Peoples views on VSync

Peter450 · 5 Sep 2010 at 18:25

I personally always turn this on as the shearing and tearing without it tends to spoil the look of most games to much

I guess i'm just curious as to how many other gamers use it, and if you dont, what are your reasons?

skotish| · 5 Sep 2010 at 18:28

I just put up with the tearing cant wait till i can afford a 120 Hz monitor

OpenToSuggestions · 5 Sep 2010 at 18:28

I always use it, ever since Vice City on PC and everytime I drove round a corner the screen seemed to tear (was really obvious due to all the tall buildings).

Aside from when benchmarking, I see no point in VSync being turned off.

RavenXXX2 · 5 Sep 2010 at 18:30

I used it for a while and yeah games look smooth as silk, but I just felt it was hindering me in online games, so I urned it off and at first it was horrible going back to no vsync but once your eyes adjust to having it off, all is fine again.

Mr Krugga · 5 Sep 2010 at 18:34

I turn it off in most titles, tearing doesn't bother me that much ever since I run my monitor at 76HZ refresh rate

kmufc77 · 5 Sep 2010 at 18:37

I used to always have it on,but now im using a 120hz screen there is no need to have Vsync enabled as there is hardly any tearing at all

Spazzfish · 5 Sep 2010 at 18:40

I would like to turn it on, but when i do I get horrendous V-sync judder. Even forcing on triple buffering doesn't stop the problem.
It's a problem with fps, but for other games types I can get away with it being on.

Peter450 · 5 Sep 2010 at 18:43

Ok i'm gonna have to ask about this 120hz business, i know it means it updates the screen faster, but what are the advantage of a 120hz screen? over a normal 60hz one

I not really readmuch about the differing refresh rates on LCD's most things i read seem to focus on responce times and image quality

Speedy Pete · 5 Sep 2010 at 20:10

At 60hz your capping your fps at 60fps also since the screen cannot update any quicker.

With a 120hz monitor youll be able to have full flow of your fps meaning a much smoother image in 3d apps an such.

Boozebeard · 5 Sep 2010 at 21:15

Spazzfish said:
I would like to turn it on, but when i do I get horrendous V-sync judder. Even forcing on triple buffering doesn't stop the problem.
It's a problem with fps, but for other games types I can get away with it being on.

Unless you get a problem like this is there any point not having it on? As you're never going to see more frames than your refresh rate anyway?

Ziggy4 · 5 Sep 2010 at 21:56

Started using Vsync recently to lower 470 fan noise. As a bonus I don't get texture tearing. As Boozebeard said above you won't 'see' framerates above the refresh rate of your screen anyway. It can lead to artifacts with some older titles but haven't had any problems at all so far and many games enable it by default. Even with FPS games my own experience has been contrary to that reported here and couldn't be smoother to be honest.

coltpython3 · 5 Sep 2010 at 22:01

i love vysnc. i cant stand tearing in games. really bothers me.

PapaLazaru · 5 Sep 2010 at 22:03

I use it. Makes a massive difference on BC2 for me. A constant 60FPS with no tearing. I swear I cant see the difference between 60 to 100 FPS anyway.

drunkenmaster · 5 Sep 2010 at 22:08

Ziggy4 said:
Started using Vsync recently to lower 470 fan noise. As a bonus I don't get texture tearing. As Boozebeard said above you won't 'see' framerates above the refresh rate of your screen anyway. It can lead to artifacts with some older titles but haven't had any problems at all so far and many games enable it by default. Even with FPS games my own experience has been contrary to that reported here and couldn't be smoother to be honest.

Actually thats what tearing is, an updated frame, so you infact are seeing more frames, just not full frames. The whole point with vsync is to discard frames that won't be fully refreshed by the monitor, without it the buffer can be updated at any time, from one pixel into the new frame, to one pixel from the end, every bit from the updated frame is a frame that with vsync, you wouldn't see at all.

ITs not particularly useful but thats what it is, so while the screen only updates at 60fps, each frame it shows, can be made up of 2 or even 3 frames from the gpu.

Some games will have minimal tearing anyway and work better with vsync off, some games literally play like turd with vsync on for one reason or another, Just Cause 2 is horrific with vsync on. It lags badly and dips WAY below 60fps constantly while with vsync off it never goes below 70 or 80fps.

Take each game as it comes, the general stance is vsync on as there are WAY more games that run better with it on due to the amount of tearing with it off, but the first port of call for any kind of problems, lack of smoothness, low fps, anything is to try vsync off.

Alex74 · 5 Sep 2010 at 22:14

If you don't need it, then don't use it. Sometimes you have problems with and without VSync, in which case it's the lesser of two evils. Which is worse for you?

ishoeyi · 5 Sep 2010 at 22:15

if my game is running faster than the refresh rate of my monitor i turn it on.
if my game is running slower than the refresh rate of my monitor i turn it off.

rounddodger · 5 Sep 2010 at 22:37

I use it all the time in games that don't drop below 60fps, the tearing just looks horrible. Only in games like Crysis I disable it as every frame counts!

James J · 5 Sep 2010 at 22:51

coltpython3 said:
i love vysnc. i cant stand tearing in games. really bothers me.

This

Personally I only really started to notice it around 5 years ago when I got a fast pc with a top of the range graphics card and at the res I played at, every game tore the screen apart. Looked absolutely awful due to it. I force it on in all games now and haven't looked back.

Ziggy4 · 5 Sep 2010 at 23:05

Actually thats what tearing is, an updated frame, so you infact are seeing more frames, just not full frames. The whole point with vsync is to discard frames that won't be fully refreshed by the monitor, without it the buffer can be updated at any time, from one pixel into the new frame, to one pixel from the end, every bit from the updated frame is a frame that with vsync, you wouldn't see at all.

ITs not particularly useful but thats what it is, so while the screen only updates at 60fps, each frame it shows, can be made up of 2 or even 3 frames from the gpu.

Some games will have minimal tearing anyway and work better with vsync off, some games literally play like turd with vsync on for one reason or another, Just Cause 2 is horrific with vsync on. It lags badly and dips WAY below 60fps constantly while with vsync off it never goes below 70 or 80fps.

Take each game as it comes, the general stance is vsync on as there are WAY more games that run better with it on due to the amount of tearing with it off, but the first port of call for any kind of problems, lack of smoothness, low fps, anything is to try vsync off.

Fair enough, perhaps I'm using the wrong terminology then. What I experienced sometimes is that the top half of the screen not in sync with the bottom, especially during transitions that involved a big change in GPU usage, say going from cutscene back to 'in-game' for example. This occurs with vsync off. Well vsync on fixed this issue completely and don't notice any difference in perceived framerate. In my case of course and sure results will vary from one user to another given all the GPU / monitor permutations. Might be worth noting that I'm not running on a "gaming" monitor. It's an HP LP2465 which I chose for image quality rather than a super fast response time / high refresh rate. Gaming not the primary use on this rig.

TAC4U · 5 Sep 2010 at 23:13

I often leave it on to keep the temperature down on my graphics card but leave it off wherever possible - games just seem less responsive with it on to me.