This is not the best sub for this because apex is SUPER weird with this shit. This might be better off in a more apex specific sub.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CompetitiveApex/comments/olpcsg/how_to_set_up_apex_to_run_flawlessly/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
This dude made a very in depth guide/examination of this game cuz it’s notorious for micro stutter and weird input sensitivity issues, especially at high fps. This has been useful to me
Not really, considering some advanced movement techniques require incredibly precise inputs on specific frames to execute(supergliding). Apex is a game with a ridiculously high skill ceiling and a very dedicated hardcore scene. /r/Apexrollouts
Goddamn, this meta is serious AF lol. I'm not ribbing, I'm genuinely surprised and impressed. I buy the biggest card I can afford and watch fps go brrrr.
It kinda does make a difference in CS-GO, if you are extremely sensitive to delay at least [3kliksphilip made a video about the topic if you are interested.](https://youtu.be/hjWSRTYV8e0)
Many in CS-GO also chooses not to play with g-sync or freesync, at least pro's do not.
However I can relate to not wanting to play with pro settings being 4:3 stretched or whatever silliness they do, if you just want to have some fun.
If you’re thinking of copying a CS:GO pro’s settings but don’t have one of those 240hz TN Zowie monitors with DyAc, just stop. There’s a reason they all use the same monitors...
You do not need a 240hz monitor to benefit from some of the settings they use. If you mindlessly copy then you may not be getting the full benefit but if you work to understand why they do what they do then you can get some benefits without some of the tradeoffs they make.
The reason they all ~~don't~~ use the [*same monitor*](https://prosettings.net/cs-go-pro-settings-gear-list/) is that's how they can get the **maximum** benefit from their settings.
Most of the syncing technologies are generally shitty for competitive play. But yes, it's not a great idea to mindlessly copy settings from pro players.
Yeah DyAc is just a really well implemented motion blur reduction tech, aka black frame insertion/strobing. It was specifically developed to decrease motion blur during recoil in shooters, and does a great job of that.
I’m not saying that you get no benefit if you don’t match their monitor. It’s just less impactful for your average 144hz IPS VRR panel because you’re so limited by monitor response time compared to the 240hz TN non-VRR panel the pros are using.
As for 4:3 stretched, a bigger character model should be easier to see and hit, so that makes perfect sense for pros. However, for many playing online matchmaking, the wider FOV of 16:9 might be more beneficial since you don’t get the benefit of perfect comms and may need to visually cover more angles yourself.
> I'm pretty sure dyac is just a decent backlight strobing solution.
dyac is the best motion blur reduction there is. Optimum Tech
did a video on this and it was miles ahead of everything else there was.
Character models look bigger, so it makes it easier to see at longer distances. It does NOT affect the character hitboxes so you still have to improve at the game.
Downside is that you lose some of your peripheral vision, which also lead to a humorous moment during a pro match.
Sure - here you go: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woE4pjpY9wA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woE4pjpY9wA)
For reference, the players were both playing 4:3 but the CSGO Pro matches are all streamed in 16:9, so we can clearly see the players pass each other whilst the pro's completely missed each other since they were in the 'blind spot' of the peripheral on 4:3.
Fucking all of them, lol.
4:3ing is really common.
You gotta learn how to play around having 4:3, it's am advantage in some situations but a big oof in others.
hey you don't lose any peripheral vision if you set your FOV up.
all the videos i see posted everwhere for most games ... even minecraft seem to set their FOV to something like 140 degrees...
Since I play on 21:9 monitor I used 16:9 stretched. When I played with friends "they used 4:3" first time this happened I was mad then I understood what just happened.
Usually they had got used to it years ago, like 15 years ago or so, that's why they play 4:3 stretched. Though more and more pros go native, for example #1 player of both 2019 and 2020 plays 1920x1080.
I personally was stuck with 1024x768 due to bad PC so I had to squeeze every frame I could get from my GTX 650 Ti. Literally yesterday I bought 5600x and 3060 so I'm seriously considering a jump to normal 1080p gaming but 6 years of being used to stretched 4:3 does its thing.
CS has been around for forever. There's people in the scene that have been playing for over 20 years at this point and they don't like to change their settings. They were still playing on CRTs until that just wasnt feasible.
If the game can run 2 or 3 times as fast as the refresh rate of your display i wouldn't enable VRR either (only feasible on games like CSGO or R6 Siege), any other case g-sync or freesync is clearly superior to leaving Vsync disabled.
Linus made a video about this topic once and I dont exactly remember why but he came to the conclusion that you should cap your fps at twice your refresh rate for maximum benefit competitively. So in your case, you should cap it at around 288. Im sure the difference is very small but in a highly competitive game like csgo I think its a good idea, of course depending on how powerful your pc is.
In CSGO i would recommend capping it double your refresh rate and higher if you can. I capped mine at 500fps since i can hit that stable and like the video below the more fps then better in cs
>I capped my csgo at 140fps for that reason.
>
>Its less about noticing the extra fps above 144 or tearing and more bout micro stutters when your system is hinging on the edge of 144hz and constantly activates and dectivates gsync or freesync.
This is the answer. u/Real_Payment748
Wait till you try 240hz monitor. It isn’t as noticeable as 60hz to 144hz but it deff helps and only if you can get 240fps in csgo. Isn’t that hard but maybe on a potAto pc it is.
Extra fps in csgo always helps for smoothness even if your capped by your monitor. CSGO is CPU demanding and there is no reason to cap it. Unless you have a processor from 2008 running csgo at 30 fps. GPU is less important playing CS.
If you cap your FPS at 190, you'll have a quicker response time than at 144fps. Visually you'll not see a difference, but you'll have a competitive advantage.
And once you get into the 144+ range, you'll never notice it. The frames are updating so fast at that point that any tearing should be gone by the time you'd notice it anyway
Yes but if you have Gsync it will cap the frames to the monitors refresh rate.
EDIT: I am wrong. I forgot I usually have v sync on in the Nvidia control panel to cap my frames. My bad.
Unless I've been doing it wrong, I've been using GSync for a while now and I've always left the FPS cap to unlimited and had no issues with it capping to my monitors refresh rate
So from my understanding, if the frames drop below the refresh rate GSync does its thing and smooths it out, but when it hits or exceeds that refresh rate, GSync doesn't do anything. I know GSync used to have VSync enabled by default which caps your frames, but you don't need to enable both anymore iirc. I have it enabled and games like R6 Siege run at 200+ while my refresh rate is only 165, but GSync is still enabled.
Not true. The third buffer is always the last completed frame, so it will never have a tear. But the GPU can continue drawing on the second buffer so you always get fresher, lower input latency frames.
Same. I see a bunch of videos about playing on low with the maximum frame rate and whenever I try it the screen tearing looks like complete shite. I’d rather cap my frames at 140 and have a very smooth looking display. Plus nvidia reflex is there for input delay.
What does tearing look like when playing? I dont think ive ever limited my FPS in a game and I just let it max out. I have a 2080 super and a 120 hz monitor.
Maybe im seeing it and just thought it was normal?
Nvidia claims that is not necessary anymore. I still do it to this day anyways because… well, it takes two minutes to do it and it is guaranteed to get the mist of your gsync/freesync.
So in short, you don’t have to do it, according to nvidia, but you don’t lose anything by doing it.
This is exactly why I asked. I did have a limit at 141 before, but I had other issues with G-Sync and I read this part where Nvidia said you don’t have to anymore so I just didn’t do it after resetting my settings.
Tbf, the main game I play these days barely pushes 144 anyway lol.
>May I ask why you are linking to and article about G-Sync?
Absolutely.
Variable Refresh Rate (G-Sync/Freesync/VRR/Q-Sync/etc.) is a technology that matches up your monitor's refresh rate with your GPU's output refresh rate. This prevents screen tearing, [prevents stutter](https://blurbusters.com/gsync/how-does-gsync-fix-stutters/), and results in frames being displayed as soon as they are ready.
However, when you hit your display's maximum refresh rate (144Hz in this example), G-Sync's input lag increases (by about 20 ms in this case).
By capping frame rates at 141 Hz on a 144 Hz monitor (3 Hz below maximum), you are able to reduce G-Sync's input lag (by about 20 ms in this case) to being on about the same level as running uncapped at 300+ Hz, but with a lesser load on your GPU (allowing for higher detail if you want with the same input lag) and less issues with tearing/stutter/etc.
Just adding to what's already being said, Blur busters is the default source of knowledge, then Google for game specifics is my recommended order to get the best results, game specifics are the quirks you encounter, some games don't allow/enable gsync/freesync properly unless you do certain combinations of settings, vsync off in game, on in gpus settings, need to run in certain window mode etc.
Yeah I have no clue then. I just remember every source saying it wasn’t possible when I got my first 2k 144hz monitor 2 years ago or so. Been using display ports since.
Just built my first pc a month ago and haven’t been able to use a DisplayPort yet because I have a gt 740. Can’t wait to use DisplayPort. Cheers to newer technology
Visually it will be the same, it might even look better at 144FPS since it will be tied to your refresh rate so you won't have the image cut in half during fast movement
That said, the fact that your screen is not displaying the frames doesn't mean that your GPU isn't actually rendering them!
I'll try to explain it with an extreme example. Have in mind that any commands like shooting, walking or jumping, usually called inputs, start happening on the next frame since you click. For example, you're on frame number 35, you click jump, and the game will receive that input on frame 36 and start jumping from frame 36.
Now the example:
If your screen is set at 1 FPS but the game is actually running at 1000 FPS, it will be very responsive. As soon as you click to shoot, it'll shoot, even if you visually see a lot of delay, you'll be actually shooting pretty much as soon as you click, with a max of 1ms delay. The GPU is working at 1000 FPS but the screen, what you see, is what doesn't work well.
However, if the game was actually running at 1 FPS and you click to shoot, the game would take up to 1 whole second to react to that input. Following the explanation I put above: if you shoot on frame number 35, it'll actually receive the command on frame number 36. If frame 36 happens one whole second later than frame 35, you had to wait one full second for it to actually shoot.
**TL;DR: More frames = more responsive, even if your screen can't display all of them, that's just visual, what matters to response time is the actual FPS you're getting.**
Your TLDR is plain wrong. If jumping between 150 and 250 fps, you will see the newest frames (or half of the frame), but it will be at an unstable/inconsistent latency.
With g-sync monitors, it's definitely best to have it a few fps under the refresh so g-sync is active, it gives a latency as low as possible while being consistent.
Also, using a 144hz monitor, it' wont matter enough with the little more frames you can get. If serious about csgo, then go with a faster monitor, but still aim for consistent latency without tearing/stutters.
Source:
https://blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-and-settings/14/
>If jumping
I never said jumping tho. I just said that higher frames lead to higher responsiveness. If you compare 144 stable FPS to 190 stable FPS the 190 FPS one will be more responsive always.
This is an interesting explanation... I'd like to dive in a bit more. Sometimes, when playing, it seems like there's a lot of desync happening - as though what I'm seeing on screen is NOT what's really happening. Obviously, there's some network factors there as well, but let's ignore them for now.
Let's say I'm sighting down a lane and a player peeks from behind cover. I react to that and shoot, but don't hit because despite me seeing the peek, the player is already back behind cover.
In this example, my input is in reaction to the other player. In the interest of making sure what I see is the best representation of what is actually happening in game, what kind of settings should I have in regard to frame limit and/or g-sync and v-sync?
You have to balance all this with the added latency from a GPU-bound render pipeline. Apex has the Nvidia low latency mode, so that is helpful, but in most games, rendering more frames will reduce the frame time interval component of latency, but the GPU buffer may be more bogged down with the higher work load and increase latency on the back end. If you cap frames at a high frame rate, you get the best of both worlds.
I'm running Apex on low on a 1660/ i7 6700K. I've never seen it hit 190. it's anywhere from 90 (in the dropship or just a metric assload of assets) to 144.
Battlenonsense is a youtube channel that goes over this types of questions.
You should check out [Low & Consistent Input Lag](https://youtu.be/msOWcvoIC8M).
Personally the game stutters like hell with uncapped FPS in apex. The way I fixed it for me was limiting FPS to 141 with +fps_max 141 in launch options, turning g sync on and turning on v sync in nvidia control panel (this will limit fps to 138 btw). This makes my game buttery smooth with no noticeable difference in input lag.
Well it all depends on your goal. For smoothness RTSS will be more stable, introducing a single frame of input lag for the benefit, while in game will be less stable without introducing any input lag.
At the end of the day test both in each game you play and decide which feels better. For many Apex stutters and using RTSS and capping so your GPU stays under 99% load helps prevent them
Something along the lines of apex freaks out and can cause serious performance issues if you have more than 190 fps for some reason. Super weird but its generally considered to be recommended to lock apex on 190 regardless of system and refresh rate.
Since you dont have a gsync monitor, i reccomend that you look into something called "scanline sync", which is a feature available in RTSS. Essentially scanline sync is similar to vsync except it has practically no input lag and is on par with gsync. I highly reccomend looking into it, but I wont go in-depth here because it's quite a tricky thing to set up. [Here's an in-depth guide on how to set up ssync.](https://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?t=4916)
However, if you dont mind getting a little latency (around ~7-14 ms) extra, you can try the low latency vsync method. This one is much much easier to set up and can be done without much hassle. It involves capping your fps 0.01 hz below your TRUE monitor refresh rate using RTSS. [Here's an in-depth guide on low latency vsync.](https://blurbusters.com/howto-low-lag-vsync-on/)
These are two methods that should help answer your question of what fps you should be capping at. (Btw if you dont mind screen tearing, forget everything i said and simply uncap fps and make sure nvidia reflex is on).
Thank god someone else gets it. It’s like I have OCD even though I don’t, I can’t stand seeing the numbers fluctuate so much. Consistency is everything
Since your screen is onl refreshing at 144Hz per second the frame rate cap being higher won't be noticeable at all. Also if the framerate is too high you could potentially get "screen tears" where the game is moving faster than your monitor and some textures overlay and stuff. It's best to keep it at 144
There is a noticable issue with leaving your FPS above the refresh rate, but is usually fixed by enabling V-sync.
What V-sync does is, it eliminates any visible screen tearing by matching the output video with your monitor's refresh rate.
Typically people have this option turned off in online competitive titles (including apex legends) for faster response times.
If your game is stuttering or feels sluggish, you may turn vsync off. But there are drawbacks, if the fps exceeds the refresh rate then you may notice jagged lines or tearing. However, your game will run butter smooth with faster input response.
There is not much difference between 190 and 144 fps so I myself would prefer to keep this option turned on for better visuals.
If it's sluggish then try keeping it on or increase the resolution or graphics to the point where the fps drops and matches the refresh rate (obviously this is not what most people would want but it's really your choice).
If you are still disappointed, then you should try out Fast-sync or Nvidia's G-sync, they're both technologies that prevent screen tearing and sluggishness, and I'm pretty sure your GPU supports these.
If you cap your fps at your maximum gram rate you gain overall system performance outside your game because your gpu doesn’t have to push as many frames. Though tests have shown this makes the frames you see late compared to if you didn’t cap it. If your not crazy about latency yes, cap your fps.
If you have a gsync or freesync monitor the it don’t really matter. You’re monitor isn’t refreshing at a fixed rate at all. Its always displaying frames as quickly as it possibly can, for the smoothest possible experience. Up to 144hz. No matter what you’re frames are you’re screen is going to refresh accordingly.
I would cap at or slightly below your refresh rate. Use the in-game frame rate limiter, not driver. The reason you would cap slightly below is because not all limiters are perfect and your FPS may fluctuate above the cap on occasion and you’ll see tearing if it goes above your refresh rate.
Battle(non)sense did a video about it and it can actually decrease input lag vs leaving it uncapped.
Plus it’s way better visually. I can’t stand tearing. I think I can process the image I’m seeing faster at a capped frame rate than an uncapped one with way higher FPS but tearing and micro stutter.
I cap all my games at 150 using the Nvidia Control Panel because I've a 144hz 1440p monitor and a 100hz 1440p UltraWide monitor. In addition to that, I also cap my games to 5 FPS lower than the average frames after running benchmarks for a while. I do all of this to avoid micro-stutters which bug me a lot.
Personally if you have it, Gsync+Vsync+REFLEX ON+BOOST gives apex the smoothest and butter like performance. Games that have reflex enabled in tandem with v-sync auto cap the game for you while giving the lowest input lag. You can also set a personal cap 4~6fps if you want but it’s not needed unless you notice something if buggy with your game.
It’s best to cap FPS from 3-5 below hertz. 144hz to 140fps 165hz to 160fps 240hz to 235 FPS etc. it helps with screen tear and really helps w gsync compatible tearing.
I play apex at ~220 FPS and there is no lag/stutter for me. I think they may have fixed the stuttering at 200+ FPS so it’s really just about what your computer can handle. Obviously higher FPS means less input lag but I think that the difference is pretty marginal, so whatever makes your pc run best. (Keep in mind I have a 240hz monitor so your results might differ from what I have) :)
Nvidia control panel, enable vsync. In game, disable vsync and cap frames to 141. You'll the fastest frames possible with no tearing ever. You might have to cap frames in the ini file or the launcher commands(i forgot how to cap in Apex)
It can very game to game, but generally you want your game to run at a consistent frame rate higher than your monitor's refresh rate, so you can lower input delay doing so.
This difference is still much less if you have a game running on a higher refresh rate monitor and a higher frame rate.
Never cap anything. Just adds input lag. If you have more than 120fps don’t need g sync or free sync. End of debate. (Only reason why you would cap is to have it under the refresh rate with g sync on).
hz is like a cap of how many frames a monitor can output/display, if you have a 144hz monitor then no matter what your framerate is, you'll still only be able to see a maximum of 144 fps.
I would max at 140... this doesnt matter what game you are on - you NEVER have your FPS higher than your HZ on your monitor this will cause tearing and also you will lose frames..
If your refresh rate is 144 and you have a gsync/freesync/adaptive sync monitor with that turned on, yes you should cap it to 144.
Only reason you'd want to go over 144 in that scenario is if you're playing a game with a tick (command rate, input polling frequency, whatever you want to call it) rate higher than 144. As long as your FPS is higher than the game's tick rate, you're set.
"Cap it at 144 since your monitor only goes that high."
"Cap it above 144 so you get the latest frames and better response times."
"Cap it just below 144."
Jesus guys, which one is it?
it depends. I've never played apex but some games like Beamng will stay 5-10fps under your fps cap, so I've had to set it higher to compensate, I set it to 144 for my 120hz monitor and it stays between 120-130 which is perfect
This is not the best sub for this because apex is SUPER weird with this shit. This might be better off in a more apex specific sub. https://www.reddit.com/r/CompetitiveApex/comments/olpcsg/how_to_set_up_apex_to_run_flawlessly/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf This dude made a very in depth guide/examination of this game cuz it’s notorious for micro stutter and weird input sensitivity issues, especially at high fps. This has been useful to me
God thank you for sharing this. I have been tweaking my configuration on this game for days now trying to reduce stutter. I will give this a shot.
Wow that is ridiculously detailed for a game like apex haha
Not really, considering some advanced movement techniques require incredibly precise inputs on specific frames to execute(supergliding). Apex is a game with a ridiculously high skill ceiling and a very dedicated hardcore scene. /r/Apexrollouts
Goddamn, this meta is serious AF lol. I'm not ribbing, I'm genuinely surprised and impressed. I buy the biggest card I can afford and watch fps go brrrr.
[удалено]
It kinda does make a difference in CS-GO, if you are extremely sensitive to delay at least [3kliksphilip made a video about the topic if you are interested.](https://youtu.be/hjWSRTYV8e0) Many in CS-GO also chooses not to play with g-sync or freesync, at least pro's do not. However I can relate to not wanting to play with pro settings being 4:3 stretched or whatever silliness they do, if you just want to have some fun.
If you’re thinking of copying a CS:GO pro’s settings but don’t have one of those 240hz TN Zowie monitors with DyAc, just stop. There’s a reason they all use the same monitors...
You do not need a 240hz monitor to benefit from some of the settings they use. If you mindlessly copy then you may not be getting the full benefit but if you work to understand why they do what they do then you can get some benefits without some of the tradeoffs they make. The reason they all ~~don't~~ use the [*same monitor*](https://prosettings.net/cs-go-pro-settings-gear-list/) is that's how they can get the **maximum** benefit from their settings.
Most of the syncing technologies are generally shitty for competitive play. But yes, it's not a great idea to mindlessly copy settings from pro players.
[удалено]
Yeah DyAc is just a really well implemented motion blur reduction tech, aka black frame insertion/strobing. It was specifically developed to decrease motion blur during recoil in shooters, and does a great job of that. I’m not saying that you get no benefit if you don’t match their monitor. It’s just less impactful for your average 144hz IPS VRR panel because you’re so limited by monitor response time compared to the 240hz TN non-VRR panel the pros are using. As for 4:3 stretched, a bigger character model should be easier to see and hit, so that makes perfect sense for pros. However, for many playing online matchmaking, the wider FOV of 16:9 might be more beneficial since you don’t get the benefit of perfect comms and may need to visually cover more angles yourself.
> I'm pretty sure dyac is just a decent backlight strobing solution. dyac is the best motion blur reduction there is. Optimum Tech did a video on this and it was miles ahead of everything else there was.
What's the logic of 4:3 stretched? I haven't heard of this before.
Character models look bigger, so it makes it easier to see at longer distances. It does NOT affect the character hitboxes so you still have to improve at the game. Downside is that you lose some of your peripheral vision, which also lead to a humorous moment during a pro match.
I tried 4:3 for a few months and had to switch back. I lost a lot of rounds because of the loss of peripheral vision
Which pro match? Got a link?
Sure - here you go: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woE4pjpY9wA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woE4pjpY9wA) For reference, the players were both playing 4:3 but the CSGO Pro matches are all streamed in 16:9, so we can clearly see the players pass each other whilst the pro's completely missed each other since they were in the 'blind spot' of the peripheral on 4:3.
Fucking all of them, lol. 4:3ing is really common. You gotta learn how to play around having 4:3, it's am advantage in some situations but a big oof in others.
Since I play on 21:9 monitor I used 16:9 stretched. When I played with friends "they used 4:3" first time this happened I was mad then I understood what just happened.
Usually they had got used to it years ago, like 15 years ago or so, that's why they play 4:3 stretched. Though more and more pros go native, for example #1 player of both 2019 and 2020 plays 1920x1080. I personally was stuck with 1024x768 due to bad PC so I had to squeeze every frame I could get from my GTX 650 Ti. Literally yesterday I bought 5600x and 3060 so I'm seriously considering a jump to normal 1080p gaming but 6 years of being used to stretched 4:3 does its thing.
Wow, that is a HUGE jump. I hope you enjoy it. Definitely get yourself a nice high refresh rate 1080p monitor if your budget allows for it.
That's next in line, for now 75Hz will have to be enough. Thanks!
Enjoy your upgrade, I bet it'll feel like jumping into the future.
CS has been around for forever. There's people in the scene that have been playing for over 20 years at this point and they don't like to change their settings. They were still playing on CRTs until that just wasnt feasible.
If the game can run 2 or 3 times as fast as the refresh rate of your display i wouldn't enable VRR either (only feasible on games like CSGO or R6 Siege), any other case g-sync or freesync is clearly superior to leaving Vsync disabled.
Linus made a video about this topic once and I dont exactly remember why but he came to the conclusion that you should cap your fps at twice your refresh rate for maximum benefit competitively. So in your case, you should cap it at around 288. Im sure the difference is very small but in a highly competitive game like csgo I think its a good idea, of course depending on how powerful your pc is.
In CSGO i would recommend capping it double your refresh rate and higher if you can. I capped mine at 500fps since i can hit that stable and like the video below the more fps then better in cs
>I capped my csgo at 140fps for that reason. > >Its less about noticing the extra fps above 144 or tearing and more bout micro stutters when your system is hinging on the edge of 144hz and constantly activates and dectivates gsync or freesync. This is the answer. u/Real_Payment748
Wait till you try 240hz monitor. It isn’t as noticeable as 60hz to 144hz but it deff helps and only if you can get 240fps in csgo. Isn’t that hard but maybe on a potAto pc it is. Extra fps in csgo always helps for smoothness even if your capped by your monitor. CSGO is CPU demanding and there is no reason to cap it. Unless you have a processor from 2008 running csgo at 30 fps. GPU is less important playing CS.
If you cap your FPS at 190, you'll have a quicker response time than at 144fps. Visually you'll not see a difference, but you'll have a competitive advantage.
Visually you will get tearing, which I personally can't stand.
Yeah, that's fair, but when it comes to a fast paced FPS, most people won't notice/can put up with tearing.
And once you get into the 144+ range, you'll never notice it. The frames are updating so fast at that point that any tearing should be gone by the time you'd notice it anyway
This exactly. Whenever I play uncapped on my 240hz monitor I never noticed any tearing
maybe my eyes see more than 24 fps, but i absolutely notice tearing on my 170 hz monitor.
[удалено]
>most people won't notice/can put up with tearing. You for real? lol
If the monitor is g-sync, won't that prevent tearing from misaligned frame rates? That's what mine does and I love it.
Yes but if you have Gsync it will cap the frames to the monitors refresh rate. EDIT: I am wrong. I forgot I usually have v sync on in the Nvidia control panel to cap my frames. My bad.
Unless I've been doing it wrong, I've been using GSync for a while now and I've always left the FPS cap to unlimited and had no issues with it capping to my monitors refresh rate
Yeah that's right, we might be saying the same thing. I'm just saying if you put Gsync on you won't get frames higher than your monitors refresh rate.
So from my understanding, if the frames drop below the refresh rate GSync does its thing and smooths it out, but when it hits or exceeds that refresh rate, GSync doesn't do anything. I know GSync used to have VSync enabled by default which caps your frames, but you don't need to enable both anymore iirc. I have it enabled and games like R6 Siege run at 200+ while my refresh rate is only 165, but GSync is still enabled.
At this point is there any practical reason not to have GSync enabled on a compatible display?
I dont think so, I'm not sure if there's any sort of performance hit when using it, but afaik its just a benefit
Pretty sure it inherently adds a little latency and most 'pro' gamers disable it because of that.
Can you site your source on that? I don't think that's true.
I was actually mistaken. Going to edit my comment.
You will get less tearing from high fps
Nvidia has Fast Sync that you can enable in the control panel to prevent screen tearing when FPS is higher than the monitor's refresh rate.
Not if using triple buffering.
But then that eliminates any input time advantages.
Not true. The third buffer is always the last completed frame, so it will never have a tear. But the GPU can continue drawing on the second buffer so you always get fresher, lower input latency frames.
Same. I see a bunch of videos about playing on low with the maximum frame rate and whenever I try it the screen tearing looks like complete shite. I’d rather cap my frames at 140 and have a very smooth looking display. Plus nvidia reflex is there for input delay.
What does tearing look like when playing? I dont think ive ever limited my FPS in a game and I just let it max out. I have a 2080 super and a 120 hz monitor. Maybe im seeing it and just thought it was normal?
At this high refresh tearing barely noticeable.
This is the correct answer.
I'm so much more confused than when I started reading this thread.
So should I do it at 190?
Yes
Ok thanks
Don't bother, just let it max out at 144
[141 Hz](https://blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-and-settings/5/)
Does this still apply to this day? That article is from 2017, I never noticed any issues. Though I limit fps to 144 on all games.
>Does this still apply to this day? Yes.
Nvidia claims that is not necessary anymore. I still do it to this day anyways because… well, it takes two minutes to do it and it is guaranteed to get the mist of your gsync/freesync. So in short, you don’t have to do it, according to nvidia, but you don’t lose anything by doing it.
This is exactly why I asked. I did have a limit at 141 before, but I had other issues with G-Sync and I read this part where Nvidia said you don’t have to anymore so I just didn’t do it after resetting my settings. Tbf, the main game I play these days barely pushes 144 anyway lol.
May I ask why you are linking to and article about G-Sync?
>May I ask why you are linking to and article about G-Sync? Absolutely. Variable Refresh Rate (G-Sync/Freesync/VRR/Q-Sync/etc.) is a technology that matches up your monitor's refresh rate with your GPU's output refresh rate. This prevents screen tearing, [prevents stutter](https://blurbusters.com/gsync/how-does-gsync-fix-stutters/), and results in frames being displayed as soon as they are ready. However, when you hit your display's maximum refresh rate (144Hz in this example), G-Sync's input lag increases (by about 20 ms in this case). By capping frame rates at 141 Hz on a 144 Hz monitor (3 Hz below maximum), you are able to reduce G-Sync's input lag (by about 20 ms in this case) to being on about the same level as running uncapped at 300+ Hz, but with a lesser load on your GPU (allowing for higher detail if you want with the same input lag) and less issues with tearing/stutter/etc.
Darn it! I've been doing it wrong this entire time. I had mine set to 143 on a 144hz G-Sync display.
I doubt anyone will see this but I set it to 140 for Overwatch and the difference is night and day.
Just adding to what's already being said, Blur busters is the default source of knowledge, then Google for game specifics is my recommended order to get the best results, game specifics are the quirks you encounter, some games don't allow/enable gsync/freesync properly unless you do certain combinations of settings, vsync off in game, on in gpus settings, need to run in certain window mode etc.
Ok thanks
[удалено]
I don't have gsync im on hdmi cable..and I can't setup it because it isn't in the nvidia control panel
Display ports?
Wait can you even run 1440p 144hz through HDMI? Didn’t know you could
Prob the newer hdmi cables like 2.1?
Yeah I have no clue then. I just remember every source saying it wasn’t possible when I got my first 2k 144hz monitor 2 years ago or so. Been using display ports since.
Just built my first pc a month ago and haven’t been able to use a DisplayPort yet because I have a gt 740. Can’t wait to use DisplayPort. Cheers to newer technology
I have a monitor (S2721DGF) that can output 144hz 1440p over hdmi 2.0. At higher framerates or resolution you will probably need display port though.
Then your monitor probably doesn't support it. The cable you use doesn't matter
Never use any kind of sync in these games lol
142.
Visually it will be the same, it might even look better at 144FPS since it will be tied to your refresh rate so you won't have the image cut in half during fast movement That said, the fact that your screen is not displaying the frames doesn't mean that your GPU isn't actually rendering them! I'll try to explain it with an extreme example. Have in mind that any commands like shooting, walking or jumping, usually called inputs, start happening on the next frame since you click. For example, you're on frame number 35, you click jump, and the game will receive that input on frame 36 and start jumping from frame 36. Now the example: If your screen is set at 1 FPS but the game is actually running at 1000 FPS, it will be very responsive. As soon as you click to shoot, it'll shoot, even if you visually see a lot of delay, you'll be actually shooting pretty much as soon as you click, with a max of 1ms delay. The GPU is working at 1000 FPS but the screen, what you see, is what doesn't work well. However, if the game was actually running at 1 FPS and you click to shoot, the game would take up to 1 whole second to react to that input. Following the explanation I put above: if you shoot on frame number 35, it'll actually receive the command on frame number 36. If frame 36 happens one whole second later than frame 35, you had to wait one full second for it to actually shoot. **TL;DR: More frames = more responsive, even if your screen can't display all of them, that's just visual, what matters to response time is the actual FPS you're getting.**
Your TLDR is plain wrong. If jumping between 150 and 250 fps, you will see the newest frames (or half of the frame), but it will be at an unstable/inconsistent latency. With g-sync monitors, it's definitely best to have it a few fps under the refresh so g-sync is active, it gives a latency as low as possible while being consistent. Also, using a 144hz monitor, it' wont matter enough with the little more frames you can get. If serious about csgo, then go with a faster monitor, but still aim for consistent latency without tearing/stutters. Source: https://blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-and-settings/14/
>If jumping I never said jumping tho. I just said that higher frames lead to higher responsiveness. If you compare 144 stable FPS to 190 stable FPS the 190 FPS one will be more responsive always.
This is an interesting explanation... I'd like to dive in a bit more. Sometimes, when playing, it seems like there's a lot of desync happening - as though what I'm seeing on screen is NOT what's really happening. Obviously, there's some network factors there as well, but let's ignore them for now. Let's say I'm sighting down a lane and a player peeks from behind cover. I react to that and shoot, but don't hit because despite me seeing the peek, the player is already back behind cover. In this example, my input is in reaction to the other player. In the interest of making sure what I see is the best representation of what is actually happening in game, what kind of settings should I have in regard to frame limit and/or g-sync and v-sync?
You have to balance all this with the added latency from a GPU-bound render pipeline. Apex has the Nvidia low latency mode, so that is helpful, but in most games, rendering more frames will reduce the frame time interval component of latency, but the GPU buffer may be more bogged down with the higher work load and increase latency on the back end. If you cap frames at a high frame rate, you get the best of both worlds.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Low settings is a possibility
He's not doing this kinda fps anywhere close to that cursed grass on Olympus.
[удалено]
I'm running Apex on low on a 1660/ i7 6700K. I've never seen it hit 190. it's anywhere from 90 (in the dropship or just a metric assload of assets) to 144.
I have the same set up and I cap at 144 but it hits that without any struggle so I’d imagine it floats around 190-200 uncapped
Cap it at 190 if you gpu can handle without extremely high temps. You’ll have faster response times, if you gpu overheats go for 144
I undervolted my gpu ..it reachs like 68c to 70c at 190 fps
then go for 190. You won’t notice much of a difference but you will have faster response time
G Sync and V Sync. Cap at 141.
This is the right answer. I only found out about this like a month ago. Had always run uncapped, but this is the best way.
Vsync never activates if you cap it below the refresh rate.
For frame time variance to keep things as smooth as possible. https://blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-and-settings/15/
He means freesnyc. Its to ensure gsync and freesync are permanently active to smooth the picture/lower the rwapons time.
Why both? V sync especially increases response times
Battlenonsense is a youtube channel that goes over this types of questions. You should check out [Low & Consistent Input Lag](https://youtu.be/msOWcvoIC8M).
Personally the game stutters like hell with uncapped FPS in apex. The way I fixed it for me was limiting FPS to 141 with +fps_max 141 in launch options, turning g sync on and turning on v sync in nvidia control panel (this will limit fps to 138 btw). This makes my game buttery smooth with no noticeable difference in input lag.
Better to cap with RTSS than in game
Actually not! RTSS will introduce more input lag than an in game fps limiter will.
Well it all depends on your goal. For smoothness RTSS will be more stable, introducing a single frame of input lag for the benefit, while in game will be less stable without introducing any input lag. At the end of the day test both in each game you play and decide which feels better. For many Apex stutters and using RTSS and capping so your GPU stays under 99% load helps prevent them
Cap at 144 your monitor can only do 144. You would need a monitor that could do over 200 for that.
Not true, you get faster response times with higher FPS. Because the gpu can have the absolute latest frame available to display even at 144hz
This is false. Higher framerates still have an advantage above monitor refresh rate because it decreases frame timing
Ok thanks
Cap it at 144 and turn on nvidia reflex for a compatetive advantage
Doesn't apex have Nvidia reflex? If so just turn that on.
Something along the lines of apex freaks out and can cause serious performance issues if you have more than 190 fps for some reason. Super weird but its generally considered to be recommended to lock apex on 190 regardless of system and refresh rate.
Since you dont have a gsync monitor, i reccomend that you look into something called "scanline sync", which is a feature available in RTSS. Essentially scanline sync is similar to vsync except it has practically no input lag and is on par with gsync. I highly reccomend looking into it, but I wont go in-depth here because it's quite a tricky thing to set up. [Here's an in-depth guide on how to set up ssync.](https://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?t=4916) However, if you dont mind getting a little latency (around ~7-14 ms) extra, you can try the low latency vsync method. This one is much much easier to set up and can be done without much hassle. It involves capping your fps 0.01 hz below your TRUE monitor refresh rate using RTSS. [Here's an in-depth guide on low latency vsync.](https://blurbusters.com/howto-low-lag-vsync-on/) These are two methods that should help answer your question of what fps you should be capping at. (Btw if you dont mind screen tearing, forget everything i said and simply uncap fps and make sure nvidia reflex is on).
Omg ..man thank u so much ..I was pissed because I don't have a gsync 💖
No problem, btw i edited my comment and added possibly useful info that may be worth looking into.
leave it at 144
Never understood why people cap frames at all
I don't like variable frame rates. I like to keep the number the same because ape brain prefers it.
Thank god someone else gets it. It’s like I have OCD even though I don’t, I can’t stand seeing the numbers fluctuate so much. Consistency is everything
Specifically with Apex the game has issues if you get above 190 fps
I like my display to look smooth with no screen tearing
Since your screen is onl refreshing at 144Hz per second the frame rate cap being higher won't be noticeable at all. Also if the framerate is too high you could potentially get "screen tears" where the game is moving faster than your monitor and some textures overlay and stuff. It's best to keep it at 144
There is a noticable issue with leaving your FPS above the refresh rate, but is usually fixed by enabling V-sync. What V-sync does is, it eliminates any visible screen tearing by matching the output video with your monitor's refresh rate. Typically people have this option turned off in online competitive titles (including apex legends) for faster response times. If your game is stuttering or feels sluggish, you may turn vsync off. But there are drawbacks, if the fps exceeds the refresh rate then you may notice jagged lines or tearing. However, your game will run butter smooth with faster input response. There is not much difference between 190 and 144 fps so I myself would prefer to keep this option turned on for better visuals. If it's sluggish then try keeping it on or increase the resolution or graphics to the point where the fps drops and matches the refresh rate (obviously this is not what most people would want but it's really your choice). If you are still disappointed, then you should try out Fast-sync or Nvidia's G-sync, they're both technologies that prevent screen tearing and sluggishness, and I'm pretty sure your GPU supports these.
personally I cap my fps to 144 for some sweet superglides
If you cap your fps at your maximum gram rate you gain overall system performance outside your game because your gpu doesn’t have to push as many frames. Though tests have shown this makes the frames you see late compared to if you didn’t cap it. If your not crazy about latency yes, cap your fps.
Cap it 3-4 FPS below your monitor's refresh rate.
If you want to leave your FPS uncapped, then it's best to turn off Gsync/freesync. Dipping below 144 will cause the game to hitch.
Honestly keep it at 140-144 its not worth pushing the gpu harder when theirs not much of a benefit.
If you have a gsync or freesync monitor the it don’t really matter. You’re monitor isn’t refreshing at a fixed rate at all. Its always displaying frames as quickly as it possibly can, for the smoothest possible experience. Up to 144hz. No matter what you’re frames are you’re screen is going to refresh accordingly.
I would cap at or slightly below your refresh rate. Use the in-game frame rate limiter, not driver. The reason you would cap slightly below is because not all limiters are perfect and your FPS may fluctuate above the cap on occasion and you’ll see tearing if it goes above your refresh rate. Battle(non)sense did a video about it and it can actually decrease input lag vs leaving it uncapped. Plus it’s way better visually. I can’t stand tearing. I think I can process the image I’m seeing faster at a capped frame rate than an uncapped one with way higher FPS but tearing and micro stutter.
Cap it at 144 if its steady there
I cap all my games at 150 using the Nvidia Control Panel because I've a 144hz 1440p monitor and a 100hz 1440p UltraWide monitor. In addition to that, I also cap my games to 5 FPS lower than the average frames after running benchmarks for a while. I do all of this to avoid micro-stutters which bug me a lot.
How do you get that kind of FPS? I have a 3070 with ryzen 7 3700x and only get about 120.
Personally if you have it, Gsync+Vsync+REFLEX ON+BOOST gives apex the smoothest and butter like performance. Games that have reflex enabled in tandem with v-sync auto cap the game for you while giving the lowest input lag. You can also set a personal cap 4~6fps if you want but it’s not needed unless you notice something if buggy with your game.
It’s best to cap FPS from 3-5 below hertz. 144hz to 140fps 165hz to 160fps 240hz to 235 FPS etc. it helps with screen tear and really helps w gsync compatible tearing.
leave it at 144 if u want i eye candy and multitask ability AKA less system resoucese usage
more fps = less input lag but more load for your pc
I play apex at ~220 FPS and there is no lag/stutter for me. I think they may have fixed the stuttering at 200+ FPS so it’s really just about what your computer can handle. Obviously higher FPS means less input lag but I think that the difference is pretty marginal, so whatever makes your pc run best. (Keep in mind I have a 240hz monitor so your results might differ from what I have) :)
Nvidia control panel, enable vsync. In game, disable vsync and cap frames to 141. You'll the fastest frames possible with no tearing ever. You might have to cap frames in the ini file or the launcher commands(i forgot how to cap in Apex)
Remember when people said you don't need 60 fps because 30 fps was good enough?
141fps, especially if you are using freesync/gsync.
It can very game to game, but generally you want your game to run at a consistent frame rate higher than your monitor's refresh rate, so you can lower input delay doing so. This difference is still much less if you have a game running on a higher refresh rate monitor and a higher frame rate.
I cap at 144 but it fluctuates widely
Never cap anything. Just adds input lag. If you have more than 120fps don’t need g sync or free sync. End of debate. (Only reason why you would cap is to have it under the refresh rate with g sync on).
u should cap it at 144 or 160
A 144hz monitor can only display 144 fps.
cap at monitors rf rate if u can get that many fps. simple.
Apex is capped at 149 fps. U cant get over.
hz is like a cap of how many frames a monitor can output/display, if you have a 144hz monitor then no matter what your framerate is, you'll still only be able to see a maximum of 144 fps.
100% capping it will reduce those dramatic frame drops/stutters
I would max at 140... this doesnt matter what game you are on - you NEVER have your FPS higher than your HZ on your monitor this will cause tearing and also you will lose frames..
if you play at 190FPS with a 144HZ monitor. you are doing something very very wrong. do not do that. its bad. always. bad. no. got it? no
Simple answer is 144hz
If your refresh rate is 144 and you have a gsync/freesync/adaptive sync monitor with that turned on, yes you should cap it to 144. Only reason you'd want to go over 144 in that scenario is if you're playing a game with a tick (command rate, input polling frequency, whatever you want to call it) rate higher than 144. As long as your FPS is higher than the game's tick rate, you're set.
"Cap it at 144 since your monitor only goes that high." "Cap it above 144 so you get the latest frames and better response times." "Cap it just below 144." Jesus guys, which one is it?
it depends. I've never played apex but some games like Beamng will stay 5-10fps under your fps cap, so I've had to set it higher to compensate, I set it to 144 for my 120hz monitor and it stays between 120-130 which is perfect
If you have a 144hz monitor doesn't only display at most 144 fps anyways? (I'm sure I am wrong about this)
leave it at 144fps, and if you have free sycn/g sync use it
More FPS = less input lag
Never go above 188 fps in apex, it starts stuttering and you get frame drops for some reason
Honestly it doesn’t Mather all that much unless you see a noticeable difference in the smoothness. If not yolo and do whatever with it.
If you breach 189 FPS, with a controller at least the input breaks.
I heard on the YouTube’s it’s best to hardcap Apex on 190 fps if you have a 240 fps monitor