Why Games Feel SO Laggy (and how to fix it :)

[@shApYT]

Friends don't let friends play with inconsistent frame pacing.

[@jonservo]

Graphics cards are like people that drive as fast as they can till they hit traffic and have to slow down. Would you rather ride with the guy who is constantly going from 70 mph down to 40 mph back and forth or the person that just cruises at 50 the whole time.

[@Great.Gospel]

@@jonservoGotta love those drivers speeding up to get to the red lights first. lol

[@cj-pz2kk]

thats the best way to put it!@@jonservo

[@Castigar48]

fps frame graph looking like a japanese seismograph lookin ass

[@christophermullins7163]

​@@Great.GospelLow IQ drivers be like..

[@richardmcilwain7125]

Problem is, especially in some Breath of the Wild areas, the Switch takes a considerable hit when rendering too many entities and particles, dropping well below 30 fps occasionally, which is jarring and choppy at times. Locking fps only helps so much if you already can't support a higher refresh rate.

[@denvernaicker8250]

i think game development wise, it makes sense to do it if the hardware your designing for is limited

[@rapistincel]

Just disliked the vid

[@Pwnag3Inc]

Switch is 10 year old hardware. These “fixes” make reference to software that was designed over the last 5 years without the switch in mind. Nintendo needs to upgrade.

[@jonservo]

Funny enough I was playing tears of the kingdom at a hotel once (I took my switch and dock with me) and the tv in the room was new and had smooth motion technology (built in frame gen basically) and the game felt so GOOD compared to normal. I think it was outputting 50-60 fps and it eliminated all the stutters in the game, especially the big one that happens when you use master hand. It might have a had a little more latency but it was still a way better experience than the switches native output. I think gaming can be a real balancing act to get everything right for the best experience. Best part of pc gaming is the options we have to customize our experience

[@CheeseburgerEnjoyer]

@@jonservowoah a tv that can frame gen? Never heard of that honestly

[@nurbsivonsirup1416]

I don't want to be capped at 60, I was kind of hoping I could die in my sleep at 80?

[@weaponx40]

Loll

[@Linkman8912]

Sad, you should really cap your expectations.

[@Earthball_Productions]

cap your life at 80, lul

[@Watskeburt]

run your gpu at cooler temps for more longevity

[@mr_cryzler34]

Glad that this is being brought up more. I've been capping my frame rate individually for all my games for a very long time now using RTSS. And I found out the consistency is SO MUCH better than squeezing out every frame possible. For instance a game like let's say "The Finals" I will get around ~100-110 frames mostly, I would cap my frame rate to 90 and the frame time becomes completely flat and it feels amazing. I feel like we are in another era similar to undervolting vs overclocking (undervolting aka pushing a certain/highest clock speed at its lowest stable voltage vs pushing the highest possible clock the card can supply power to reach). A key rule I have went by is that I would tweak the settings in a game to my liking, then I would monitor an estimated average frame rate and cap it around that value.

[@viamoiam]

New tech eta indeed. Laptops sell quite well and undervolting is a more viable option while keeping in the thermal limits. Undervolting doesn't raise your fan noise

[@prikolica3567]

i always uncap my framerate and aim to get 160fps at the cost of looks as i want to be always above 144fps as i have a 144hz monitor and i want to use it to its full potential

[@lupintheiii3055]

Just use Radeon Chill

[@younghentaii1772]

Tbh this already has been proven to be false, locking frames is temporary and hole uncapped actually gives more room to be smoother

[@mr_cryzler34]

@@prikolica3567 That's completely fine, it is preference afterall. I prefer to sacrafice the higher spike of frames for consistency both frame time and rendering latency. Especially if there are games that I won't reach a high refresh experience anyways. All that matters is that you are having a good time.

[@blaux]

The difference between 60fps and 120fps is much less noticeable when you use a controller instead of a mouse as well. The most noticeable thing when it comes to motion smoothness is camera movement. So despite it being 30fps on switch, it's locked and steady, while also having smoother inputs to make it feel more consistent. When you run a locked framerate, you can tune your eyes to it and get used to it. You can't do that if it's constantly changing, because you notice the changes.

[@joseijosei]

You could notice it anywhere, because the entire game changes. It is harder to aim and react with a lower framerate, which is why games like CoD offer a way to play at like 120 fps, but it is also very noticeable in hack and slash games, 3rd person shooters, action RPGs, etc. Hell, you can notice the difference in Baldur's Gate 3, where you don't even need a really high number of fps. You could be standing there in a game, not moving your character, and lookin at how the wind moves something, and you would be able to notice the difference. I don't think you notice the difference more with fast camera movement. I think it is just more useful for that. What you can notice more is how it affects your performance, but not how it looks, so, playing with a controller, 144 fps looks exactly the same. It is not like suddently 30 fps would become playable for you. This is why Frame Generation is so nice for high refresh rate gaming (144hz, 240hz, etc). It is really difficult to get that framerate in curren AAA games, lile Alan Wake 2, Lords Of The Fallen, Jedi Survivor, etc, specially when they are poorly optimized, but at least it's possible to get a minimum of 144 fps in most games with mid-range hardware, and 120 fps with low-end, or what would be a little better than a console like a PS5 (maybe 4060 + Ryzen 4500 $600 PC, with a good NVMe SSD OF 1TB for fast loading times). Over 100 fps for mid-range, if we are talking about Dragon's Dogma 2 in the city area, which is arguably the worst case you'll find, and over 140 fps anywhere else, because, for every 20 real fps, you get another 20 AI generated ones, so you get a total of 40 fps. People are buying PureDark's mods to implement it in games like The Last Of Us, Jedi Survivor (back when it didn't have an official implementation), Elden Ring, Baldur's Gate 3, Assassin's Creed Mirage, GTA V, Dragon's Dogma 2, Red Dead Redemption 2, Palworld, etc, only because the difference between 60 fps and 120 fps, or 75 fps and 144 fps, or 120 fps and 240 fps, matters a lot to them, and in any game. This is why people who are playing Dragon's Dogma 2 at over 100 fps with Frame Gen are still complaining. You can also feel the drops from 144 fps to 100 fps with a 144hz monitor. Most people ignore this because they are using 60hz monitor. The vast majority of PC gamers use one.

[@detlefsschimmelzeh]

@@joseijoseifor real dude well writing. Dude I notice every lil framedrop under my 165hz monitor. It drives me crazy. That’s why I update my gtx 970 to rx 6600 :)

[@ayoo_wassup]

​@@joseijosei its funny you mention pure dark because because resolution upscale and framerate cap paired with reprojection in occulus is how I achieved a smooth render latancy in a highly modded skyrim VR with frankly underpowered hardware (running native quest res on a 3060 with about as good visuals as can be modded) upscaling and clever pipeline setup goes such a long way. it makes high end VR developement possible and way more accesible

[@ayoo_wassup]

@@joseijosei VR is a usecase IMO where visual smoothness is much less important than than render or input latency. large frame drops feel absolutely AWFUL in VR. (whipping your head around can be blurry and thats fine. it feels like real life anyway. but if you drop frames and get black portions of screen it feels bad) IMO 60 has always been good enough, i really dont understand the obsession with frames outside of competitive games. they always felt like a mess of diminishing returns for the games i like to play. mainly rpgs and high visual fidelity focused titles

[@Technicellie]

I am actually always capping the framerate to the refresh rate of the monitor on the driver-level. Not to reduce the latency but to reduce the work that the CPU + GPU have to do, since I feel like it would be unnecessary (+ the bonus of reduced tearing because the framerate is in sync with the monitor) That I'd also get a strongly reduced latency is actually very interesting! And a great benefit to have. ^^ I didn't know that I would have an advantage, I thought having like 6ms latency is normal tbh. xD Thank you very much for making this educational content and the commentary, it really can help to put the information out there into the right perspective! ☺

[@quintrapnell3605]

It’s disingenuous to jump to that conclusion in my opinion but it could be the case. At 60 fps I get 18ms at 300 fps I get 4ms. Vsync off reduces latency because it’s not capping the fps. People use gsync and freesync instead of vsync to lower latency. Turning off triple buffering reduces latency but dips and spikes are more prevalent with triple buffering off. If your GPU can render 300 fps and you tell it to only show 60 its most likely still going to shove more frames in the Que now because it can easily generate more frames than it’s allowed to render increasing the buffer and latency. So assuming you’re not using any features and just going default it’s still a balancing act from what I can tell depending on the system and game.

[@BearBlair]

Capping your framerate doesn't time the frames though, if you wanted to eliminate tearing, G-Sync + V-Sync + Reflex set to On + Boost will give you the lowest latency, and best image quality on NVIDIA gpus assuming you have a monitor that supports adaptive sync.

[@NatrajChaturvedi]

Yeah less work for GPU, CPU less heat produced and you also get a lower power bill. That is why I do it as well. Plus you can get away with cheaper GPU if you learn to not be too obsessed about FPS.

[@kikixchannel]

@@quintrapnell3605 GPU doesn't generate frames it wasn't requested to. If you set it to only generate 100 frames, it WILL only generate 100 frames. It's not a setting to only SHOW 100 frames. It literally tells the GPU to generate 1 frame every 10ms, no more. Also, it's not the GPU that 'shoves' frames into the queue. It's the CPU. I don't know whether the CPU will follow a GPU drivers frames cap, but if you set a cap in game, then CPU WILL only send those frames that are needed to reach it. In case of 100 FPS, that's one frame every 10ms.

[@Technicellie]

@@BearBlairThat is why I mainly meant reduced tearing. I am using an AMD-GPU so Freesync and AntiLag are the tools I have on hand. But 6ms on 240 FPS sounds good to me (especially on my WOLED), though I gotta see if it was the render latency of the interval of the frames being rendered...

[@TheIndulgers]

I've been frame capping all my games for YEARS. Probably a decade now. Less latency, consistency, lower power draw, heat, etc. Another point to add: Always try to use in-game frame caps if available. If the game doesn't, you can use radeon chill or rivatuner to do so. Edit: This is why I find frame gen so flawed. Yes, the image will look "smoother", but there is more input latency and less consistency. This is what we are trying to avoid, not add into the game. Not to mention the artefacts FG introduces. Bigger number isn't always better. They are using marketing to trick people into new cards.

[@signe_stilett]

And worse still, making it viable to push out the games so unoptimized that you need frame gen to get adequate framerates

[@ReptilezDzn]

the best you can do in general is to not use the ingame setting. driver locking is much better.

[@gonkhead112]

@signe_stilett Technically, frame gen shouldn't really be used at lower frame rates anyway (sub 60, maybe less) so it seems a bit harsh to complain about needing frame gen to play a game at probably a high resolution (at least after upscaling), very demanding settings like ray/path tracing, all at 60-120+ fps. If that's not good enough just compromise on visuals a bit for a higher frame rate. Even upscaling like DLSS or FSR is quite reasonable if not implemented poorly. At least with DLSS, it can actually look better than standard TAA and is basically free performance. With something like ray tracing, it can be such a demanding feature that it's almost necessary to use upscaling but again, if that bothers you then you just have to compromise certain aspects of image quality for a native (or closer to native) resolution / higher FPS. There are definitely games that you can justifiably call poorly optimized but also not every game needs to be playable at 4k120 at ultra settings. In fact that just means the quality ceiling is probably set way too low and visually the game has no room to scale on better/future hardware.

[@JapesZX]

​@@ReptilezDzn It's better if you like looking at ruler flat frametimes in RTSS. Otherwise, use the in-game limiter if it works well. It's not as flat, but it's basically flat enough in practice compared to uncapped. There may be some optimizations to the in-game limiter that a driver-level limiter doesn't have. (src: Battle(non)sense)

[@GoogleGiveMebackmyname]

​@@JapesZXalmost always I've witnessed most in-game frame caps to not be as consistent as RTSS, I've tested this on 3 nvidia gpus(1650super,3060,3070).

[@just_afriendly_neighbor]

But if you look at the frametime, you can see that when he is locking the framerate, the average frametime almost always goes up. To me, a more steady and low frametime will always look smoother than a slightly lower latency.

[@Kolanjie]

I came looking for this comment and found it…

[@oussam2472]

Frametime IS framerate. Locking your framerate will increase your frametime because you have less frames.

[@jonservo]

Frame times are determined by fps. The formula for frametime is (Frametime= 1000/fps). So if you lower the fps the frametime will of course go up. 60 fps equals an expected frametime of 16.66. If you locked your Framerate to 60 and had a frametime of 8 something is wrong. The point is if you’re locked at a lower fps your frametime will go up but it will stay consistent instead of jumping all over because your fps is going from 120 down to 90 and everything in between. For a frametime graph it’s more important that it be a flat line than it be a low number because it helps give an indication more of consistency not performance (though it kind of shows both). Let’s say you wanted 120 fps in your game, you can do the math yourself to get your frametime. 1000/120=8.3, so you would expect a frametime of 8.3 ms. If your gpu can keep the frametime at 8.3 at all times that’s great you’ll have a great experience. But if your fps isn’t locked the gpu will try to do the maximum it can and the frame times will naturally stutter a lot as it outputs 150 fps one second and 90 or less another. Granted if you already have a very low frametime if it goes up a couple ms, from 8-10, you might not even notice. It’s a balancing act of finding the best fps to stay consistent and that can change a lot from game to game. If you happen to have a game that looks a little choppy, locking the fps can give you a much better experience. I think in most cases many people won’t notice if the fps stays roughly the same, around a 20-30 fps difference, but for people on lower end or medium budget cards this can do a lot to help things feel smoother, which I think is more important than a slight change in latency also. I think he should have focused more on how locking the fps helps the game feel consistent rather than on the lower latency. I think the big point we can take from the video is that with a pc we can do so much more to change how our games play and feel, but most of us aren’t taking advantage of it like we could.

[@umburrojogakk]

But Will It fell smother

[@J_..._]

Your monitor refresh rate plays a role in this too.

[@AAjax]

The FPS capping for input latency improvement is highly game specific. In many cases it makes input latency worse. Check out the Hardware Unboxed exploration of it.

[@B-ROYalty]

Can you link the video please?

[@AAjax]

@@B-ROYalty youtube doesn't like me linking it, apparently. Search "hardware unboxed capping framerate"

[@000Gua000]

Name of the video please.

[@AAjax]

The name is "Does Capping Your Frame Rate Really Reduce Input Lag?"

[@saricubra2867]

And Hardware Unboxed doesn't know anything about CRT monitors so i can game at 60Hz or 75Hz with the framerate capped and feels lightyears better than LCDs at 300Hz or 165Hz (i know because i tried those).

[@especialistaemmira3796]

I play FPS games since 2003, and I also have some study in game dev and human performance in games here in Brazil, and the most important question that I found out is that where all the tech improvements stop to really improving something? And I believe that have something to do with the range of time that a person can make a decision (like when the target changes dir to the left than you move your aim to the left too) there's a curve at when FPS and Hz and latency stops to do something to your skills, and there's a lot of placebo and marketing with Nividia, Ultra-Polling Rate mouses and lots of stuff, and sometimes you can feel the diffrence between 1000 Hz and 4k, but the key is again not if u feel something, but if its doing something, the improvement have to be something that a human can interact with, its hard to self-test and require a lots of knowledge and you have to consider placebos, and your training routine, a lot of variables, but helps a lot ot identify what does a drastic, gigantic diffrence, like for example trying to aim with 24/30 FPS with V-Sync and them u progress to that gray range that u think that something made a litte diffrence or not.

[@puffyips]

Fps games are best uncapped with freesync/gysync/vysync off and highest polling rate that doesn’t cause fps drops does help

[@emprrsfloret8693]

after purchasing a 165Hz monitor, 60fps is perceived as a strong slideshow. My minimum comfort has increased to 80-90. But more - better.

[@irvintang2751]

Half refresh can still look smooth. ie 72fps on a 144hz monitor. Especially when vsync is turned on and gsync off.

[@GeneralS1mba]

​@@irvintang2751Excellent, 82.5 FPS.

[@SToad]

For me it depends, I've been gaming on 1440p@144Hz for 8 years or so, and while I got used to it for fast paced games like OW, I'm still happy with 60 on my 4k monitor for non shooter games. It's not really like "60 feels like garbage" now, for me.

[@BOZ_11]

60 fps can still be nice if it doesn't fall below that, and you have freesync/g-sync enabled (non shooters). Shooters really need 120+ fps

[@josedeleon1923]

A have mine at 120hz but i don't feel uncomfortable playing at 60 fps. I'm sure it depends on the game though

[@skythundersky1544]

Your content is top notch. Hope you're gonna blow up soon, you deserve it

[@chiari4833]

I've capped my fps ever since i bought my first pc. I prefer a better looking game runing smoothly instead of a fast paced, but choppy gameplay. Also capping the fps helps me ramp up the resolution and graphics without falling below the sweet 60fps even in render-heavy areas.❤

[@thedefaulttrashbag1316]

This isn't a new concept, and is pretty commonly used by gamers, though you don't really get the consistency advantage from locking FPS if you have something like G-Sync or Free-Sync, but you'd of course still get the advantage of Lower power consumption, lower temps ect from locking your FPS, But IMO if you have a high refresh rate monitor with Free-Sync or G-Sync then you should just cap fps at the monitor refresh rate. As for the switch, The issue people have for the switch isn't that it runs at 30FPS its that it fails to even maintain 30FPS there are several games where frame rates will drop into the low 20s which is genuinely unacceptable to charge nearly 300 dollars for a console then 60 for a game only for you to get an inferior experience to emulating it on the phone you most likely already have.

[@DavidPereiraLima123]

Yep. Personally I don't have a problem with 30 fps in some old games, as long as it's frametime is set in stone.

[@piktasniekas8124]

I find Gsync to produce even more frame inconsistencies and sometimes even severe micro-stutters (haven't tried freesync, but I imagine it's even worse). I've stopped using it long ago (not even for ultra RT 4k cyberpunk that barely runs at 60 fps; a little screen tearing >> micro-stutters in my book).

[@freelancerthe2561]

"charge nearly 300 dollars for a console then 60 for a game" We gotta be fair here. Where in the world are you able to get a PS5 for $300, even used? And are we talking about a $300 phone or a $1000 iPhone?

[@technologicalelite8076]

I heard you have to cap your FPS 2-3 below the monitors maximum refresh rate so it doesn't switch to V-Sync which can cause some latency.

[@homework8969]

Ive always limited my fps to my monitors refresh rate for less power usage and always noticed (on apex at least) that it gave me a better experience than leaving it uncapped.

[@DoodieSmoothie]

Yeah but apex is weird. They give people using V-sync better fps boost. 144hz vsync off looks bad. And yeah, capping to monitors hz is really good as long as it doesnt create input lag or screen tearing. Thats the cons that come with it, and also you remove render queue by not running gpu at 100%

[@RobertCrane-v8v]

Yall finally figured out about frame disparity and render lag... ive been preaching this.

[@grumpyoldwizard]

I agree. Thanks for the explanation. The demand for super high FPS has always bothered me. It made no sense to me. I am old school, literally, lol. You explaned it perfectly. Thank you so much.

[@DavidPereiraLima123]

g-sync 101 on blur busters, friend. check it out. it applies to all forms of VRR too.

[@pharmdiddy5120]

Wow oh yeah latency metric in afterburner? Why isn't this talked about more?? Great video! Dare I say... ... "game changer?" (Boooo) okay gotta check this out

[@Superbus753]

The biggest problem with game performance is see is that games don’t get optimized as they used to and just ask for ever more computing power.

[@freelancerthe2561]

(Laughs in Factorio)

[@cyclonous6240]

Now I'm getting why capping framerates in single player games felt better.

[@willwunsche6940]

I dislike the title but there is some good information in the video. Worth noting in some situations capping framerate for consistent latency is not actually worth it. It depends on the relative frametime and the how much fps you are getting in the first place. Sometimes trading latency consistentcy for a lower frametime most of the game is worth it for a far better experience and people overrate the effects of dips as they are looking at graphs of fps rather than frametimes. Optimum Tech did a good analysis of an example in Apex Legends where some people preach framecaps but after doing loads of research/testing came to the conclusion that for competitive players (without heat or power problems) if you are getting an inconsistent 140-165fps average, sometimes it's better to have an uncapped framerate with a slightly more inconsistent latency, than a capped framerate at 144fps for example. An important myth to dispell is that higher fps than your monitors refresh rate doesn't help. This isn't true as often exceeding the monitors refresh rate allows your monitor to get more up to date frames when it does refresh, lowering your latency experience in a roundabout way. Hardware Unboxed has a good video on it and if exceeding your monitors refresh rate makes sense for you in some situations. While latency consistently is important and I do use caps sometimes there are different times fps caps are not the right decision where high fps overrides it at certain breakpoints as more important. Lower end-to-end latency, higher fps, and consistency all matter together in balance. Halo Infinite for example is a game that will destroy it's latency trying to hit fps targets if you set the target framerates wrong, so I believe capping it is better because the engine can't take care of itself perfectly iirc. I partially disagree with the end conclusion of the video that we shouldn't be pushing to closer to 90fps instead of 60fps in some scenarios for some game standards. While some games I think should be 60 or even 30 for standard I think some pushing to 90 or 120 is the more important improvement on many others. I don't think just a rock solid 60 as the only option is optimal decision.

[@RealNC]

The latest version of RTSS has support for enabling Reflex in any DX11 and DX12 game. How well it works depends on how the game samples input. In the settings you need to switch the FPS limiter mode from "async" to "Reflex". If you want Reflex but without FPS capping, you can set a very high cap (like 480FPS) that can't be reached. The new Reflex limiter can also be used to cap FPS when using DLSS 3 frame gen.

[@Chasm9]

The latest Nvidia App's fps limiter has the lowest latency of all the frame limiters I tested. It's similar to Special K. You can see it behaves exactly the same as if you had Reflex enabled in DX games (which automatically limits your fps to 116 on 120hz panel, or 158fps on 165hz panel, etc..) IF you have VSync enabled. You have to have ULLM enabled in Nvidia App too. RTSS has the highest latency of them all, even if you use the Reflex option. In Reflex limited games you should see the frame time fluctuate ever so slightly by few 0.1ms up and back. If you limit your fps with RTSS, the frame times are super flat, but the latency is higher. So what you have to do: Have a VRR compatible screen and enable G-SYNC in NVIDIA control panel / NVIDIA App Enable VSync Enable Ultra Low Latency Mode in NVIDIA App In DirectX game it will work automatically In Vulkan games limit your fps to that value that it automatically limits in DirectX games (e.g. 116fps on a 120hz ; 158 on a 165hz; etc..)

[@TinfoilTimmy]

I stopped using RTSS and now use Radeon chill instead by setting the minimum as the maximum.

[@haewymetal]

I dont know what the point of this video is. You should just be using Vsync (in Nvidias control panel, global) + Gsync active (or whatever you use). Battle(non)sense and Blurbusters have discussed this years ago. Theres no need to manually cap your fps in 2024, unless you're going for 60 fps on a 100+ hz display (why? you get a blurrier experience) or you want to save power (why you barely save anything on your actual bill) or temperature (I only really get this one if you're on an old dusty GPU with bad cooling on it or a 7900XT/XTX with bad mem cooling) Most of VEX's videos seem to be in good faith but are usually misinformed. Hes obsessing over latency in this video, we're talking differences of like 1 ms, average human reaction time is about well over 200 ms, with the ideal being around < 180ms. No one, not even the most obsessive ESPORT gamer would notice the difference in that latency.

[@RealNC]

I usually cap to 120FPS on a 165Hz display. Sometimes I cap even a bit lower, depending on the game. I don't like it when a game runs at 90FPS in one location, then jumps to 160FPS when I look towards something else that has less stuff to render. I prefer some consistency. FPS variance of about 15% or so is fine. But huge jumps in FPS is something I just don't like. A game feels very different to me when it runs at 90 and then feels different again when it jumps to 160. I want to feel about the same all the time.

[@quintrapnell3605]

Just capping the FPS doesn’t always help latency. Frame cap just puts more frames in the buffer waiting on the cap to show increasing latency. Reflex or antilag are the real mvp.

[@wingmanemu3473]

the trick is to cap ur fps to half of what your screen is capable of, that way you can have frames in sync with ur refresh rate (if you dont have gsync or freesync) for example, 72fps locked on a 144hz monitor is smoother than 100fps on a 144hz monitor. this is for single player games only btw and if you can reach 144fps locked then all the better.

[@stephaneduhamel7706]

It's the first time I see someone actually recommand motion blur to increase smoothness in a long time. It's basically the next best thing compared to using frame gen for smoother visual experience without affecting latency as much.

[@danebeee1]

Digital foundry talks about this as well.

[@greatwavefan397]

I think Vex has a video on motion blur.

[@ARealPain]

I’ve always loved motion blur. Some games take it a bit too far, but every game that has that option, I’ll turn it on.

[@kikixchannel]

Yeah, no. Motion blur is pretty terrible. I know it's not everyone, but when he turned motion blur in the video above, I've begun feeling nauseous. The image maybe have become 'smooth', but it has become a smooth smudge, instead of a smooth image. You can't actually make out details whenever he moves, and my body reacts as if it saw constantly blinking lights 'swimming' around the screen. So yeah, there's a good reason why a lot of people turn off motion blur. It does not work the same way that the blur you see when looking at a fast-moving object at all. It's the difference between the brain deciding to 'ah, whatever', it's not worth the effort' and not 'generating' the image fully, and the brain seeing the smudge and thinking 'what the hell is this?!'. Two different thing.

[@ARealPain]

@@kikixchannel true. But for me, even with a smooth 120 fps and vsync on, the image is choppy. Too sharp imo. That’s why I like motion blur. Can’t discredit our opinions by saying “yeah, no.”

[@DukeStallion]

This is probably the best explanation of this topic for people that don't understand it well, like my friends. I've been capping my fps for many years for the reasons in this video. When I tell my friends that frame times are more important than frame rates and to cap their fps, they're like, 'HUH? Get outta here.' Then they wonder why my games are visually much, much smoother than theirs even if they are running higher frame rates. This will be my go-to video from now on for my friends and others who just don't get it.

[@Mopantsu]

I put a frame cap on my eyeballs so my brain doesn't have to work as hard.

[@NatrajChaturvedi]

Nvidia kicked this whole craze about high refresh rate gaming into overdrive around 2018 when they paid Linus in particular and some other channels to talk about it. People bought it whole sale but at the end of the day, its just another way for them to sell more GPUs. They did a favor for Monitor manufacturers too obviously. Now some people are so obsessed with FPS they want minimum 120 fps even in a game like Starfield or Alan Wake or even in a top down game like BG3 or Total War WH3. These games feel fine even at 50 fps!

[@B-ROYalty]

It may feel fine to you but feels like total shit to me. What's wrong with wanting or preferring 100fps? If it's possible to reasonably run that way then it should be as simple as that, end of story but for some reason it's a polarizing topic it seems. In 10 years running 30-60fps will likely be considered stone age just like how we look back on the days before 1080p. Everyone enjoys higher res picture and it's natural to advance as time goes by

[@NatrajChaturvedi]

@@B-ROYalty Takes all of 5 minutes for your eyes and reactions to adjust. After that even 45 - 60 fps feels smooth. BUT, if you cant be bothered to play at anything below 100 fps then be ready to keep Nvidia or AMD too for that priviledge. Its been a bit more than 10 years since 1080p became the mainstream standard resolution but they are still selling 1080p cards at the $400 and even $500 tier in 2024. They will likely milk us in the same way for wanting 100 fps for a long time too.

[@Richard-rk1ru]

You focus too much on the render latency. Which is only a part of the render pipeline. "The Average PC latency" figure should be closer to the end to end latency - thus is more useful. But even still your reasoning behind frame capping omits the effect that it has on pacing after being drawn to the monitor, so that decision will need to take into account your monitors refresh rate along side with its freesync/gsync range (usually 60-144Hz). Also some of these methods only work in GPU bound scenarios and some only in CPU bound scenarios. You also didn't mention the second frame queue that will add huge latency - vsync will also hold frames after being rendered further increasing the latency. It's good that this discussion is getting to gamers who wouldn't really think about it on their own, but I think you are simplifying it too much.

[@OverseerPC]

Yeah, this is what I was about to say - he focused only on one part of the pipeline, which is render latency. Optimum tech explained it much better with regards to end-on-end latency alongside actual LDAT results. I personally just prefer uncapped when playing competitively, which is same conclusion from Optimum's video.

[@MrAnimescrazy]

I have my first all white high end build with the gigabyte aero oc 4090/ 7800x3d/ 64 gigs of ddr5 in the white phanteks nv7 case and I use my lg c1 65 inch 4k tv to play games. I always limit my frames to 120 fps and I play at native 2k or native 4k high settings with or without raytracing depending on the game.

[@thefilmdirector1]

Rule of thumb is always cap the fps at the lowest it drops in any given game, Luckily for me thats usually 120 or higher. Uncapped unstable frames are bad yes, but a capped stable high frame rate is good.

[@b0ne91]

If you play with an uncapped framerate, you may max our your GPU and/or CPU. If there are no resources left for any additional work (OS, etc) you open up some processing power. Neither of your parts end up having to wait before being able to generate another frame. This is way more relevant to CPU processing than GPU though.

[@jodiepalmer2404]

When it comes to Bethesda Games, I always go with what mod game guides say because they have the more experience and knowledge on what is best for the game. This also includes setting up the game in Launcher pops for Fallout Series and Legacy of the Dragonborn or as it is widely know LOTD for Skyrim SE/AE.

[@anarex0929]

When you limit your FPS, you give your system not just the GPU time to prep for the next few frames, you also leave head room if you hit an unusually high Level of Detail / LOD moment. Instead of your computer tripping over a rock its has performance in reserve to prevent that studer, play leaving this headroom you give the PC more room to prevent lag. Also a huge advantage if you're running off of battery power or a RTX4090, theoretically you will have less of a chance of burning a pure power cables. As the maximum power draw is reduced far more often. Reducing the strain on the copper and heat.

[@paaaatrika]

I always aim for the frame time line to be completely straight. That's where I'll put the cap. Another thing about capping your FPS you might not think of is that you're basically telling the card to not try hard, which will use less electricity. Which if you're paying the bills is nice over time :)

[@Nico1a5]

This kind of renders useless the beauty of variable refresh rate monitors. Is there any way to cap your GPU by workload? Something like 90%?

[@WooweeYT]

VRR is still amazing. Best settings I've found is Gsync/Freesync + Vsync + Framecap (something below monitor's max refresh rate and that I can maintain). VRR makes it so any framecap is viable. The framecap doesn't have to be above the monitor's refresh rate. Framecap does roughly correlate to % utilization.

[@Nico1a5]

@@WooweeYT Note that if the framecap is something you can maintain, you can just create a custom refresh rate in any monitor (only becomes a hassle to manage if you have multiple options), like the steam deck does. Idk about the monitor market now but I had to pay extra for gsync back then haha

[@WooweeYT]

@@Nico1a5 Pretty much every decent monitor today has VRR (Freesync and Gsync compatible).

[@JohnSmith-ro8hk]

Yes Radeon Chill which is an amazing AMD feature that no one talks about. I use it all the time, specially on older or less demanding indie games.

[@pituguli5816]

I've always capped my FPS in Nvidia Control Panel/Radeon Chill at 140FPS on a 1440p 144hz panel and I also cap background tasks and in game lobby to 30FPS, there is absolutely no reason to allow the FPS to exceed your panels refresh rate also Freesync/Gsync work within their parameters so they wont work when exceeding your panels refresh rate. Reduction in power consumption, less CPU load, smoother gaming experience, even on 1080p 240hz panels its still wise to cap at 230FPS. Every one of my friends I've helped configure their driver settings have been amazed at how much smoother their games run.

[@Grand_Prix_TV]

Vex is one of us. Great video again!

[@crackheadjonezzz]

Why cap at 60 and act amazed about the 9ms, when you were getting 8.7ms when capped at 90.... you definitely were expecting it to be ~5ms and just tried to act like you knew what you were doing.

[@Lancestar-Knight]

Another thing I just found out is that capping to 60fps not only helps with frame time it also consumes half the power and helps my GPU run 20* celsius less. I use Rivatuner to lock to 60fps. Note: This might works only if you have monitor capable of higher refresh rate than 60.

[@rushiltyagi8473]

My msi afterburner doesn't looke like that why

[@roqeyt3566]

As a steam deck user and an AMD user, I've often used frame rate limiters or radeon chill during gaming. I have never known that you get that extra latency benefit! Now I gotta start testing when the fps drop has less of a latency penalty than the impact of the overall latency benefit

[@sengan2475]

Steam decks fps capper adds a lot of latency sadly. It's gotten better with updates, it used to he unusable

[@roqeyt3566]

@@sengan2475 and i did not know that either Thanks for the info, i really gotta read up on this stuff

[@samcerulean1412]

Your videos are fantastic, I've gone through some of your videos and you breakdown quite technical and "nerdy" stuff in a really easy to understand way.

[@NightcoreKings]

I did know capping fps in game makes smoother experience for like 2 years thanks to minecraft(i was pushing limits before but i did see that causes fps drop even if your system is balanced good so i turned on vsync on it and it became stable and super smooth) and another factor for smooth fps is your monitor refresh rate and reason is simple even if your game has 400 fps in 120 hz monitor, your monitor gonna show it like 120 fps because of refresh rate of monitor is 120. Thats why vsync is good thing actually, if in game your system can't get stable fps on monitors refresh rate just use fps capping to limit it solid point and you feel game is smooth and responsive.

[@Ninjaeule97]

Most TVs are still 60 Hz so more than 60 fps will only lower latency which is only important for multiplayer titles so it makes sense to lock it at that to save power. They lock it at 30 cause then a 60 Hz TV can show every picture twice instead of some other weird ratio and you are less likely to experience frame drops.

[@BeRitCrunk]

Try Radeon Chill. It inherently prevents the CPU from getting too far ahead of the GPU and, while mutually exclusive with anti-lag, nets you both benefits of limited frames, and (to some degree) anti-lag itself. It's technically billed as a power saving feature, but again, given the way it works to dynamically adjust a frame cap, it doubles as a latency reducer. Give it a test. See if it matters at all.

[@АлександрРоманов-э3е]

Thank you, it was interesting to know about latency. Regards to You

[@NuttsnBolts]

I've never had much luck with Freesync, Vsync and a whole bunch of other stuff, so I've been capping my frame rate for years cause it just always looked "smoother".

[@rishanperera2725]

This guy is taking about things nobody is talking about. This is a genuine a question i had. Nobody talks about this

[@TECHiSuppose]

Great job talking about computer latency with related settings. 👍 Quite a few things I haven't looked at that sound interesting to tinker with.

[@z590iGeeeKReBoRN]

This is caused by people who don't play games, reporting as the authority in games. Meanwhile the only thing they can do is run cinebench and monkey renders

[@Azarilh]

I noticed in some games that having high FPS can get some dips in FPS, micro stuttering i would call them ( prolly mostly due to CPU bottleneck, as it used to happen on my older PC ), which can be fixed by limiting the FPS to make it more stable. Having unlocked FPS can be annoying, especially if not getting above the Hz of the monitor the whole time, as it can feel BLEGH moving from 60 to 45 FPS, for example. In that case it might be better to lock it at 45. A stable framerate is better then a high one. Also if you are getting more then the Hz of your monitor, then capping the framerate to the Hz you would also reduce stress and heat from the graphics card...

[@BKMorpheus]

Great Topic. I always cap my FPS with Rivatuner and configured a shortcut to increase/decrease the fps cap +/-30fps on the fly. I see no benefit in running uncapped and dealing with big frametime fluctuations during gameplay. Also: running high fps and having a CPU limit feels a lot choppier than limiting the fps to a stable value.

[@flaminggasolineinthedarkne4]

I already knew those stuffs about latency but people don't want to talk about that mus. I am glad that you did in detail.

[@XenoSpyro]

I've been telling people to use a 59 FPS cap for 60 hz vsync with Pre Rendered Frames 1 for years. Occasionally I got "thank you"s, but mostly it gets me shouted down by morons on Steam that don't test anything and have nothing to say to me but hypothericals, not actual results. I guess Nvidia rebranding their own driver functionality finally made this an acceptable topic to talk about.

[@technologicalelite8076]

​@@XenoSpyroWouldn't that cause screen tear? I have an old 60Hz monitor, and I make sure it's not using the 59.94hz fractional framerates. I would love an explanation of this is not the case!

[@DMM_Fan]

Monitorrunning at 360 or 480hz further down reduces latency and its very important and also improves smoothnes.

[@nzeu725]

I think i'll cap my games at a framerate that i can achieve consistently while being high (7800xt shouldn't have a problem)

[@pmatous]

It seems like networking techniques such as QoS, congestion control and jitter control found their way into space of rendering graphics :-)

[@KitKalvert]

Capping in game or Can i get the same results capping on Nvidia Control Panel (per game basis)?

[@JuanBG10]

console probably lock the fps for frame consistence, since usually console players play on a 60hz tv without variable refresh rate, so vsync is the best way to get smooth frames

[@DMM_Fan]

1% framerates are also very important because the moments you experience action FPS spikes up and down a lot and create uneven smoothnes in gameplay.

[@issacarwustrow7325]

Also, you shouldn't cap the FPS through the game options, you should cap it through soomething else, like Riva Tunner. You will get much more stable frametime aswell, and can solve any microstuttering you can have. Basically leave it uncapped on the game options and cap it in Riva Tunner.

[@DesocupadoXtremo]

Yeah i play Apex on a 165hz monitor and playing it uncapped shows around 5-7ms in 200 and something fps, but 165 locked shows 13~ms and feels much better, i watched it was because of GPU usage that the GPU not being fully utilized makes the spare power be always ready for new frames, so it feels faster cause theres no queue for new frames

[@Incariuz]

I always lock my fps to 60 or 75, depends on what the game allows, and how demanding it is. Discovered years ago that big dips happen often in many games, and cause micro stutter, which annoys the hell out of me. Since I'm not a competitive gamer, I'd rather limit for a smoother experience.

[@BlackChicken710]

So basicly me running a 60hz monitor and using vsync did more care for my system overall than me, on top of removing screen tearing

[@Nico1a5]

So how do you calculate total latency? Frame time + render latency?

[@Nico1a5]

Or am I mixing topics? Are you referring to input latency in the whole video? Because you can not see things more frequently than what the frame time admits, and here you are purposely sabotaging frame times

[@Nico1a5]

I think I got the point, latency refers to frame delivery latency, and is like what the ping is to download speed. So if your gpu has free resources, no matter how much you lower or cap your fps, the delivery of the frames will feel like real time. So then comes the next point, how much to cap your fps? that also increases perceived latency. We also have two different worlds, one in games where your fps can go well above your refresh rate, and the other games where you are forced to run at a high gpu usage

[@Appl_Jax]

If you're a PC gamer and you go from a lower-end PC to something much more capable, you quickly learn that a more stable game is much better than the raw higher numbers or extreme details. The higher spec just raises the point at which the game can be stable. A shame, not all people can experience it to understand and appreciate it.

[@stephen18rus]

I believe that high fps is not needed in single player games. For this you need an expensive processor and gpu. If you have a high-hertz monitor is better to get 60-80 fps and enable frame generation, with technology like reflex or anti-lag

[@ReptilezDzn]

locking fps can stabilise if gpu or cpu has bottleneck, but when having a high fps and inconsistent gameplay, you can go ahead and watch gamers nexus "fps benchmarks are flawed" and you will realise that this frametime is not really a good example which you will learn if you watch that video, latency matters, frametime latency is very difficult to measure since it all depends at which point that this is showing from anyways have a great day!

[@NathanOakley1980]

I have a very high end system and play Fortnite. I try to get the most consistent frame rate that hits the monitors Refresh rate, I even use V-sync. There is something very magical about having a very flat line for your game, you forget about the frames completely.

[@TheKims82]

I wouldn't use V-Sync when you just can cap your fps and have way less input lag.

[@uzefulvideos3440]

@@TheKims82 Depends if your GPU and monitor support some form of variable refresh rate or not. If yes, then limiting in the game is best. Lowest latency possible.

[@kathleendelcourt8136]

@@TheKims82V-Sync adds one frame of latency so at 60 fps you add up to 16ms of latency, 8ms at 120 fps etc. Though turning V-Sync off might induce screen tearing if you don't own a good freesync monitor.

[@TheKims82]

@@kathleendelcourt8136 From tests i've seen V-Sync can add up to 50ms of latency.

[@hobbitangra]

Always use Riva to cap FPS. Works A LOT better that ingame cap.

[@TriPBOOMER]

As you Cap the framerate, and the game latency goes down your frametime latency goes up and vice versa, you can see this in riva tuner frametime graph in LAST OF US.

[@Beverain]

The main reason i cap my frame rate is because if i don't it feels like a blast furnace in my room after a while if i don't I cap Warthunder at 120fps while my pc is capable of around 300fps, and it reduces the power draw on my gfx card by about 30%

[@berkertaskiran]

Well in your Afterburner, latency seem to go up from 9 to 11 when you cap your fps.

[@cemsengul16]

I have always been a graphics guy. What's the point of running fast and seeing previous gen visuals? I would always prefer 4K Ultra over 1440P Ultra with higher speed.

[@jandraelune1]

For almost the entire PC gamign life competitive gamers went for the most stable frames which is there is when they never drops below 5% from max displayable, so they will reduce settings and frame limit to lower frames. Running a stable always 30 fps is better then 60 fps most of the time with dips down to 40 or less or worse trying to maintain 120 fps and getting dips down to less then 50.

[@dungeondeezdragons4242]

11:30 pc gamer card revoked. Motion blur? No, no no no. Smoother? Blurry is smoother? What?

[@clouds5]

Consistent fps is always better. I can get used to 30fps in a game, it feels laggy at first, but after a while you get used to it and it feels good. But if you wildly jump between 80 and 25, that is a horrible experience even if you stay mostly above 50fps because those dips to 25 feel really really bad and take you out of the experience. Just look at VR, you need consistent fps and low latency to not get sick. And flatscreen gaming is the same it's just less noticeable because the screen is further away from you. I can recommend a good fps limiter, as it makes certain games a lot more enjoyable.

[@Ivel307]

I would argue that 11ms or in those sub tens of milliseconds numbers. That a standard human reflex couldn't even recognize it. I would bet in a random test that a person wouldn't be able to tell the difference under the 50ms mark

[@amirkhanSM]

Man, amazing videos! Wish you best

[@0x8badbeef]

I adjust for sharpness. This is to reduce eye fatigue. Your eyes don't know about digital artifacts and does whatever it does to sharpen. That means if there is something blurry like being caused by motion blur and anti-aliasing your eyes will work to sharpen what is being soften. Your eyes don't know that is what it supposed to look like. That sharpness is helped by having higher frame rate. I've been gaming on consoles. After long sessions I notice when looking around the room everything is a bit out of focus. That problem went away when I started gaming above 60 fps on a PC. The reason why consoles lock to 30 and 60 is consoles are designed primarily for TV's which are 60Hz. Only until recently VRR is available to some.

[@xblur17]

@16:15 it shows you were actually running the game at the "Epic" graphics preset, no "medium" like you claimed. What's bizzare is that you were also using FSR 1.0 along with those insanely high settings, so your game was actually being upscaled from like 800p to 1440p. Either way, this explains why your GPU usage was so high, and also why Reflex + Boost had such a big effect on latency. Please make a note about this, or make a follow up video with the correct settings being used, because you've rendered this entire test useless.

[@dandenton2438]

I've been telling people about this for years. I'd rather play with a perfect clean 30fps than a dirty all over the place 60fps anyday.

[@MrVidification]

Higher fps is usually better in games, but a lower frame rate can increase the level of drama and give an otherworldly atmosphere if done right, with the right game. I suspect most games are capped at 30fps due to limits with tech and little else. Games with a long drawn story with a high frame rate could give that smooth soap opera effect that very few want. I would rather a game echo a major movie than a cheap soap or theatre production

[@rustyshackleford4117]

Thanks for finally putting together mostly interesting content as opposed to simply doomslaying everything Nvidia does. Good job kid, you'll go far!

[@LeeSurber]

The reason I limit fps is purely to save power..!! I run my entire computer rack and most of my house on solar power so these days I'm all about saving energy..!! It makes a difference..!! Especially when gaming in 1080 resolution with all the settings at max..!! I'm running 5900x or 5800x3d with rx6800 or rx6750xt..!! Gotta Love the AM4 platform..!! Killer combos..!! Also been running completely virtualized with Proxmox hardware passthrough for last 4 months.....no problems..!! Great video..!! I like your style of video..!! Keep it up..!!

[@JustAGuy85]

I think the 60fps cap is because TVs are always 60hz. And Radeon Anti-Lag works by reducing latency by holding back 1 or 2 fps so that it's not fully loaded or whatever. I'd have to look it up to remember the exact terminology... and yeah you literally are talking about it right now. Render queue.

[@saricubra2867]

I tested these things with a 19 inch pseudo 1440p CRT monitor that i have, i ended up first place in Counter Strike 2 deathmatch, definetly an OP combo.

[@Midnighttigger]

I sometimes cap games slightly above monitor frame rate due to lag spikes

[@remo-con]

limiting fps is a bad thing because no matter how good ur engine latency is, now with 60 fps u are stuck with 16.7ms latency on gpu and cant get any less than that. more fps is always better. and it feels better. nvidia might show us a fancy pics but LTT did a real practical test with shroud that showed the reality that with 60 stable fps u get much less accuracy in CS due to that 16.7ms latency, while unlimited fps gives u THE MOST FRESH frame in que by the time ur monitor is ready to draw it.

[@dragonmaster1500]

I've known about frame capping since I needed to figure out how to make Minecraft run better on my Macbook air back in 2014. I was playing around in the graphics settings and I found out that by capping my frame rate to 30 FPS it would run better then when it was uncapped.

[@NickGuelker]

I've actually been doing this for years. But not for latency. I find fps drops from 140 too 110 for example to be just as ugly and distracting as low fps. I usually lock at 90 or 120, depending on the game.

[@feralstripes1919]

The user shouldn't have to cap their FPS & troubleshoot with settings, it just goes to show you all of these video games on PC are un-optimized & are bad PC ports, unlocked FPS is still the best.

[@freelancerthe2561]

Hows that GT540 holding up?

[@simon.the.salmon]

how do you get that LAT counter

[@mellowistaken]

Holy shit i learned alot in this video thank you! Also really excited to try that frame time software from nvidia, i didnt even realize that existed. Huge game changer considering I’m not a huge fan of rivatuner

[@SpainSpace]

I'm using a 165hz monitor with Variable Refresh Rate. As long as the game is between 60-165fps, I literally don't notice the difference. I cap them at 163 with Radeon Chill. The higher, the smoother.

[@user-jd3pk1bz8e]

Great video, on amd capping frame rates doesn't work on certain games (in game settings). Solution is to use RTSS but it will crashes for time to time with Antilag on. Wish they fix that soon.... MW3 is one of the game having the issue.

[@johndelabretonne2373]

Good video topic --- I've been doing frame rate capping for quite some time now... Love it! You should do a continuation video discussing AMD's Radeon Chill...

[@legendarycinematics3091]

I’ve always capped about 10 frames less than what I’m getting frametime stutters make me not want to play

[@hellbringer09]

Freesync completely destroys this argument... I always let the frames do what they want as long as they are above 50 fps its butter smooth on my freesync monitor even when it changes by 30 fps at a time from highs to averages to lows...

[@robosergTV]

what? What a dumb take. Play a game with 30Hz and then in 90 and 165 and tell me "it doesnt matter".

[@SevendashGaming]

This is why we variable refresh rate, but best to cap in many situations.