# 120hz monitor, Vsync or not?



## Horrux (Jun 19, 2011)

I am running SLI GTX 570s and in some types of games, like shooters for example, I make sure to get plenty of FPS. For example, in BFBC2, my fps stay mostly between 90 and about 140-150.

Question is, what's the disadvantage of turning on vsync? I know I won't get the yucky tearing I do when firing the blackhawks' miniguns, but what else should I consider?

Thanks


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jun 19, 2011)

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2794


> _While enabling vsync does fix tearing, it also sets the internal framerate of the game to, at most, the refresh rate of the monitor (typically 60Hz for most LCD panels). This can hurt performance even if the game doesn't run at 60 frames per second as there will still be artificial delays added to effect synchronization. Performance can be cut nearly in half cases where every frame takes just a little longer than 16.67 ms (1/60th of a second). In such a case, frame rate would drop to 30 FPS despite the fact that the game should run at just under 60 FPS. The elimination of tearing and consistency of framerate, however, do contribute to an added smoothness that double buffering without vsync just can't deliver._



You can force triple buffering on in games that don't support it using D3DOverrider included with the RivaTuner suite.


----------



## qubit (Jun 19, 2011)

Yup, you should always turn on vsync, no question about it.

You'll find this answer I gave to jonathan useful, as it applies to your question.

www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2315203&postcount=43

If you have any more, then feel free.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 19, 2011)

Well you will have a lower but more stable framerate. You will likely be capped at you refresh rate, which even with a 120hz monitor might be 60 FPS.  However, if the refresh rate is 120 then you will likely see a constant 90 FPS, with occasional jumps to 120.  Personally, I always use vsync. The tearing bugs the crap out of me, and the constant framerate jumping when it is off gives the feeling of stuttering and lag.


----------



## erocker (Jun 19, 2011)

qubit said:


> Yup, you should always turn on vsync, no question about it.
> 
> More to follow...



No, you shouldn't unless you like input lag. Vsync works fine with say racing games for example, but with FPS's blech. Read that anand article on triple buffering.


----------



## qubit (Jun 19, 2011)

erocker said:


> No, you shouldn't unless you like input lag. Vsync works fine with say racing games for example, but with FPS's blech. Read that anand article on triple buffering.



Yeah, I read it before. That's not my experience of using vsync, so I stand by my answer.


----------



## erocker (Jun 19, 2011)

qubit said:


> Yeah, I read it before. That's not my experience of using vsync, so I stand by my answer.



Yeah, with some games it's not as noticeable. Try L4D with it off on on, it definitely makes a difference for me.


----------



## qubit (Jun 19, 2011)

erocker said:


> Yeah, with some games it's not as noticeable. Try L4D with it off on on, it definitely makes a difference for me.



I might just give that a go.  I reckon if it's very laggy or the frame rate drops a lot, then it's more of a game or driver issue than anything else.


----------



## erocker (Jun 19, 2011)

qubit said:


> I reckon if it's very laggy or the frame rate drops a lot, then it's more of a game or driver issue than anything else.



No, I'm speaking about mouse input lag. Frame rates are locked at 60fps.


----------



## qubit (Jun 19, 2011)

erocker said:


> No, I'm speaking about mouse input lag. Frame rates are locked at 60fps.



Yeah, I knew what you meant and I don't notice any problems with it. Admittedly, I can notice a tiny difference if I'm looking for it in a fast-paced FPS, but it's nothing serious.

Ultimately, each user should just try it for themselves for each game and see which way they prefer it. If the system is dropping frames, then you're gonna get motion judder anyway, which vsync won't help with.


----------



## Law-II (Jun 19, 2011)

Hi

Your monitors native screen resolution is 1680 x 1050 with your SLi setup you will not do any harm using v-sync;  best way forward for you is to test a few of your favorite games with it enabled and disabled and see what you think. However saying this you may notice a big difference with non-SLi capable games as you will notice a sharp drop in frames per second and may need to disable v-sync for these.

nb: I must say I prefer v-sync on all the time "cannot stand the tearing at high res" 

atb

Law-II


----------



## Horrux (Jun 19, 2011)

erocker said:


> No, I'm speaking about mouse input lag. Frame rates are locked at 60fps.



Well I set my mouse at 500 updates a second, and my monitor being 120hz, that would mean that my frame rate would be locked at 120fps. So in essence, my mouse would update at least 4 times per frame, which I think should make input lag absolutely insignificant?

However, I imagine that triple-buffering means 3 frames are rendered ahead of time, so I would likely introduce lag of 3/120th of a second, or 1/40th?  Vsync off is single buffering or is there also buffering-induced lag?

Maybe qubit's other post contains an answer, I'm going to go read that now.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Jun 19, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Well you will have a lower but more stable framerate. You will likely be capped at you refresh rate, which even with a 120hz monitor might be 60 FPS.  However, if the refresh rate is 120 then you will likely see a constant 90 FPS, with occasional jumps to 120.  Personally, I always use vsync. The tearing bugs the crap out of me, and the constant framerate jumping when it is off gives the feeling of stuttering and lag.



Its the jumping around with vsync that looks like stuttering that bothers the crap out of me. Although as long as I can force triple buffering that isn't a problem. 



erocker said:


> No, you shouldn't unless you like input lag. Vsync works fine with say racing games for example, but with FPS's blech. Read that anand article on triple buffering.



I agree


----------



## qubit (Jun 20, 2011)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> Its the jumping around with vsync that looks like stuttering that bothers the crap out of me. Although as long as I can force triple buffering that isn't a problem.



If you're seeing 'jumping around that looks like stuttering', then it's not the fault of turning on vsync. It's your system dropping frames because it can't keep up with the monitor refresh - and it _is_ stuttering that you're seeing.

Remember, if the system can keep up with the monitor refresh at all times, then you'll see no stutter. Eliminating stutter/judder is the whole point of spending lots of money on expensive processors and graphics cards.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Jun 20, 2011)

qubit said:


> If you're seeing 'jumping around that looks like stuttering', then it's not the fault of turning on vsync. It's your system dropping frames because it can't keep up with the monitor refresh - and it _is_ stuttering that you're seeing.



Seeing a sudden drop from 60fps to 30fps is what vsync does without triple buffering when the actual framerate drops below 60fps. Its one of those things that wouldn't be noticeable with vsync disabled since there is no framerate cap. Triple buffering can help since the steps aren't as large.



> Remember, if the system can keep up with the monitor refresh at all times, then you'll see no stutter. Eliminating stutter/judder is the whole point of spending lots of money on expensive processors and graphics cards.



What is your point and what is the eye rolling smiley for? Does that make you feel smarter?


----------



## twicksisted (Jun 20, 2011)

erocker said:


> No, you shouldn't unless you like input lag. Vsync works fine with say racing games for example, but with FPS's blech. Read that anand article on triple buffering.



i totally agree with you.... but then again ive never had crossfire 6990's with 200+ FPS.... From my useage, vsync screws lags things for me even though i consistently get over 60FPS in most games on my setup


----------



## qubit (Jun 20, 2011)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> Seeing a sudden drop from 60fps to 30fps is what vsync does without triple buffering when the actual framerate drops below 60fps. Its one of those things that wouldn't be noticeable with vsync disabled since there is no framerate cap. Triple buffering can help since the steps aren't as large.
> 
> What is your point and what is the eye rolling smiley for? Does that make you feel smarter?



Yeah, I've seen that 60 to 30 drop and it's not the end of the world. The alternative is to have constant line tearing and animation artifacts (including very annoying judder) all the time as the game's framerate freewheels. If you want an example, 85Hz animation on a 60Hz monitor is especially juddery and annoying.

This thing is so simple and so _duh!_ obvious and people are being so dumb about it which is why I'm rolling my eyes. What the hell's the point of spending hundreds or even thousands on an expensive tricked-out system only to ruin it by unlocking vsync? :shadedshu

It boils down to what I said before that the system must be able to keep up with the monitor refresh to ensure smooth animation ie one frame per refresh, no ifs, buts or maybes. If you're getting frame drops then you must do one or more of the (non-exhaustive) following things:

- Drop detail/resolution settings
- Upgrade your system hardware/drivers/optimise Windows of power-sucking services etc
- Play a game with better frame rates
- If you can't do any of the above, then live with it

The only time to turn off vsync is when benchmarking or troubleshooting.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 20, 2011)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> Its the jumping around with vsync that looks like stuttering that bothers the crap out of me. Although as long as I can force triple buffering that isn't a problem.



I never have that problem because I properly adjust the settings in games like everyone should.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Jun 20, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I never have that problem because I properly adjust the settings in games like everyone should.




Yeah, ok.  
Not every game uses triple buffering. Dragon Age Origins comes to mind as a game where I had to use D3DOverrider. But whatever you think apparently there is a better way.


----------



## qubit (Jun 20, 2011)

You can force triple buffering on with the nvidia drivers. I expect the AMD ones allow this too.

I hope you can understand why vsync must be left on now, BababooeyHTJ.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Jun 20, 2011)

qubit said:


> You can force triple buffering on with the nvidia drivers. I expect the AMD ones allow this too.



No, you can't. That only works with opengl. It says it right in the control panel, at least it used to.



> I hope you can understand why vsync must be left on now, BababooeyHTJ.



What are you talking about?


----------



## qubit (Jun 20, 2011)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> No, you can't. That only works with opengl. It says it right in the control panel, at least it used to.



Are you sure it's OpenGL only? It doesn't specify it in the nvidia control panel, see screenshot:







Therefore that question remains open.



BababooeyHTJ said:


> What are you talking about?



My detailed and helpful reply to you in post 17 that you decided to ignore. tsk!


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Jun 20, 2011)

qubit said:


> Are you sure it's OpenGL only? It doesn't specify it in the nvidia control panel, see screenshot:



Try it, I don't know what to tell you. It did not work 7 months ago when I last had a Nvidia card and afaik that hasn't changed. It doesn't work in the AMD control panel either. You have to use Radeon Pro with AMD/ATI.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 20, 2011)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> Yeah, ok.
> Not every game uses triple buffering. Dragon Age Origins comes to mind as a game where I had to use D3DOverrider. But whatever you think apparently there is a better way.



Triple buffering has nothing to do with it.  Tweak the game settings so you get constantly over 60FPS and the problem is gone, no Triple buffering needed.  How is that hard to understand, serioulsy?


----------



## Horrux (Jun 20, 2011)

Yep, I now realize I am lacking in the CPU department in order to consistently surpass 120fps no matter what graphics settings I use.

6-core, here I come.


----------



## zeron2 (Nov 22, 2011)

qubit said:


> Yeah, I've seen that 60 to 30 drop and it's not the end of the world. The alternative is to have constant line tearing and animation artifacts (including very annoying judder) all the time as the game's framerate freewheels. If you want an example, 85Hz animation on a 60Hz monitor is especially juddery and annoying.
> 
> This thing is so simple and so _duh!_ obvious and people are being so dumb about it which is why I'm rolling my eyes. What the hell's the point of spending hundreds or even thousands on an expensive tricked-out system only to ruin it by unlocking vsync? :shadedshu
> 
> ...



Forgive me, if I am still not fully understanding here.

First of all, I DO understand that on a 60hz monitor, as long as I bring up my frame rate at or above 60, and turn on vsync, ill be fine, and its the best thing to do. correct?

So does that mean that i HAVE to bring up my frame rate up to 120 or more, on a 120hz monitor?  Does that mean I kinda screwed myself in getting a 120hz monitor, since that means I have to turn down graphic settings even further, making them look worse, in order to be able to use Vsync???!

Should I have stuck with a 60hz monitor, to have a better looking game graphic wise and run smoothly?

You did state that its always better to get a 120hz monitor,  but it is very difficult to get a constant 120 frame rates on games, unless you want them to look like total crap, which defeats the purpose in the first place for a good looking game?


----------



## qubit (Nov 22, 2011)

zeron2 said:


> Forgive me, if I am still not fully understanding here.
> 
> First of all, I DO understand that on a 60hz monitor, as long as I bring up my frame rate at or above 60, and turn on vsync, ill be fine, and its the best thing to do. correct?
> 
> ...


Yup, the principle is just the same with a 120Hz monitor. Your system must be capable of rendering faster than 120Hz and then you lock to vsync to get smooth animation. One of the nice things about doubling the screen refresh, is that if you drop a few frames, it's much less noticeable, so the system doesn't have to be perfect. Also, you can run that 120Hz monitor at 60 or 100Hz too if you want, so you haven't "screwed" yourself at all.  I find that 120Hz even helps to make the boring old Windows desktop look noticeably more fluid when moving the mouse and windows around.

You're right though: ultimately, you need quite a powerful system to maintain that framerate with modern games. Why don't you fill in your system specs and share your system with everyone?  Click here. The community can then advise you on what would need upgrading. Have a look at mine for an example. You'll see that it's currently an E8500 @ 4GHz + GTX 580. The CPU is quite old now and has trouble maintaining 120Hz on the latest games at times, so I'll be upgrading it soon. This CPU was considered pretty powerful when I got it almost three years ago, so it's doing very well.

www.fraps.com is an excellent framerate measuring application, with a basic free version and a paid, more fully featured version.

Oh and welcome to TPU!


----------



## Horrux (Nov 22, 2011)

zeron2 said:


> Forgive me, if I am still not fully understanding here.
> 
> First of all, I DO understand that on a 60hz monitor, as long as I bring up my frame rate at or above 60, and turn on vsync, ill be fine, and its the best thing to do. correct?
> 
> ...



Well if your GPUs are good enough (I run sli GTX 570s) then games won't look like crap unless you needlessly reduce IQ settings. The problem with 60hz monitors is that in the circumstances where your rig can only push out 59fps, you will be shown 30fps, because the computer will JUST miss the new frame, and wait for the next one, effectively skipping half the frames. 

If you are using a 120hz monitor and you can only push out 59fps you will see 40 fps, given that you will be skipping 2 frames every time your GPU has a new image, effectively running the display at 1/3rd the refresh rate.

Of course if you can push out "only" 119fps, you will be shown 60 fps, effectively skipping half the frames, just as in the case of the 60hz monitor, except everything is doubled. And 60fps as a DROP from 120 is not that bad. If you tweak your settings so that this doesn't happen very often, you will mostly be playing at the godlike smoothness of 120hz with occasional ventures in the 'mere mortal' realms of 60hz.

So the take home lesson for me would be toy around with the display settings until you are satisfied, but especially, V-Sync isn't for those with crap PCs or those who demand the highest possible image quality. It's for those with high end machines who thrive on smoothness.


----------



## zeron2 (Nov 22, 2011)

qubit said:


> Yup, the principle is just the same with a 120Hz monitor. Your system must be capable of rendering faster than 120Hz and then you lock to vsync to get smooth animation. One of the nice things about doubling the screen refresh, is that if you drop a few frames, it's much less noticeable, so the system doesn't have to be perfect. Also, you can run that 120Hz monitor at 60 or 100Hz too if you want, so you haven't "screwed" yourself at all.  I find that 120Hz even helps to make the boring old Windows desktop look noticeably more fluid when moving the mouse and windows around.
> 
> You're right though: ultimately, you need quite a powerful system to maintain that framerate with modern games. Why don't you fill in your system specs and share your system with everyone?  Click here. The community can then advise you on what would need upgrading. Have a look at mine for an example. You'll see that it's currently an E8500 @ 4GHz + GTX 580. The CPU is quite old now and has trouble maintaining 120Hz on the latest games at times, so I'll be upgrading it soon. This CPU was considered pretty powerful when I got it almost three years ago, so it's doing very well.
> 
> ...



Thank you. Also thank you for your very fast response 

1. Alright, so basically, if i go into my video card settings and adjust my monitor to display at 60hz, correct?

2. Now, since my monitor panel is a true 120hz, even if I set it to 60hz in windows, will it still look better over all and be smoother, than a 60hz monitor? Does a 120hz monitor give an advantage in this case?  (reason i ask is, i see a 24 inch at 60hz for 199.00,  vs a 23in 120hz, at almost 350.00, and wondering if I made a mistake in the cost i paid, if a 24 inch would have given me a better gaming experience)

3. So in essence, it is better to have a 120hz monitor to be set at 60hz, than leave it at 120hz without Vsync?

Thank you in advance!!


----------



## zeron2 (Nov 22, 2011)

Horrux said:


> Well if your GPUs are good enough (I run sli GTX 570s) then games won't look like crap unless you needlessly reduce IQ settings. The problem with 60hz monitors is that in the circumstances where your rig can only push out 59fps, you will be shown 30fps, because the computer will JUST miss the new frame, and wait for the next one, effectively skipping half the frames.
> 
> If you are using a 120hz monitor and you can only push out 59fps you will see 40 fps, given that you will be skipping 2 frames every time your GPU has a new image, effectively running the display at 1/3rd the refresh rate.
> 
> ...



oh I see.

So in effect, if i'm pushing 80 fps on the 120hz, for example, itll bring it down to 60fps with vsync on.  So this will still be a much better situation, than a 60hz at 59fps?  Thus meaning since 120 is divisible by 60?  But this will still be "juttery" at times?  otherwise i think im beginning to understand.

At the level of graphics i like, im pushing maybe about 80.  SO looking at the two monitors I had to choose from,  24 inch 60hz for 199.99  or the 23 inch 120hz for 350.00.  if I want to keep playing a the level of graphics I like with my current rig,  would the 24 inch been a better choice for a good looking game, and also because its bigger and cheaper?  (both are good quality monitors).    ugh, this is frustrating hehe.

I really appreciate all your answers everyone. Than k you so much.  I just googled this question I had about Vsync, and yours post came up, so I apologize ahead of time if I brought up an old post back to the top.


----------



## zeron2 (Nov 22, 2011)

Oops.  I am so sorry, for the seemingly double post about the monitors.  For some reason, when I first looked, one of the post replies I made was not showing up, so I thought it was lost in translation.

Again, my apologies.  Thank you in advance for your patience and your answers.  Im sure after your next response I will know exactly what to do 

BTW, qubit, my rig is almsot identical to yours, just my gpu is the next one down from zotac,  gtx560.


----------



## Horrux (Nov 22, 2011)

zeron2 said:


> oh I see.
> 
> So in effect, if i'm pushing 80 fps on the 120hz, for example, itll bring it down to 60fps with vsync on.  So this will still be a much better situation, than a 60hz at 59fps?  Thus meaning since 120 is divisible by 60?  But this will still be "juttery" at times?  otherwise i think im beginning to understand.


Yes it will run at 60fps and will be smooth as butter because it will always be exactly 60fps.



zeron2 said:


> At the level of graphics i like, im pushing maybe about 80.  SO looking at the two monitors I had to choose from,  24 inch 60hz for 199.99  or the 23 inch 120hz for 350.00.  if I want to keep playing a the level of graphics I like with my current rig,  would the 24 inch been a better choice for a good looking game, and also because its bigger and cheaper?  (both are good quality monitors).    ugh, this is frustrating hehe.


It all depends. First you need to know if you need vsync or not. Without vsync, the 120hz monitor will be WAY better in every game, unless you are under 60fps. With vsync on, you will need to drive higher FPS in order to have a very good gaming experience.

I think a 120hz monitor is always the best option. First, it allows you to SEE those 80fps whereas you will be missing some frames on a 60hz monitor. Second, for those games where you aren't pushing lots of fps, you can eventually add a second video card and then see the game in its greater glory. And finally if you ever decide to go 3D, you won't need to ditch your monitor.


----------



## qubit (Nov 22, 2011)

zeron2 said:


> Thank you. Also thank you for your very fast response
> 
> 1. Alright, so basically, if i go into my video card settings and adjust my monitor to display at 60hz, correct?
> 
> ...



1 Yes

2 No. It'll look just like any other 60Hz monitor when set to 60Hz mode. Yes, 120Hz monitors are still stupidly expensive, but in time they will come down in price and I reckon they might even replace 60Hz monitors, eventually

3 Yes, but I have to qualify that by telling you that there's a strong subjective element to this. Try it both ways and see which you prefer. Personally, I would just leave it at 120Hz with vsync on.

You said you've got a GTX 560. Well, I bought an overclocked one, then a week later a GTX 580 to compare and the 580 blew it away - much more than you'd think from looking at the graphs and reviews, hence I kept the 580. If you want supersmooth graphics and have a suitable PSU and case for it and of course, the money, then I say go for it - the budget own brand ones (pure reference models, so they're no worse) are not so expensive now. Two things though: there's rumours that graphics cards are gonna start dropping in pirce, presumably in response to AMD's next gen 7000 series and nvidia's a couple of months later. Therefore, you may want to hold off on this purchase.

Oh and you're welcome.


----------

