MAXIMUM PRE

     
Everything about latency. Tips, testing methods, mouse lag, display lag, game engine lag, network lag, whole input đầu vào lag chain, VSYNC OFF vs VSYNC ON, và more! đầu vào Lag Articles on Blur Busters.

Bạn đang xem: Maximum pre


So nvidia is giving us 3 tools lớn get rid of queued frames:Low latency mode in NVCPLReflex in game optionsMaximum Pre-rendered frames in NVinspectorCool, I tested all of them and none work. Maybe my method is flawed, tell me what I"m doing wrong please.I"m running furmark stresstest to get gpu usage khổng lồ 99-100%. Then I start a game(kovaak) with various settings (reflex on/off, low latency ultra etc.).I benchmark with Frameview for a few minutes, then check the log for "Render Queue Depth".Low latency mode on/off/ultra all give maximum render queue depth of 3+Reflex even managed 5+Again, maybe my method is bad, maybe render queue depth is not what I think it is. LMK if you have any info on that.

Xem thêm: Đầu Số 0783 Là Mạng Gì - Và Ý Nghĩa Đặc Biệt Của Nó


*

*

RTSS Scanline Sync is another method to get rid of pre-rendered frames too._____Now my commentary:Also, if you"re running multiple 3 chiều apps, like Furmark & Kovaak simultaneously, utilities such as Frameview may be counting the aggregate total of prerendered frames in both software packages. Also, some games will always generate prerendered frames internally regardless of the software setting. There are some major GPU pipelining inefficiencies that emerge when running two separate heavy 3d rendering apps on the same GPU where they are now forced to nội dung GPU memory, & may trigger new latency behaviors not normally done by a single GPU.The best way to benchmark is one software at a time, never two simultaneously -- is lớn max out the GPU via VSYNC OFF và low-CPU settings. For example, use VSYNC OFF, use maximum resolution, use maximum graphics detail, khổng lồ put as much load on the GPU instead of the CPU. Now, which games are you playing that reaches 100% GPU in real world non-synthetic trò chơi play? If you have real world games that never max out 100% GPU, then one asks oneself: Is there a purpose to benchmarking a synthetic situation? If you"re not getting latency of a 100%-maxed-out-GPU, isn"t that good? Then why does one need khổng lồ worry about the game"s own latency during a 100%-maxed-out GPU situation that does not happen with games such as CS:GO anyway? The unused GPU % headroom is very healthy for latency anyway -- even 5% is good when latency is numero uno (esports). CS:GO is one of those older-engine games that is currently CPU-limited, so the GPU tend lớn not hit 100% in that game on modern GPUs.There are legitimate needs to vì synthetic benchmarks, but would lượt thích to know the rationale in this specific situation -- like a specific latency-important trò chơi that is at 100% GPU in your real world play cases? Usually when a GPU is hitting 100%, it"s during frame rate dips due to lớn super complex sceneary (think Cyberpunk 2077 league graphics) rather than other things lượt thích network accesses or disk accesses. Such frame rate dups isn"t sync-technology or display-technology bottlenecked (little VSYNC waiting) so most GPU latency is render latency & not frame queue latency -- in fact during VSYNC OFF, the frame will usually splice rather quickly (within less than a millisecond) at the current raster position of the display scanout (creating a tearline on that spot). In that situation, any software-reported frame queue numbers are usually synthetic/artificial and not representative of real-world button-to-pixel latencies at the specific particular moment for that specific particular tearline. They may just be preallocation of extra buffers "just in case" but aren"t actually used, so a frame queue of 3 may actually be 0ms latency penalty most of the time... Which means during the 100% GPU surges / frame rate dips, the render queue is least likely to be used! It"s a preallocated queue which isn"t necessarily used. If this is what is happening, then the only scam is "being prepared" -- nothing wrong with that.Now, you know how horrendously big the latency chain is...

Xem thêm: Quyền Lực Mới - Những Thằng Ngu Nhất Thế Giới

*
Now, you can skip the đen box by measuring the left over right ends. Button khổng lồ photons. How vị you vị that, you ask?You need a photodiode oscilloscope to lớn bypass all the FUD -- or a purpose built device similar khổng lồ NVIDIA"s LDAT. (We have an in-house device too, but that"s mainly used for Blur Busters Approved and consulting services at the moment). The proof is at the stopwatch endpoints -- the button press (mouse button or mouse move) is the stopwatch start. The light emitting from pixels on a screen is the stopwatch end. This becomes latency ground truth, but one also needs khổng lồ bear in mind that not all pixels on a display refresh at the same time, and that GtG pixel response can vary for different colors (creating an error margin for latency measurements since some colors will begin emitting a millisecond sooner than others). What a Latency Pandora Box, eh? But latency connoiseurs know to lớn bypass the FUD và get a photodiode device. Ardunio homebuilt, or vendor built (NVIDIA), or some third buổi tiệc nhỏ device (of which there"s a few). We might even sell our device too (...we"re still deciding...)Definitely, as researchers have seen situations where single milliseconds can affect displays (when tested under the right scientific variables) -- we are Milliseconds Matters people here at Blur Busters, (see The Amazing Human Visible Feats Of The Millisecond) but we are pragmatic about latency noise that may be misunderstood. We see lots of false blame (like blaming "X" when the latency problem is caused by "Y") in the industry, so be careful not lớn fall in the trap in this thread. We are big fans of surgically troubleshooting the right/real problems, so secondary verification is helpful (e.g. Parallel testing with a photodiode oscilloscope device, and/or a 1000fps high speed camera).