• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PS5: VRR Update Is Reportedly Coming In December

Status
Not open for further replies.

intbal

Member
Can you point out a game where VRR is essential and really noticible, so I can boot up by Series X and check its usefullness? Because every game I tried with VRR on I still notice the drops in performance so I really don't get if its working or not. All I really notice is flashing non stop.

Arkham Asylum from the Return to Arkham collection.
The framerate is locked at 45fps.
If you play without VRR, you're gonna have a bad time.
 

A.Romero

Member
I don't see the point of the discussion. Sony promised the feature and that's all that is needed for people to expect it.

If it's worth it or not may be up for personal taste but Sony should deliver on their promises because there is a segment of people that has invested in a TV and maybe a receiver to be able to have that feature because they consider it valuable.

There are many features that useless to me on consoles but I'm sure they are useful for some people like 3D Audio or being able to store games in a an external drive. I still can recognize the value of the feature and how it could be useful in certain situations.
 

ZywyPL

Gold Member
Devs should just deliver stable framerates. 30/40/60/120 Hz for HDMI 2.1 TVs.

They should, but they don't, as the last three decades shown more than enough. And seeing how many games fail to deliver a rock-solid 60FPS, or better yet 120, VRR is exactly what's needed in consoles, even more so than on PC where you actually do have that freedom to tweak the settings to hit that desired, steady framerate. And we're just the first year into the generation mind you, within the next 5-6 years there will be THOUSANDS more titles that simply don't hold their targeted performance level, as previos generations shown, it'll only keep vetting worse and worse.
 

MasterCornholio

Gold Member
Sony promised the feature and that's all that is needed for people to expect it.

/End thread

Basically if Sony never sold VRR with the PS5 it wouldn't be an issue. But it's something that they have promised and in my opinion they should deliver it. I personally hate false marketing and not bringing VRR to PS5 owners would be a case of that.

I don't have a screen with VRR so u personally don't care if I have it or not. But Sony needs to keep their promises to those that can experience or planning on getting a screen with VRR.
 

Loxus

Member
While VRR is great, it's limited to some TVs and not everyone can afford those TVs.

I remember Cerny saying he wanted good audio for every. In fact this was his direct quote.
"The first goal was great audio for everyone.
Not just VR users or sound bar owners or headphone users.
That meant audio had to be part of the console it couldn't be a peripheral."


This Patent from Sony Interactive Entertainment explains how it aims to minimize or eliminate tearing and shuttering. It works similar to VSync but isn't limited to a TV's refresh rate.

The timing of the swap of the buffers 110, 112 may depend on the current configuration of the system. In the illustrated example, the swap is timed to coincide with the timing of a pulse within the vertical blanking interval (VBI) 120, thereby restricting a swap from occurring during the middle of the scanout of any particular image from the front buffer 110. However, it is noted that the system may instead be configured to swap the front and back buffer as soon as the new source frames are ready, e.g., as soon as they are finished rendering into the back buffer 112.


It also talk about how this can help fix streaming issues.

VRR doesn't completely fix frame rate issue, so this is a good alternative for those who don't have a VRR capable TV and goes hand in hand with what Cerny said. It most likely the reason Sony isn't pushing the VRR update.
 
Last edited:

Shmunter

Gold Member
By norm, all Playstation games have V-Sync and don't have any tearing regardless. On 60Hz TVs that means one frame is being sent every 16.67ms (60FPS) or once every 33ms (30FPS).
With VRR on 120Hz TVs, the new frame will be sent as soon as it's ready and without tearing.

A game could be able to run at a 50FPS average. That's not enough to run at locked 60Hz, but on a VRR TV it would show that 50FPS average which is a lot better than the next lock at 30 FPS.
Truly we should get more options for fixed frame. Even without VRR a lock to steady performance could be achieved.

On 120fps sets - games should allow 30/40/50/60/100/120
On 60fps sets - allow 30/50/60
 
Last edited:

HeisenbergFX4

Gold Member
LG C1, just bought it on black friday to replace my "old" C8.
So just have a couple of hours on the 48" C1 and have played Rocket League, Warzone, both games on XSX and PS5. Halo Infinite MP and Forza Horizon 5 on XSX and no flashing though have read many people talking about it in different forums including Xbox Insiders.

Have 2 pretty dumb questions for you that I am sure you have tried but have you updated the C1 and have you tried a different HDMI cable as I see both of these fixing it for many people

Side note using this to replace my X35 Predator while the screen area is massive and the picture is simply gorgeous so far doesn't near pack the punch the Predator did but obviously doesn't have the bloom associated with said punch either
 
Last edited:

Pedro Motta

Gold Member
So just have a couple of hours on the 48" C1 and have played Rocket League, Warzone, both games on XSX and PS5. Halo Infinite MP and Forza Horizon 5 on XSX and no flashing though have read many people talking about it in different forums including Xbox Insiders.

Have 2 pretty dumb questions for you that I am sure you have tried but have you updated the C1 and have you tried a different HDMI cable as I see both of these fixing it for many people

Side note using this to replace my X35 Predator while the screen area is massive and the picture is simply gorgeous so far doesn't near pack the punch the Predator did but obviously doesn't have the bloom associated with said punch either
Rocket League is one game I can notice VRR in effect, without it looks choppy at times. Also now that you tried the 2 versions, why is XSX version so blurry @ 120 fps compared to the PS5? Are the resolutions different?

Yes my C1 is updated to the lastest firmware and my cable is the original one that came with the Series X. Will try to swap it with the PS5 one just to be sure, altough I'm not as worried as VRR is indeed working on Rocket League. My guess is that this is on a game by game basis, VRR handles some framerates / stuttering better than others.
 

HeisenbergFX4

Gold Member
Rocket League is one game I can notice VRR in effect, without it looks choppy at times. Also now that you tried the 2 versions, why is XSX version so blurry @ 120 fps compared to the PS5? Are the resolutions different?

Yes my C1 is updated to the lastest firmware and my cable is the original one that came with the Series X. Will try to swap it with the PS5 one just to be sure, altough I'm not as worried as VRR is indeed working on Rocket League. My guess is that this is on a game by game basis, VRR handles some framerates / stuttering better than others.
Without a doubt the PS5 version is sharper then the Series X version and no idea why

I still haven't come across any flashing but have seen videos of people having this issue, really strange
 

01011001

Gold Member
Also now that you tried the 2 versions, why is XSX version so blurry @ 120 fps compared to the PS5? Are the resolutions different?

the Series X version runs at 2688x1512 in 120fps mode, pretty sure the PS5 is the same.
also both are basically locked to 120fps, so VRR is not really needed either... if you have a choppy framerate without VRR that is weird tbh.
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

Banned
By norm, all Playstation games have V-Sync and don't have any tearing regardless. On 60Hz TVs that means one frame is being sent every 16.67ms (60FPS) or once every 33ms (30FPS).
With VRR on 120Hz TVs, the new frame will be sent as soon as it's ready and without tearing.

A game could be able to run at a 50FPS average. That's not enough to run at locked 60Hz, but on a VRR TV it would show that 50FPS average which is a lot better than the next lock at 30 FPS.
It is due the PS SDK it forces VSync by default… dev needs to choose to disable it if they want.

For example from the DF articles I only remember 1 game without VSync since PS5 launch.
 

ethomaz

Banned
Rocket League is one game I can notice VRR in effect, without it looks choppy at times. Also now that you tried the 2 versions, why is XSX version so blurry @ 120 fps compared to the PS5? Are the resolutions different?

Yes my C1 is updated to the lastest firmware and my cable is the original one that came with the Series X. Will try to swap it with the PS5 one just to be sure, altough I'm not as worried as VRR is indeed working on Rocket League. My guess is that this is on a game by game basis, VRR handles some framerates / stuttering better than others.
This game should not need VRR even in 120fps… so if anything I recommend to disable VRR.
 

RydarGaf

Member
Its useless for console gaming. I have no idea why a console gamer would want variable frame rates. Its not like PC gaming. There are no settings sliders. Console gaming is simpler. Devs should just deliver stable framerates. 30/40/60/120 Hz for HDMI 2.1 TVs.
This is a very ignorant post.

Virtually all PS5 Games have a performance mode targeting 60fps or 120fps. When those games fail to stick to a solid 60fps or 120fps, vrr helps by reducing or eliminating judder caused by mismatched frames.

If it was "useless for console gaming" it wouldn't be a selectable option on Xbox consoles system settings. Microsoft added the feature for a reason. That reason is that we cannot rely on Devs to "deliver stable framerates" in their games. Very few game developers are talented enough to deliver on stable framerates. Those guys are in the minority and console gamers should not have to suffer for it or coerced into buying a platform they don't want to game on. Ie PC.
 
This is a very ignorant post.

Virtually all PS5 Games have a performance mode targeting 60fps or 120fps. When those games fail to stick to a solid 60fps or 120fps, vrr helps by reducing or eliminating judder caused by mismatched frames.

If it was "useless for console gaming" it wouldn't be a selectable option on Xbox consoles system settings. Microsoft added the feature for a reason. That reason is that we cannot rely on Devs to "deliver stable framerates" in their games. Very few game developers are talented enough to deliver on stable framerates. Those guys are in the minority and console gamers should not have to suffer for it or coerced into buying a platform they don't want to game on. Ie PC.
While not useless, it is only a useful option when games do not have a stable fps and I fear in the future it will be an excuse for devs to not like the fps.

Currently it degrades image quality as well on both lcd and oled and limits how smooth a game can look in motion because of the inability to use black frame insertion concurrently.

It would be far better if games just had locked fps.
 

ethomaz

Banned
This is a very ignorant post.

Virtually all PS5 Games have a performance mode targeting 60fps or 120fps. When those games fail to stick to a solid 60fps or 120fps, vrr helps by reducing or eliminating judder caused by mismatched frames.

If it was "useless for console gaming" it wouldn't be a selectable option on Xbox consoles system settings. Microsoft added the feature for a reason. That reason is that we cannot rely on Devs to "deliver stable framerates" in their games. Very few game developers are talented enough to deliver on stable framerates. Those guys are in the minority and console gamers should not have to suffer for it or coerced into buying a platform they don't want to game on. Ie PC.
If the dev do a solid 60fps game you won’t have any judder plus you will have a IQ without the issues generated by VRR.

That is why it should not needed in consoles that are fixed hardware and can delivery optimized and solid experiences.

You will only need VRR if devs are lazy and don’t put the enough time in optimization that a $60 or $70 game needs to be sold.

I know most games have performance issues nowdays but that is basically why people accept unfinished and unoptimized games… the game industry needs to change.

The moment gamers start to no buy these games the devs will start to give us better products (because they want to sell their games to us) and VRR will be a feature that won’t add any beneficies to games.

We, gamers, should exige better games first instead VRR after all we should get the product we deserves and not a bandaid to fix it.

PS. I have that feeling that game development is moving backward and that affects directly us consumers.
 
Last edited:

FrankWza

Member
This is a very ignorant post.

Virtually all PS5 Games have a performance mode targeting 60fps or 120fps. When those games fail to stick to a solid 60fps or 120fps, vrr helps by reducing or eliminating judder caused by mismatched frames.

If it was "useless for console gaming" it wouldn't be a selectable option on Xbox consoles system settings. Microsoft added the feature for a reason. That reason is that we cannot rely on Devs to "deliver stable framerates" in their games. Very few game developers are talented enough to deliver on stable framerates. Those guys are in the minority and console gamers should not have to suffer for it or coerced into buying a platform they don't want to game on. Ie PC.
While not useless, it is only a useful option when games do not have a stable fps and I fear in the future it will be an excuse for devs to not like the fps.

Currently it degrades image quality as well on both lcd and oled and limits how smooth a game can look in motion because of the inability to use black frame insertion concurrently.

It would be far better if games just had locked fps.
You’re both right. Sony promised it so we should have it as an option. But it isn’t without its negatives. Both in theory and in practice. Devs using it as a crutch and the “handshake” issues with displays getting wonky. Plus, look at the Halo situation. It’s obvious that even with all the pieces in place and with big dollars behind them it can still present an issue for devs to implement. I would hate for GT7 or The Show to get a 120fps patch down the road and then have VRR issues.
 

Pedro Motta

Gold Member
the Series X version runs at 2688x1512 in 120fps mode, pretty sure the PS5 is the same.
also both are basically locked to 120fps, so VRR is not really needed either... if you have a choppy framerate without VRR that is weird tbh.
Have you compared both like I have?
 

omegasc

Member
Whether some believe it is useful or not, VRR should be an option, especially when targeting 120fps. Some TVs have issues with it, no question, but imagine if new tech got scrapped right away because it has some flaws? Keeping it in the TV space, we wouldn't even have LCD because it had crazy burn in.
New tech needs time to develop. Let the companies fight to deliver the best product over time and we all win.
You don't like the gamma issue, or the IQ degrades too much for your taste? Disable it.
Sony needs to get their shit together. It's been a year.
That said... I don't think it will come this year. The PS5 had an update this month already, and people need to rest during the holidays. The devs, I mean. Let them rest, you pricks :messenger_grinning_squinting:
 
Last edited:
You’re both right. Sony promised it so we should have it as an option. But it isn’t without its negatives. Both in theory and in practice. Devs using it as a crutch and the “handshake” issues with displays getting wonky. Plus, look at the Halo situation. It’s obvious that even with all the pieces in place and with big dollars behind them it can still present an issue for devs to implement. I would hate for GT7 or The Show to get a 120fps patch down the road and then have VRR issues.
I can accept a game targeting 120fps to have some issues this gen but definitely not 60fps. 60 and 30 should be locked or virtually locked, full stop.

Would be a bit of a shame to use vrr at 120fps though as bfi at that fps not only looks incredibly smooth but when the bfi frequency is the same as the fps you can eliminate a lot of the sample and hold (oled, lcd) doubling effect.

Also even though I personally don’t care about vrr, mostly, sony should absolutely deliver what they promised.
 
Last edited:

REDRZA MWS

Member
Its useless for console gaming. I have no idea why a console gamer would want variable frame rates. Its not like PC gaming. There are no settings sliders. Console gaming is simpler. Devs should just deliver stable framerates. 30/40/60/120 Hz for HDMI 2.1 TVs.
Whatever you believe devs should or shouldn’t do has no bearing in this discussion. This is about the PS5, it being an HDMI 2.1 device, and it should be a standard feature regardless of the any individual’s display. For those that have an hdmi 2.1 display this is getting old.
 

ethomaz

Banned
Actually works really well with VRR so I don't get your point.
This game works even better without VRR because it doesn’t need VRR at all and without it you don’t suffer the IQ degradation of VRR.

It is locked 120fps.
 
Last edited:

Shmunter

Gold Member
If the dev do a solid 60fps game you won’t have any judder plus you will have a IQ without the issues generated by VRR.

That is why it should not needed in consoles that are fixed hardware and can delivery optimized and solid experiences.

You will only need VRR if devs are lazy and don’t put the enough time in optimization that a $60 or $70 game needs to be sold.

I know most games have performance issues nowdays but that is basically why people accept unfinished and unoptimized games… the game industry needs to change.

The moment gamers start to no buy these games the devs will start to give us better products (because they want to sell their games to us) and VRR will be a feature that won’t add any beneficies to games.

We, gamers, should exige better games first instead VRR after all we should get the product we deserves and not a bandaid to fix it.

PS. I have that feeling that game development is moving backward and that affects directly us consumers.
Precisely. Target locked framerate and make resolution and/or other visual aspects variable - not the other way around
 

Ozriel

Member
While VRR is great, it's limited to some TVs and not everyone can afford those TVs.

I remember Cerny saying he wanted good audio for every. In fact this was his direct quote.
"The first goal was great audio for everyone.
Not just VR users or sound bar owners or headphone users.
That meant audio had to be part of the console it couldn't be a peripheral."


This Patent from Sony Interactive Entertainment explains how it aims to minimize or eliminate tearing and shuttering. It works similar to VSync but isn't limited to a TV's refresh rate.

The timing of the swap of the buffers 110, 112 may depend on the current configuration of the system. In the illustrated example, the swap is timed to coincide with the timing of a pulse within the vertical blanking interval (VBI) 120, thereby restricting a swap from occurring during the middle of the scanout of any particular image from the front buffer 110. However, it is noted that the system may instead be configured to swap the front and back buffer as soon as the new source frames are ready, e.g., as soon as they are finished rendering into the back buffer 112.


It also talk about how this can help fix streaming issues.

VRR doesn't completely fix frame rate issue, so this is a good alternative for those who don't have a VRR capable TV and goes hand in hand with what Cerny said. It most likely the reason Sony isn't pushing the VRR update.


To reiterate what some others have said, Sony promised VRR support. They need to deliver it, as promised. It doesn’t matter if the percentage of PS5 owners with VRR capable TVs is small.

delivering VRR support as promised is a separate discussion from what other patented method they could be working on to reduce screen tearing.

If the dev do a solid 60fps game you won’t have any judder plus you will have a IQ without the issues generated by VRR.

That is why it should not needed in consoles that are fixed hardware and can delivery optimized and solid experiences.

You will only need VRR if devs are lazy and don’t put the enough time in optimization that a $60 or $70 game needs to be sold.

I know most games have performance issues nowdays but that is basically why people accept unfinished and unoptimized games… the game industry needs to change.

The moment gamers start to no buy these games the devs will start to give us better products (because they want to sell their games to us) and VRR will be a feature that won’t add any beneficies to games.

We, gamers, should exige better games first instead VRR after all we should get the product we deserves and not a bandaid to fix it.

PS. I have that feeling that game development is moving backward and that affects directly us consumers.


One can wish for devs to prioritize locked framerates and still want Sony to make good on their promises to ensure their next gen console supports VRR for compatible TVs.
 

DenchDeckard

Gold Member
I absolutely can’t wait for the ps5 to get vrr and seeing the threads popping up over the next few years saying “I finally got a vrr tv/experienced vrr and it’s a game changer”

why would people argue against having tech that ultimately improves your experience. It seems crazy to me.
 

Soosa

Member
I absolutely can’t wait for the ps5 to get vrr and seeing the threads popping up over the next few years saying “I finally got a vrr tv/experienced vrr and it’s a game changer”

why would people argue against having tech that ultimately improves your experience. It seems crazy to me.
I havent seen anybody being literally against the tech (could be true that some invividuals are, just havent seen them), but more like pointing out that VRR isnt anywhere near "game changer" feature.

I mean we have been gaming for decades without VRR completely fine, so how it would now turn all the old games into unplayable or barely playable garbage? That is the crazy part.

Because if VRR would be game changer, it would mean that difference between current and VRR situation must be BIG.

When in reality NO-VRR vs VRR is just small incremental upgrade, which isnt even noticed by all people. Kind of like 30Hz vs 60Hz (some people dont even notice this) or 144Hz vs 240 Hz (which is really small difference already)

Another point could be that does VRR turn some devs lazy, that instead of making their game run stable 30/60 fps, they instead rely on VRR -> people without it get downgrade vs current situation. This could be a real reason to be against it.

On 2020 I wanted to get a new TV, and considered to get VRR model or wait until 2021, but then I got Sony A8H oled instead, that doesnt support VRR, and havent had any problems with framerates.

My point is, that while VRR is good feature, it isnt anything major or game changer objectively, when we compare it to current situation where majority of games are already completely fine without it.

Of course there are exeptions, like people whom play only one genre and if that genre is really easily affected by frame drops -> they gain more than people whom dont care about few TINY fps drops.

I have like +500 games for PS4/5, havent played em all but I cant remember a single one which would have had screen tearing, and only few that have had truly annoying frame rate issues.

This isnt black or white, it is not "lol it is 100% useless" vs "omg it is game changer!"

It is just small incremental feature upgrade, which many wont even notice. People making it to be either extreme end are the reason why some are annoyed by it I guess
 

Ozriel

Member
I havent seen anybody being literally against the tech (could be true that some invividuals are, just havent seen them), but more like pointing out that VRR isnt anywhere near "game changer" feature.

I mean we have been gaming for decades without VRR completely fine, so how it would now turn all the old games into unplayable or barely playable garbage? That is the crazy part.

Because if VRR would be game changer, it would mean that difference between current and VRR situation must be BIG.

When in reality NO-VRR vs VRR is just small incremental upgrade, which isnt even noticed by all people. Kind of like 30Hz vs 60Hz (some people dont even notice this) or 144Hz vs 240 Hz (which is really small difference already)

Another point could be that does VRR turn some devs lazy, that instead of making their game run stable 30/60 fps, they instead rely on VRR -> people without it get downgrade vs current situation. This could be a real reason to be against it.

On 2020 I wanted to get a new TV, and considered to get VRR model or wait until 2021, but then I got Sony A8H oled instead, that doesnt support VRR, and havent had any problems with framerates.

My point is, that while VRR is good feature, it isnt anything major or game changer objectively, when we compare it to current situation where majority of games are already completely fine without it.

Of course there are exeptions, like people whom play only one genre and if that genre is really easily affected by frame drops -> they gain more than people whom dont care about few TINY fps drops.

I have like +500 games for PS4/5, havent played em all but I cant remember a single one which would have had screen tearing, and only few that have had truly annoying frame rate issues.

This isnt black or white, it is not "lol it is 100% useless" vs "omg it is game changer!"

It is just small incremental feature upgrade, which many wont even notice. People making it to be either extreme end are the reason why some are annoyed by it I guess


By your logic, getting 60fps gaming shouldn’t be hailed as a great thing since we’ve had generations where many of the highest rated games have been pegged at 30fps.


Console fanboyism is such a weird thing. I’ve never seen a PC gamer attack folks who want DLSS with “we’ve been playing PC games without DLSS for decades and we didn’t die, so it’s silly to place so much importance on DLSS support”.
 

DenchDeckard

Gold Member
I havent seen anybody being literally against the tech (could be true that some invividuals are, just havent seen them), but more like pointing out that VRR isnt anywhere near "game changer" feature.

I mean we have been gaming for decades without VRR completely fine, so how it would now turn all the old games into unplayable or barely playable garbage? That is the crazy part.

Because if VRR would be game changer, it would mean that difference between current and VRR situation must be BIG.

When in reality NO-VRR vs VRR is just small incremental upgrade, which isnt even noticed by all people. Kind of like 30Hz vs 60Hz (some people dont even notice this) or 144Hz vs 240 Hz (which is really small difference already)

Another point could be that does VRR turn some devs lazy, that instead of making their game run stable 30/60 fps, they instead rely on VRR -> people without it get downgrade vs current situation. This could be a real reason to be against it.

On 2020 I wanted to get a new TV, and considered to get VRR model or wait until 2021, but then I got Sony A8H oled instead, that doesnt support VRR, and havent had any problems with framerates.

My point is, that while VRR is good feature, it isnt anything major or game changer objectively, when we compare it to current situation where majority of games are already completely fine without it.

Of course there are exeptions, like people whom play only one genre and if that genre is really easily affected by frame drops -> they gain more than people whom dont care about few TINY fps drops.

I have like +500 games for PS4/5, havent played em all but I cant remember a single one which would have had screen tearing, and only few that have had truly annoying frame rate issues.

This isnt black or white, it is not "lol it is 100% useless" vs "omg it is game changer!"

It is just small incremental feature upgrade, which many wont even notice. People making it to be either extreme end are the reason why some are annoyed by it I guess

why do we have 3d graphics, we had years without it, why do we have AA, why do we have v sync, why do we have TAA,why do we have 60hz, why do we have 120hz, weve had years without it. Why do we need more ram, why do we need ssd, we’ve had years without them.

it’s called progress, games are getting more demanding and if there is a technology available that can update the console and screen in unison in the event of a freak framerate drop or something irregular that would cause tearing and allow the response times to be unaffected then so be it.

I just don’t get the downplaying, it is a great feature. I wouldn’t want to go back to a monitor without g sync or a tv without VRR.

I put money that as more people get it it’s discussed how good it is.
 

GymWolf

Gold Member
While VRR is importante in some cases and Sony let down not having it support.

IMO VRR should not be needed in console games... it is a fixed hardware where you have the control over de framerate and it should ALWAYS be solid at the target (whatever it is).

Performance / Optimizations for console hardware is a big let down lately.
Isn't the opposite dude?

On pc you can tone down settings\resolution to achieve rock solid 60 fps, on console you are in the hands of the devs and you can't do jack shit if the framerate is not locked (and it is never locked on console in 99,99% of cases).

In reality console needs vrr more than pc because very few games have locked framerate on console and you can't do anything to fix that other than waiting for patches (that never lock the framerate anyway).

People who really think that majority of games have locked framerate on console are probably people who don't notice framerate flactuations like other people do, one of the "good" things of playing on console, your brain\eyes get used to uneven framerate.
 
Last edited:

8BiTw0LF

Gold Member
VRR can be a "game changer". 40fps games running in 120hz will leave a lot of headroom for better effects. This will work perfectly for anything other than fast-paced games.
 

Loxus

Member
I havent seen anybody being literally against the tech (could be true that some invividuals are, just havent seen them), but more like pointing out that VRR isnt anywhere near "game changer" feature.

I mean we have been gaming for decades without VRR completely fine, so how it would now turn all the old games into unplayable or barely playable garbage? That is the crazy part.

Because if VRR would be game changer, it would mean that difference between current and VRR situation must be BIG.

When in reality NO-VRR vs VRR is just small incremental upgrade, which isnt even noticed by all people. Kind of like 30Hz vs 60Hz (some people dont even notice this) or 144Hz vs 240 Hz (which is really small difference already)

Another point could be that does VRR turn some devs lazy, that instead of making their game run stable 30/60 fps, they instead rely on VRR -> people without it get downgrade vs current situation. This could be a real reason to be against it.

On 2020 I wanted to get a new TV, and considered to get VRR model or wait until 2021, but then I got Sony A8H oled instead, that doesnt support VRR, and havent had any problems with framerates.

My point is, that while VRR is good feature, it isnt anything major or game changer objectively, when we compare it to current situation where majority of games are already completely fine without it.

Of course there are exeptions, like people whom play only one genre and if that genre is really easily affected by frame drops -> they gain more than people whom dont care about few TINY fps drops.

I have like +500 games for PS4/5, havent played em all but I cant remember a single one which would have had screen tearing, and only few that have had truly annoying frame rate issues.

This isnt black or white, it is not "lol it is 100% useless" vs "omg it is game changer!"

It is just small incremental feature upgrade, which many wont even notice. People making it to be either extreme end are the reason why some are annoyed by it I guess
It's only a game changer because Xbox is the only console that has it.

The moment it comes to PS5, it's no longer a game changer.
 

GymWolf

Gold Member
While not useless, it is only a useful option when games do not have a stable fps and I fear in the future it will be an excuse for devs to not like the fps.

Currently it degrades image quality as well on both lcd and oled and limits how smooth a game can look in motion because of the inability to use black frame insertion concurrently.

It would be far better if games just had locked fps.
We had milions of games without stable framerate well before vrr was a thing, lazy devs always existed so not sure what your fear is...it's not like before we had 95% of games with locked framerate, quite the opposite really...
 

ethomaz

Banned
Isn't the opposite dude?

On pc you can tone down settings\resolution to achieve rock solid 60 fps, on console you are in the hands of the devs and you can't do jack shit if the framerate is not locked (and it is never locked on console in 99,99% of cases).

In reality console needs vrr more than pc because very few games have locked framerate on console and you can't do anything to fix that other than waiting for patches (that never lock the framerate anyway).

People who really think that majority of games have locked framerate on console are probably people who don't notice framerate flactuations like other people do, one of the "good" things of playing on console, your brain\eyes get used to uneven framerate.
Because the fine tune control is on user side PC needs VRR… it is basically impossible the dev optimize a locked framerate to all hardware combination that exists in PC and most PC users are not modders to do the optimizations themselves… just the turning options are not enough to reach a locked framerate in some cases.

It is basically the opposite of console where you have a fixed hardware identical to everybody so dev can optimize a locked framerate that doesn’t need VRR at all.

The games that have messed framerate on consoles are the ones that devs choose to ship in that way… dev are the ones responsible to delivery a locked framerate on consoles (and a lot of devs do that).
 
Last edited:
Can you point out a game where VRR is essential and really noticible, so I can boot up by Series X and check its usefullness? Because every game I tried with VRR on I still notice the drops in performance so I really don't get if its working or not. All I really notice is flashing non stop.
What these games would be?.
 

ethomaz

Banned
Variable refresh rates are on smartwatches, mobile phones, monitors, laptops etc. Only absolute bottom feeders see it as a console war issue instead of just better tech replacing worse tech.
They are in non fixed platform for a reason.
It should not be needed in fixed platforms.

Devs are to blame here.
 
Last edited:

assurdum

Member
There is anyone who has an XSX and a TV Bravia? I'm curious to hear how it works VRR there. If they have updated it on their TV why still not support ps5? From what I heard VRR has brightness issue in almost all TV; what exactly make it particularly worse on Sony TV?
 
Last edited:

Chukhopops

Member
Do those devices do it through HDMI?
How does that matter in any way? It’s still superior technology, saves battery life for watches and laptops, allows very high refresh rates on monitors and removes (almost) all synchronization issues between the source and the display. It’s straight up superior.

It’s as weird as arguing about Dolby Atmos versus virtual surround, well people do it too but you get my point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom