Support NeoGAF

[ZywyPL]

Ok guys so here's the thing - the next-gen consoles are arriving in less than 2 months now, and due to some recent news about games using dynamic resolution to maintain the framerate, and possibly more to come in the future, it popped into my head - what about adaptive sync? Both consoles will apparently have the tech, since it's one of the HDMI 2.1 features, I see articles popping up on the internet on a daily basis about which TV to get for PS5/XSX, and of course all of them mention VRR as one of the key, must-have features, but surprisingly, so far Sony and MS themselves haven't said a single word about it, nor any 3rd party dev, what's going on? Why no one is talking about unarguably the best gaming-related feature of the past decade that will be finally build into those consoles?

Now, I am fully aware that there are currently hundreds of millions of people with HDMI2.0 TVs (or even below) who won't be able to utilize the tech, and that dynamic resolution is the only, smart way to maintain steady framerate for all of that audience, so the whole majority of the market, but what about people who bought their TV sets just recently, or will update in the upcoming years (specially with those consoles in mind)? I fear that despite VRR in fact being there, toggleable in the system/display options of the consoles, Most games than cannot keep up stedy framerate will have forced dynamic resolution anyway, and there won't be any option to turn it off, so instead of crisp 4K image at ~50-55FPS without any stutter, screen tear, and with low-input lag, there might be no way around Vsync'ed 60FPS at dynamic 4K, unless a game runs at locked resolution and occasionally drops the framerate instead, where the VRR will be actually able to kick in, but I believe such games will be in minority.

What do you guys think? Will we see a VRR implementation on the system level that will override the games settings? Or will the tech be available on game by game basis, only when the devs implement for example an unlocked framerate mode? Or will it be completely useless, wasted potential just like it already is on X1X?

 

[jigglet]

You’re missing the point. That’s not a problem. People upgrade TVs overtime.

The real problem is too few games have unlocked frame rates and the option to disable vsync.

EDIT: My god there is a serious misunderstanding of why VRR is so great in this thread. Two basic scenarios:

1) A game struggles to reach 60fps, dips into low 50's. VRR helps keep this nice and smooth. But this is nothing compared with;

2) Making maximum use of your GPU. If it can run the game at 112fps, current approaches kneecap it at 60. Or if it's 47, it'll kneecap it at 30. This is the best use of VRR - letting you run at 112fps or 47fps respectively. Without it, you're taking all that surplus GPU power and throwing it in the trash. It lets you squeeze every bit of juice you can out of the machine, which should be particularly of interest for consoles designed to render at, quite frankly, unrealistic resolutions (let's face it, native 4k without render scaling is very difficult, and will need a combination of render scaling and VRR to make them shine).

 

[JohnnyFootball]

VRR is amazing. I suspect that games on non-VRR TVs will have a locked 60 fps and games on HDMI 2.1 TVs, the framerate will be unlocked and will hover between 60 - 80. That's a win for me. They may even offer another mode that drops the resolution a bit to get higher FPS.
It's a total win for gamers.

 

[martino]

You’re missing the point. That’s not a problem. People upgrade TVs overtime.

The real problem is too few games have unlocked frame rates and the option to disable vsync.

Can we be sure it's the case with current level of info ?
VRR is my "chosen one" feature for next gen, plz we need that.

 

[xion4360]

VRR is amazing. I suspect that games on non-VRR TVs will have a locked 60 fps and games on HDMI 2.1 TVs, the framerate will be unlocked and will hover between 60 - 80. That's a win for me. They may even offer another mode that drops the resolution a bit to get higher FPS.
It's a total win for gamers.

I dont think you quite understand what VRR is..it doesnt increase the maximum framerate of the display or games at all.

normally a display is sending out a locked signal at say 60 hertz or 120 for high refresh rate screens...what VRR does is, it instead aligns the output of the tv to the framerate of the game...so if the game is running at 60 fps the tv will display 60hertz, if its running variable framerate (dropping up and down) the tv will display the frames as rendered (its always doing this)...this completely cuts out the need for v-sync, eliminating any tearing that might happen and improving input time.. also some VRR displays have limits like my samsung uses freesync but in 4k its only between 48-60 fps. If your tv is 120herts you will see frames over 60 regardless if your using VRR or not (as long the the source is sending out more than 60 fps) but if your not using VRR your still subject to vsync or tearing.

 

[Thaedolus]

It’s a feature that will take time to adopt but no way in hell it ever goes away after this gen. It’s not a gimmick like 3D TVs felt like, it’s a huge game changer for input lag and screen tearing/stuttering, etc. I bought the first Asus Gsync monitor when it came out and there’s no way I’d ever get another display without some sort of VRR support

 

[Clear]

The key thing is that not everyone has displays that are capable of handling VRR input, so on console particularly it just makes business sense to focus on the existing standard as that's the one most users will be using.

Short version, it'll remain an added-value type of thing that doesn't get much promotion.

 

[too much eslim]

You'll see it more probably when games are more demanding on the system.

 

[CrysisFreak]

I dont think you quite understand what VRR is..it doesnt increase the maximum framerate of the display or games at all.

normally a display is sending out a locked signal at say 60 hertz or 120 for high refresh rate screens...what VRR does is, it instead aligns the output of the tv to the framerate of the game...so if the game is running at 60 fps the tv will display 60hertz, if its running variable framerate (dropping up and down) the tv will display the frames as rendered (its always doing this)...this completely cuts out the need for v-sync, eliminating any tearing that might happen and improving input time.. also some VRR displays have limits like my samsung uses freesync but in 4k its only between 48-60 fps.

No he's right if 60fps games allowed disabling the cap and vsync then VRR users will get higher framerates, probably in the 70 to 80 area.
Btw displays whose VRR doesn't work above 60 need not apply.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

I dont think you quite understand what VRR is..it doesnt increase the maximum framerate of the display or games at all.

normally a display is sending out a locked signal at say 60 hertz or 120 for high refresh rate screens...what VRR does is, it instead aligns the output of the tv to the framerate of the game...so if the game is running at 60 fps the tv will display 60hertz, if its running variable framerate (dropping up and down) the tv will display the frames as rendered (its always doing this)...this completely cuts out the need for v-sync, eliminating any tearing that might happen and improving input time.. also some VRR displays have limits like my samsung uses freesync but in 4k its only between 48-60 fps.

I know exactly what it is. You misunderstood my post. Most games that are locked at 60fps, actually target slightly above that framerate so that it makes it far less likely to get under 60 fps. Some games obviously do a better job than others. But unlocking those frames on an HDMI 2.1 will create the possibility to hit higher frames. There aren't going to be many (if any) games that target 120 fps on consoles since those with TVs capable at 4K will be so small. But I suspect that there will be some games who can get between 60 - 90 fps, that VRR will be able to take advantage of. HDMI 2.1 have a VRR range of 48 -120.

Non-HDMI 2.1 TVs are going to be limited to 60 fps since output at 4K is limited to 60Hz.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

No he's right if 60fps games allowed disabling the cap and vsync then VRR users will get higher framerates, probably in the 70 to 80 area.
Btw displays whose VRR doesn't work above 60 need not apply.

Correct. For most TV users. 60 fps games will be locked to 60 fps, but on HDMI 2.1 devlopers could uncap the framerate to fit in the ranges you mentioned. I doubt many games will have a 120 fps mode unless the resolution can be big time dropped.

 

[Stray Parts]

Xbox One had a sub optimal VRR implementation were it was presented as system wide but in practice only worked on a per title basis. Because the feature came later in the life of the console much of the Xbox One catalogue did not work with it leading MS to certify some games as VRR compatible.

The Xbox Series S/X according to Digital Foundry will do VRR things differently but there are no details, an educated guess is that VRR will be system wide and mandatory for all future games.

Xbox supports Freesync 120hz over HDMI 1.4 & 2.0 and HDMI-VRR 120Hz over HDMI 2.0 & 2.1 giving a decent range of compatible displays for TV's and PC monitors.

How Playstation 5 treats VRR remains to be seen, nothing is known other than it only supports HDMI-VRR 120hz over HDMI 2.1

The VRR range on TV's is generally speaking 40-120Hz, some have LFC and some don't.

The usefulness of VRR on consoles depends on it being
1) system wide
2) mandatory VRR compatibility for all new games regardless of FPS
3) game devs providing unlocked FPS modes with VRR 120Hz active or at least up to 120FPS modes.

That way you see the most benefit, even if a game is 30FPS only LFC + VRR can help with that too but again that depends on 1 + 2.

If they do it on a per title basis then VRR will see limited use.

 

[Oida di Figgiano]

Correct me if i´m wrong but isn´t this a thing that depends on the TV people are using? And the machines themselves are smart enough to recognize what kind of tv is attached to it and immediatly "put out the right signal"? Kind of like my PS4 recognized it was plugged into a HDR compatible TV and automatically enabled the adequate output compared to my old tv with no hdr capabilities?

 

[CrysisFreak]

Correct. For most TV users. 60 fps games will be locked to 60 fps, but on HDMI 2.1 devlopers could uncap the framerate to fit in the ranges you mentioned. I doubt many games will have a 120 fps mode unless the resolution can be big time dropped.

Yeah Sony and MS should mandate giving users the option to disable vsync and 30/60 capping.
Otherwise VRR owners will miss out on their full potential.

 

[xion4360]

I know exactly what it is. You misunderstood my post. Most games that are locked at 60fps, actually target slightly above that framerate so that it makes it far less likely to get under 60 fps. Some games obviously do a better job than others. But unlocking those frames on an HDMI 2.1 will create the possibility to hit higher frames. There aren't going to be many (if any) games that target 120 fps on consoles since those with TVs capable at 4K will be so small. But I suspect that there will be some games who can get between 60 - 90 fps, that VRR will be able to take advantage of. HDMI 2.1 have a VRR range of 48 -120.

Non-HDMI 2.1 TVs are going to be limited to 60 fps since output at 4K is limited to 60Hz.

I think there is only 1 example of this on consoles currently and its rainbow six siege on one x. but its not relating to VRR (freesync) at all..its just a matter of weather your playing at 60hertz or 120hertz.

if your series X is set to 120hertz you will see framerates over 60 if the game is not locked to 60...weather or not you have VRR because VRR doesnt set the framerate, its just a synchronization of your display to the framerate.

 

[chonga]

Correct me if i´m wrong but isn´t this a thing that depends on the TV people are using? And the machines themselves are smart enough to recognize what kind of tv is attached to it and immediatly "put out the right signal"? Kind of like my PS4 recognized it was plugged into a HDR compatible TV and automatically enabled the adequate output compared to my old tv with no hdr capabilities?

Yeah I admit I don't know all the ins-and-outs but I thought it was something that just happened, not a case of a developer going 'we need to add VRR'. I thought it was all at the hardware and TV level and just happens by default.

 

[CrysisFreak]

Correct me if i´m wrong but isn´t this a thing that depends on the TV people are using? And the machines themselves are smart enough to recognize what kind of tv is attached to it and immediatly "put out the right signal"? Kind of like my PS4 recognized it was plugged into a HDR compatible TV and automatically enabled the adequate output compared to my old tv with no hdr capabilities?

Yeah but games need to offer disabled framerate caps and disabled vsync otherwise forget about VRR.

 

[Esppiral]

VRR is amazing, best feature on XBox One X

 

[Oida di Figgiano]

Yeah but games need to offer disabled framerate caps and disabled vsync otherwise forget about VRR.

But isn´t VRR a thing to smooth out framerate drops, no matter what the framerate is? Thus if it drops from 60 to 48 or 40 to 30, 90 to 72, etc. that it will adjust to make it smoother and minimize tearing etc.? Because even if games are capped you still get the occasional drops and this is there "to correct". Or am i totally missing the point?

 

[MH3M3D]

Its nice to have, but if you have a stable 60fps designed game, then you'll forget your device even supports it. Its not a noticable feature like 4K or HDR.
I just bought a 50 inch Samsung 4K tv for 400 Eurobucks that supports everything but HDMI 2.1. I Doubt I'll care about VRR in the long run.

 

[CrysisFreak]

But isn´t VRR a thing to smooth out framerate drops, no matter what the framerate is? Thus if it drops from 60 to 48 or 40 to 30, 90 to 72, etc. that it will adjust to make it smoother and minimize tearing etc.? Because even if games are capped you still get the occasional drops and this is there "to correct". Or am i totally missing the point?

No I think you're right about the cap that is not always reached but I think vsync still has to be disabled and in most games it it's enabled right now.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[jigglet]

Its nice to have, but if you have a stable 60fps designed game, then you'll forget your device even supports it.

Games that can't keep a consistent framerate is only one use case, and not even the best.

The best is making maximum use of your GPU. If it can run the game at 112fps, current approaches kneecap it at 60. Or if it's 47, it'll kneecap it at 30. This is the best use of VRR.

 

[R6Rider]

VRR isn't limited to HDMI 2.1, in fact many of the features of HDMI 2.1 can be done without it.

 

[Allandor]

I will use it, well at least if Sony brings out the update for the x900h/xh9000 series. Still waiting. My one x still does not find that feature.

VRR isn't limited to HDMI 2.1, in fact many of the features of HDMI 2.1 can be done without it.

yes, even current gen consoles can do this ... if the TV does support it (or freesync).


VRR will be especially good if a game targets 60fps.

 

[DrumNBassDanTTV]

Shit poll, where is the "No" option?

 

[Rikkori]

VRR is honestly a hugely overrated feature for consoles due to how vsync focused devs are (as they should be; VRR displays are still a minority). Even on PC where I have Freesync I don't feel like it's that big of a deal. People always exaggerate the impact these sorts of features have, they make it sound like the second coming instead of just a nice QOL improvement (but that I could live without easily).

 

[danielJackson]

Imo it is gimmick, not useless but not game changer either.

 

[MarkMe2525]

Yeah but games need to offer disabled framerate caps and disabled vsync otherwise forget about VRR.

Vsync does indeed have to be disabled, but you can still have a 60fps cap and take advantage of VRR. It can reduce stutter with dips down into the 40's.

 

[Spukc]

Pretty damn low on the list i assume for now.

pretty sick on pc tho

 

[Epic Sax CEO]

You guys are too obsessed with fixed resolution.
This is what it's actually dead, the industry is moving beyond fixed resolutions because it's not necessary. There's much work going on on how to better use resources, not waste resources, and this includes VRR.
Soon all games will use dynamic resolution (with image reconstruction, the new video games have some hardware to handly this) plus VRR.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

I think there is only 1 example of this on consoles currently and its rainbow six siege on one x. but its not relating to VRR (freesync) at all..its just a matter of weather your playing at 60hertz or 120hertz.

if your series X is set to 120hertz you will see framerates over 60 if the game is not locked to 60...weather or not you have VRR because VRR doesnt set the framerate, its just a synchronization of your display to the framerate.

Correct, but that has nothing to do with the future. All Im saying is that HDMI 2.1 TVs offer games that would be locked at 60 fps (Vsync on) on 60 Hz TVs can have the framerate cap disabled that will enable framerates above 60fps to be displayed without tearing.

Look at it this way:
On an HDMI 2.0 (or less) TV, games running natively or upscaled 4K at 60fps. Locked.
On an HDMI 2.1 TV games games running the same could have the framerate cap unlocked.

For the record, console VRR will never be as beneficial as it is on PC.

 

[CrysisFreak]

Vsync does indeed have to be disabled, but you can still have a 60fps cap and take advantage of VRR. It can reduce stutter with dips down into the 40's.

Yes but to get the full benefit out of your VRR device vsync should be disabled.
All problems would be solved in an instant with some super easy options toggles for vsync and capping.
And motion blur and film grain and cam shake and FOV and more.
I'm not saying I want to select grass quality on PS5, but some more options should really be there. Doubt it's gonna happen though.
Hopefully Battlefield sticks to giving console players more options that was actually pretty cool.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

You guys are too obsessed with fixed resolution.
This is what it's actually dead, the industry is moving beyond fixed resolutions because it's not necessary. There's much work going on on how to better use resources, not waste resources, and this includes VRR.
Soon all games will use dynamic resolution (with image reconstruction, the new video games have some hardware to handly this) plus VRR.

Put it this way, a game that can run at 4K/60. I'd much rather the resolution get dropped down to 1800p and have the framerate completely unlocked for my LG C9.

 

[FeldMonster]

Like all new features over the years: DVD (PS2), Hard Drives (Xbox), Blu-ray (PS3), 4K (One X/PS4 Pro), HDR (One X/PS4 Pro), UHD Blu-rays (One S/One X), 120 Hz (Series X/PS5), etc. one or both console makers are the front line of technology, as they have to future proof them for 6-8 years.

The fact that they have built in VRR support does not mean that it will be ubiquitous, but that it will be available for developers to access. If it becomes more prominent, then they well be in a good position. Expecting full adoption day 1 is rather ignorant and naive.

 

[geordiemp]

Ok guys so here's the thing - the next-gen consoles are arriving in less than 2 months now, and due to some recent news about games using dynamic resolution to maintain the framerate, and possibly more to come in the future, it popped into my head - what about adaptive sync? Both consoles will apparently have the tech, since it's one of the HDMI 2.1 features, I see articles popping up on the internet on a daily basis about which TV to get for PS5/XSX, and of course all of them mention VRR as one of the key, must-have features, but surprisingly, so far Sony and MS themselves haven't said a single word about it, nor any 3rd party dev, what's going on? Why no one is talking about unarguably the best gaming-related feature of the past decade that will be finally build into those consoles?

Now, I am fully aware that there are currently hundreds of millions of people with HDMI2.0 TVs (or even below) who won't be able to utilize the tech, and that dynamic resolution is the only, smart way to maintain steady framerate for all of that audience, so the whole majority of the market, but what about people who bought their TV sets just recently, or will update in the upcoming years (specially with those consoles in mind)? I fear that despite VRR in fact being there, toggleable in the system/display options of the consoles, Most games than cannot keep up stedy framerate will have forced dynamic resolution anyway, and there won't be any option to turn it off, so instead of crisp 4K image at ~50-55FPS without any stutter, screen tear, and with low-input lag, there might be no way around Vsync'ed 60FPS at dynamic 4K, unless a game runs at locked resolution and occasionally drops the framerate instead, where the VRR will be actually able to kick in, but I believe such games will be in minority.

What do you guys think? Will we see a VRR implementation on the system level that will override the games settings? Or will the tech be available on game by game basis, only when the devs implement for example an unlocked framerate mode? Or will it be completely useless, wasted potential just like it already is on X1X?

If games are made with dynamic resolutoin scaling to catch those few % lows in frame rates as seems to becoming a norm, then VRR will not be needed on consoles.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

Yes but to get the full benefit out of your VRR device vsync should be disabled.
All problems would be solved in an instant with some super easy options toggles for vsync and capping.
And motion blur and film grain and cam shake and FOV and more.
I'm not saying I want to select grass quality on PS5, but some more options should really be there. Doubt it's gonna happen though.
Hopefully Battlefield sticks to giving console players more options that was actually pretty cool.

Vsync is irrelavant for VRR. Vsync is there to prevent the game from exceeding the maximum refresh rate of the monitor. Gsync and Freesync are there to drop the refresh rate of the monitor to match the framerate to when it falls below the monitors refresh rate. If you're on a 144Hz monitor, VRR does nothing when you are exceeding 144 fps. In non-competitive scenarios, I still recommend enabling Vsync even on a VRR monitor so that you don't get tearing when going above the refresh rate. Fast Sync was supposed to be the answer, in which the most recent completed frame is the one that gets displayed but it's not supported in most games or in Direct X 12. It's a shame too because I actually consider it an amazing feature

 

[jigglet]

I still recommend enabling Vsync even on a VRR monitor in non-competitive scenarios so that you don't get tearing when going above the refresh rate.

You're doing it wrong - you should set a frame cap at roughly 3-5 frames under the maximum. So if it's a 144hz monitor set it to say 141fps.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

You're doing it wrong - you should set a frame cap at roughly 3-5 frames under the maximum. So if it's a 144hz monitor set it to say 141fps.

Why? I've heard of this, but I've never seen any benefit.

 

[jigglet]

Why? I've heard of this, but I've never seen any benefit.

Why cap it, or why cap it a few frames under the limit?

 

[Allandor]

If games are made with dynamic resolutoin scaling to catch those few % lows in frame rates as seems to becoming a norm, then VRR will not be needed on consoles.

Problem is, dynamic resolution scaling can only scale the GPU part, but not the CPU-part. Yes the CPU is much better, but we even know this from PC that the CPU can get the limiting factor, fast. So VRR is still needed.
Also resolution scaling is an approximation and must not hit the desired framerate. In those Situations VRR helps, too. So if your TV has this feature, you should always use it when possible.

But what I really see is racing games with an open framerate mode >60 fps. As soon as more cars are on screen framerate drops below 60 or situations like this.

But I really don't expect many 120fps titles.

 

[Pegasus Actual]

The poll options are pretty goofy. VRR is great, and should be easy to implement on closed consoles for people with the right video hardware. Hopefully over the course of this gen most console-only players will get a chance to experience 100+hz VRR, because once you do that all but the most hardened walking-simulator-enthusiasts refuse to go back.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

Why cap it, or why cap it a few frames under the limit?

a few frames under?

 

[jigglet]

a few frames under?

because unless it’s hard coded in the game it’s difficult to stop it from occasionally going over the cap you’ve set. You said you didn’t see the benefit? That’s why. Cause even if you set the cap at 144hz it can still go over and cause screen tearing.

They usually recommend 3 frames or so. I like to chop off about 5 to be safe.

So the best practice is:

1) Turn off vsync

2) Set a cap a few frames under the limit

3) If your game has a built-in limiter, use that, otherwise RTSS is considered the best limiter, and your graphics card's limiter the third best. I read a really in depth analysis once on the three main approaches and this is how they ranked them.

 

[JimboJones]

because unless it’s hard coded in the game it’s difficult to stop it from occasionally going over the cap you’ve set. You said you didn’t see the benefit? That’s why. Cause even if you set the cap at 144hz it can still go over and cause screen tearing.

AMD does have "enhanced sync" feature which allows then game to go above the refresh window without tearing but once it goes back within the freesync range it disables all vsync again. I think it's referred to as fast sync on Nvidia.

 

[jigglet]

AMD does have "enhanced sync" feature which allows then game to go above the refresh window without tearing but once it goes back within the freesync range it disables all vsync again. I think it's referred to as fast sync on Nvidia.

Yeah I've done some light reading on this but haven't tried it yet. I vaguely recall some drawbacks...can't remember what they were.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

AMD does have "enhanced sync" feature which allows then game to go above the refresh window without tearing but once it goes back within the freesync range it disables all vsync again. I think it's referred to as fast sync on Nvidia.

Its a great feature and is an even better feature than GSync if your monitor is limited to 60Hz. Unfortunately, it doesn't work in DX 12 titles and I read it doesn't really work as nvidia didn't put much effort into it.

 

[nemiroff]

It's useful for low variable type framerates.

 

[ethomaz]

It is a feature that adds very little to console capped framerate.

 

[Armorian]

It is a feature that adds very little to console capped framerate.

Exactly, only games with unlocked framerate options will benefit from this. Should be mandatory for developers to do this, otherwise few games will benefit from this.

It's useful for low variable type framerates.

I think 40fps/Hz is the lowest target that works with VRR tvs (my FS monitor has the same, gsync ones are 30fps/hz).

 

[ethomaz]

It's useful for low variable type framerates.

Neither VRR or Freesync/GSync works with low framerate.

GSync is disabled below 30fps and FreeSynch doesn't work below 40fps.