ty_ger07
By the way, 180 FPS versus 300 FPS: what's the real difference? A torn image on your screen with one part of the tear 0.001 seconds more recent than the other part of the torn image?

ty_ger07
My question is whether there really is a performance difference. You say that there is clearly a difference. But is there really?

At 165 Hz, each image on your monitor is updated every 0.006 seconds. At 180 FPS, your monitor displays one part of a torn image which is up to 0.006 seconds old with the other part of the torn image which is 0.0005 seconds newer. At 300 FPS, your monitor displays one part of a torn image which is up to 0.006 seconds old with the other part of the torn image which is 0.0027 seconds newer. 0.0022 seconds is a measurable difference, sure, but I doubt that it is perceivable and is nothing in comparison to your computer's and game engine's combined lag easily exceeding 0.05 seconds.

Devil's advocate: if Precision is only capping your framerate from exceeding ~180 FPS, it is not reducing your performance by any perceivable amount. That makes the performance impact very unclear. If you can show me that Precision has a performance impact under higher load at lower framerates, then you would be onto something. But as it is, it appears that you are only experiencing a frame capping effect reducing the total frames for what would only be garbage/unused frames anyway.

Scarlet-Tech
Keep in mind, vulgar language is not allowed. Posts will be edited to remove any vulgar language.

Yes, the forum software edits the vilgar language into asterisks, no, it doesnt block it when the language is later quoted by someone else, so it becomes visible until the next post is submitted. It's easier if you just follow the forum rules.

ty_ger07

oneofusjustin

ty_ger07
My question is whether there really is a performance difference. You say that there is clearly a difference. But is there really?

At 165 Hz, each image on your monitor is updated every 0.006 seconds. At 180 FPS, your monitor displays one part of a torn image which is up to 0.006 seconds old with the other part of the torn image which is 0.0005 seconds newer. At 300 FPS, your monitor displays one part of a torn image which is up to 0.006 seconds old with the other part of the torn image which is 0.0027 seconds newer. 0.0022 seconds is a measurable difference, sure, but I doubt that it is perceivable and is nothing in comparison to your computer's and game engine's combined lag easily exceeding 0.05 seconds.

Devil's advocate: if Precision is only capping your framerate from exceeding ~180 FPS, it is not reducing your performance by any perceivable amount. That makes the performance impact very unclear. If you can show me that Precision has a performance impact under higher load at lower framerates, then you would be onto something. But as it is, it appears that you are only experiencing a frame capping effect reducing the total frames for what would only be garbage/unused frames anyway.

im not sure if you are insane, or trolling me here. why would it ever be acceptable for software to reduce GPU performance by 60% it isn't just " capping it" like some type of vsync or fps limiter it is just reducing my overall system performance. When im standing still staring at a wall getting 180fps, what do you think happens when i actually play the game and hits the fan? i drop way below my refresh rate. Where as with it off and I have that additional 60% performance back i never go below 200. I get it, you probably have a 60hz monitor and love EVGA but come on man you cant be that thick to say this is a feature not a bug.

I never claimed that it was a feature. As I don't use Precision and I have not duplicated your complaint, I cannot comment on whether or not it is a bug. All I am saying is that what you reported is a pretty insignificant complaint since it has zero perceivable impact on the operation of your computer.

Give us some load figures. Then, you could be onto something.

If the load at 300 FPS is 99% but the load at 180 FPS is 60%, I would say that it is simply some sort of frame cap. On the other hand, if the load at 180 FPS is also still at 99%, then that is a very big issue.

ty_ger07
See edit above.
Provide some real numbers please.

ty_ger07

oneofusjustin

ty_ger07
See edit above.
Provide some real numbers please.

real numbers for what?

GPU Load %.

did you not see the video in top post?

Yes, I saw it.  It doesn't provide any useful information.
 
This is what I said above.  Maybe you missed it:

Give us some load figures. Then, you could be onto something.

If the GPU load at 300 FPS is 99% but the GPU load at 180 FPS is 60%, I would say that it is simply some sort of frame cap. On the other hand, if the load at 180 FPS is also still at 99%, then that is a very big issue.

Additionally, along the same lines, can you please verify whether you fear that the FPS will drop below 165 FPS when otherwise it would not, or whether you have actually noticed it dropping below 165 FPS when otherwise it would have not? Because, as mentioned, fear of performance impact isn't the same as realizing a performance impact. If it is simply a FPS cap, as I am inclined to believe, performance shouldn't actually be affected when it matters.

 
For example:

 
 
My best guess is that Precision's software developer team unintentionally caused a frame rate cap to exist.  My best guess is that this apparent framerate cap issue does not negatively affect your system's gaming performance in any perceivable way.  My best guess is that when your system actually requires your video card to be used effectively (not playing an old outdated game like CS which is just idling your GPU at high FPS), your video card will be ready to handle the grunt without any additional slowdowns.