Posted May 21, 2021
ariaspi: At uncapped frame rate? Not really, I had no reason to. The truth is, I don't remember ever seeing tearing in my games. I always cap the frame rate to have a cooler and quieter GPU, not because of tearing. And I have no use for hundreds of FPS.
I experience some tearing with youtube videos rarely on my laptop's screen, but not on the monitor connected to it. I assume the laptop's panel has a much slower response time, 15ms - 20ms probably.
kohlrak: No, capped. Putting a cap on that is not tied to vsync is likely to result in tearing. Now something you can do to reduce this is to use some sort of forced vsync in addition to the manual capping (through drivers), but, depending on the game, this could lower the framerates more than specified depending on implementation. The reason for the potential tearing is becaused the timer used can (and likely will) go out of sync with vsync, and thus you'll end up with the majority of frames torn. I experience some tearing with youtube videos rarely on my laptop's screen, but not on the monitor connected to it. I assume the laptop's panel has a much slower response time, 15ms - 20ms probably.
I tested it only with Dying Light and it was above 120 FPS, usually. The camera moved way too quickly for my visual comfort and I didn't like it. But like I said, I didn't bother much with it, probably like half an hour. Maybe it wasn't even related to the Freesync and was just the high frame rate. My understanding is that adaptive sync is really useful when the frame rates drop below 60 FPS.
I might try again sometime with some fast paced shooters (the Unreal Tournamet games would be good, I guess), but nowadays I'm playing mostly open world games and strategies. For me, the 90-120 FPS seem to be the sweet spot, so I have no reason to consume more power to run games at 144 FPS or more. And I prefer silence over high frame rates, as I don't game too often with headphones on.
I'm not sure why you keep suggesting to use Vsync when it is a known fact that it will introduce additional input lag. Its only usefulness is to prevent screen tearing, which I don't have.
As for the power consumption, my comment was about the uselessness of running games above the monitor's refresh rate, for people like me who don't need more than 100-120 FPS, so that's why I keep the monitor set to 120 Hz. I understand that are people who can see the difference between 100 Hz and 144 Hz, but I don't and I'm glad for that. :) Striving for very high refresh rates can be a huge pain, trying to compromise between visual quality and high performance settings in games, or having to fork a lot of money for the most powerful graphics cards.
Further reading on blurbusters, an excellent site.