

[xorbe]

most gpu tweaking software has a frame rate target.. by default its set at maximum.. i have just tried capping mine at 75 fps.. as a result i see a nice steady 75 fps with far less heat being generated less power usage and less fan noise..

does anyone think i am losing something (apart from high benchmark scores) with capping at 75 fps.. my monitor is running a 120 hrz refesh rate..

trog

Depends on the game. Online twitch shooter, I want all the frames. Single player game ... yeah, I get your point about limiting the fps and limiting power and heat.

I also discovered that 99% max cpu perf in power control panel stops cpu boost from happening, which keeps the cpu at 4.0GHz @ 1.01v which also slashes wattage somewhat. Some games just don't need all the firepower. I have short-cuts on my desktop so I can switch between power profiles instantly.

 

[qubit]

Locking the framerate to 75Hz with the monitor running at 120Hz means you're seeing some awful judder.

Either unlock the game to run at 120Hz like the others have said, or run the monitor at 75Hz. Ultimately, it's always best to have the highest framerate possible ie high monitor refresh and the game match it vsync, locked.

I see that you have a 165Hz monitor, so set the refresh to that and let the game run at 165Hz vsync locked, which will give you the smoothest and best experience. Certainly the high performance CPU & GPU you have are intended to push those framerates, otherwise you're wasting your investment.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

otherwise you're wasting your investment.

Quite true, why go for dual 980 Ti's and a 165hz monitor to lock it to 75fps, could of bought any 1440p monitor and a single GPU....

 

[Blue-Knight]

How many frames per second is enough.. ??

30 is enough, 15 is the minimum I could enjoy playing. I would prefer 60 and above.

 

[trog100]

i thought the idea of not running everything balls out might go against the grain on here.. he he

but why not.. at 75 fps with g sync running i see no judder.. i just see a nice smooth consistent 75 fps with no highs or lows and with less power usage less heat and less noise..

as to why i bought more power than i need.. that is a different question altogether.. i am quite prepared to admit my previous pair of 970 cards did a pretty good enough job..

what made me think about a fixed frame rate cap is i have been playing mgs phantom pain.. it has a built in 60 fps cap.. it play okays at 60 fps.. my 75 fps cap is bit more.. i could go higher..

but the bottom line is.. i am beginning to think a nice steady 75 fps with no highs or lows aint overly bad.. he he

trog

 

[RandomSadness]

 

[qubit]

i thought the idea of not running everything balls out might go against the grain on here.. he he

but why not.. at 75 fps with g sync running i see no judder.. i just see a nice smooth consistent 75 fps with no highs or lows and with less power usage less heat and less noise..

as to why i bought more power than i need.. that is a different question altogether.. i am quite prepared to admit my previous pair of 970 cards did a pretty good enough job..

what made me think about a fixed frame rate cap is i have been playing mgs phantom pain.. it has a built in 60 fps cap.. it play okays at 60 fps.. my 75 fps cap is bit more.. i could go higher..

but the bottom line is.. i am beginning to think a nice steady 75 fps with no highs or lows aint overly bad.. he he

trog

Ah, gsync running, of course you won't see judder as your monitor isn't running at 120Hz, but matching your graphics card's variable framerate instead. You shoulda said!

Still, full performance at 165Hz gives the best experience, with the least lag as the time resolution is the highest possible on your monitor. Since you've got gsync, it doesn't matter too much if the framerate drops a bit either as the monitor will simply match it. Go for it and don't look back!

 

[xorbe]

It has been noted that using an fps limiter set to just below your screen's max fps (ie, 140 for 144Hz) can be beneficial for lowest lag.

 

[trog100]

an example of what it does.. heaven 1440 at 75 fps..

60% power usage and 50% core usage.. at maybe close to 300 watts per card thats a hefty power and heat saving.. okay the question "is 75 fps enough" still remains open and only applies when you would mostly get more..

it has been said the highs are not important its the lows that matter.. a frame rate cap does go along with that thinking..

trog

ps.. i have to say its the power and heat saving that motivates my thinking.. having said that i will not tolerate any noticeable degrade in my gaming experience.. bear i mind i can test all this crap out for real i dont have to go by what i read.. so far i am finding it hard to see any downside to a frame rate cap.. assuming its a reasonably high one..

 

[NdMk2o1o]

an example of what it does.. heaven 1440 at 75 fps..

60% power usage and 50% core usage.. at maybe close to 300 watts per card thats a hefty power and heat saving.. okay the question "is 75 fps enough" still remains open and only applies when you would mostly get more..

it has been said the highs are not important its the lows that matter.. a frame rate cap does go along with that thinking..

trog

You've spent a small countries GDP on your rig and you're talking about power saving and heating.... again, why buy dual 980 Ti's and a 165hz monitor if that's the case when you could have saved yourself $1000 on said items to achieve what you are doing right now.....

 

[trog100]

You've spent a small countries GDP on your rig and you're talking about power saving and heating.... again, why buy dual 980 Ti's and a 165hz monitor if that's the case when you could have saved yourself $1000 on said items to achieve what you are doing right now.....

very true i waste money on none essentials.. call it a weakness.. i just like buying and trying new stuff.. i have a few other hobbies i waste money on as well.. he he

i bought the monitor because i wanted the best of both worlds.. a good gaming monitor and a good photo editing monitor with nice blacks and accurate colours... not because of its 165 hrz refresh rate.. oddly enough g-sync seems to negate the need for super high refresh rates..

but i aint rich and so as i can waste money on the things that turn me on i have to be bit more careful with it in other ways.. he he he

my 4 x 4 truck is twenty years old.. mind you i do have two of them.. and both guzzle fuel like there is no tomorrow..

what i am doing right now is to get rid of the dreaded low frames rates find a nice compromise figure for the highs.. one thing my over expensive g-sync monitor has taught me is once you go over 75 fps it all looks the same..

one think for sure is i dont claim is to be entirely logical in what i buy.. i am pretty sure i could manage without most of it.. but life would not be as much fun and i do get bored easy..

trog

 

[Ruyki]

FPS is personal preference. If you're ok with just 75, then it's fine.

I run uncapped fps with vsync off on a 60Hz monitor.

 

[trog100]

FPS is personal preference. If you're ok with just 75, then it's fine.

I run uncapped fps with vsync off on a 60Hz monitor.

thanks for the comment.. i am still looking for a downside.. some folks seem to think there is one but capped at 75 or uncapped the only difference i can detect is my fans make less noise and less heat comes out of my case.. he he

i am currently playing mad max.. i am not sure how many frames uncapped would give me with that one.. a few more than 75 i think.. with g-sync the monitor refreshes at the same rate so that has an easy life as well..

trog

 

[EarthDog]

I wouldn't cap it at lower than your refresh rate, you have 120hz so just run with vsync enabled

Input lag... bleh.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Input lag... bleh.

True... BUT at 120hz will be less noticeable than at 60hz

 

[Sasqui]

Subbed. Interesting thread (pros and cons of FPS and power use)... and I'll throw this in:

Although the human eye and brain can interpret up to 1000 frames per second, someone sitting in a chair and actively guessing at how high a framerate is can, on average, interpet up to about 150 frames per second. The point: 60 fps is not a 'waste'.Nov 22, 2012

Source: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/7199031187

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Input lag... bleh.

And let me just throw this in the mix as he has a G-Sync monitor...

"
Bypassing all other forms of V-Sync, enabling G-SYNC within Nvidia’s control panel resulted in an enormous reduction of input lag. In most cases, connecting your Nvidia GeForce GPU to a G-SYNC monitor will automatically enable G-SYNC, though this setting can be enabled manually and tailored to specific games via the control panel. After connecting the GTX 970 to our Acer XB240H G-SYNC monitor, we measured a ridiculously-low input lag rating of 60ms (3.6 frames), which is essentially identical to V-Sync OFF! This is significantly lower than even the lowest recorded values from our V-Sync tests above. Nvidia also allows SLI users to partake in the G-SYNC ceremony. Running Ultra Street Fighter IV with G-SYNC active on our SLI setup resulted in a slightly higher latency measurement of 63ms (3.8 frames).

What if you bleed red? AMD Radeon users shouldn’t worry, as these benefits are present on FreeSync monitors as well! We hooked up our AMD Radeon GPU to our shiny new BenQ XL2730Z FreeSync monitor, and measured an equally-low 59ms (3.6 frames) of input lag with FreeSync enabled via Catalyst Control Center. Unfortunately, AMD doesn’t allow CrossFireX and FreeSync to be enabled together. AMD is scheduled to launch a driver update to enable this functionality in the future. This technology has proven to be a real game changer since its inception, and it’s great to see the benefits across a wide variety of games."

Source

 

[BiggieShady]

oddly enough g-sync seems to negate the need for super high refresh rates..

Really odd, it's almost like g-sync is working as intended

 

[RejZoR]

I find 144 to be absolutely perfect

 

[EarthDog]

And let me just throw this in the mix as he has a G-Sync monitor...

"
Bypassing all other forms of V-Sync, enabling G-SYNC within Nvidia’s control panel resulted in an enormous reduction of input lag. In most cases, connecting your Nvidia GeForce GPU to a G-SYNC monitor will automatically enable G-SYNC, though this setting can be enabled manually and tailored to specific games via the control panel. After connecting the GTX 970 to our Acer XB240H G-SYNC monitor, we measured a ridiculously-low input lag rating of 60ms (3.6 frames), which is essentially identical to V-Sync OFF! This is significantly lower than even the lowest recorded values from our V-Sync tests above. Nvidia also allows SLI users to partake in the G-SYNC ceremony. Running Ultra Street Fighter IV with G-SYNC active on our SLI setup resulted in a slightly higher latency measurement of 63ms (3.8 frames).

What if you bleed red? AMD Radeon users shouldn’t worry, as these benefits are present on FreeSync monitors as well! We hooked up our AMD Radeon GPU to our shiny new BenQ XL2730Z FreeSync monitor, and measured an equally-low 59ms (3.6 frames) of input lag with FreeSync enabled via Catalyst Control Center. Unfortunately, AMD doesn’t allow CrossFireX and FreeSync to be enabled together. AMD is scheduled to launch a driver update to enable this functionality in the future. This technology has proven to be a real game changer since its inception, and it’s great to see the benefits across a wide variety of games."

Source

tell me something I don't know.

If you will notice, the post I responded to said Vsync, not Gsync.....

.....but I see I missed the point... disregard.

 

[trog100]

Really odd, it's almost like g-sync is working as intended

which does kind of suggest a 165 hrz panel that comes with g-sync is a tad over-kill..

dont get me wrong here.. i was happy to leave my none g-sync 144 hrz acer predator 1080 panel alone on its native refresh rate.. but i am now thinking you benefit from one or the other.. what you dont really need is both..

trog

 

[xvi]

I suspect you'd have even less heat/power consumption if you were to remove one of your 980 Ti cards and run the 75Hz cap.
I'd have to agree with the general consensus, it does seem like a pretty big waste of hardware. I'm pretty happy with 75Hz since that's all my display will do, but if I had all the hardware needed to do more, I'd certainly take advantage of it. After all, what's the point of having all those ponies under the hood if you never take them for a gallop now and then?

Really odd, it's almost like g-sync is working as intended

I picked up a laptop with G-sync and it became quickly clear that it didn't have all the bugs worked out of it yet.