Next

G-SYNC 101: Control Panel

Published Jun 20, 2017 by in: G-SYNC

G-SYNC Module

The G-SYNC module is a small chip that replaces the display’s standard internal scaler, and contains enough onboard memory to hold and process a single frame at a time.

The module exploits the vertical blanking interval (the span between the previous and next frame scan) to manipulate the display’s internal timings; performing G2G (gray to gray) overdrive calculations to prevent ghosting, and synchronizing the display’s refresh rate to the GPU’s render rate to eliminate tearing, along with the delayed frame delivery and adjoining stutter caused by traditional syncing methods.

G-SYNC Demo

The below Blur Busters Test UFO motion test pattern uses motion interpolation techniques to simulate the seamless framerate transitions G-SYNC provides within the refresh rate, when directly compared to standalone V-SYNC.

G-SYNC Activation

“Enable for full screen mode” (exclusive fullscreen functionality only) will automatically engage when a supported display is connected to the GPU. If G-SYNC behavior is suspect or non-functioning, untick the “Enable G-SYNC, G-SYNC Compatible” box, apply, re-tick, and apply.

Blur Buster's G-SYNC 101: Control Panel

G-SYNC Windowed Mode

“Enable for windowed and full screen mode” allows G-SYNC support for windowed and borderless windowed mode. This option was introduced in a 2015 driver update, and by manipulating the DWM (Desktop Windows Manager) framebuffer, enables G-SYNC’s VRR (variable refresh rate) to synchronize to the focused window’s render rate; unfocused windows remain at the desktop’s fixed refresh rate until focused on.

G-SYNC only functions on one window at a time, and thus any unfocused window that contains moving content will appear to stutter or slow down, a reason why a variety of non-gaming applications (popular web browsers among them) include predefined Nvidia profiles that disable G-SYNC support.

Note: this setting may require a game or system restart after application; the “G-SYNC Indicator” (Nvidia Control Panel > Display > G-SYNC Indicator) can be enabled to verify it is working as intended.

G-SYNC Preferred Refresh Rate

“Highest available” automatically engages when G-SYNC is enabled, and overrides the in-game refresh rate selector (if present), defaulting to the highest supported refresh rate of the display. This is useful for games that don’t include a selector, and ensures the display’s native refresh rate is utilized.

“Application-controlled” adheres to the desktop’s current refresh rate, or defers control to games that contain a refresh rate selector.

Note: this setting only applies to games being run in exclusive fullscreen mode. For games being run in borderless or windowed mode, the desktop dictates the refresh rate.

G-SYNC & V-SYNC

G-SYNC (GPU Synchronization) works on the same principle as double buffer V-SYNC; buffer A begins to render frame A, and upon completion, scans it to the display. Meanwhile, as buffer A finishes scanning its first frame, buffer B begins to render frame B, and upon completion, scans it to the display, repeat.

The primary difference between G-SYNC and V-SYNC is the method in which rendered frames are synchronized. With V-SYNC, the GPU’s render rate is synchronized to the fixed refresh rate of the display. With G-SYNC, the display’s VRR (variable refresh rate) is synchronized to the GPU’s render rate.

Upon its release, G-SYNC’s ability to fall back on fixed refresh rate V-SYNC behavior when exceeding the maximum refresh rate of the display was built-in and non-optional. A 2015 driver update later exposed the option.

This update led to recurring confusion, creating a misconception that G-SYNC and V-SYNC are entirely separate options. However, with G-SYNC enabled, the “Vertical sync” option in the control panel no longer acts as V-SYNC, and actually dictates whether, one, the G-SYNC module compensates for frametime variances output by the system (which prevents tearing at all times. G-SYNC + V-SYNC “Off” disables this behavior; see G-SYNC 101: Range), and two, whether G-SYNC falls back on fixed refresh rate V-SYNC behavior; if V-SYNC is “On,” G-SYNC will revert to V-SYNC behavior above its range, if V-SYNC is “Off,” G-SYNC will disable above its range, and tearing will begin display wide.

Within its range, G-SYNC is the only syncing method active, no matter the V-SYNC “On” or “Off” setting.

Currently, when G-SYNC is enabled, the control panel’s “Vertical sync” entry is automatically engaged to “Use the 3D application setting,” which defers V-SYNC fallback behavior and frametime compensation control to the in-game V-SYNC option. This can be manually overridden by changing the “Vertical sync” entry in the control panel to “Off,” “On,” or “Fast.”

Next

3057 Comments For “G-SYNC 101”

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most liked
DemaRCO45
Member
DemaRCO45

Thank you for this wonderful guide! I’m saving up to buy my own GSYnc monitor, and can’t wait to get it, so this article will really come in handy when that time comes 🙂

I do have a question.

Is it better to cap frame rate with RTSS or NVCP v3 Limiter?

This question popped into my head after watching Battle(non)sense’s video about this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W66pTe8YM2s

It’s been 3 years since he posted that video, and now I’m wondering if anything has changed since then.

With all the updates the RTSS received, and NVIDIA drivers released, have these frame rate limiters improved in a way so that the input lag is now closer to that of the in-game’s FPS limiters?

Also, what about frame times? Which of these two provides more consistent and stable frame times?

I don’t have proper tools to monitor input delay, and as frame times are concerned, I can only use MSI Afterburner’s OSD, so I was hoping you can help me with this, as it seems you’ve done plenty of testing with these tools,

So, out of these two, which one provides the least amount of input lag, and consistent, stable frame times?

Like0Vote Down 
1 year 13 days ago
jorimt
Author
jorimt

Long story short, it can be game/API-dependent, but last time I tested the two limiters in Overwatch, both had the same 1/2 frame latency increase over the in-game limiter:
https://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9151&p=72211#p72182

As for frametime performance between the two, that can also be game/API-dependent.

You should be able to try both in each game and tell which has better frametime performance simply by eye. Do note however, an MFR limit may appear more unsteady in the Afterburner frametime graph than it does with an RTSS limit due to the differences in how RTSS reports its own limiter.

For what it’s worth, I’ve been using Nvidia MFR in many of my (SP) games lately without issue and haven’t noticed an appreciable difference between it and RTSS where latency or frametime performance is concerned, but YMMV.

In most cases, you can’t go wrong with either where G-SYNC is specifically concerned.

Like1Vote Down 
1 year 13 days ago
DemaRCO45
Member
DemaRCO45

Thank you for the reply!

I also play Overwatch, so thank you for sharing that thread 🙂

I do have a couple of questions left, which I hope you’ll be able to answer.

Aside from Overwatch, I also play some other competitive games as well, like CS GO, Starcraft 2, fighting games, DotA 2, etc.

Most of them aren’t GPU bound, in fact, only a few of them are.

For example: Starcraft 2 LotV, and many fighting games are locked to 60 FPS by default, and my GPU usage hovers around 22-50% (depending on the game), while CPU usage percent varies across different games and different cores, as some of these games utilize either only one core, two cores, or all 4 of them.

One thing that I noticed on these 60 FPS-locked games while testing both RTSS and NVCP MFR was that:

  • Without limiters, the frametimes fluctuated around 16.6ms range by 0.1-0.9ms (meaning every second, or split second it went from, 16.6 to 16.5, 16.7, 16.2, 16.9, 17.2…)
  • When either of the two limiters were enabled, and set to 60 FPS (even tho the games are already capped at that value) the frametimes immediately stabilized at 16.6ms and didn’t move at all from there. Like, the OSD frametime graph was a beautiful flat line, and never had any spikes in it
  • When either of these two limiters were enabled, the CPU usage remained the same, however, the GPU usage went up when using only NVCP’s MFR.

When I was using RTSS, the GPU usage remained the same as without limiters enabled, however, immediately after enabling NVCP MFR, the GPU usage went up in most games.

The ones that had low GPU usage (22-30%) remained the same when using MFR, however, the ones that had (35+%) went up by 25-45%, resulting in a GPU usage within the range of 60-80% (again, game dependant)

So, with this information in mind, is there something wrong with MFR, or is it normal for it to behave like that (as it’s a driver-level limiter)?

Again, most of the tests were monitored via MSI Afterburner’s OSD.

You should be able to try both in each game and tell which has better frametime performance simply by eye

I did indeed try both, and have found no difference by eye, to be honest. It might be because I’m already running games on a 144 Hz monitor, so all of them look smooth by default, even at 60 FPS.

Do note however, an MFR limit may appear more unsteady in the Afterburner frametime graph than it does with an RTSS limit due to the differences in how RTSS reports its own limiter

To be honest, I haven’t noticed any differences in the frame graph when using either RTSS or MFR with Afterburner’s OSD. But, just in case there were some things I’ve missed, which software would you recommend me to use to monitor frametimes?

For what it’s worth, I’ve been using Nvidia MFR in many of my (SP) games lately without issue and haven’t noticed an appreciable difference between it and RTSS where latency or frametime performance is concerned

That’s good to hear. Have you by any chance experienced the same thing with increased GPU load when running low GPU-bound games with MFR enabled?

In most cases, you can’t go wrong with either where G-SYNC is specifically concerned

Good to know, I’ll keep that in mind when I manage to save up for a GSync monitor, but for now, I have to deal with differences between these two, and decide which one to use.

Thanks again for the reply, and thank you for sharing this information with the world 🙂

Like0Vote Down 
1 year 12 days ago
jorimt
Author
jorimt

Without limiters, the frametimes fluctuated around 16.6ms range by 0.1-0.9ms (meaning every second, or split second it went from, 16.6 to 16.5, 16.7, 16.2, 16.9, 17.2…)

As I’ve stated here and elsewhere, in-game limiters typically set an average framerate target and let frametimes run free, which can actually reduce latency further in some scenarios. I.E. less even frametime performance in this respect can actually benefit latency, and is one of the reasons in-game limiters have less of it than external limiters.

When either of the two limiters were enabled, and set to 60 FPS (even tho the games are already capped at that value) the frametimes immediately stabilized at 16.6ms and didn’t move at all from there. Like, the OSD frametime graph was a beautiful flat line, and never had any spikes in it

External limiters that limit the framerate with a frametime target are typically steadier than in-game limiters, but the RTSS frametime graph doesn’t always reflect all frametime variances, especially if they’re minor enough.

You can use CapFrameX to measure RTSS or NVCP MFR frametime performance to get a more accurate read.

When either of these two limiters were enabled, the CPU usage remained the same, however, the GPU usage went up when using only NVCP’s MFR.

So, with this information in mind, is there something wrong with MFR, or is it normal for it to behave like that (as it’s a driver-level limiter)?

RTSS is a CPU-side limiter. MFR should be as well, but it, unlike RTSS, may have driver-overhead of some sort, resulting in slightly higher GPU usage. Nvidia is a bit of a black box about their tech, so who knows.

To be honest, I haven’t noticed any differences in the frame graph when using either RTSS or MFR with Afterburner’s OSD. But, just in case there were some things I’ve missed, which software would you recommend me to use to monitor frametimes?

https://www.capframex.com/

That’s good to hear. Have you by any chance experienced the same thing with increased GPU load when running low GPU-bound games with MFR enabled?

Haven’t bothered to check, honestly. It may also vary by GPU capability (I have a 4090).

Like1Vote Down 
1 year 11 days ago
DemaRCO45
Member
DemaRCO45

That’s interesting. Does frame rate capping even help with reducing input latency then?

I’ve always heard that having stable frame times improves the responsiveness of the game. Did I hear this wrong, or is it game-dependent?

Just re-read my comment, and wanted to clarify my question a bit.

What I meant was; Does frame rate capping then even help with reducing input latency in FPS-locked games?

I know that it does in other games, because I remember watching this Battle(non)sense’s video about it back in 2019:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CKnJ5ujL_Q

Like0Vote Down 
1 year 8 days ago
jorimt
Author
jorimt

What I meant was; Does frame rate capping then even help with reducing input latency in FPS-locked games?

No.

If you’re playing a fighting game that is internally locked to 60 FPS, for instance, then stacking an external limiter on top of it at the same limit will typically only add latency.

I don’t generally recommend stacking limiters unless the in-game limiter has horrible frametime performance and needs to be stabilized, at which point it’s better to cap the external limit a few below the internal limit (say, at 57 if its a 60 internal limit) so it’s the only one active.

All I want to do is run a couple of benchmarks with, and without RTSS/MFR, and compare the differences in frame times, GPU usage, CPU usage, RAM, etc. to determine which of the two is better.

How would I achieve this with CapFrameX exactly, that is, what steps do I need to take to do this?

What I was merely suggesting to you was that the Afterburner frametime graph isn’t the best way to compare frametime performance between limiters, and that CapFrameX will give a better idea.

To do so, simply run a CapFrameX benchmark for a few minutes with one limiter, and then a few minutes with another limiter in a like-for-like scene, and then compare the frametime graphs between the two; whichever has the less spikes and a more consistent average is probably “better” where frametime performance is directly concerned in the given game.

What you want to test beyond that is up to you.

As for you labeling the two test games as “No Limiter” scenarios without RTSS, that’s inaccurate, as they are both already using internal 60 FPS limits, at which point you don’t need to use an external limiter, which will only increase latency and potentially muddy frametime performance on top of the existing in-game limiter.

Like1Vote Down 
1 year 7 days ago
DemaRCO45
Member
DemaRCO45

If you’re playing a fighting game that is internally locked to 60 FPS, for instance, then stacking an external limiter on top of it at the same limit will typically only add latency.

I don’t generally recommend stacking limiters unless the in-game limiter has horrible frametime performance and needs to be stabilized, at which point it’s better to cap the external limit a few below the internal limit (say, at 57 if its a 60 internal limit) so it’s the only one active.

Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification, as that’s all I wanted to know.

I may as well not waste time with CapFrameX benchmarking then, but it’s good to know that as frametimes are concerned, I will use CapFrameX from now on, instead of Afterburner’s OSD, so thank you for the program suggestion.

Also, I found the reason why there was an increase in GPU utilization before when testing with NVCP’s Limiter.

It seems it has to do with NVIDIA’s implementation of power saving.

When set to the default “Optimal power“, and if you enable NVCP’s Limiter, the GPU usage is much more aggressive towards higher percentages but with lower clocks and much lower power consumption.

Whereas, if you do change the “Power management mode” to “Prefer maximum performance“, the clock speeds do increase along with higher power consumption.

Saving Power: Enable Max Frame Rate, and set your power management mode to “Optimal Power”. While in this mode, GPU frequency is reduced and uses less power.

Source: https://www.nvidia.com/en-gb/geforce/news/nvidia-geforce-ces-2020-game-ready-driver/

Like0Vote Down 
1 year 7 days ago
jorimt
Author
jorimt

Also, I found the reason why there was an increase in GPU utilization before when testing with NVCP’s Limiter.

It seems it has to do with NVIDIA’s implementation of power saving.

Yes, if the game isn’t demanding enough and the GPU isn’t set to “Prefer maximum performance,” it will downclock, and the lower the GPU clock, the higher the usage appears at the same framerate vs. no downclock.

I.E. A downclocked scenario may result in ~60% usage at 60 FPS, whereas a non-downclocked scenario may result in ~25% usage at 60 FPS in the same scene depending on the clock disparity between the two scenarios and the demands of the given game.

I manually set “Prefer maximum performance” per profile in less demanding games for that very reason.

Like1Vote Down 
1 year 7 days ago
DemaRCO45
Member
DemaRCO45

Yeah, I think it might be a good idea to use “Prefer maximum performance” per profile rather than global. I think I may do the same for less demanding games as well.

One last thing that I forgot to ask you previously was; In your opinion, how useful is NVIDIA’s Low Latency feature? Have you done any tests with it on “On”, and “Ultra”?

From what I’ve seen from Battle(non)sense’s videos, LLM seems to be useful in reducing latency, but only in GPU-bound games (the ones that utilize 97-99% GPU), whereas the moment the GPU usage drops below 97%, they can have an opposite effect, where they introduce input lag, instead of decreasing it.

Is this still true, and is there any benefit to setting LLM to On, or Ultra, in games that aren’t GPU bound?

Like0Vote Down 
1 year 7 days ago
jorimt
Author
jorimt

is there any benefit to setting LLM to On, or Ultra, in games that aren’t GPU bound?

No, and both don’t work in newer APIs like DX12 or Vulkan (even when enabled), and Reflex is considered their replacement, where available.

Like0Vote Down 
1 year 6 days ago
DemaRCO45
Member
DemaRCO45

As I’ve stated here and elsewhere, in-game limiters typically set an average framerate target and let frametimes run free, which can actually reduce latency further in some scenarios.
I.E. less even frametime performance in this respect can actually benefit latency, and is one of the reasons in-game limiters have less of it than external limiters

That’s interesting. Does frame rate capping even help with reducing input latency then?

I’ve always heard that having stable frame times improves the responsiveness of the game. Did I hear this wrong, or is it game-dependent?

External limiters that limit the framerate with a frametime target are typically steadier than in-game limiters, but the RTSS frametime graph doesn’t always reflect all frametime variances, especially if they’re minor enough

You were right 😀

RTSS does seem to ignore frametime variances when they’re really small.

I’ve downloaded CapFrameX, and when I look at the ANALYSIS tab of the benchmark I recorded, there does seem to be a lot of variance in frame times, so thank you for that.

Although, I could use a little help with this tool, as it seems a bit too complex for me right now.

Currently, I have installed CapFrameX, and have configured its OVERLAY, and SENSOR items.

In the game, the overlay looks like this:
comment image

Full settings are uploaded here: https://imgur.com/a/PfcRoBI

After running a short benchmark of a couple of seconds on Tekken 7, and Mortal Kombat X, in the ANALYSIS tab I see all sorts of things, and don’t know what data in particular I should be looking at.

Here are the results of both tests, with, and without RTSS:

• Tekken 7 – No Limiter: https://imgur.com/a/5cdsPep
• Tekken 7 – RTSS: https://imgur.com/a/4jtMPYg
• Mortal Kombat X – No Limiter: https://imgur.com/a/0AyFoaJ
• Mortal Kombat X – RTSS: https://imgur.com/a/tIkWgvz

So, after doing a benchmark, what exactly should I be looking at in order to determine which of the two frame rate limiters (RTSS, and NVCP MFR) provide better frametimes, and less input latency (if the latter is even possible)?

The Frametime graph is kind of difficult to read. As you can see, there are spikes all over the place, and I don’t exactly know how to measure an average frametime of a benchmark with this program.

I can only see options for average frame rate, percentiles, etc. but nothing similar for frametimes 🙁

Can you offer any advice on this?

All I want to do is run a couple of benchmarks with, and without RTSS/MFR, and compare the differences in frame times, GPU usage, CPU usage, RAM, etc. to determine which of the two is better.

How would I achieve this with CapFrameX exactly, that is, what steps do I need to take to do this?

Sorry if it seems like I’m asking too much, it’s just that I’ve never done benchmarking like this before, and could use a little help from someone who’s experienced with these sorts of things 🙂

Cheers, and thanks again for all the replies!

Like0Vote Down 
1 year 10 days ago
snosh23
Member
snosh23

ive tried the gsync+Vsync -3 fps limter and i notice tearing at the very bottom of my monitor and i can get it to go away the only solution that seemed to somewhat work was lowering my fps to 180 i have a 240 monitor so i hate to keep having to lowerit but if thats the only way then so be it i guess but if somebody could help i would greatly appreciate it. specs rtx 3090 ryzen 9 5900x 3600mhz ram

Like0Vote Down 
1 year 14 days ago
jorimt
Author
jorimt

If you’re still seeing tearing at the bottom of the screen with G-SYNC + NVCP V-SYNC + a framerate within the refresh rate, then 1) G-SYNC isn’t actually engaged and/or 2) the V-SYNC option isn’t working in the given game.

What game is this occurring in, what G-SYNC mode do you have selected in the NVCP, and what window mode are you using in the game (fullscreen, borderless, windowed)?

Like0Vote Down 
1 year 13 days ago
snosh23
Member
snosh23

destiny 2 and apex im running fullscreen in NVCP and fullscreen in game.

Like0Vote Down 
1 year 13 days ago
jorimt
Author
jorimt

Have you ensured the G-SYNC indicator is visible when it’s enabled (NVCP > Set up G-SYNC [screen selected] > Display [top left of window] > G-SYNC, G-SYNC Compatible Indicator) in both those games?

If so, and you’re using G-SYNC + V-SYNC, tearing isn’t possible, in which case G-SYNC and/or V-SYNC isn’t working for you for some other reason not directly related to G-SYNC configuration, or you’re mistaking tearing artifacts for something else.

If you want to troubleshoot further, please create a topic in our forums:
https://forums.blurbusters.com/index.php

Like1Vote Down 
1 year 13 days ago
leet.Smithy
Member
leet.Smithy

Thank you for a thorough and insightful article!

I’ve never experienced screen tearing while using RTX 3080. But I recently replaced the graphics card with RTX 4080 and noticed that even with G-Sync “On” and an active frame cap at 140 FPS (with a 144Hz-monitor), there was some tearing in most of the games 😔

At the same time in the Nvidia Pendulum test G-Sync works properly. But in a game tearing disappears only if I set 120 fps cap. What can be done with this, could you tell me? Thanks!

Like3Vote Down 
1 year 20 days ago
jorimt
Author
jorimt

Do you have NVCP “Vertical sync” set to “On?” If not, G-SYNC will still allow tearing, even with framerates within the refresh rate.

See entry #2 of my Closing FAQ for details:
https://blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-and-settings/15/

Like3Vote Down 
1 year 20 days ago
leet.Smithy
Member
leet.Smithy

Thank you for advice, it actually worked! However, I don’t understand why G-Sync used to work fine without tearing with V-Sync was turned off? Now it can’t. Is it a video card problem or something with the monitor cable?

Like0Vote Down 
1 year 20 days ago
jorimt
Author
jorimt

Is it a video card problem or something with the monitor cable?

Neither.

Whether G-SYNC on + V-SYNC off exhibits noticeable tearing within the refresh rate is entirely dependent of the frametime performance of system + game and achievable average framerate.

Partial tearing with G-SYNC on + V-SYNC off is most noticeable when the framerate is just below the current physical refresh rate, so it’s likely your 3080 wasn’t able to reach and sustain 140 FPS at 144Hz as consistently in the same games as your 4080.

Like3Vote Down 
1 year 20 days ago
leet.Smithy
Member
leet.Smithy

Hmm, that sounds pretty logical. Thank you very much for explaining how it works to a neophyte!

Only one question remains: what can it be related to that G-Sync starts to show graphics without any tearing when I manually set 120 frames limitation? On the 3080, the performance could reach 130-135, but still no screen tearing showed up 🙄

Like0Vote Down 
1 year 20 days ago
jorimt
Author
jorimt

Only one question remains: what can it be related to that G-Sync starts to show graphics without any tearing when I manually set 120 frames limitation? On the 3080, the performance could reach 130-135, but still no screen tearing showed up

As I mentioned in my previous reply to you (and in the Closing FAQ entry I already linked), the closer the framerate is to the refresh rate with G-SYNC on + V-SYNC off, the more apparent partial tearing artifacts are due to frametime variances (with or without an FPS limit) that allow frames with faster render times than the current physical refresh rate to “overshoot” it.

G-SYNC on + V-SYNC on prevents this by timing delivery of said frames to be within the scanout time of the current physical refresh rate, hence fully preventing tearing artifacts when paired with an appropriate FPS limit.

The lower the framerate is below the refresh rate, the less apparent the partial tearing artifacts in this scenario are, which is what you were seeing with the 3080 at 120-135 FPS; if you manually set your framerate to that range with your 4080, you’ll see a similar reduction in tearing artifacts with G-SYNC on + V-SYNC off.

Like3Vote Down 
1 year 20 days ago
alonzo_waters
Member
alonzo_waters

Hi, Amazing post I must say! I am having some trouble. I have a 1440p 240hz Gsync ultimate monitor with a 3080 & 13th gen cpu. I am trying to set up apex to run smooth so I followed this guide as in Gsync on + vsync nvcp on with vsync off in game while reflex is on & fps cap with RTSS. My game stutters no matter what with this set up when dropping out of ship regardless of my stable fps. It’s specifically when I look around. When I turn reflex off in drop ship, I can look around without any problems, very smooth.

Once I’m on the ground and playing with these settings, it continues to look very choppy when I look around. It happens when I move my mouse in a circle motion (my fps graph is stable while this happens). I also noticed when I put the command +fps_max 0 the game seems to run a little more smooth but when I delete that command, the game becomes extremely choppy while looking around.

I’m just wondering if I am doing anything wrong on my end as far as my setup? My temps are fine, background apps are not taking many resources at all & I’ve tried many optimizations with NVCP. Pretty desperate at this point as I invested good money into this setup. Thanks you advance! I really appreciate it!

Like0Vote Down 
1 year 26 days ago
NookFPS
Member
NookFPS

Yooo

Alonzo. I had the same issue and i was going crazy. I always had micro stutters and i didnt know where it was coming from. So for me its running now like this:

NVCP Vsync ON
RTSS Framerate 3 Frames under your Screen refresh rate.

Thats it. For me it was the Framerate limiter. The ingame Apex caused microstutters and the Nvidia Limiter also.

Take the first Option on this link but only with RTSS

https://blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-and-settings/14/

Like0Vote Down 
1 year 25 days ago
Ganzo
Member
Ganzo

I’d like to follow this up by adding that Apex (along with some other games) seemingly has an issue with mouse polling rate for some people. I’ve been grappling with stutters in that game for literal years and I finally figured out that setting my mouse polling rate to 500hz fixed it for me. It seems to be a windows thing, though anecdotally it appears to be plaguing more AMD users than anything else. That, plus forcing fullscreen optimizations through the registry or compatibility manager (a program specifically made to edit those registry values because the checkbox available in windows is broken and does nothing on its own), seems to have fixed most of my issues.

This is mostly conjecture from my troubleshooting and research, so if Jorimt or anyone else has any additional advice or knows how to overcome these mouse polling rate issues and just run your mouse at its full polling rate, please do inform me as I still struggle with these problems in other games, especially DX12 ones which do not allow you to disable fullscreen optimizations (as far as I know).

Like0Vote Down 
1 year 12 days ago
jorimt
Author
jorimt

I’d like to follow this up by adding that Apex (along with some other games) seemingly has an issue with mouse polling rate for some people.

This can definitely be specs + peripheral + game-specific.

It’s been a few years since I’ve played Apex, but I didn’t have any issues with a 1000Hz polling rate on my system (8700k + 1080 Ti + 165Hz monitor) at the time.

This is mostly conjecture from my troubleshooting and research, so if Jorimt or anyone else has any additional advice or knows how to overcome these mouse polling rate issues and just run your mouse at its full polling rate, please do inform me as I still struggle with these problems in other games, especially DX12 ones which do not allow you to disable fullscreen optimizations (as far as I know).

1) Since this subject is off-topic where the article and G-SYNC is concerned, feel free to create new a topic on this or anything else in our forums:
https://forums.blurbusters.com/index.php

2) Most DX12 games use a new flip model (which is a hybrid borderless/exclusive fullscreen mode that only engages DWM composition when unfocused or during alt+tabs) that the fullscreen optimizations functionality was merely trying to approximate for DX11 and older games.

Like0Vote Down 
1 year 12 days ago
jorimt
Author
jorimt

Assuming the framerate can be consistently sustained at the set limit, RTSS is indeed typically the most stable limiter frametime-wise.

That said, what limiter is “best” for what game can depend on the particular system + limiter + engine combo (and end-goal/use-case), so if one limiter appears to be causing issues in a game, other limiters should be tried to determine whether they mitigate and/or resolve said issues.

Like1Vote Down 
1 year 25 days ago
jorimt
Author
jorimt

Your comment is potential rabbit-hole material, so I’ll try to keep this semi-brief and on article topic; G-SYNC + V-SYNC + a minimum -3 FPS limit is typically all it takes to achieve the optimal G-SYNC configuration. Everything else is secondary and/or not directly related to VRR operation.

As for Reflex, it can be used as a substitute for a manually set framerate limit when paired with G-SYNC + NVCP V-SYNC, but whenever your GPU usage isn’t maxed, Reflex may or may not affect frametime performance negatively, so it shouldn’t be used in cases where your GPU usage is below 99% most of the time, since it can only positively affect/reduce latency in predominately GPU-bound (99%+ usage) scenarios.

Finally, regarding Apex in particular, there are recurring player complaints on various forms of stutter/choppiness (what have you) in that game not exclusive to G-SYNC, so if you’re experiencing it with or without G-SYNC, you’ll need to look elsewhere.

G-SYNC is continually blamed for things it can’t and/or wasn’t intended to address; it prevents tearing artifacts without adding traditional V-SYNC latency or stutter for framerates within the refresh rate, and that’s about it.

If you want to continue discussion of your specific issue with Apex, please create a new topic in our forums:
https://forums.blurbusters.com/index.php

Like2Vote Down 
1 year 26 days ago
Kincior
Member
Kincior

What do you think I should run in cs go?

180 Hz with G-Sync + Vsync (NVCP) capped at 177/8 fps
or
165 Hz No Gsync, no Vsync, and uncapped fps?

On one hand I have higher refresh rate but on the other; lower latency.

Like0Vote Down 
1 year 27 days ago
jorimt
Author
jorimt

What do you think I should run in cs go?

Entirely up to you…

If you can’t tolerate tearing artifacts, use G-SYNC.

If your framerate can far exceed the refresh rate in CS:GO and the tearing artifacts (and any micro-stutter said tearing artifacts cause) don’t bother you and you want the lowest possible latency (even if it’s only by a little), use that.

See:
https://blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-and-settings/9/

Like0Vote Down 
1 year 26 days ago
wpDiscuz

Related Content

Featured Content

Blur Buster Forums

Blur Busters Forums

TestUFO Motion Tests

TestUFO Motion Tests