is there any reason to limit fps?

[gwgardner]

Running TS2017 with my Nvidia 1060 card, I'm seeing frame rates in the 60 to 150 fps range. Isn't that 'overkill?' I read that 30 fps is just fine, and limiting fps to that may be beneficial in terms of lifetime of the GPU, etc. Should I figure out how to limit fps to 30? Or should I just forget about it?

[goddrauG]

Running TS2017 with my Nvidia 1060 card, I'm seeing frame rates in the 60 to 150 fps. Isn't that 'overkill?' I read that 30 fps is just fine, and limiting fps to that may be beneficial in terms of lifetime of the GPU, etc. Should I figure out how to limit fps to 30? Or should I just forget about it?

60 to 150 fps...

What kind of god are you? I can barely bring it up to 40!

[JerryC]

I think you answered your own question. If you are completely satisfied with the look of 30fps, and there is the added benefit of extending GPU life or helping other programs that might be running at the same time, then go for it!

[gwgardner]

I think you answered your own question. If you are completely satisfied with the look of 30fps, and there is the added benefit of extending GPU life or helping other programs that might be running at the same time, then go for it!

I looked at some videos on youtube for the visual difference between 30fps and 60. I couldn't really tell the difference. I heard that movie theater films are at 24 fps.

Does limiting fps really improve the lifetime of a GPU? A matter of less heat over time?

Not being a geek, I just wonder if this is an issue?

[JerryC]

A while back I think I read that some movies are being filmed now at 60fps, and some folks complain of headaches from it.

[buzz456]

A while back I think I read that some movies are being filmed now at 60fps, and some folks complain of headaches from it.

Some folks complain about everything.

[JerryC]

It is, after all, the national pastime.

[GSkid]

I looked at some videos on youtube for the visual difference between 30fps and 60. I couldn't really tell the difference. I heard that movie theater films are at 24 fps.

Does limiting fps really improve the lifetime of a GPU? A matter of less heat over time?

Not being a geek, I just wonder if this is an issue?

Just watch some Jimmy Kimmel Live YouTube videos in the 720p60 setting and you can tell the difference. It looks odd because it looks so smooth to the eye compared to the 30fps we've seen for years on television.

In games? Well you can tell the difference in fast paced games like twitch-reflex, run and gun first person shooters like Call of Duty or the Battlefield series where there is quick horizontal camera movements. But for most applications and for most people, 30fps is just fine. Especially if you are used to console games which have traditionally in most cases for years been released at 30fps so that they can use more graphical effects at the expense of a lower frame rate.

The other advantage of a frame rate limiter is smoothness and consistency of frame rate. Let us say you see a game go up and down in the frame rate.... say bouncing between 35fps and 65fps. In some games you'll notice either slight jerkiness or things going back and forth between smooth and less smooth graphics. If that game normally never drops below 35fps, then frame limiting it to 30fps means it will stay locked at a 30fps without fluctuation.... aka... a rock solid 30fps. So that's the other reason for frame rate limiting (this is what I do most of the time).

Since there is no fast action going on in TS2017, a rock solid smooth 30fps is just fine for me and hence why I use a frame limiter in it.

As for the concept of increasing the lifespan of the GPU by using a frame limiter to reduce the load..... and therefore power consumption and the heat that comes with it? Heat is the enemy of electronic components in general. In most cases you will upgrade to a new GPU before the current one fails. It's actually less about extending the overall lifespan of the GPU than it is about helping prevent the premature failure of it.

No two chips...even of the same exact model number or production batch.... are the same. Slight material or manufacturing defects in one chip, might not be in another. And under lower power consumption and chip temperatures, these two different chips most likely will last just as long as the other or at least long enough until you upgrade to a new GPU. But under a heavier load, frame rate, power consumption and chip temperatures.... one of those chips that has the imperfection has the higher odds of failing prematurely than the chip that doesn't have any defects at all. So other than saving electricity and having a more consistent frame rate in games.....using a frame rate limiter simply increases the odds that your GPU..... should it have defects.... won't prematurely fail over the years of you using it.

I say just play a game without a frame rate limiter on..... keep track of what the lowest frame rate you get in a particular game after playing it awhile.... then frame limit it a few frames lower than that to keep a smooth, rock steady frame rate experience. Either that.... or if you are less concerned about the heat or lifespan (failure rate) of your GPU and you don't care about frame rate consistency, then just don't limit the frame rate at all. It's all up to your personal preference.

[Ericmopar]

I take advantage of high FPS to turn on V-Sync and get rid of the tearing. This is assuming you have a 60hz monitor.

[GSkid]

I take advantage of high FPS to turn on V-Sync and get rid of the tearing. This is assuming you have a 60hz monitor.

I have G-Sync, so that's not an issue for me. I had complained in my laptop thread that while G-Sync got rid of tearing, it had introduced this periodic stuttering to games. By using the frame rate limiter to make a consistent frame rate, it solved the problem. But that kinda defeats the purpose of G-Sync if the frame rate doesn't vary.

I found out by accident that.... as far as I know from my initial testing..... when I turned on Fast Sync in conjunction with G-Sync and had the frame rate limiter turned off, not only did I get no tearing, but for some reason it stopped the stuttering. I've kept reading (nothing definitive) that G-Sync is to stop tearing for frame rates 60fps and below and that Fast Sync stops tearing for frame rates above 60fps. I think this has been based on the fact that the vast majority of displays are 60Hz.

What I think (a hunch.... since I don't own a monitor with a refresh faster than 60Hz to test it out) is that G-Sync eliminates tearing for frame rates up to a monitor's maximum refresh rate and Fast Sync eliminates it for frame rates higher than a monitor's maximum refresh rate. G-Sync requires a G-Sync monitor.... while my understanding is that Fast Sync works on any monitor.

The really cool thing about the recently announced HDMI 2.1 standard is that it has a Game Mode VRR (Variable Refresh Rate). Since it's built into the standard, I expect television and monitor makers to build the feature into newer displays going forward that support HDMI 2.1 and likely without adding the extra cost that the licensed G-Sync hardware adds to a display's price.

Other great features added with HDMI 2.1 is Object-based Audio, Dynamic HDR and support for 8K res at 60Hz and 4K res at 120Hz! HDMI 2.1 requires newer cables (can't use the standard HDMI cables for it), but the newer cables are backward compatible for HDMI 2.0 standards and older. It's a great time to be a gamer!

[peterhayes]

Gskid
Like you I have turned on FAST Sync with a GSync monitor and removed the fps limit and saw a much improved playback.
As you say you do not need a fps limiter with a gsync monitor.
pH