Why use VSync?

[VIAN]

With Vsync enabled, the graphics card waits for the monitor to refresh before starting a new frame. The key word there is 'wait'. If the graphics card waits, it's not doing anything, meaning you get less average frames per second. With Vysnc disabled, the graphics card draws as fast as possible. So, really, you are using your card optimally.

If this is all it did, many more people would choose Vsync off because it would give you performance benefits, but there are visual sideeffects that affect the choice, on or off, other than framerate differences.

With Vsync enabled, you may or may not experience slower mouse response time - if you do, it may be negligible anyway, so not too much of a problem. You also may notice jumps in frame rates. Say your refresh rate is 85Hz; you may notice jumps from 85fps down to 42fps. I see this jump and it looks like slowdown and distracts me and can get me killed. With Vsync disabled, you may notice tearing, which is part of the screen shows part of one frame and the other shows part of another frame. I don't notice this enough to bother me because I'm used to it.

Overall I like vsync off because my fps is more stable allowing a smoother gaming experience and tearing is minimal*, however Vsync on is more pleasing to my eyes. I do recommend Vsync on if you have a CRT that is able to display 120Hz at your chosen resolution. This, in my opinion, is the best option for vsync.

*Tearing is minimal once you are used to it, but going from Vsync on to Vsync off will allow you to see a lot of tearing that might frighten you away from Vsync off.

 

[zakee00]

Originally posted by: VIAN
With Vsync enabled, the graphics card waits for the monitor to refresh before starting a new frame. The key word there is 'wait'. If it waits, it's not doing anything meaning you get less average frames per second. With Vysnc disabled, the graphics card draws as fast as possible. So, really, you are using your card optimally.

If this is all it did, many more people would choose Vsync off because it would give you performance benefits, but there are visual sideeffects to it other than framerates.

With Vsync enabled, you may or may not experience slower mouse response time - if you do, it may be negligible anyway, so not too much of a problem. You also may notice jumps in frame rates. Say your refresh rate is 85Hz; you may notice jumps from 85fps down to 42fps. I see this jump and it looks like slowdown and distracts me and can get me killed. With Vsync disabled, you may notice tearing, which is part of the screen shows part of one frame and the other shows part of another frame. I don't notice this enough to bother me.

Overall I like vsync off because my fps is more stable allowing a smoother gaming experience and tearing is minimal, however vsync on is more pleasing to my eyes. I do recommend Vsync on if you have a CRT that is able to display 120Hz at your chosen resolution. This, in my opinion, is the best option for vsync.

^

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU
I have never used it nor have ever noticed tearing

Thats me man, never seen any tearing and I have never used vsync

-spike

 

[THUGSROOK]

tearing will depend on res and monitor quality.

try 1600x1200 on a poor Q monitor @ 60hz... youll see tearing

 

[TomKazansky]

bottom line - get a better crt monitor =)

 

[THUGSROOK]

better yet, an awesome LCD

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
To the framerate people; Your human. You can't differentiate above 40fps

Yes you can. Read an article on it sometime. The eye can see as high as any monitor can support. Some genres you'll notice it more though. FPS is probably the most demanding of framerate, while say an RTS may be the least. I can play an RPG at 20fps, but I cannot play an FPS at 20 fps.

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
tearing will depend on res and monitor quality.

try 1600x1200 on a poor Q monitor @ 60hz... youll see tearing

That might be true, but I always play games at 1280x1024 or 1600x1200 at nothing less than 85hz on my 21" crt. Never seen any tearing that I can recall...

-spike

 

[BFG10K]

I little tearing is a small price to pay to avoid vsync's numerous pitfalls.

Otherwise, there is no effective difference in FPS

The difference is quite large at times.

Because Nvidia is retarded and the 6800's don't support Tripple Buffering

Nonsense; there's just no option to force it in the drivers. RivaTuner may have an option though.

To the framerate people; Your human. You can't differentiate above 40fps,

False.

it doesn't add any latency over vsync.

It most certainly does; up to 50% in fact.

Overall I like vsync off because my fps is more stable

If anything vsync makes things more erratic because of the impact on mouse lag and minimum framerate it has.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: VIAN

Overall I like vsync off because my fps is more stable allowing a smoother gaming experience and tearing is minimal, however vsync on is more pleasing to my eyes. I do recommend Vsync on if you have a CRT that is able to display 120Hz at your chosen resolution. This, in my opinion, is the best option for vsync.

My monitor supports 120, but ingame settings for example WoW only lets you go up to 85hz.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

it doesn't add any latency over vsync.

It most certainly does; up to 50% in fact.

You always say that, but you have yet to give any explantation of why you hold this misconception.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
To the framerate people; Your human. You can't differentiate above 40fps, just like you can't hear above 21khz. Refresh rates do matter because of 60hz AC noise.

Dont start another you cant see above this fps argument. It is a proven FACT that people are different. And if you put 2 moniters of exactly the same hz next to each other and have one be at 45fps and one at 60, i will tell you which is which. Also, I and others can tell the diff in fps between 60 and 85. I can not stand to play quake3 at 60fps.

 

[clickynext]

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
I for one don't use vysync. Yes the graphics seem better but I noticed it's harder to turn and shoot (CS)

Yeah, I don't know if it's actual or just in my head, but it seems like in CS there's a very noticable difference between 60 and 100 fps.

 

[BobDaMenkey]

I've never bothered with VSync. I have an older Samsung CRT, which is only able to do 60hz at 1280x1024. I never have noticed any tearing, on any computer/card combo it's been hooked up to. As long as the mouse moves fluidly, I'm happy.

 

[VIAN]

My monitor supports 120, but ingame settings for example WoW only lets you go up to 85hz.

Try forcing it within your video card drivers. Both ATI and Nvidia have options to do so.

You always say that, but you have yet to give any explantation of why you hold this misconception.

Well, there is latency if your video card can't draw, at 85Hz, 85 frames per second. Even if your video card can do 80, it will only do 42 because of vsync, that's a lot of lost response right there.

Dont start another you cant see above this fps argument. It is a proven FACT that people are different. And if you put 2 moniters of exactly the same hz next to each other and have one be at 45fps and one at 60, i will tell you which is which. Also, I and others can tell the diff in fps between 60 and 85. I can not stand to play quake3 at 60fps.

I can even see a difference between 120Hz and 85Hz.

 

[JonnyBlaze]

best way to see tearing, run upto a wall in a dark room in whatever game, use a gun thats got alot of flash and shoot at the wall. do this at 60hz and the tearing if easier to see. anyone saying they neversay it, just doesnt know what it is.

JB

 

[uOpt]

Originally posted by: xtknight
The question is why NOT use it? The only time VSync should be off is if you are benchmarking. Otherwise, there is no effective difference in FPS and it prevents tearing.

This is not true if your card is not capable of coming up with enough frame for the refresh frequency.

The sync option will make your computer wait until the vertical sync until it is allowed to "deliver a frame". If you fall behind one sync you wait (idle) until the next.

 

[clickynext]

Originally posted by: JonnyBlaze
best way to see tearing, run upto a wall in a dark room in whatever game, use a gun thats got alot of flash and shoot at the wall. do this at 60hz and the tearing if easier to see. anyone saying they neversay it, just doesnt know what it is.

JB

The way I see it, it's a little like anti-aliasing. People who don't know what it is, and havn't seen a game with it, don't complain about it. But after using it, seeing exactly what the problem was before, the image quality just looks that much worse without it.

 

[JonnyBlaze]

i think tearings worse than jaggies personally. i never find myself using AA, id rather have the extra frames & higher res and i only got a 9800.

JB

 

[VIAN]

best way to see tearing, run upto a wall in a dark room in whatever game, use a gun thats got alot of flash and shoot at the wall. do this at 60hz and the tearing if easier to see. anyone saying they neversay it, just doesnt know what it is.

I know a better way. Just strafe.

I've heard many times and sometimes experienced that, 120Hz w/vsync on, when you don't draw the 120, you will get 60fps, because if the video card can't run at full 120Hz you will see multiples of it: 120fps, 60fps, 40fps, 30fps. But I just went back to 120Hz w/vsync on just to check and my framerate was at a solid 91fps with fraps, and it was very variable, not jumping like it's done before. Game was COD. I think it depends on each game, not sure.

 

[eBauer]

COD (and other QIII engine games) cap the frame-rate at 91 by default. So even if you have 120Hz, you won't get over 91FPS.

Trick is to enter the /seta com_maxfps xx command

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: VIAN
[

You always say that, but you have yet to give any explantation of why you hold this misconception.

Well, there is latency if your video card can't draw, at 85Hz, 85 frames per second. Even if your video card can do 80, it will only do 42 because of vsync, that's a lot of lost response right there.

Well it's under 12ms max of latency in that example, varable depending on how long the chip has to wait for sync. However, that is besides the point as I was speaking of triple buffering when I said, and BFG responded:

Originally posted by: BFG10K

it doesn't add any latency over vsync.

It most certainly does; up to 50% in fact.

While at worst triple buffering gives you the same latency as double buffering with vsync (when the chip can only output say 42.5fps on an 85hz display) and less latency in more optimal cases (where it allows the chip to continue rendering instead of waiting for the back buffer to clear); no where does it slow the rendering process and hence it is a mystery as to where BFG gets his claim of latency "up to 50% in fact."

 

[VIAN]

my bad, commented on a wrong issue.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
To the framerate people; Your human. You can't differentiate above 40fps, just like you can't hear above 21khz. Refresh rates do matter because of 60hz AC noise.

LOL.

 

[VIAN]

Today I played most of the day with vsync on and when I tried playing with it off I notice a lot of tearing. I guess you get used to either mode because I didn't have a problem playing without vsync before.