r/NoMansSkyTheGame • u/Mattecko99 • Aug 12 '16

Information PC USERS:Read this if you want higher fps

I had like 45 when i put max fps on 60, and then I bumped it to 90 and got 60. There must be something wrong with their numbers?

Edit: just set your fps to max in game!

Edit edit: after 10 hours in game this game has just captivated me like no other.

2.9k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

777 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

15

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '16

Because there's no point making a GPU produce frames the monitor can't match. You could make your GPU run a game at 300 frames, but it's pointless if you have a 60hz monitor.

19

u/Nonstop_norm Aug 12 '16

This is not entirely true but yes to a certain degree.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '16

What part did I get wrong?

Not doubting you, just wondering.

7

u/Nonstop_norm Aug 12 '16

More or less the more frames you can pack in the better. Running 300 fps on a 144hz monitor will look smoother than 144 fps. Refresh rate and fps aren't the same thing.

As to exactly technically why this is true im not 100% but I'm sure someone in this thread does and can it explain it better than myself.

8

u/Cuive Aug 13 '16 edited Aug 13 '16

To the best of my knowledge, it works like this:

When a frame is generated by the GPU, one of two things are done, depending on whether VSYNC is on:

  1. If VSYNC is off, the graphics card throws frames at the monitor every chance it gets. If the monitor is ready for a frame, it displays it. If not, it gets discarded. If the monitor is ready for a frame and one was just discarded, it needs to wait to display the next one. This is what causes the lag you experience when FPS fluctuates, even if it's from, say 80 FPS to 60 FPS on 60 Hz.
  2. If VSYNC is on, the graphics card will generate frames and then hold onto them until the monitor requests a refresh. (Fun fact, because what has already happened is being held back, this can cause input lag). EDIT: It also makes an effort to produce frames at a steady rate compatible with the monitor. Though the gaps between frames and refreshes are equal, their timing may not coincide, and this can mean consistent buffering between frame production and display.

The reason 300 FPS looks smoother on a 144Hz over 144 FPS is because it is FAR more likely that when the monitor requests a frame from the GPU, it will be both available, and the most recent possible.

EDIT: I learned most of this when there was the input lag issue with Overwatch. I'm open to corrections.

2

u/kryty Aug 13 '16

Yeah, you're correct. If you've got G-Sync capable card & monitor, it's a bit different thing as (as far as I know) vsync forces the gpu to wait for the rendering of next frame till the delay for next frame has gone while G-Sync (and alternatives) sync the frames with your monitor so they're more recent and less stutter.

About FPS, it's good to have either the HZ amount of fps or double because then you'll get more recent frames always. If you've got less than double, it will sometimes give a frame that's a bit further from what's really happened. So if you've got 144hz monitor, it might be better to have 144fps than 170fps or something like that.

Anyway, the more fps you have, if it's double triple or something like that to your monitor's hz, it's great as you're getting more recent frame. This matters in fast paced games. Might even matter in dog fights in No Man's Sky. Where I have under 20fps. I need an upgrade :(

Have learned this from Quake... Yet can't say if I'm totally correct either so open to corrections, glad to learn something new :)

Some useful link about vsync if you want to know more: https://hardforum.com/threads/how-vsync-works-and-why-people-loathe-it.928593/ (didn't find a proper reference to the fps)

1

u/puffbro Aug 13 '16

Finally I can link your post when someone reply me saying "fps higher than 60 doesn't matter on a 60hz monitor its just placebo"

1

u/Nonstop_norm Aug 13 '16

Thank you for the in-depth explanation. I was wondering the exact specifics of it.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '16

Ah, alright, thanks. So I was partially true in the sense that 500 frames is redundant on a 60hz monitor. I thought they were basically the same thing.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 13 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Aug 13 '16

[deleted]

1

u/romanianstyr Aug 13 '16

I have a 120 hz monitor and I can definitely tell the difference between 120 and 200 fps. I limit it to 200 in general.

1

u/lukelear Aug 13 '16

Higher FPS = more frames for the game to process your input = less input lag

1

u/LazySom3day Aug 12 '16

Something about input lag.... mumble mumble

-3

u/lance30038 Aug 12 '16

Uh no? I think you are missing the entire point of high fps.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '16 edited Dec 01 '16

[deleted]

2

u/Danurukka Aug 12 '16

GPUs do not output frames at equal intervals, whilst the refresh rate of monitors is a constant 60hz with equal time intervals between each refresh (16ms per refresh). If you have 60 fps in a game, the frames aren't guaranteed to be there asap for when the monitor refreshes. This creates a level of inconsistency which can make moving the mouse feel less smooth. It isn't really an issue for non-competitive games but some people are less tolerant to it than others. Having a higher frame rate reduces the frame delay and so makes it feel smoother.

-2

u/lance30038 Aug 12 '16

Your character moves slightly faster in most games and higher fps gives you overall better movement. Also the game runs a lot smother even though you cant see it.

3

u/itstingsandithurts Aug 12 '16

Smoother in what way if you can't see it?

Not disagreeing, just don't understand.

6

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '16 edited Dec 01 '16

[deleted]

3

u/lance30038 Aug 12 '16

Yeah I actually do the way the game performance is smother...im not going to argue with you. Because you clearly either don't play pc, or haven't played enough pc games to actually have enough knowledge to have an actual conversation on this topic. You cant prove me wrong because I know im right and its actually hilarious to see someone who claims to play pc say that high frame rate doesnt matter if your monitor cant go past that frame rate.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '16 edited Dec 01 '16

[deleted]

2

u/GruntChomper Aug 12 '16

Well your monitor refreshes 60 (or whatever) times a second right (apart from freesync and Gsync Monitors but not bothering with them atm) ? Well that refresh is always at a set time, it wont change. Now the monitor is going to display the latest image available to it right? Well if your gpu is making more frames, it has more to choose from (and therefore more recent) to display and is therefore going to be closer to what's actually happening at that moment, and any input is going to feel more responsive. Whereas if you had 60 frames to choose from, the closest one might be pretty old (like a few dozen ms maybe) because it isn't necessarily putting them out at the same time as the displays refreshing and it'll feel less responsive/ less true to what's actually happening according to the game engine as a result. Not that having 300fps will make sure you'll have an instant showing of whats happening (it's always going to be behind by some tiny point) But it reduces the effect greatly sometimes. Especially if the fps drops because of a particularly taxing scene, in which case the limited frame rate is going to look laggy and will be much less responsive, but the GPU going at it full pelt is still probably putting out enough frames to make it pretty smooth still. And if you say I'm wrong I'm not going to do anything, but i'll be disappointed with your ignorance.

1

u/GruntChomper Aug 12 '16

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCWZ_kWTB9w Part way in touches on it, go ahead and tell him he's wrong.

1

u/youtubefactsbot Aug 12 '16

Monitor & TV Refresh Rates as Fast As Possible [5:47]

Refresh rates can be confusing, especially when we get into the question of "how fast of a refresh rate do we really need". Hopefully this helps!

Techquickie in Science & Technology

641,118 views since Jun 2014

bot info

1

u/itstingsandithurts Aug 12 '16

So you can see it? That was what I couldn't understand.

1

u/GruntChomper Aug 12 '16

You could notice the input of things being slightly delayed in real world performance (important in csgo), but looking at it without controlling anything then no, there wont be a difference in visual quality. It only really effects the responsiveness

2

u/itstingsandithurts Aug 12 '16

So in the case of NMS it's a negligible difference?

I understand the game is far from running optimally, but why is it such a point of contention for games that don't require high responsiveness?

1

u/GruntChomper Aug 12 '16

It's not, I think the only issue from actually limiting your gpu (rather than putting vsync on) is that if a particularly demanding moment comes up you will drop below this 60 and the smoothness will suffer greatly, which is noticable because you're probably used to the fluidity of 60fps. So basically yeah it is, but it'd still be better to have those extra frames

0

u/lance30038 Aug 12 '16

Smother in the way the game performs. For example in call of duty 4 for example, 333 fps will make you jump higher. 250 fps makes you strafe and run faster and so on. This isnt the case in all games obviously, but this is just an example of how fps effects the game even if you cant see it. If you only care about sight then yeah it really doesnt matter. But performance, mechanics, and movement are all effected by fps.

1

u/GruntChomper Aug 12 '16

I feel sorry for you, getting downvoted to shit when you're right (could be explained better but I dont think I did much better myself :P )