6 ms·

This is bad, in a gaming setting, for several reasons. You should at least make your frame limit be equal to your screen refresh rate.

by Alupis 3y ago

withinboredom 3y ago
Meh, gsync keeps it sane. But no, my screen refresh rate is 165hz. If it were to be running that many fps, it would result in ~200 watts of power be utilized. Maybe this is "good" for gaming, but it is def bad for my wallet who has to pay the power bill. Maybe when electricity prices go back down, I'll turn it up.
- Alupis 3y ago
  > Meh, gsync keeps it sane. GSync isn't magic. It can only do so much. In this situation, where you've tied your frames to 24 (for some reason?) and your monitor refresh rate is 165Hz, GSync isn't going to save you. GSync will help you if there are sudden, brief drops in FPS below the refresh rate and keep things in sync. It will not save you if your refresh rate is 165Hz and your frame rate is 24... > Maybe when electricity prices go back down, I'll turn it up I don't think you'll notice the extra $5 a month it costs to run that a couple hours a week. We should at least use a real reason why you'd do this. Saving a smidge of power is not one of them. You should, instead, under-clock your monitor refresh rate to something low, like 75 or 60Hz, then frame-limit to that number as well.
  - bpye 3y ago
    Gsync/variable refresh rate should be able to make that work. Even if the display doesn’t go down to 24Hz, it only needs to drop to 144Hz to be an integer multiple of 24Hz - you’d just get each frame being displayed for 6 frames.
- neurostimulant 3y ago
  How high the electricity cost in your area for you to notice an extra 200 watts during gaming? Assuming $0.3/kwh, if you play 8 hours everyday (which is a lot), you'll increase your bill by $14.4. If you only play 2 hours everyday on average, the increase is only $3.6.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    As I mentioned in another comment down-thread, my costs (after taxes + fees) is €0.60 a kWh.
    - Alupis 3y ago
      Ok so $7 a month then. What you're doing to "save costs" is absurd, and the approach is entirely incorrect. Downclock your monitor to something like 60Hz, then pin your frames there too.
      - withinboredom 3y ago
        I'm not sure how you reached $7... 0.2 kw * 8 hours * 30 days * €0.60 = 1.6 kw/h/d * 30 days * €0.60 = 48 kw/h * €0.60 = €28.80 per month I game about 3-6 hours a day, but I also do a lot of (unreal) programming on the same computer. So according to measurements, it draws about 2-3kw/h a day. Without limiting the framerate, it's closer to 10kw/h per day. We're talking a savings of ~€4 per day. That's over €100 per month in savings. > Downclock your monitor to something like 60Hz, then pin your frames there too. I'm not sure what my monitor rate has to do with fps. They are two totally independent measurements that are very rarely synced if you are doing any kinds of graphically intensive work, even if you pin them to the same rate. The monitor will still double-post frames every so often, or even skip a frame. Another good example is a paused video which is 0fps, but the monitor doesn't care. It just keeps showing the same frame over and over again. The same thing happens here, and with (g|v)sync, there's never any tearing.
        Alupis 3y ago
        Monitor refresh rate and FPS your GPU can generate are very related[1]. Again, your setup is so far from ideal, you should reconsider. Reduce your refresh rate to some multiple of 24 if you insist on 24 for some unknown reason. It's one of those situations where you are being so clever you're hurting yourself and not realizing it. [1] https://www.displayninja.com/what-is-screen-tearing/ https://www.displayninja.com/what-is-screen-tearing/
adastra22 3y ago
Outside of networked multiplayer games, I can’t think of any reason this would be “bad.”
- Alupis 3y ago
  Even slow paced games will experience tearing. Here, the parent post has inadvertently made their setup beyond non-ideal. They picked a random 24 FPS target (maybe based off old movies for some reason?), but their monitor refreshes at 165Hz. The mis-match of frames and refreshes is so off, they will experience tearing even with mostly-static backgrounds. Basically, nothing the parent poster is doing makes sense. Neither for power savings nor viewing pleasure.
  - adastra22 3y ago
    Not tearing. It can still utilize vertical sync. If done naïvely the time between frames would jitter a bit though. At 165Hz it wouldn’t be too bad.
  - wutwutwat 3y ago
    > They picked a random 24 FPS target (maybe based off old movies for some reason?) Not random, and not "old movies". Modern day movies are still 24fps, it's part of what makes movies look the way they do, motion blur. > but their monitor refreshes at 165Hz So? It refreshes the image 165 times a second, regardless of video framerate. It just so happens that many of those 165 refreshes in this case will be the same image over and over. Pause a video, so 0 fps, or 1 fps depending on your take, the monitor is still refreshing 165 times a second because it doesn't have anything to do with the video in this case.
    - Alupis 3y ago
      The problem is the mis-alignment of frames being pushed into the buffer and the monitor drawing them. You will experience tearing with this much of mis-alignment. It's why things like GSync/FreeSync even exist. > motion blur You can enable motion blur in most game settings...
dimask 3y ago
I has to be a divisor of the frame rate, not necessarily equal. Eg with 30fs in a 60fps screen you will do fine. But with a high refresh rate screen and gsync/freesync on top of that, most probably it does not matter at all because the refresh rate of the screen should adjust.

This is bad, in a gaming setting, for several reasons. You should at least make your frame limit be equal to your screen refresh rate.

by Alupis 3y ago

This is bad, in a gaming setting, for several reasons. You should at least make your frame limit be equal to your screen refresh rate.

withinboredom 3y ago

Meh, gsync keeps it sane. But no, my screen refresh rate is 165hz. If it were to be running that many fps, it would result in ~200 watts of power be utilized. Maybe this is "good" for gaming, but it is def bad for my wallet who has to pay the power bill. Maybe when electricity prices go back down, I'll turn it up.

Alupis 3y ago
> Meh, gsync keeps it sane. GSync isn't magic. It can only do so much. In this situation, where you've tied your frames to 24 (for some reason?) and your monitor refresh rate is 165Hz, GSync isn't going to save you. GSync will help you if there are sudden, brief drops in FPS below the refresh rate and keep things in sync. It will not save you if your refresh rate is 165Hz and your frame rate is 24... > Maybe when electricity prices go back down, I'll turn it up I don't think you'll notice the extra $5 a month it costs to run that a couple hours a week. We should at least use a real reason why you'd do this. Saving a smidge of power is not one of them. You should, instead, under-clock your monitor refresh rate to something low, like 75 or 60Hz, then frame-limit to that number as well.
- bpye 3y ago
  Gsync/variable refresh rate should be able to make that work. Even if the display doesn’t go down to 24Hz, it only needs to drop to 144Hz to be an integer multiple of 24Hz - you’d just get each frame being displayed for 6 frames.
neurostimulant 3y ago
How high the electricity cost in your area for you to notice an extra 200 watts during gaming? Assuming $0.3/kwh, if you play 8 hours everyday (which is a lot), you'll increase your bill by $14.4. If you only play 2 hours everyday on average, the increase is only $3.6.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  As I mentioned in another comment down-thread, my costs (after taxes + fees) is €0.60 a kWh.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    Ok so $7 a month then. What you're doing to "save costs" is absurd, and the approach is entirely incorrect. Downclock your monitor to something like 60Hz, then pin your frames there too.
    - withinboredom 3y ago
      I'm not sure how you reached $7... 0.2 kw * 8 hours * 30 days * €0.60 = 1.6 kw/h/d * 30 days * €0.60 = 48 kw/h * €0.60 = €28.80 per month I game about 3-6 hours a day, but I also do a lot of (unreal) programming on the same computer. So according to measurements, it draws about 2-3kw/h a day. Without limiting the framerate, it's closer to 10kw/h per day. We're talking a savings of ~€4 per day. That's over €100 per month in savings. > Downclock your monitor to something like 60Hz, then pin your frames there too. I'm not sure what my monitor rate has to do with fps. They are two totally independent measurements that are very rarely synced if you are doing any kinds of graphically intensive work, even if you pin them to the same rate. The monitor will still double-post frames every so often, or even skip a frame. Another good example is a paused video which is 0fps, but the monitor doesn't care. It just keeps showing the same frame over and over again. The same thing happens here, and with (g|v)sync, there's never any tearing.
      - Alupis 3y ago
        Monitor refresh rate and FPS your GPU can generate are very related[1]. Again, your setup is so far from ideal, you should reconsider. Reduce your refresh rate to some multiple of 24 if you insist on 24 for some unknown reason. It's one of those situations where you are being so clever you're hurting yourself and not realizing it. [1] https://www.displayninja.com/what-is-screen-tearing/ https://www.displayninja.com/what-is-screen-tearing/

adastra22 3y ago

Outside of networked multiplayer games, I can’t think of any reason this would be “bad.”

Alupis 3y ago
Even slow paced games will experience tearing. Here, the parent post has inadvertently made their setup beyond non-ideal. They picked a random 24 FPS target (maybe based off old movies for some reason?), but their monitor refreshes at 165Hz. The mis-match of frames and refreshes is so off, they will experience tearing even with mostly-static backgrounds. Basically, nothing the parent poster is doing makes sense. Neither for power savings nor viewing pleasure.
- adastra22 3y ago
  Not tearing. It can still utilize vertical sync. If done naïvely the time between frames would jitter a bit though. At 165Hz it wouldn’t be too bad.
- wutwutwat 3y ago
  > They picked a random 24 FPS target (maybe based off old movies for some reason?) Not random, and not "old movies". Modern day movies are still 24fps, it's part of what makes movies look the way they do, motion blur. > but their monitor refreshes at 165Hz So? It refreshes the image 165 times a second, regardless of video framerate. It just so happens that many of those 165 refreshes in this case will be the same image over and over. Pause a video, so 0 fps, or 1 fps depending on your take, the monitor is still refreshing 165 times a second because it doesn't have anything to do with the video in this case.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    The problem is the mis-alignment of frames being pushed into the buffer and the monitor drawing them. You will experience tearing with this much of mis-alignment. It's why things like GSync/FreeSync even exist. > motion blur You can enable motion blur in most game settings...

dimask 3y ago

I has to be a divisor of the frame rate, not necessarily equal. Eg with 30fs in a 60fps screen you will do fine. But with a high refresh rate screen and gsync/freesync on top of that, most probably it does not matter at all because the refresh rate of the screen should adjust.