Talk:Vertical synchronization

Untitled

What I would like to know is, does using vsync defer the performance or does it simply cap it? For example if I had vsync on and my monitor on 60hz, and the game ran on ~40fps would turning vsync off provide a performance boost?

Do you really need better than 40 fps? I get 30 fps, and I'm very satisfied with that. Anyways, I don't know the answer. D. F. Schmidt 17:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, of course you need better than 40 FPS. The human eye only starts seeing continuous motion at around 20-30FPS (any game running slower than this causes eyestrain), and smooth motion at around 50. Since our brains aren't frame-locked to motion picture displays, we need about double that as a safe margin to avoid seeing the display switch frames.

I'd say 60-80FPS is a comfortable area in most cases nowadays, and around 160FPS would be the right place for things to stabilize once technology reaches high enough.

One important factor, though, is that an inconsistant framerate is often more noticable than a low one. It is thus sometimes wiser to cap a game's framerate at something lower (preferably something that divides evenly into your display's refresh rate, I.E.: 30 or 45 FPS on a screen running at 90hz) to ensure even performance than to let the thing go nuts with 3-digit framerates when nothing's happening only to hiccup down into the teens whenever a shot goes off. 207.177.231.9 14:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VBL-Sync ideally shouldn't cause any ill effects, but since most software isn't designed properly for VBL-Synced operation then it typically results in additional strain on the hardware or dumped frames as the program clumsily tries to avoid overshooting or undershooting the display's refresh interval.

As for whether or not VBL-Sync caps FPS then, yes, it does. Not that anyone would miss those extra frames since you obviously can't see them. 207.177.231.9 14:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With 60hz frequency and 40 FPS, vsync would effectively reduce that number to 30 FPS. If you were getting 29 FPS, I'm pretty sure vsync would cut it down to 20 FPS, the closest divisor. In some cases it's worth turning vsync on because frame tearing ruins realism.

I prefer to have 60 fps or above, but 30 is OK sometimes, but never anything less. Swatoa 01:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not true. The next frame starts rendering while the current frame waits for the vertical refresh, so you don't really get any significant framerate decrease (e.g. if the framerate is 40FPS, every other frame will take 2 screen refreshes, and every other frame will take 1 screen refresh, so you're still at 40fps). What VSync does is to cap the framerate to the screen refresh rate, and make sure that no "half-frames" are shown.. With VSync off and high FPS, most of the time what you see is an image that has the lower part from the previous frame and the upper part from the current frame. Depending on movement, you can sometimes see the jagged line between them. I don't see a reason why VSync should be ever off, except when benchmarking performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.44.83 (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A great explanation of vsync can be found here: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=928593 --LKRaider 00:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been covered that if you want to fix tearing, use v-sync. I will always turn on v-sync if the option is there, no question. But what if the option isn't there? (ie. almost all console games) Is there ANYTHING you can do to get rid of the tearing? One of those new 120Hz TV's? (I doubt it.) Unfortunately more and more console games are tearing without ANY v-sync option and it's driving me nuts, to the point where I refuse to buy any game with confirmed tearing! --Exodite (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]