Radeon Chill - does anybody uses it?

[itomic009]

I recently upgraded to RX 6700 XT 12GB and am very satisfied. I have a 1440p 75Hz display, and I got curious about the Radon Chill. I know it has been here for years, but I never bothered to try it out too much. I anyways had a weaker GPU, so I didn't need to restrain the GPU in the first place. Now, I tested it in Uncharted 4, and I like the feature since the GPU does not run 100% (I undervolted it a bit as well), and I have a rock solid framerate. The best option is to set it one fps lower than the monitor's refresh rate, especially if you have a FreeSync one. Since mine is 75Hz, I set the minimum and the maximum on the Radeon Chipp to 74fps, and the gameplay is buttery smooth, with my GPU drawing about 40 - 50W less than without it. In the adventure and not so fast-paced games, it is okay. I do not know how it behaves in faster-paced games.

What are your experiences s with the Radeon Chill? Do you use it?

 

[Wildmazay]

Hello,
Yes im using it, but not in games.
I like my rig to be quiet (to don't hear it's noises), so im turning on every possible fan-reducing-noice features. But when it comes to gaming im setting it to turn-off state because the sounds of the game in my headphones are louder anyway

 

[AnotherReader]

I use it in older games that don't need the full power of the GPU. I use the defaults of 75 and 144 for my monitor, and it helps keep both the average power draw and GPU fan speed low.

 

[Space Lynx]

I use it in older games that don't need the full power of the GPU. I use the defaults of 75 and 144 for my monitor, and it helps keep both the average power draw and GPU fan speed low.

if I frame cap all my games at 160 fps on a 165hz monitor, doesn't this effectively do the same thing, as the gpu only draws as many watts as it needs.

 

[Shou Miko]

I use it in both new and older titles works fine and no complains really.

I do it for power savings because eletricity prices can be a bitch.

 

[birdz901]

No I don't. It won't work with crossfire setups. There are other ways to limit framerate for those still using multiple cards (Frame rate target control).

 

[AnotherReader]

if I frame cap all my games at 160 fps on a 165hz monitor, doesn't this effectively do the same thing, as the gpu only draws as many watts as it needs.

It depends upon the title, but since Chill has both a lower limit and an upper limit, it usually is more efficient than a frame rate cap.

 

[Sithaer]

Used to when I had my RX 570 for nearly 3 years with a 75Hz monitor that has 40-75 Hz Freesync range so I had mine also capped at 74.
Worked pretty well in almost every game save it for a few odd ones where it refused to work but in general it was nice and tbh I still kinda miss that Freesync on top.

Now that I've switched to Nvidia I simply limit my max frames on a driver level or if need be sync it down to avoid tearing.
I mean it works but I liked my chill+Freesync more.

 

[skizzo]

yes I use Chill for the sole purpose as an alternative to FRTC (Frame rate target control). I set the min max values to the same exact value

FRTC apparently adds (or may add) input lag. So using chill in such a way lets you use a pseudo FRTC alternative without the added input lag.

also you can use chill on a per game profile basis. FRTC on the other hand is a global parameter and you cannot adjust that in a game profile. this is handy for me because there are a couple games I need to change to either 100Hz or 60Hz from my standard 120Hz display.

My opinion is you need to be a serious competitive gamer with high anal retentive characteristics to care enough that your GPU should be outputting for ex 372 FPS (any value over your display's max refresh) despite you are using a for ex 240Hz display......"normal" people are not going to notice a difference if the GPU was only outputting 240 FPS

 

[Space Lynx]

yes I use Chill I set the min max values to the same exact value

what.

 

[Ware]

I set the minimum and the maximum on the Radeon Chipp to 74fps

I think it's pointless to use like this, just use "Frame rate target control" if you only care about smooth frame rate.
The "Min FPS" is more accurately called "Idle FPS". Your power savings are coming from the undervolt.
Radeon Chill constantly checks for motion looking for an oppurtunity to lower the FPS, but your idle FPS is the same as the max FPS, so no chill, no power savings.
If you want to save more power set the "Min FPS" to a lower number, and it will run at lower FPS when you're AFK.
I've used Chill when I played Ark and I was AFK a lot, but normally I'm not AFK when I'm gaming and I don't want the FR jumping around.

if I frame cap all my games at 160 fps on a 165hz monitor, doesn't this effectively do the same thing, as the gpu only draws as many watts as it needs.

It depends upon the title, but since Chill has both a lower limit and an upper limit, it usually is more efficient than a frame rate cap.
Radeon Chill sets a lower frame rate limit when you are idle. It's not a lower limit, but "Idle target FPS", and setting a lower FPS can reduce power consumption when idle.
It's not inhearently more effecient, since power saving will come with reduced frame rates, and in this case with Idle FPS=Max FPS there is no potential for power savings.

FRTC apparently adds (or may add) input lag. So using chill in such a way lets you use a pseudo FRTC alternative without the added input lag.

I think any driver FPS limit has this potential including chill.
I think it depends on the engine, but in general for the sake of reducing input lag, an in-game FPS limit is preferable.

 

[Kodehawa]

if I frame cap all my games at 160 fps on a 165hz monitor, doesn't this effectively do the same thing, as the gpu only draws as many watts as it needs.

Some frame capping implementations in older games suck and make frame pacing inconsistent. That is where Chill actually shines (and for saving energy while afk).

 

[AusWolf]

I'm a bit conflicted, to be honest. For now, I use a standard 60 FPS cap, but reading this thread makes me wonder if Chill would be better.

Edit: I've just checked - I cannot enable Chill without disabling Anti-Lag. Now, which one is better? Chill, or Anti-Lag with an FPS cap?

 

[Space Lynx]

I'm a bit conflicted, to be honest. For now, I use a standard 60 FPS cap, but reading this thread makes me wonder if Chill would be better.

Edit: I've just checked - I cannot enable Chill without disabling Anti-Lag. Now, which one is better? Chill, or Anti-Lag with an FPS cap?

anti-lag is useless from what i understand, i always turn it off.

 

[AusWolf]

anti-lag is useless from what i understand, i always turn it off.

I've just had a quick test in God of War. Anti-Lag + a fixed FPS cap actually works better, in my opinion.

Chill works well when I'm doing something and when I'm not, but there are minor stutters in between. Also, it doesn't seem to reach the upper FPS target ever. The idea is good, but the implementation is a bit meh.

 

[Space Lynx]

I've just had a quick test in God of War. Anti-Lag + a fixed FPS cap actually works better, in my opinion.

Chill works well when I'm doing something and when I'm not, but there are minor stutters in between. Also, it doesn't seem to reach the upper FPS target ever. The idea is good, but the implementation is a bit meh.

i'm willing to give anti-lag a go.

what do you cap your fps at? how many fps below the max?

 

[AusWolf]

i'm willing to give anti-lag a go.

what do you cap your fps at? how many fps below the max?

I cap it at my monitor's refresh rate, 60 Hz. I do have Freesync, though.

 

[skizzo]

what.

I said what I meant, and meant what I said lol

if you set the min and the max FPS value of the chill slider to same value then it acts like a frame limiter like it normally does, BUT, due to the min limit being the same, it doesn't do the FPS dip (the "chill" part of the name gimmick) when it detects low/no motion. I thought it sounded funny the first time I saw someone post about this method too, but as far as I am concerned it works just as good as FRTC

I think any driver FPS limit has this potential including chill.
I think it depends on the engine, but in general for the sake of reducing input lag, an in-game FPS limit is preferable.

makes sense. I really end up using chill more often due to it is customizable per game profile.....because in all honesty.....even playing games that would make most people notice input lag like Doom Eternal on nightmare difficulty, I cannot tell the difference when my TV is in "game mode" or not in game mode. supposed to be a difference of like 5ms to north of 70ms...I cannot tell the difference lol so my point being input lag has never been a real deciding factor for me. just some icing on the cake I suppose

 

[Space Lynx]

I said what I meant, and meant what I said lol

if you set the min and the max FPS value of the chill slider to same value then it acts like a frame limiter like it normally does, BUT, due to the min limit being the same, it doesn't do the FPS dip (the "chill" part of the name gimmick) when it detects low/no motion. I thought it sounded funny the first time I saw someone post about this method too, but as far as I am concerned it works just as good as FRTC



makes sense. I really end up using chill more often due to it is customizable per game profile.....because in all honesty.....even playing games that would make most people notice input lag like Doom Eternal on nightmare difficulty, I cannot tell the difference when my TV is in "game mode" or not in game mode. supposed to be a difference of like 5ms to north of 70ms...I cannot tell the difference lol so my point being input lag has never been a real deciding factor for me. just some icing on the cake I suppose

ty for clarifying, I was confused. lol

 

[tabascosauz]

yes I use Chill for the sole purpose as an alternative to FRTC (Frame rate target control). I set the min max values to the same exact value

FRTC apparently adds (or may add) input lag. So using chill in such a way lets you use a pseudo FRTC alternative without the added input lag.

also you can use chill on a per game profile basis. FRTC on the other hand is a global parameter and you cannot adjust that in a game profile. this is handy for me because there are a couple games I need to change to either 100Hz or 60Hz from my standard 120Hz display.

My opinion is you need to be a serious competitive gamer with high anal retentive characteristics to care enough that your GPU should be outputting for ex 372 FPS (any value over your display's max refresh) despite you are using a for ex 240Hz display......"normal" people are not going to notice a difference if the GPU was only outputting 240 FPS

I haven't really noticed FRTC adding input lag (because Anti-Lag also exists when not using Chill), but yours was otherwise exactly my experience as well.

Set FRTC global to start (e.g. 160fps), then using Chill on a per-game basis where necessary.

FRTC almost always works well. I think there were only a few exceptions where Chill didn't work so well - War Thunder where it does nothing but FRTC smooths everything out.

Using Chill "as intended" and letting clocks drop, I was not a fan. Already the inherent VRAM (possibly also core) clock fluctuations were wreaking havoc in games, didn't need Chill adding to the problems. Maybe it makes a bigger difference in RDNA2 where it's not idling aggressively in game? dunno

 

[skizzo]

I haven't really noticed FRTC adding input lag (because Anti-Lag also exists when not using Chill), but yours was otherwise exactly my experience as well.

Set FRTC global to start (e.g. 160fps), then using Chill on a per-game basis where necessary.

FRTC almost always works well. I think there were only a few exceptions where Chill didn't work so well - War Thunder where it does nothing but FRTC smooths everything out.

Using Chill "as intended" and letting clocks drop, I was not a fan. Already the inherent VRAM (possibly also core) clock fluctuations were wreaking havoc in games, didn't need Chill adding to the problems. Maybe it makes a bigger difference in RDNA2 where it's not idling aggressively in game? dunno

believe me, I cannot notice any added input lag either. I'm kinda just regurgitating the note/warning that is the AMD Adrenaline or what others have shared through legit investigations. It is measurable, but hell I cannot tell the diff between game mode and normal mode on my TV which adds around 70ms lol

yea the couple times I tried chill out as intended it was jumping all over the place. for ex, if you're completely still it should drop, but in a particular outdoor scene it is raining and just the rain drops moving across the screen is enough to trigger the chill part to stop and ramp back up. problem is it was doing it pretty inconsistently so FPS felt very jerky even on a display with VRR/Freesync. I think it's a YMMV kinda thing, depending on your expectations, settings, and what game(s) you're playing. It was very "scene dependent" when I gave it a shot

 

[itomic009]

I will have to test it more in some other games, but as for now, Uncharted 4 works great for me. As far as I can see and "feel" (regarding the potential lag), the gameplay is perfect, and my GPU isn't loaded 100% all the time, to maintain it. That is good from my point of view since I wouldn't get anything extra from the twice the faster GPU than mine. It will not make my gameplay any better or more enjoyable.

By recommendation, I use the settings to set it to 1fps lower than my display cap (I have FreeSync 48Hz-75Hz range). The goal is to keep the frame time delivery smooth. That is why I did not put it lower than 74fps. I know that I should have set it to lower to "chill," but my point is to have a stable framerate and to cap it by my monitor's max refresh rate. Also, I do have lower power consumption because my GPU can constantly deliver around 90 - 100 fps on average. Therefore, by limiting it to 74fps, it does not have to work 100% all the time. Also, I do not need the "chill" part on the low end since I am not AFK a lot when I game.

Anyway, as I mentioned, I did not ever use the Chill option, even though I am on AMD GPUs since they introduced it, but I appreciate it, and it is a cool feature. I will also play with it in other games to see whether it suits me.

 

[AusWolf]

I haven't really noticed FRTC adding input lag (because Anti-Lag also exists when not using Chill), but yours was otherwise exactly my experience as well.

Set FRTC global to start (e.g. 160fps), then using Chill on a per-game basis where necessary.

FRTC almost always works well. I think there were only a few exceptions where Chill didn't work so well - War Thunder where it does nothing but FRTC smooths everything out.

Using Chill "as intended" and letting clocks drop, I was not a fan. Already the inherent VRAM (possibly also core) clock fluctuations were wreaking havoc in games, didn't need Chill adding to the problems. Maybe it makes a bigger difference in RDNA2 where it's not idling aggressively in game? dunno

I just tried yesterday with God of War. I compared a 60 FPS lock with Anti-Lag vs Chill at 48-60 FPS (that's my monitor's Freesync range) and no Anti-Lag. Conclusion: FRTC + Anti-Lag works better.

Chill is okay when I'm standing around, doing nothing, but the card clocks so far down that it takes a fraction of a second to wake up when I start moving which results in a slight hitch. It isn't annoying once or twice, but when it happens every time you start moving the mouse, it gets tiring for your eyes. Also, it never seems to reach the higher 60 FPS limit, it hovers around 56-58, while with FRTC, it runs at a constant 60.

 

[chrisslyi]

Hi all,

just registered here to give a heads up about FRTC and Chill.

FRTC does bring microstutter lag with it ( at least in my experience ). Not in every game is affected though. As skizzo said, enabling Chill does not do that for example in CSGO. I almost banged my head against the wall after buying a 7900XT and XTX, trying evey tweak under the sun in BIOS/Windows/driver/hardware (even QVL Memory lol.) and games itself to get rid of the microstutter. Nothing worked.

After FRTC accidentaly deactivated itself yesterday and frames were uncapped I could see all games ran perfectly smooth. Couldn't believe my eyes. Restarted the game and FRTC was active again - same issue.
Used chill just for fun and it does work multiple times better than FRTC - for at least CSGO and Dead Island 2. I have to say setting the min/max values same seemed dumb first, but is working as of now after multiple tests ran.

Never had those issues with Nvidias FRTC.. Was almost ready to return the card for loss and buy one again. But this.. this saved me and hopefully many others.

 

[AusWolf]

Hi all,

just registered here to give a heads up about FRTC and Chill.

FRTC does bring microstutter lag with it ( at least in my experience ). Not in every game is affected though. As skizzo said, enabling Chill does not do that for example in CSGO. I almost banged my head against the wall after buying a 7900XT and XTX, trying evey tweak under the sun in BIOS/Windows/driver/hardware (even QVL Memory lol.) and games itself to get rid of the microstutter. Nothing worked.

After FRTC accidentaly deactivated itself yesterday and frames were uncapped I could see all games ran perfectly smooth. Couldn't believe my eyes. Restarted the game and FRTC was active again - same issue.
Used chill just for fun and it does work multiple times better than FRTC - for at least CSGO and Dead Island 2. I have to say setting the min/max values same seemed dumb first, but is working as of now after multiple tests ran.

Never had those issues with Nvidias FRTC.. Was almost ready to return the card for loss and buy one again. But this.. this saved me and hopefully many others.

That's weird... I have the exact opposite experience. Setting Chill to a 60 FPS target never gives me 60 FPS. More like 58 with stutters that I can't explain. FRTC at 60 is butter smooth 99% of the time.

Edit: typo