Why doesn't Catalyst have a built in FPS limiter?

[futurefields]

Now that I have seen the wonders a FPS limiter can do, I wonder - why doesn't AMD simply put one in Catalyst so we can enable it there and not have to use a 3rd party application? (not that there's anything wrong with Afterburner or RadeonPro)

And do you think if enough people requested such a feature, AMD would be willing to build one in?

 

[UaVaj]

fps sells. even if it is runt fps.

putting a fps limiter would hinder sale.

imagine this sale pitch. our video card offer the fastest performance in its class. now imagine this disclaimer after the pitch. to get smooth game play. fps must be reduced/capped.

 

[Rikard]

fps sells. even if it is runt fps.

putting a fps limiter would hinder sale.

imagine this sale pitch. our video card offer the fastest performance in its class. now imagine this disclaimer after the pitch. to get smooth game play. fps must be reduced/capped.

I don't buy this explanation. There is already v-sync control you know...

 

[jaqie]

they do, it's called vsync.

 

[BFG10K]

Now that I have seen the wonders a FPS limiter can do, I wonder - why doesn't AMD simply put one in Catalyst so we can enable it there and not have to use a 3rd party application? (not that there's anything wrong with Afterburner or RadeonPro)

For what it's worth, nVidia's framerate limiter needs a third party to expose it too.

they do, it's called vsync.

That's not the same thing.

 

[Black Octagon]

Even in cases where Catalyst/NVIDIAcp include a feature, you sometimes still find that the 3rd party software does it better. I'm thinking in particular here on forced triple buffering, which works way better on RadeonPro compared to CCC

 

[jaqie]

That's not the same thing.

It's close enough in functionality to get the job done, isn't it?

 

[Black Octagon]

It's close enough in functionality to get the job done, isn't it?

No, because vsync comes with the side effect of increased lag

 

[jaqie]

Where, oh where did you hear that? It's not true.

I think you are misinterpreting the things that have been said about vsync being on or off - being off you can wind up with a more current frame than with it on, simply because the card keeps drawing frames even though your monitor can't display the new one in it's entirety until the next refresh, and with vsync off it just displays the one that was available when it's refresh hit, thereby causing some people to oversimplify describing vsync being on as introducing lag. Any framerate limiter will do the same sort of thing.

 

[(sic)Klown12]

Even in cases where Catalyst/NVIDIAcp include a feature, you sometimes still find that the 3rd party software does it better. I'm thinking in particular here on forced triple buffering, which works way better on RadeonPro compared to CCC

Forcing Triple Buffering from CCC only applies to OpenGL games. To force it in D3D, you have to use third party tools.

 

[Black Octagon]

Forcing Triple Buffering from CCC only applies to OpenGL games. To force it in D3D, you have to use third party tools.

I had indeed heard that (it's covered in the article I link in the next post). The fact that it is possible with 3rd party apps, however, makes me wonder why AMD don't just make it possible from CCC.

Edit: spelling

 

[Black Octagon]

Where, oh where did you hear that? It's not true.

I think you are misinterpreting the things that have been said about vsync being on or off - being off you can wind up with a more current frame than with it on, simply because the card keeps drawing frames even though your monitor can't display the new one in it's entirety until the next refresh, and with vsync off it just displays the one that was available when it's refresh hit, thereby causing some people to oversimplify describing vsync being on as introducing lag.

You may indeed be right and I am indeed only repeating what I commonly see on a multitude of forums.

But in terms of where else I've heard it, I was actually thinking of this 2009 article by Anandtech:

"Input lag also becomes more of an issue with vsync enabled. This is because the artificial delay introduced increases the difference between when something actually happened (when the frame was drawn) and when it gets displayed on screen. Input lag always exists (it is impossible to instantaneously draw what is currently happening to the screen), but the trick is to minimize it."

The article then goes on to say that this can be substantially addressed by using triple buffering, to give "similar decreased input lag of a vsync disabled setup" (emphasis added: they don't say that input lag is reduced to pre-vsync levels)

But I don't claim to be an expert on this particular issue, so if I oversimplified by regurgitating what I so often read then mea culpa.

Any framerate limiter will do the same sort of thing.

Can you explain how? Do framerate LIMITERS really operate the same way, i.e., by synchronising buffer swaps with vertifcal refresh of the display? Surely if that were really the case than it would be redundant to offer both framerate limiters and vsync in the same tools. There has to be a difference between the 2...

Edit: forgot to say 'LIMITERS'

 

[bystander36]

Where, oh where did you hear that? It's not true.

I think you are misinterpreting the things that have been said about vsync being on or off - being off you can wind up with a more current frame than with it on, simply because the card keeps drawing frames even though your monitor can't display the new one in it's entirety until the next refresh, and with vsync off it just displays the one that was available when it's refresh hit, thereby causing some people to oversimplify describing vsync being on as introducing lag. Any framerate limiter will do the same sort of thing.

Whether or not it adds latency or not may not be the biggest issue with v-sync, unless you maintain your refresh rate in FPS. If you are not maintaining your refresh rate in FPS, you get erratic latency. At 45 FPS, every other frame alternates between 16.7 ms of latency followed by 33.3 ms of latency, as every other frame skips a refresh. However, the frames are rendered as if they are to be displayed at 22.2 ms a part.

 

[railven]

Can you explain how? Do framerate really operate the same way, i.e., by synchronising buffer swaps with vertifcal refresh of the display? Surely if that were really the case than it would be redundant to offer both framerate limiters and vsync in the same tools. There has to be a difference between the 2...

There is definitely a difference since limiters don't solve Tearing, yet V-sync does. So there is a difference - some where.

Whether or not it adds latency or not may not be the biggest issue with v-sync, unless you maintain your refresh rate in FPS. If you are not maintaining your refresh rate in FPS, you get erratic latency. At 45 FPS, every other frame alternates between 16.7 ms of latency followed by 33.3 ms of latency, as every other frame skips a refresh. However, the frames are rendered as if they are to be displayed at 22.2 ms a part.

Doesn't this only apply if you don't have tripple buffering? Ironic, someone here said it adds latency, yet in the AT article quoted states it helps with latency. [EDIT: Actually, I see now that is someone's interpretation of the article.]


From my own experience, I'm not a professional gamer, and I don't feel any lag with v-sync+Triple buffering On, but turning it off the tearing drives me batguano insane.

 

[Black Octagon]

Doesn't this only apply if you don't have tripple buffering? Ironic, someone here said it adds latency, yet in the AT article quoted states it helps with latency.

The AT article says at the end (in the 'Update' section) that their article is about 'pure' triple buffering, which DX does not support. They say that certain games have an in-menu 'triple buffering' setting that is not in fact triple buffering but rather a render ahead / flip queue. The latter, although sometimes erroneously called triple buffering, does add lag.

 

[railven]

The AT article says at the end (in the 'Update' section) that their article is about 'pure' triple buffering, which DX does not support. They say that certain games have an in-menu 'triple buffering' setting that is not in fact triple buffering but rather a render ahead / flip queue. The latter, although sometimes erroneously called triple buffering, does add lag.

I remember that portion of the article (as I read it a long time ago) but had forgot the wording that was used.

Great, that's all we need more confusion among terminology which people use to light themselves on fire to prove a point on a forum to a sea of anonymous users. Haha.

 

[SPBHM]

AMD seems slow to react when it comes to little things like this (that can greatly affect the overall experience), it took them so long to simply have multiple profiles on catalyst.. it would be great to have FPS limiter and dynamic vsync

at the moment I use DXtory for the framerate limit,

 

[Rikard]

AMD seems slow to react when it comes to little things like this (that can greatly affect the overall experience), it took them so long to simply have multiple profiles on catalyst.. it would be great to have FPS limiter and dynamic vsync

at the moment I use DXtory for the framerate limit,

They should seriously think of employing John Matauri (or what his name is) that is main dev of RadeonPro.

 

[railven]

They should seriously think of employing John Matauri (or what his name is) that is main dev of RadeonPro.

Reading his postings when I was learning to use the tools, it seems he gets help from AMD and is possibly Officially Sponsored.

For all I know, he is paid by AMD but just not part of the CCC team, for whatever reason - I could only imagine.

 

[jaqie]

Ill put it simply. vsync is simply a framerate limiter which is timed to coincide with your monitor's refresh, so that it most definitely has a whole, complete, singular frame to draw. framerate limiters just decouple that and let you choose some other rate, which can make it so that what is displayed is part of the previous and part of the most currently drawn frame. If your framerate drops below vsync in either situation you will most definitely get the lag associated with it. This is why I personally recommend you only enable vsync if your card can regularly do over 60fps average (for 60hz monitor rate) and if it cannot just leave it off. The system nor video card has no idea how long it will take to render the next frame so it always finishes the task as soon as it can instead of waiting so the lower the fps limit (and for vsync the associated frame refresh rate being higher) the less lag you get.

 

[futurefields]

v sync is one form of frame limiter but requires you to maintain 60 frames per second or whatever the refresh rate of your monitor is. A frame limiter is a way of living the framework rate to relieve stuttering and you don't have to maintain the refresh rate of the monitor so for example for me I like to run far cry 3 with ultra settings and anti aliasing jacked way up and I'm perfectly fine doing that as long as I can limit the frames to a smooth and steady 40 frames per second. or else it stutters between 40 and 50 70 4050 7060 50 it cetera and this causes frame stuttering.

sorry for typos I'm using speech to text because I'm lazy and eating.

 

[SPBHM]

vsync is not always the answer, in some games it adds some awful input lag (in many cases solvable with some tweaks, like using fps max 59 or 61), but the worst part is when for some reason your PC can't keep the same performance (16.6MS all the time for every frame) things can get ugly, without vsync with a framerate target this is not really a problem, also, in some games you may want over 30FPS all the time, but your PC is not fast enough for 60, so you can set a limit of 40-50 or something and get a really smooth experience with low input latency,


one game I remember playing, Skyrim, my PC was not good enough at a certain point, without a framerate lock it was a disaster, so much stutter, using a lock at 50FPS made the game completely smooth, also in some games I play there are some areas where without vsync my PC would go over 500FPS, which makes no sense, and in other areas I'm easily into the 40s, so using vsync is not really a great solution, and using a frame rate limit solves the problem.

 

[futurefields]

Agreed. Now that i discovered it, i will use them on every game. Makes everything smoother.

 

[UaVaj]

you guys just dispell the need for the 120hz. just enable vsync.

 

[CPUGuy]

A framerate limiter would be a nice addition to CCC and I've seen it talked about before some time ago. Although a frame rate limiter won't completely eliminate tearing it should smooth out frame rates when there are large fluctuations in FPS. The point of it would be to establish a base line for min. frames not necessarily average frames.

you guys just dispell the need for the 120hz. just enable vsync.

There was never a real need for 120Hz for gaming. Unless you like playing 2D desktop activities...