For a non-GSYNC free sync monitor, consider turning on triple buffering or VSync to prevent screen tearing.
For a non-GSYNC free sync monitor, consider turning on triple buffering or VSync to prevent screen tearing.
Your 1060 Max Q supports up to 60Hz, but your monitor only renders at 1200Hz. Setting a lower framerate limit in NVIDIA Control Panel can help reduce tearing. Triple buffering may improve performance but doesn’t eliminate input lag entirely. Adjusting the frame rate should give better stability without noticeable delay.
Relies on how the system handles it, but generally it should resolve the issue while maintaining low input lag. Triple buffering typically means the game displays rapidly, switching between two invisible layers while showing a third buffer. When the screen is prepared to present a new frame, it updates to the most recent completed image based on the latest input. This ensures the game isn't stuck at 60 frames per second, and you avoid tearing since only finished frames are shown.
Freesync should be applied through DP during operation on non-AMD GPUs.
I mean it's a sp game? Atp why not just use vsync instead of double or triple lag you only get a tiny bit of vsync lag (which is probably unnoticeable at 60fps) Ah, never works for me ... Don't get me wrong, it works, I see the hz keeps changing even when it's straight up 60 or 120 fps... The constant lag is unbearable... (Never tried Gsync on a Gsync monitor btw but I can't imagine it being any better,or at least I'm too traumatized from "free sync" to even try! )
I thought "triple buffering" in a game menu usually refers to the standard method where frames shift from back buffer 2 to 1 and then to front, which can raise latency. In games like Far Cry 3, I’m fairly certain Ubisoft mentioned this effect in Far Cry 4, noting it would add lag in most cases. The specific kind being discussed is likely the setting activated when you enable "Fast Sync" via the Nvidia control panel (or "Enhanced Sync" on AMD), which helps maintain higher frame rates but may not be ideal if your performance only barely exceeds your refresh target. Assuming I can sustain around 60 fps, double buffering would likely provide the least latency in that game. Fast Sync in the Nvidia panel might suit players who consistently hit 120+ fps, though it’s doubtful for someone with a mid-range CPU like the R5 5600 unless paired with a powerful GPU. I recently played Far Cry 3 on an R5 5600 and remained CPU-bound near 90 fps in several areas. OP, this video will clarify the various buffering techniques. From what I see from your posts, you might have faced issues with Freesync implementation, possibly due to a weak monitor or outdated software—Freesync isn’t strictly validated. It seems you’ve mistakenly focused on VRR latency, when in reality, any non-VRR sync (double, triple, Fast Sync, etc.) should be more responsive than the alternatives. Only complete freedom from syncing would result in minimal lag, even if it means tolerating screen tearing.
It's completely feasible (MSI monitor) but the session has been really bad. My computer uses gsync... I'm considering testing it later, though I still don't understand why. MH Wilds usually runs at 65-90 fps... I attempted to set it to 60 using Riva Tuner, but that also caused issues (it worked briefly then slowed down). Right now, with framegen I'm unsure if gsync is necessary—it feels too inconsistent without it, especially since dips near 50 happen often.
Yeah, unfortunately there are different implementations that share the same name. Imho, the way I described it is how it's supposed to work (1) , but of course engine developers are free to implement and/or name things any way they see fit. I assume the way they do it is supposed to improve frame pacing, rather than performance? 1) AnandTech, Arm , Intel
Ultra low latency mode for graphics cards is comparable to the low latency setting on TV gaming options. There are display technologies that maintain a fixed native refresh rate, which helps prevent tearing and stutter during gameplay. The issue of tearing often arises because LCD and OLED screens have their own static refresh rates. A DLP projector might offer an alternative solution.