new AMD Catalyst driver from Alpha Micro stuttering

[Rikard]

UserCP
Edit Ignore List
Add user to ignore list
(the troll's user name that I am not allowed to single out due to forum rules)
Okay

A lot of us have followed these steps, and I suggest you do it too if you cannot help yourself from feeding it.

 

[blackened23]

Please elaborate, before I report you post a useless ad hominem?

The irony of YOU reporting someone else. I could almost take this serious if it were anyone else, that didn't have your repeated pattern of 24/7 trolling.

And then you want to report Jaydip. Really? Christ.

 

[Black Octagon]

Vsync fixes runt frames since there are no runt frames when the frames are synced with the refresh rate.

This is a fact.

You are wrong.

End of discussion

If that were really the case, review sites would not be expending so much energy on investigating this issue, and AMD would not be developing driver updates specifically to address the issue. Are you saying they're all devoting so much time to this just to justify their jobs? Or maybe they just aren't as good as you at thinking outside the box eh?

 

[Atreidin]

UserCP
Edit Ignore List
Add user to ignore list
(the troll's user name that I am not allowed to single out due to forum rules)
Okay

A lot of us have followed these steps, and I suggest you do it too if you cannot help yourself from feeding it.

Unfortunately I still see the troll's posts when they are quoted in replies.

Anyway, back to the actual thread topic... Hey look at the driver improvement, that's good stuff right there. It is nice when things get better. It would sure be nice to see things keep getting better over time, it will be good to see how things develop. Woo.

 

[Fx1]

If that were really the case, review sites would not be expending so much energy on investigating this issue, and AMD would not be developing driver updates specifically to address the issue. Are you saying they're all devoting so much time to this just to justify their jobs? Or maybe they just aren't as good as you at thinking outside the box eh?

Reviews already said that Vsync fixes it. Even PCper have stated that vsync does away with all stuttering and runt frames by forcing the engine to only display frames when the monitor refreshes.

This whole storm in a tea cup is all about non-vsync performance. it always has been.

You CANNOT display runt frames when Vsync is turned on. FACT!

 

[Face2Face]

Dumb Question - When you enable vsync on a 120Hz monitor it limits the Hz/FPS to 120 right? So why do people play without vsync? I have to enable it because tearing gets annoying on a 60Hz Monitor. Just curious.

 

[Jaydip]

Input lag comes with Vsync.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

Dumb Question - When you enable vsync on a 120Hz monitor it limits the Hz/FPS to 120 right? So why do people play without vsync? I have to enable it because tearing gets annoying on a 60Hz Monitor. Just curious.

Yes, it locks it at 120 FPS, unless your video card can't sustain that.

I agree screen tearing gets extremely annoying which is primarily why I use vsync too.

EDIT: Doesn't input lag depend on your mouse? Not sure.

 

[Face2Face]

Input lag comes with Vsync.

Hmmm.. I may try a couple FPS games and see if I can notice a difference. Crysis 3 is the only game I play without vsync. For some reason it sets my FPS @ 30FPS when I enable it..

 

[Jaydip]

Yes, it locks it at 120 FPS, unless your video card can't sustain that.

I agree screen tearing gets extremely annoying which is primarily why I use vsync too.

EDIT: Doesn't input lag depend on your mouse? Not sure.

TB helps to reduce it significantly.You mean mouse as a device or various models?

 

[Jaydip]

Hmmm.. I may try a couple FPS games and see if I can notice a difference. Crysis 3 is the only game I play without vsync. For some reason it sets my FPS @ 30FPS when I enable it..

Funny thing is I noticed it first in Quake III .

 

[JAG87]

You CANNOT display runt frames when Vsync is turned on. FACT!

And you also don't see another evil, which is tearing. You just have to frame limit to do away with input lag, which we already know is a valid remedy.

Once you do all that, the single number of FRAMES PER SECOND that the 7990 churns out is very much a valid metric. And the card is definitely faster than a 690 and Titan.

Of course it doesn't mean it's necessarily the better choice, power and noise be taken into account. For example in a multi-monitor configuration, Titan puts both cards AWAY. Not only does it have a much larger buffer (which helps tremendously with huge resolutions), but its multi-monitor idle power consumption is nothing short of amazing.

 

[Silverforce11]

Input lag comes with Vsync.

This is the "minor" negative to vsync.

Normal vsync drops to 1/2 refresh rate (30 fps) when it dips below 60 fps. Thus, you go 30-60 a lot if your GPU cannot maintain >60 fps. Thats the "major" negative, it causes stutter and nausea in gamers sensitive to motion sickness. FFXI caused me to throw up once because that game is so CPU bottlenecked in scenes, it would fluctuate based on the camera of my character.

In the old days, we cured this by a) playing with tripple buffering (not always possible with some games), and b) ensuring the graphics settings in games do not cause frequent dips below 60 fps.

Option a) adds an extra frame of latency, which for some is unacceptable. To me, its a non-issue, because i don't feel ~10-20ms is a HUGE OMFGBQQ winning advantage. Obviously, to some, its a big deal.

Option b) requires a been of tweaking and time, which for the new generation of PC gamers, sadly, they dont have the patience nor the mindset to bother with.

Today, NV already cures these issues by default in their drivers: adaptive vsync fixes these issues for gamers who like to game with vsync, and inbuilt frame time metering, for gamers who dont want vsync BUT obviously dont mind the extra frame time latency. This here is the key point, as any metering of frame times adds latency to the overall rendering pipeline. How much latency? No reviewers has investigated this thoroughly.

AMD up to recently dont care about it, since they feel gamers prefer the lowest latency at the expense of stuttering. Soon, they will add the option in CCC. Smooth gameplay with more latency or vice versa. But in the meantime, Radeon Pro outright fixes the issues of frame time with radeons. Also frame rate limiters do wonders.

 

[Fx1]

And you also don't see another evil, which is tearing. You just have to frame limit to do away with input lag, which we already know is a valid remedy.

Once you do all that, the single number of FRAMES PER SECOND that the 7990 churns out is very much a valid metric. And the card is definitely faster than a 690 and Titan.

Of course it doesn't mean it's necessarily the better choice, power and noise be taken into account. For example in a multi-monitor configuration, Titan puts both cards AWAY. Not only does it have a much larger buffer (which helps tremendously with huge resolutions), but its multi-monitor idle power consumption is nothing short of amazing.

This is a pretty good summary.

I found Vsync and 59fps cap is a perfect solution to all my gaming needs.

 

[Will Robinson]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonbjerg
Please elaborate, before I report you post a useless ad hominem?

Jaydip wrote:
"Dude I believe you have reported so many posts by now mods have probably put you on their ignore list" :biggrin:

Man that made me lol ...best comment I've seen here in a long time. :thumbsup:

I love how he says he has Groove on ignore on page 2 but then posts right after him.:biggrin:

 

[Fx1]

This is the "minor" negative to vsync.

Normal vsync drops to 1/2 refresh rate (30 fps) when it dips below 60 fps. Thus, you go 30-60 a lot if your GPU cannot maintain >60 fps. Thats the "major" negative, it causes stutter and nausea in gamers sensitive to motion sickness. FFXI caused me to throw up once because that game is so CPU bottlenecked in scenes, it would fluctuate based on the camera of my character.

In the old days, we cured this by a) playing with tripple buffering (not always possible with some games), and b) ensuring the graphics settings in games do not cause frequent dips below 60 fps.

Option a) adds an extra frame of latency, which for some is unacceptable. To me, its a non-issue, because i don't feel ~10-20ms is a HUGE OMFGBQQ winning advantage. Obviously, to some, its a big deal.

Option b) requires a been of tweaking and time, which for the new generation of PC gamers, sadly, they dont have the patience nor the mindset to bother with.

Today, NV already cures these issues by default in their drivers: adaptive vsync fixes these issues for gamers who like to game with vsync, and inbuilt frame time metering, for gamers who dont want vsync BUT obviously dont mind the extra frame time latency. This here is the key point, as any metering of frame times adds latency to the overall rendering pipeline. How much latency? No reviewers has investigated this thoroughly.

AMD up to recently dont care about it, since they feel gamers prefer the lowest latency at the expense of stuttering. Soon, they will add the option in CCC. Smooth gameplay with more latency or vice versa. But in the meantime, Radeon Pro outright fixes the issues of frame time with radeons.

If you cap FPS at 59 with V Sync on you will feel no lag. Its there at 60 FPS but it goes at 59.

For me this is a flawless gaming experience on NV or AMD

 

[Jaydip]

@Silverforce11

You are correct and I like NV's adaptive vsync for that matter.

 

[Zanovar]

Jaydip wrote:
"Dude I believe you have reported so many posts by now mods have probably put you on their ignore list" :biggrin:

Man that made me lol ...best comment I've seen here in a long time. :thumbsup:

I love how he says he has Groove on ignore on page 2 but then posts right after him.:biggrin:

was funny.

 

[Black Octagon]

Reviews already said that Vsync fixes it. Even PCper have stated that vsync does away with all stuttering and runt frames by forcing the engine to only display frames when the monitor refreshes.

This whole storm in a tea cup is all about non-vsync performance. it always has been.

You CANNOT display runt frames when Vsync is turned on. FACT!

Got a link to where they say this?

 

[ICDP]

If that were really the case, review sites would not be expending so much energy on investigating this issue, and AMD would not be developing driver updates specifically to address the issue. Are you saying they're all devoting so much time to this just to justify their jobs? Or maybe they just aren't as good as you at thinking outside the box eh?

GPU reviewes never test with vsync becuase it caps performance which of course renders results pointless for the purpose of reviews. It is for this very reason that none of the initial GTX680 review noticed the serious vsync stutter bug and the serious CF issues are noticed.

Vsync and or FPS caps do indeed fix stutter and runt frames very effectively in CF. In fact they also reduce stuttering in SLI which is not immune to micro stutter. The thing is that not everone likes vsync and that SLI does at least work much better out of the box.

 

[SirPauly]

Dude give it a rest.Unless you own AMD cards why do you bother if AMD improves their drivers or not?

That's a very good point to me based on I lean heavily towards nVidia and nVidia centric at this time.

Because AMD is important, specifically their choices and what they offer for their customers and sku's - I take notice based on their importance and talents. Companies change directions, change where they spend resources, change strategies. For example: One of my constructive nit-picks was developer relations and AMD is really trying to build momentum with Gaming Evolved and this gets noticed.

When AMD speaks -- I listen! When nVidia speaks -- I listen! What AMD and nVidia offer or do are very important based on their compelling choices for PC gaming, which I am very passionate about!

 

[Silverforce11]

That's a very good point to me based on I lean heavily towards nVidia and nVidia centric at this time.

Just out of curiosity, since you are and have been a loyal NV user.. at what % of perf/$ deficit would it take for you to consider switching to Radeons?

Back when the 5850 was out, the price gap compared to NV card was rediculous. Yet many users still used NV cards, which not only cost heaps more but also was much worse in perf/w.

Is there a point that would make you reconsider? Me, i switch to any vendor that offers the best bang for buck for the generation or when i want a new rig. Loyalty to a corporation is akin to being brainwashed IMO, they are all out to deprive you of your hard earn $$, as much as possible, why in all logic-sakes would you devote yourself to their cause? Ive used AMD cpus, now ive been with Intel for the past several gen. I've used rendition, 3dfx, ATI, NV and back again to AMD. When next gen hits and if NV is ever gracious enough to not rape their consumers by offering a good value for money products, i will happily buy their GPUs.

 

[railven]

PC Perspective did an article on it(the new drivers). It is a dramatic improvement for sure. Good to see.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Frame-Rating-AMD-Improves-CrossFire-Prototype-Driver

Okay, please note I'm not trying to stir any pots, just trying to get some clarification.

I was under the impression that the "runt" frames were creating an artificial boost to CFX numbers. Going as far as PCPer saying the second card was "useless" as removing the runt frames reduced the total FPS by almost half.

So, does this new driver actually remove the runt frames? It doesn't seem the card took an FPS hit, which would rule out the notion that the runt frames were creating an artificial balloon effect, or...

What does it actually do? Are the frames now either full frames or just bigger so they don't get marked as runt frames?

 

[SirPauly]

Just out of curiosity, since you are and have been a loyal NV user.. at what % of perf/$ deficit would it take for you to consider switching to Radeons?

Back when the 5850 was out, the price gap compared to NV card was rediculous. Yet many users still used NV cards, which not only cost heaps more but also was much worse in perf/w.

Is there a point that would make you reconsider? Me, i switch to any vendor that offers the best bang for buck for the generation or when i want a new rig. Loyalty to a corporation is akin to being brainwashed IMO, they are all out to deprive you of your hard earn $$, as much as possible, why in all logic-sakes would you devote yourself to their cause? Ive used AMD cpus, now ive been with Intel for the past several gen. I've used rendition, 3dfx, ATI, NV and back again to AMD. When next gen hits and if NV is ever gracious enough to not rape their consumers by offering a good value for money products, i will happily buy their GPUs.

Almost did go with the 5XXX series but after I investigated the 5850 filtering first hand, which is very important to me, decided to wait for nVidia's offerings.

The areas of importance for me is geared more to the gaming experience potential extreme:

Quality of the pixel, specifically with movement.

Features that try to raise the bar of immersion and gaming experiences.

Flexibility or flexible tools so a gamer can find the right balance for their subjective tastes, tolerances and thresholds.

After I understand the strengths and weaknesses here -- then I check performance and other metrics -- Games are to be experienced to me.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Okay, please note I'm not trying to stir any pots, just trying to get some clarification.

I was under the impression that the "runt" frames were creating an artificial boost to CFX numbers. Going as far as PCPer saying the second card was "useless" as removing the runt frames reduced the total FPS by almost half.

So, does this new driver actually remove the runt frames? It doesn't seem the card took an FPS hit, which would rule out the notion that the runt frames were creating an artificial balloon effect, or...

What does it actually do? Are the frames now either full frames or just bigger so they don't get marked as runt frames?

The runt frames were still full frames being rendered by the GPU. The issue was that the next frame came way to early and covered up the majority of the runt frame. They were not cheating to get performance, the tiny slivers of frames being rendered were almost unnoticeable so they made it seem like those frames didn't exist when viewing the output.

Many people seem to forget that a frame is drawn from left to right top to bottom on a monitor one line of pixels at a time. That little sliver, and the frame that is being drawn on top of it are both full frames being rendered by the GPU. Think of it like one of those flipbook cartoons when you were a kid. Flip down the pages and see the smooth animation. Now pull out every 3rd page from the book and flip through again and see the jerks in movement because of the missing pages of the animation. That's the equivalent of a runt frame