What's the problem with VSync + triple buffering?

[Thinker_145]

It seems to me that most people who don't like VSync have never played it with triple buffering. I have been using it since forever and I really can't see the fuss over A-Sync?

The problem is that most games don't have an in game setting of triple buffering hence VSync will perform poorly. Then users are further left in the dark with the Nvidia/AMD driver settings which can only force triple buffering in OpenGL games without actually mentioning it.

You need a third party program like D3DOverrider to force triple buffering in DX games and it's a God sent.

For those who don't know double buffered VSync will either play at 60FPS or 30FPS as soon as you get below 60. This results in stuttering and a very lackluster experience overall. Triple buffering completely eliminates this problem at the cost of slightly more VRAM consumption.

Now people who already know all this seem to say that triple buffering introduces input lag. I for one just can't feel it at all? For me VSync off = VSync with triple buffering. This is as far as input lag is concerned.

Now I don't have an A-Sync monitor to compare but I really feel why should I think about it when it really doesn't matter? I literally have no issues with tearing, judder or input lag. Never knew why people had such an issue with these.

Is there any owner of A-Sync monitor who will agree with me?

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[Bacon1]

I'd recommend skipping vsync and just go with borderless windowed mode. Slight if any performance hit, better alt-tabbing / multiple desktop use, less input delay, no tearing, game can still run as fast as you want it to (not capped @ monitor).

https://youtu.be/oc28SH2ESA4?t=354

Basically (In Overwatch at least):


60hz Fullscreen

Nothing @ 300 fps on 60hz monitor:
40-56 ms delay

vsync on w/tripple buffering:
112-142 ms delay

60hz Borderless windowed:
Nothing @ 300 fps:
70-84 ms delay

 

[Headfoot]

Now I don't have an A-Sync monitor to compare but I really feel why should I think about it when it really doesn't matter? I literally have no issues with tearing, judder or input lag. Never knew why people had such an issue with these.

Is there any owner of A-Sync monitor who will agree with me?

I have a Freesync monitor and I 100% disagree. Freesync is not just removing tearing. Read this review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9097/the-amd-freesync-review.

It syncs the monitors refresh rate to when the frames are actually delivered to the monitor. It makes everything appear smoother when you're not pegged at a capped framerate because the interframe action is timed perfectly with the actual display of those frames to your eyes. Non-sync'd action can appear jerkier or choppier because of the frame missing the nearest frame display interval and getting pushed out to the next one. This causes frames to log jam up on a single interval and then have a space of no frame updates which adds even more to the jerkiness.

Pegging your framerate at 60fps on a 60hz monitor does not benefit from FreeSync. But that means you have to have way more power to ensure your FPS never dips below 60 even in the heaviest scenes. You can think of freesync as that smoothness you get when you have pegged your vsync limit, at any frame rate in the FreeSync range even if the framerate is variable, and without the additional latency that Vsync incurs.

 

[Thinker_145]

But I don't have to have locked 60FPS when using triple buffering that's the part a lot of people don't understand. I mean when my FPS dips to 40 I notice it because I can differentiate between 60 and 40 FPS. Are you saying with A-Sync 40 FPS is as smooth as 60?

I don't notice ANY jerkiness or stutter with triple buffered VSync. If my FPS drops to 55 from 60 I pretty much don't notice it at all...

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[MajinCry]

Windowed mode forces triple buffering. Easy to check with RadeonPro.

The problem, is that triple buffering + vsync introduces stutter. It's a trade off; no god awful tearing in exchange for playable framerates with the occasional stutter.

I hope there'll be a Freesync 5:4 monitor, as there's only 'em widescreen ones kicking about right now.

 

[Bacon1]

locked 60FPS when using triple buffering

You are still capped at 60, and you'll have input lag. Borderless windowed mode with vsync turned off is the best bet if you don't have g/freesync but still want to remove tearing and "smoothest" experience.

 

[Thinker_145]

You are still capped at 60, and you'll have input lag. Borderless windowed mode with vsync turned off is the best bet if you don't have g/freesync but still want to remove tearing and "smoothest" experience.

As I said I don't notice any input lag difference when VSync off. Why would an FPS cap introduce input lag?

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[Bacon1]

As I said I don't notice any input lag difference when VSync off. Why would an FPS cap introduce input lag?

Sent from my HTC One M9

Did you watch the video I posted or read the numbers from my post?

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...vsync-triple-buffering.2486260/#post-38470004

 

[bystander36]

It's quite simple really. V-sync at less than your refresh rate will result in stutter. This is because in order to get 40 FPS, some frames are 16.7ms, and some are 33.3ms. Because they are not consistent, you get a bit of stutter. With A-sync/G-sync, 40 FPS results in 25ms frame times. Or a small range, as frame generation is never perfect. This is because the monitor is not locked at only refreshing its image every 16.7ms and nothing else (you can wait for 2 refreshes to get to 33.3 ms.)

Using borderless Windowed mode is no different than V-sync with triple buffering. The only reason it might different from what the game gives you, is many games do not use triple buffering.

Triple buffering has both good and bad attributes. The good is that it allows frames to be generated while waiting to display your current frame, so you don't lose FPS with V-sync on, while below your refresh rate. The bad news is that if you are maintaining your refresh rate, it introduces a full frame worth of latency. Many people will use Triple buffering, V-sync and a FPS cap just below your refresh rate to prevent that extra frame of latency you get when you reach your refresh rate.

 

[Rifter]

I mostly agree with the OP, as i used SLI GTX 460's till about a month ago i have done much testing with settings to get rid of stutter and tearing over the 5 years i used that setup, more work to get games working towards the end when nvidia put zero effort into drivers for the older cards.

V sync + triple with a frame cap at 55-59 works the best IMO. It does add a small amount of imput lag but its not much and IMO its hardly noticeable unless its a twitch shooter, and if thats the case i play twitch shooters with no vsync and deal with the tearing.

my .02

 

[bystander36]

I mostly agree with the OP, as i used SLI GTX 460's till about a month ago i have done much testing with settings to get rid of stutter and tearing over the 5 years i used that setup, more work to get games working towards the end when nvidia put zero effort into drivers for the older cards.

V sync + triple with a frame cap at 55-59 works the best IMO. It does add a small amount of imput lag but its not much and IMO its hardly noticeable unless its a twitch shooter, and if thats the case i play twitch shooters with no vsync and deal with the tearing.

my .02

A couple notes here. If you use SLI, and the game supports it, you automatically get triple buffering. Nothing you can do will stop it, as you get an extra buffer for each additional GPU you add to AFR. It's a requirement for AFR to function.

And the benefit of A-sync is for FPS below your refresh rate. 55 - 59 FPS will have some stutter (less so with 59 FPS). It's also nice for high FPS gaming, where it's pretty much impossible to maintain your refresh rate in many games.

 

[Rifter]

A couple notes here. If you use SLI, and the game supports it, you automatically get triple buffering. Nothing you can do will stop it, as you get an extra buffer for each additional GPU you add to AFR. It's a requirement for AFR to function.

And the benefit of A-sync is for FPS below your refresh rate. 55 - 59 FPS will have some stutter (less so with 59 FPS). It's also nice for high FPS gaming, where it's pretty much impossible to maintain your refresh rate in many games.

I generally lowered setting untill i could maintain 59 FPS solid in all situations in the game, towards the end this pretty much means lowest setting possible. Certain games i noticed thought acted strange with a frame cap of 59, and lowering it a little towards 55fps for some reason solved this for me.

 

[bystander36]

I generally lowered setting untill i could maintain 59 FPS solid in all situations in the game, towards the end this pretty much means lowest setting possible. Certain games i noticed thought acted strange with a frame cap of 59, and lowering it a little towards 55fps for some reason solved this for me.

This is the situation that G-sync/A-sync is great for. You don't have to maintain 59 FPS, or 55 FPS. You can get a good smooth experience from 40+ FPS.

 

[Ferzerp]

At the risk of sounding snobbish or dismissive, if you haven't seen it, you aren't going to understand.

 

[showb1z]

I used to be of the opinion vsync input lag wasn't a big deal.
Then I got an A-sync monitor and was blown away by how much more responsive games felt, while at the same eliminating tearing and allowing smooth variable framerates.
So yea, A-sync definitely lived up to the hype for me. Should be standard in all monitors.

 

[Bacon1]

I used to be of the opinion vsync input lag wasn't a big deal.
Then I got an A-sync monitor and was blown away by how much more responsive games felt, while at the same eliminating tearing and allowing smooth variable framerates.
So yea, A-sync definitely lived up to the hype for me. Should be standard in all monitors.

Luckily it pretty much is now. If Nvidia would just offer support it would be standard 100% of gaming monitors if not all.

 

[Thinker_145]

Luckily it pretty much is now. If Nvidia would just offer support it would be standard 100% of gaming monitors if not all.

High end monitors maybe but the majority of mid range remains without A-Sync.

I also extremely dislike the idea of getting tied to one GPU maker.

On a principle basis I would prefer to have Free-Sync but I have Nvidia card so lol. It's too bad AMD is doing so poorly in high end or I wouldn't have abandoned them.

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[Thinker_145]

At the risk of sounding snobbish or dismissive, if you haven't seen it, you aren't going to understand.

True this is a possibility.

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[Headfoot]

Look dude. If you're going to make a thread to try and dismiss the usefulness of Adaptive Sync, you are going to fail. It's useful. It's really nice technology, immediately apparent as soon as you sit in front of one with it. There are other work arounds to improve non-Async monitors as people have said here but it wont be as good as adaptive sync.

The bottom line is if you think triple buffering gets you the same benefit as adaptive sync, you're wrong

 

[guachi]

My first experience with adaptive sync was seeing a Gsync display in action. It was fantastic. I vowed my next monitor would have adaptive sync but, unfortunately, Gsync monitors have a very stiff premium.

So upon the release of the 480 I bought a 3840x2160 LG Freesync display. It's a really great display and there was little, if any, premium for the Freesync. Hacked the Freesync rate down to 33Hz. Since I don't play FPS games, I can play and have a smooth gaming experience as long as I can manage 33+ fps.

I saved $300 over a 3840x2160 Gsync display (basically like getting 480 for free) and can actually game at a higher resolution than would have otherwise been possible. Alternatively, I could have purchased a 1440 or 1080 screen and gamed at max everything all the time.

The weaker your card, the more useful adaptive sync actually is as you will have lower frame rates and need the adaptive sync more.

For all the talk about the 1060 being 5% (or whatever) faster than a 480, I think there is no comparison. I'll have a far better gaming experience with a 480 + Freesync than you will with a 1060 that's 5% faster and no Gsync (because let's be real. If you can only afford a 1060 you probably aren't buying a Gsync monitor).

If you own a 480 and a 1080 panel you'll never have to worry about being below the lowest sync rate on any game at highest settings. Set it and forget it.

Even gaming at 1440 with the 480 is possible at the highest settings. A few games I checked were well above the floor with their minimum frame rates. Many were just above the floor (which is usually around 40Hz on the 1440 monitors). The rest were hovering at around 30-35 fps minimum. A drop to the next level below max level and you are on your way to smooth gameplay in everything at 1440.

Tl;dr: I'll quote ferzerp above, "At the risk of sounding snobbish or dismissive, if you haven't seen it, you aren't going to understand."

 

[Headfoot]

It goes back to understanding what is "performance" for a video card. It isn't FPS in the truest sense. Frames Per Second is a stand-in to represent fluidity, responsiveness, etc. That's why Frame Times have come about, as they measure other important aspects of making a video game look and feel good. FreeSync and GSync immediately add fluidity. They increase apparent performance to your eye and the interaction feedback loop (input, processing, output) in ways that matter. Getting an adaptive sync tech is like getting "free" performance in many but not all situations

 

[bystander36]

It goes back to understanding what is "performance" for a video card. It isn't FPS in the truest sense. Frames Per Second is a stand-in to represent fluidity, responsiveness, etc. That's why Frame Times have come about, as they measure other important aspects of making a video game look and feel good. FreeSync and GSync immediately add fluidity. They increase apparent performance to your eye and the interaction feedback loop (input, processing, output) in ways that matter. Getting an adaptive sync tech is like getting "free" performance in many but not all situations

I've been using the words, "better experience", as "performance" seems to be ingrained into everyone's mind as FPS.

 

[ConsoleLover]

Because its garbage when trying to play anything other than a puzzle or turn based game. It introduces huge latency penalty, in a game like LOL, Dota2, Overwatch, Battelfield 3/4/1, Starcraft 2, etc... basically any real time game it makes it impossible to play normally. It literally ruins your games.

Sure a slow paced FPS in single player might not be degraded with triple buffering vsync, but any other game would be.

 

[Thinker_145]

Because its garbage when trying to play anything other than a puzzle or turn based game. It introduces huge latency penalty, in a game like LOL, Dota2, Overwatch, Battelfield 3/4/1, Starcraft 2, etc... basically any real time game it makes it impossible to play normally. It literally ruins your games.

Sure a slow paced FPS in single player might not be degraded with triple buffering vsync, but any other game would be.

Totally disagree but I guess different people have different susceptibility to this. I accept that not having an A-Sync display means I am not in a position to belittle it but I know for sure that triple buffering is not terrible or garbage by any means.

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[bystander36]

Totally disagree but I guess different people have different susceptibility to this. I accept that not having an A-Sync display means I am not in a position to belittle it but I know for sure that triple buffering is not terrible or garbage by any means.

Sent from my HTC One M9

Triple buffering is good when you are failing to reach your refresh rate, but once you do reach your refresh rate, it does increase the latency by at least 1 frame worth. If you use Nvidia, "Fast" sync removes that problem, though it can introduce some frame pacing issues, but that is probably more of an SLI thing.