Vsync

>>58138363
>From what I understand, enabling v-sync will cap FPS to the refresh rate of the monitor.

Wrong

>>58138423
instead of saying wrong, you could enlighten him.....or just be a smart ass faggot and green text him

>>58138423
It doesn't help if you don't explain why this is wrong, asshole

From what I've read. vsync allows the GPU to send out frames only as fast as the monitor can display them, meaning the FPS will be capped to the refresh rate of the screen, how is this wrong?

You can run at 60 fps (or any number for that matter) and still experience tearing if you don't have v-sync on. V-sync makes sure that graphics driver push rendered frame in between refresh cycles. Screen doesn't refresh instantly you know, it is redrawn from top to bottom

it's a bit more complicated than that:

the screen updates one pixel at a time.
with V-sync off, it updates them in a faster rate, but because the screen can only update 60 times per second (60Hz) you get multiple updates per complete renewal, showing what you see in your pic.(screen tearing)

what happens if the framerate drops below 60 FPS, is that the screen updates with the exact same image. here there's no screen tearing.

It's usually a good idea to have vsync on.

In some cases (like in arma 3) fps will drop to 30 if your gpu cannot deliver a frame in time.

Make sure your system can keep up easily and you'll enjoy 60fps goodness.

In the specific case of arma 3 I could set vsync to adaptive in the Nvidia gpu settings and that helped fps when under 60.

>>58138423
By default that is exactly what vsync does you sad sack of shit, because most monitors are 60Hz and so vsync caps it at 60FPS. Sure, you could also pick half vsync for 30FPS.

You could also pick 120FPS if your monitor supports that. Generally speaking, OP isn't wrong in his assumption about how vsync works.

What he's missing though is that traditional vsync if the framerate output falls below 60FPS, it immediately shuts down to 30. This is where nvidia's adaptive vsync comes in handy as vsync turns off if it falls below 60 (or whatever refresh rate you have it set to that isn't the factory default).

tl;dr kill yourself faggot

>>58138539
>>58138468
>>58138465
Cheers, and yes I agree about keeping v-sync on.

I would get a G-Sync/Freesync monitor, but they all look like absolute garbage. (herp derp gamer design)

>>58138553
Thanks, I actually came across this adaptive v-sync thing while googling, it's pretty cool

What's your opinion on G-Sync/Freesync? Is it worth it if I'm going to be playing fast paced games, or should I instead focus on screen response times and refresh rates, then just turn v-sync on?

>>58138585
It's worth it if vsync is unrealistic for you (if you're getting a big varying range of fps, or settling nowhere near 60, 30 or 120fps)
But if you're already getting a locked/maxed fps, gsync/freesync is useless
Adaptive sync is basically v-sync, but instead of at 60 or 30fps, it's at every fps

If you don't have a Freesync/G-sync monitor you can also turn on frame rate target control with newer AMD cards (Nvidia probably has something similar) which caps the frame rate similar to V sync but at whatever number you choose, whilst still being able to go below it without halving.

No idea how well it actually works to prevent tearing, I just use it to lower the heat output from my two 290s.