Review Index:
Feedback

Frame Rating Dissected: Full Details on Capture-based Graphics Performance Testing

Vsync and its Effect on Frame Rating – Does it fix CrossFire?

After publishing the Frame Rating Part 3 story, I started to see quite a bit of feedback from readers and other enthusiasts with many requests for information about Vsync and how it might affect the results we are seeing here.  Vertical Sync is the fix for screen tearing, a common artifact seen in gaming (and other mediums) when the frame rendering rate doesn’t match the display’s refresh rate.  Enabling Vsync will force the rendering engine to only display and switch frames in the buffer to match the vertical refresh rate of the monitor or a divisor of it.  So a 60 Hz monitor could only display frames at 16ms (60 FPS), 33ms (30 FPS), 50ms (20 FPS), and so on with a 120 Hz monitor could also being capable of 8ms (120 FPS), etc. 

Many early readers hypothesized that simply enabling Vsync would fix the stutter and runt issues that Frame Rating was bringing to light.  To test this we looked for a game that ran right around the 60 FPS mark in our in normal testing with Vsync disabled and then set about to re-run results with it on.  We are using a standard 60 Hz monitor with the goal of being able to test some 120 Hz capability soon after we figure out a final bug or two with our capture configuration. 

First up, let’s take a look at the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 and GTX 680 SLI and see what shows up.

View Full Size

Because the average frame rate per second graph averages out the frame times for a total of one second of time, the averages won’t quite be the straight lines you might have expected.  Looking at the GTX 680 SLI Vsync enabled results the only key item is that the frame rate doesn’t go above 60 FPS like it does with Vsync disabled.

View Full Size

The single card and SLI configurations without Vsync disabled look just like they did on previous pages but the graph for GTX 680 SLI with Vsync on is very different.  Frame times are only switching back and forth between 16 ms and 33 ms, 60 and 30 instantaneous FPS due to the restrictions of Vsync.  What might not be obvious at first is that the constant shifting back and forth between these two rates (two refresh cycles with one frame, one refresh cycle with one frame) can actually cause more stuttering and animation inconsistencies than would otherwise appear.

View Full Size

Based on our graph here we found that with Vsync enabled we had about 87% of our frames running at 60 FPS (16 ms) and 13% at 30 FPS (33 ms).  You might be curious how there could be 60 FPS frame rate so often with Vsync on but very few frames at 60 FPS with Vsync off, and the answer lies in the rate limiting caused by Vsync.  Because of the back pressure on the game engine caused by the longer frame times (30 FPS, 33 ms) from Vsync there is more time for the GPUs to “catch up” and render another frame at 16 ms. 

View Full Size

Our ISU graph on stutter potential tells the story in a more damning light; starting at the 30th percentile the Vsync enabled setup of GTX 680s in SLI are already running at much higher frame variances and it only gets worse as we hit the 60s, 80s and 90s.  At the 90th percentile we are seeing frame variances over 12 ms, which is nearly a complete monitor refresh cycle!

 

Now let’s see how the AMD Radeon HD 7970 results change.

View Full Size

Something interesting is already happening here – the Vsync enabled results from the HD 7970 CrossFire configuration are running at HIGHER average frame rates per second than with Vsync disabled!  The orange line clearly never hits the 60 FPS mark while the black line (Vsync) does. 

View Full Size

Without Vsync we clearly see the runts affecting the plot of frame times here on the HD 7970s in CrossFire but enabling Vsync does appear to eliminate them! 

View Full Size

With our observed frame rate we have the same results for the HD 7970 CrossFire as we did with our FRAPS results, indicating no dropped frames or runt frames.  Standard CrossFire mode still shows the horrible results we have come to expect from our analysis today.

View Full Size

Our Min FPS percentile graph shows us that we are running at 60 FPS (16 ms) 85% of the time and 30 FPS (33 ms) the rest.  Because our data here is based the observed frame rates and not the FRAPS frame rates, there is no correlation between the two CrossFire runs.

View Full Size

The ISU graph of stutter potential again indicates that the Vsync enabled option is introducing higher frame variances than we would like and it is doing it more dramatically and earlier than the GTX 680s in SLI. 

It does appear that enabling Vsync will help alleviate the runts issue seen with AMD Radeon cards in CrossFire but at the cost of much more frame variance and stuttered animation on games that previously didn’t exhibit that problem. 

Let's take a look at another example using CrossFire that has another particular set of circumstances.  I theorized that in a gaming scenario that bordered just under 60 FPS with a single GPU, we would still see problematic results when jumping to HD 7970s in CrossFire.  Take our Battlefield 3 2560x1440 testing: with only one HD 7970 we are running just under 60 FPS most of the time which would, with Vsync enabled, force the game to run at 30 FPS with 33ms frame times.  Ideally we would like to see that move from 33ms frame times to 16ms frame times when adding in another HD 7970 in CrossFire due to the extra performance pushing the card over 60 FPS steady.

View Full Size

Our FRAPS graphs looks how we would hope and expect real-world performance to look.  While the single HD 7970 ran at a non-standard frame rate when performance was under 60 FPS, towards the end (50 sec point) where it could, we see a flat line that is partially hidden behind the pink line.  That pink line represents CrossFire HD 7970s and by doubling the number of GPUs we expected to maximize performance at 60 Hz with Vsync enabled, and we have. 

View Full Size

Observed frame rates calculated by removing runts are showing the Vsync DISABLED results on the HD 7970s in CrossFire mirror what we have seen before with much lower performance.  However, the Vsync ENABLED results did not change! 

View Full Size

The somewhat complicated plot diagram of frame times indicates that at no time did the frame rate of the HD 7970 cards in CrossFire go below 60 FPS or above the 16ms mark - even though there are thousands of frames under 16ms (runts) when Vsync is disabled.  Not only that but performance over the single HD 7970 with Vsync enabled is improved - rather than having jumps between the 16ms and 33ms frame times, we are locked in at 16ms - matching the 60 Hz refresh of our panel. 

View Full Size

The minimum FPS percentile graphic shows the same story - the pink link representing the HD 7970s with Vsync turned on looks solid.

View Full Size

Notice as well that with a static 16ms frame time we see no frame time variance at all in our ISU graph indicating that the kinds of stutter we are searching for are not showing up at all.

How is this happening?  How is enabling Vsync 'fixing' the runts and frame time issues of CrossFire?  The secret lies in the inherent back pressure of vertical sync to pace the graphics card and AMD's CrossFire engines even against its own will.  By forcing the GPUs to only render one frame every 16ms (at the maximum), Vsync is able to force the GPU to pace itself in a way that it would otherwise not.  This doesn't happen in every game though as we saw in the Crysis results first, and there is a lot more testing that needs to be done with Vsync to make a firm decision.

 

NVIDIA has a couple of different solutions in the NVIDIA Control Panel that might help: Adaptive Vsync and Smooth Vsync.  Adaptive Vsync was released with the first Kepler GPUs last year and we found it to be very effective at reducing stutter while also eliminating tearing.  Smooth Vsync is a little known feature that only exists in the driver when SLI is enabled as it takes advantage of many of the same frame metering features that SLI uses.  It attempts to keep frame rates “settled” at a level until it decides it has enough horsepower to move up to the next frame rate option for an extended period of time.  It is a very dubious description at best and NVIDIA didn’t go into much detail on how they decide if they have enough GPU overhead remaining or how long that “period of time” really is.

View Full Size

I decided to run through the same Crysis 3 sequences at 1920x1080 on the GTX 680s in SLI with all four NVIDIA options enabled: Vsync off, Vsync on, Adaptive Vsync and Smooth Vsync. 

View Full Size

Our FRAPS based results show the same similar looking results for standard Vsync on and off, but the adaptive and smooth Vsync options appear to be fixed at 30 FPS with the occasional hiccup on the Smooth Vsync.

View Full Size

The plot of frame times is kind of confusing but the important data is to compare standard Vsync On to Adaptive and Smooth.  With the exception of the 6 or so spikes on the smooth configuration the frames are basically fixed at 33 ms, resulting in a perfectly smooth gameplay experience but at the expensive of limiting performance. 

View Full Size

The observed FPS doesn’t change at all.

View Full Size

Another view here shows the same thing with a fixed frame rate of 30 FPS for adaptive and smooth Vsync options.

View Full Size

NVIDIA’s Adaptive Vsync shows basically 0 variance and only very minimal variance on the Smooth Vsync option at the 96th percentile.  So even though performance is lower on average, the experience is smoother.

 

NVIDIA’s additional Vsync options are definitely a strong point in favor of its technology though the Smooth Vsync only exists on SLI configurations.  I have been told that they were considering adding it to single graphics card configurations and I certainly hope they do as it adds some significant value in the same way Adaptive Vsync and Frame Rate Limiting do.

For both NVIDIA and AMD multi-GPU solutions with standard Vsync, enabling it definitely changes the story.  NVIDIA’s cards pretty much perform as we expected but for CrossFire we didn’t really know what expect with the various visual concerns.  It does appear that the runts problem was at least mostly solved with the enabling of Vsync though to be clear we are only testing a couple of game at this point – much more needs to be done. 

However, enabling Vsync creates a whole host of other potential issues that gamers have to deal with.  Even though the goal of removing visual tearing is met with the option turned on, you do add latency to the gameplay experience, as much as 60ms in some cases, from input to display.  Putting back pressure on the GPU pipeline, for both NVIDIA and AMD, means that some frames are going to be running behind schedule or behind the input timing of the game itself.  Many gamers won't want to deal with those kind of input problems and that is why many still play games with Vsync disabled.  Turning on Vsync does help AMD's CrossFire performance but it isn't the final answer just yet.

March 30, 2013 | 05:47 PM - Posted by bystander (not verified)

I have a hard time trying to grasp exactly how erratic input would affect the results. I have a feeling, based on my constitution (I get simulator sickness with poor latency), that the best case is which ever has the lowest worst case interval times.

March 30, 2013 | 10:55 PM - Posted by bystander (not verified)

..But then you have occasional latency increases. Of course those increases are to remove redundant frames, and once increased, they probably don't need much adjustments most the time.

This whole topic always gets me going back and forth, but my instincts is overall, even if latency is considered, even spacing matters more as it adds more useful points of input, assuming it adds only marginal/occasional increases of latency.

March 28, 2013 | 05:20 PM - Posted by Bob Jones (not verified)

Can you address the visual quality differences between the two cards? Specifically on Sleeping Dogs, the 660 Ti seems to be missing some lighting sources outside - most noticeable is the cafe/shop lights before you go down the stairs, and then the store across the street right at the end of the vieo.

March 29, 2013 | 07:46 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Time of day in the game when those videos were recorded?  They should be basically identical, I'll check.

March 29, 2013 | 12:10 AM - Posted by I don't have a name. (not verified)

Fascinating article. I think it'll take a few reads to fully comprehend everything that is being said. Thank you indeed, I found it fascinating. Certainly, as a 7970 owner, I'll be holding off on a potential second 7970 purchase for the time being.

March 29, 2013 | 02:09 AM - Posted by rezes (not verified)

The last GeForce 314.22 Beta Drivers and last Radeon drivers 13.3 beta 3. Please using these drivers on yours test.

AMD driver may be more stable on this drivers!

March 29, 2013 | 07:46 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Nothing has changed on the issues in question.

March 29, 2013 | 02:15 AM - Posted by technogiant (not verified)

Thanks for the great article and all the work you've done guys.

I run 2x gtx 460's is sli and while I dislike screen tearing I've noticed that options such as vsync, active vsyn and frame rate limiters actually make the experience less smooth as appears to have been highlighted in this article.

I've considered getting a 120Hz monitor just so I can run without any of those options at a decent frame rate but use sufficiently high settings so as not to go above 120Hz and so incur screen tearing.

Thinking further I'd like Nvidia to develop a variation of their gpu boost technology that would actually down clock the gpu to prevent frame rates from exceeding the monitors refresh rate.....think this would give the benefits of no screen tearing without the negatives of vsync and the like.

Thanks again for the article guys.

March 29, 2013 | 02:37 AM - Posted by technogiant (not verified)

Actually using gpu boost dynamically to both under and overclock the gpu to achieve a target frame rate could be a very nice way of producing a smoothed experience without any of the negatives of other methods as its occurring directly at the gpu instead of in the game engine to display time line.

March 29, 2013 | 05:01 AM - Posted by Pick23 (not verified)

So is this article saying that even with the new testing methodologies:
1.Single card 7970ghz is still slightly better than the 680
2.Crossfire absolutely sucks
?

March 29, 2013 | 05:18 AM - Posted by John Doe (not verified)

7970 Ghz is slightly better than a 680 ONLY at stock.

When you're comparing 7970 Ghz to 680, things ENTIRELY depend on clock speeds since the 7970 Ghz is nothing more than a pre-OC'ed 7970.

But yes, CF does indeed sorta suck. Still.

March 29, 2013 | 04:26 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Sweet 7970 still the best card under.. well under $1000 lol

March 30, 2013 | 06:21 PM - Posted by steen (not verified)

What's stock for a 680? ;) 7970 GE is slightly slower than Titan...

CF sucks just like SLI. What's your poison, input lag or frame metering? Do poeple understand what "runts" are? CF is actually rendering the frames, you just don't benefit as they're too close together. One frame renders the top 1/4 of the screen when the next frame starts. Your top ~200 lines are the fastest on your screen. ;)

(Sorry for the previous multi-posts. Don't know what happened there.)

April 7, 2013 | 10:15 AM - Posted by John Doe (not verified)

I have ran far more CF and SLi setups than you did FOR YEARS and understand far more abouts these things than you and your little silly mind does.

March 29, 2013 | 08:39 AM - Posted by fausto412 (not verified)

interesting piece, good job pcper.com

now I wonder if when AMD does a global fix my 6990 performance will be dramatically improved on bf3?

and what is the effect of correcting this to latency and actual framerate? will we see FPS go down at the expense of frametimes?

It is Obvious Nvidia was on top of this for some time...I just don't see a proper fix in 120 days.

March 29, 2013 | 09:24 AM - Posted by Chad Wilson (not verified)

Just out of scientific curiosity, did you do a run without the splitter in the mix to confirm that the splitter is not adding any latency to your tests?

March 29, 2013 | 09:33 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Do people actually use vsync without some form of triple buffering?

I don't see how. Jumping between 30 and 60fps or whatever is not an enjoyable, nor smooth experience.

So, if you can enable vsync AND allow the game to sweep through a normal range of available framerates, does this negate the increased frame times of constantly switching back and forth between high fps and low fps?

March 29, 2013 | 09:56 PM - Posted by bystander (not verified)

V-sync, even with triple buffering, still jumps back and forth between 16ms and 33ms, but it does it between frames. A 120hz monitor helps here, as you can have 25ms frames too, so it is less of a variance.

March 29, 2013 | 09:36 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Furthermore, is playing a game without vsync enabled REALLY an option?

Are you sure gamers all over the world disable it to be rid of the latency issues? I'm not so sure.

I'll happily take a little latency in a heated round of counter-strike than end up dead, or missing my shot because 50% of the screen shifted 8 feet to the right. (screen tearing).

Pretty much all games are unplayable without the use of vsync and I'm not convinced it's a personal preference, either, if you enjoy your experience while you're tearing frames - I'd just call you a mean name that insinuates you're not telling the truth.

March 29, 2013 | 11:00 AM - Posted by Marty (not verified)

If you are a competitive player, VSync is not an option, you are lagging an extra frame behind.

March 29, 2013 | 09:45 AM - Posted by rezes

Where is the new tests? and when?

March 29, 2013 | 11:20 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

So how much did nVidia pay you?

While I can see the potential in this kind of testing, and some of the issues you have mentioned are valid, you have drawn quite a bold and one sided conclusion using the competitor's software. I'll save my judgements for when this becomes open source.

March 29, 2013 | 05:12 PM - Posted by Fergdog (not verified)

It's not purely Nvidia made software, if you read the article or paid attention to this site you'd know Ryan co-developed this benchmark with Nvidia and he's been working on it for a long time.

April 2, 2013 | 08:10 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

nVidia has to do almost everything, the amd fans need to get used to it.

AMD's years long broken bottom line and years of massive layoffs and closings mean they claim they "weren't even aware of this issue !? !! "

- like every other total screw up AMD gets caught on with their dragon drawers on the floor next to their spider platform, buck naked in epic fail and presumably clueless...

Maybe we need some depositions and subpoenas of internal emails to see just how much they covered up their epic fail here.

March 29, 2013 | 05:00 PM - Posted by Fergdog (not verified)

Quick question, for adaptive vsync, you put it on half refresh rate didnt you?

March 29, 2013 | 05:02 PM - Posted by Fergdog (not verified)

Half refresh adaptive only really makes sense on 120hz monitors, not sure why you used that setting on a 60hz monitor for benchmarking.

March 29, 2013 | 08:06 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Hoping you post the titan and and info today as promised!!!!!!!!!

March 29, 2013 | 08:07 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Titan and amd

March 29, 2013 | 09:56 PM - Posted by MaxBV (not verified)

Waiting on that GTX 690 and Titan article still, hope you guys haven't forgotten.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.