Discussion in 'CPUs and Overclocking' started by Darren, Jan 3, 2019.
Competitive players will swear that the higher frames, even at that level, help with input lag. Meh.
Higher frame rates draw fast moving images better without blurring/ghosting.
Imagine moving a folder with the name on the bottom really fast across your desktop and being able to read the name without a slight hint of blur.
You don't see any of the frames over 60, or 144 or whatever your monitor is doing. You are more likely to see the closest to your last mouse movement but that's all.
I think currently the high end monitors go up to 240hz? That being said, even when capped with V-Sync or hopefully adaptive sync (Freesync and Gsync), when the CPU is capable of producing an overhead of around 10 fps more than the refresh rate, the dips below the 240hz can be more common than say a CPU capable of producing 100fps more than the refresh rate. At least that's the idea.
Those who swear by letting the fps go unlimited and not capped to the refresh rate of the monitor are not well informed.
Sure, if your monitor does 240, I can see wanting some amount in excess of that. All I was saying is that if you are running 600000fps all you have is a lot of frames getting drawn and overwritten without ever having them displayed so other than potentially having a newer frame in the buffer to send to the monitor there is little point to running that high.
Don't worry, I know how refresh works. My point is if the monitor isn't drawing the frame, you will never see it.
He has a 144 or 165 hz, but more importantly look up Frame Times. You can have 60 FPS but still be laggy on a 60hz display.
I have not heard one actually good CS player say anything below 300 FPS is acceptable, afaik it's something with the engine.
I can personally attest that 90 FPS feels like 30 in CSGO, on a 60hz display.
Have you messed with the buffering settings? Triple buffering and reduced buffering?
It's worked wonders for me in CS GO and Overwatch playing at 60Hz. My buddy plays CS GO at 144hz without a problem.
Frametime consistency is the same in every game, as in every title should have the same frametimes at every frame, low or high.
If you're having consistency issues something is amiss and I doubt it's the game engine, but I could be wrong.
You can't rationalize technology with CSGO players in relation to their framerate. I've tried. Don't waste your breath.
That's not a stab at @Jiniix btw, just speaking generally.
On my main PC I've played with everything at 60hz from 1024x768 to 2560x1440, highest and lowest settings, never with V-Sync though. Always 250-450 FPS and I've never had an issue. I'm turbocasual though.
On my laptop however, i7-720QM with an HD5650M it feels laggy and choppy with everything on the lowest possible settings, even though it reports 90 FPS. Other games like WoW would run just dandy at 45+ FPS.
As far as I know, which may not be much, frame time consistency will differ from game to game, depending on the engine and other variations.
I don't disagree at all, but I'm basing this mostly on information from my 3000+ hrs CSGO friend, who's also a server admin for an ISP and avid Gentoo enthusiast.
It has something to do tickrates of the server, and how it communicates with the client. That's pretty much the extend of what I know.
A 10 year old mobile processor and 10 year old integrated graphics. It's not surprising you're having issues during gameplay.
Yes, this is likely an optimization issue because the hardware is so old. Turning down graphical settings isn't going to fix frametime inconsistency. Driver optimization will affect consistency, and I doubt NVIDIA is optimizing the 720QM for current games.
WoW is probably a far more optimized title. They have the resources to cater to older platforms.
Frametime consistency will differ depending on optimization, hardware, hardware design, age of hardware, processor frequency, etc., etc., etc.
Ideally, you want as consistent frametimes delivered as possible in every game depending on the FPS:
16.7 ms for 60 FPS, 8.3 ms for 120 FPS, 6.9 for 144, 4.2 for 240hz.
You can have higher or lower frametimes consistently, but constant jumps up or down 8ms and above/ below is generally perceivable even at super high framerates.
The WoW I'm playing: 2005 and 2007.
CSGO: August 21, 2012
I doubt CSGO not being 'optimized' for a 2.8GHz Intel CPU and AMD dGPU that's two years older, to the point where 30 FPS above the screen Hz is unenjoyable. Not sure where NVIDIA comes in to the picture either.
And exactly on the topic of frame times, which I mentioned earlier, having a high frequency stronger CPU usually produces more stable frame times and coincidentally higher FPS. So in regards of why 300+ FPS is recommended for CSGO, it's usually a product of stable frame times and the allowance of an FPS drop while still staying well above the refresh rate of any monitor on the market currently.
On the topic of AMD again, I can't wait to get my hands on the 3700X and test it at equal GHz in a 1:1 comparison against my 8700K.
Yes, basically 10 years old. The age of the game has nothing to do with optimization. They constantly release updates. GTA and numerous older games had to release patches to update for Ryzen, for example.
CS GO has had endless amounts of patches; graphical and the like. It makes total sense that your laptop is underperforming; it's not in their interest to update for such old hardware. Not only that, the performance of the i7-720 is abysmal by this point, especially the mobile chip.
It's absolutely an optimization issue.
Read any NVIDIA or AMD driver update; they have to release drivers to optimize for games. In fact, NVIDIA recently released a driver update that lowered performance.
Not really, but kind of. Ryzen doesn't differ by any meaningful amount in terms of frametimes against Coffee Lake:
In fact, even high frequency (5GHz+ i5 8th gen processors) are having serious framerate issues in some titles. Ryzen can even outperform Coffee Lake in frametimes at much lower frequencies:
300+ FPS doesn't reduce frametimes by a meaningful amount. In fact, trying to constantly push for such high FPS can negatively affect frametimes.
Except for one graph, with a heavily overclocked i5, Intel is winning all those frame time graphs. I tried finding graphs from GN with the same CPUs across different games, but gave up since I was (and am) at work and it took too long.
As for updating drivers and optimization, sure they keep working on them, but they don't throw away the old optimizations. They can easily detect which CPU/GPU you have and apply the correct optimizations for that processor/GPU. They don't throw away the old, they build new on side.
Hence why I used the word "can". Any Ryzen 5 or Ryzen 7 processor can and will provide better frametimes in certain titles against any i5 processor due to thread limitations.
That's not the way it works. There's no way AMD is optimizing drivers for the HD5650M.
Game developers can optimize their games for older hardware. Blizzard has the resources (money and manpower) to do this in WoW. I'm not sure how much you've played Counter Strike, but with how janky the entire UI is, it's quite obvious that CS GO is not a super optimized title.
This is further evidenced by Doom 2016 and the use of Vulkan API.
So I just got a reply back from my friend, a former low-tier pro, and the simple response is input lag from your mouse. It's related to frame times, more FPS = more up-to-date frames. We're talking milliseconds, which is why a casual won't notice (like myself) but also why it matters for professionals.
Frametime does not necessarily correlate with input lag.
Higher framerates help because you're getting more updates on screen.
If two computers had identical specifications and all else were equal; one producing 60 frames and one producing 300 frames, input lag would be identical. Your friend is simply able to react more quickly to the faster framerate.
This is further evidenced by the fact that professional players enable "reduce buffering" in the game settings, even at 300+ FPS; this significantly reduces input lag.
If higher framerates equalled lower input lag, reduce buffering would not exist.
Haven't seen it personally myself, but I'd be interested to see how much of an impact the csgo server's tickrate has on fps games.
Like... people swear by stupid high frame rates, when the public/competitive servers only has a tickrate of 64. The fluidity of the game surely can only matter so much up to a certain metric before it just becomes a placebo effect.
But... I digress. This thread is to talk about the upcoming Ryzen cpus.
In a perfect world with perfectly synced frames, 60 FPS on a 60Hz display would have no input lag. But that's not the world we live in. More frames, more dense frame array and a more updated frame will be chosen for each Hz. That's pretty objective, however minimal it may seem.
And indeed Intel_man, let's talk about the AMD CPUs
Right, so more frames delivered can provide a smoother experience. It could also be argued that higher framerates provide a competitive edge. But again, more frames delivered does not equal reduced input lag.
So on the topic of Ryzen processors, even though your friend went with the 2700X and lost deliverable frames, frametimes don't vary in any meaningful way, and the input lag would be virtually the same.
Separate names with a comma.