• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Triple buffering: "Why we love it"

Fair Witness said:
The 'detriment' of enabling triple buffering is basically increased video memory needs. You're acting like developers don't include triple buffering as an option because of some drastic performance or gameplay hit. Yet you obviously ignore all the users that enjoy the benefits of triple buffering and you even ignored (or couldn't correctly comprehend) the article at hand explaining how it works. Also, regarding your "developers will always do what's best" comment, you have to remember that even some modern PC games leave out basic options to enable/adjust anti-aliasing and support for widescreen resolutions (or proper FOV settings for those resolutions) basically destroying your entire argument that developers will always include options to make their game look the best for each user.

If you correctly comprehended the technique you would have known that lag is the real 'detriment' as to why it isn't pervasively used. Informing me that the third buffer needed extra RAM and was therefore a detriment is rhetorical and qualitative to telling me computers needed electricity to operate. As I've said repeatedly there is a reason why it isn't used and that's because it affects performance. If people want to doubt Criterion and their analysis then they are the ones that really don't comprehend the technology.
 
dLMN8R said:
It's pretty sad when someone spends more time posting inaccurate BS in a thread than it takes to read the damned article this entire thread is about in the first place.

It's even sadder when someone who doesn't understand the technology chimes in with an irrelevant post. Do you know who Criterion Games are? Do you know why they decided to not use triple buffering? Yes, that's the real sad part.
 
The added memory consumption is pretty trivial on 1GB cards, but if you look at the Steam hardware survey numbers, around 80% of PC gamers still run 512MB or less. I would guess that's a big part of the reason that developers have somewhat ignored it.
 
Hopefully, this post will kill off the zombies that have been miraculously self-educated, and turned into triple buffer warriors, after reading that article. When Alex Fry was asked why they didn't use triple buffering his response was latency. If you're going to question the aptitude of the senior engineer at Criterion Games then you're an idiot.

And zombies, please remember to look for additional sources before spouting off about technology you don't quite grasp.

Digital Foundry: I can kind of... half-believe that. It does touch 60fps, it is v-synced... triple-buffered?

Alex Fry: Skate might be but Burnout isn't. It's double-buffered.

Digital Foundry: So double-buffering gives a faster response time.

Alex Fry: Minimal latency.

Digital Foundry: There is a technique for measuring latency... filming screen and controller with a 60FPS camera, counting the frames and multiplying by 16.67ms... the absolute minimum that has been measured is 50ms.

Alex Fry: That's Burnout. On a CRT display. From the point of the input being read to the display being flipped on-screen, that's 50ms.
 
rohlfinator said:
The added memory consumption is pretty trivial on 1GB cards, but if you look at the Steam hardware survey numbers, around 80% of PC gamers still run 512MB or less. I would guess that's a big part of the reason that developers have somewhat ignored it.

Its trivial on 512MB cards as well. We're talking a max of around 25MB-30MB in cases of extreme high resolutions and IQ. It'll be less than 20MB in vast majority of cases, so yeah, no reason to leave it off on a 512MB card either.

No developer has ever been incorrect about anything, nope. never.

Regardless we're not saying you're getting less latency and better perforamnce compared to standard double buffering, what you are getting is damn near identical performance and latency and no tearing.

You've not provided any evidence, math or explanation why you feel your right. All you've done is held onto the belief that working at a videogame company suddenly maeks you the sage of the world, and surely such sages couldn't ignore something that is beneficial to gamers. I mean they've always given gamers every single thing that could improve their experience in the past, have they not?

You still have not explained why developers include a v-sync option, it absolutely goes against all the logic you seem to be following.
 
brain_stew said:
The thing is, there really isn't any increased latency. The only time you'll get more recent visual information with standard double buffering is when the frame is tearing, and then, only the information below the tear will be more recent. In all other circumstances latency should be the same. Honestly, it really is the best solution in the vast majority of cases, its really hard to back up an argument against it as far as I'm concerned.

Please read the article, and in particular the comments beneath it, this is all explained very well.

You are officially a raving lunatic. You claim to comprehend a technology, but all you really understand is a sliver of it. Alex Fry has already stated that their 60fps games doesn't use triple buffering because of the increased latency and you continue to claim it's a lie and non existent. So we are forced to either believe Alex Fry, Senior Engineer at Criterion Games, or a ranting lunatic who doesn't really understand technology, but regurgitates it.

Triple buffer jesus, it's game over.

Oh, and please read the article.
 
Truespeed said:
You are officially a raving lunatic. You claim to comprehend a technology, but all you really understand is a sliver of it. Alex Fry has already stated that their 60fps games doesn't use triple buffering because of the increased latency and you continue to claim it's a lie and non existent. So we are forced to either believe Alex Fry, Senior Engineer at Criterion Games, or a ranting lunatic who doesn't really understand technology, but regurgitates it.

Triple buffer jesus, it's game over.

Oh, and please read the article.

Please explain to me what double buffer v-sync offers over triple buffer v-sync if you ahve the memory to spare, please tell me. You claim developers do not include triple buffering because it increases latency and reduces performance yet they do include double buffer v-sync that absolutely does both of these things. The whole fucking raison d'etre of tripple buffering is to increase perforamnce and reduce latency in situations where you want to avoid tearing.

Alex Fry never compared triple buffer v-sync to double buffer v-sync, he compared it to standard doble buffering. I've never once claimed it reduces latency and increases performance over normal double buffering, not once, but your continual lack of reading comprehension continues unabated.

You're out of your depth, now swim along back to your Killzone and LBP threads, we'll all be better off that way.
 
brain_stew said:
Its trivial on 512MB cards as well. We're talking a max of around 25MB-30MB in cases of extreme high resolutions and IQ. It'll be less than 20MB in vast majority of cases, so yeah, no reason to leave it off on a 512MB card either.
Agreed, I guess my point is more generally that we've just recently (in the last couple of years) gotten to the point where this is the case, so I'm not surprised that developers haven't made that transition yet. Especially when you consider that a lot of games are being co-developed for consoles with much less VRAM.

Truespeed said:
Alex Fry has already stated that their 60fps games doesn't use triple buffering because of the increased latency and you continue to claim it's a lie and non existent.
Do you have any more substantial sources on this? Not that I'm questioning Alex Fry's credibility, but a two word answer doesn't provide a whole lot of insight. Everything I've read on the subject implies that triple buffering should cause at worst the same input lag as double buffering + Vsync, and simple logic suggests that this is true.
 
rohlfinator said:
Agreed, I guess my point is more generally that we've just recently (in the last couple of years) gotten to the point where this is the case, so I'm not surprised that developers haven't made that transition yet. Especially when you consider that a lot of games are being co-developed for consoles with much less VRAM.


Do you have any more substantial sources on this? Not that I'm questioning Alex Fry's credibility, but a two word answer doesn't provide a whole lot of insight. Everything I've read on the subject implies that triple buffering should cause at worst the same input lag as double buffering + Vsync, and simple logic suggests that this is true.

The thing is, he wasn't comparing double buffer v-sync to triple buffer v-sync, he was comparing it to bog standard double buffering, I, nor no one else ever claimed you'd get reduced latency and performance over normal double buffering, just that the difference is marginal at best, and for all intent and purposes transparent.

The point has always been that (provided you have the memory spare, which anyone with a 512MB card will) triple buffer v-sync is undeniably always a better solution than double buffer v-sync, it reduces both latency and increases performance over that rendering method. Not once, has a sliver of evidence been provided against this point, not once has this guy even tried to addres this point and not once has he done anything other than talk complete BS.

If you've never noticed tearing than it has no advantage to you, never claimed it did.

So yeah, the guy just chose an offhand quote that agreed with everything I've said. Sounds cool to me.
 
It's too ambiguous. The Digital Foundry guy says that it's v-synced, and Fry doesn't deny that, but he doesn't confirm it either.

Edit: A bit of Googling says that some people noticed tearing in Burnout Paradise. So it looks like it's not v-synced.
 
Truespeed said:
Please don't argue with Alex Fry. It just embarrasses you further.

LEARN TO FUCKING READ

words need to be comprehended, please do this. Alex Fry was comparing double buffering to triple buffer v-sync, and as I've always maintained his assertion is correct. Either stfu or address all the points of contention I've brought up with your fault and broken logic.

What makes Alex Fry some grand master wizard that is always 100% right, 100% of the time btw? He can make mistakes and errors at times just like anyone else, if he was claiming standard double buffer v-sync has reduced latency compared to triple buffer v-ync then yes, he was wrong. The world goes on.

I'm repeating this again, and answer it this time, backed up with evidence or just stop replying:


Please explain to me what double buffer v-sync offers over triple buffer v-sync if you have the memory to spare? Please tell me. You claim developers do not include triple buffering because it increases latency and reduces performance yet they do include double buffer v-sync that absolutely does both of these things. By your lprevious logic this should simply not be possible. The whole fucking raison d'etre of tripple buffering is to increase performance and reduce latency comapred to double buffer v-sync.



I've mentioned this so many times now yet you keep ignoring it, so please, man up and face the music.


Honestly, I'm a really disapointed this thread has devolved into what its become. The main aim was to inform fellow PC gamers at GAF that don't like tearing how to get a nice free perforamance boost by forcing triple buffering over double buffer v-sync that they were using. That's all. I admit, I've contributed to it devolving into shit, so please lets just end this now.
 
brain_stew said:
Heck, many 360 developers including Bungie were losing as much as 3-5x that with old dev kits that only had 512MB of RAM and thus no extra space to store debug data.
Naw. There's plenty of ways to recoup that in your shipping build. Every meg is [golem]precious[/golem]. But yeah, it's a pain during dev!
 
brain_stew said:
LEARN TO FUCKING READ

words need to be comprehended, please do this. Alex Fry was comparing double buffering to triple buffer v-sync, and as I've always maintained his assertion is correct. Either stfu or address all the points of contention I've brought up with your fault and broken logic.

Wait a second, you're asking me to "Learn to fucking read" when it's evident that you didn't even comprehend the article and then incorrectly inferred what Alex said? Have you thought about taking your own advice, Triple Buffer Jesus? When Alex was asked whether they used triple buffering he replied double buffering for minimal latency.

brain_stew said:
What makes Alex Fry some grand master wizard that is always 100% right, 100% of the time btw? He can make mistakes and errors at times just like anyone else, if he was claiming standard double buffer v-sync has reduced latency compared to triple buffer v-ync then yes, he was wrong. The world goes on.

What part of Alex Fry is the senior engineer at Criterion Games and you're a full time poser didn't you comprehend?

One more thing, try to quit re-editing your messages. It's really unfair for the people that get it right the first time.
 
Truespeed said:
adsffadsfdsfsdafdsa:DDDDDDDDDDDDDD


Could you explain to me what benefits double buffering with v-sync has over triple buffering with v-sync, pretty please with icing on the top*puppyeyes**hugz*????????questionmark??


Did I get the message through on your level?
 
Truespeed. There is a difference between "double buffering" (implying no vsync), and "double buffering with vsync enabled". People are trying to point this out to you.

The namecalling and snark isn't helping anyone, fwiw.
 
Truespeed said:
Wait a second, you're asking me to "Learn to fucking read" when it's evident that you didn't even comprehend the article and then incorrectly inferred what Alex said? Have you thought about taking your own advice, Triple Buffer Jesus? When Alex was asked whether they used triple buffering he replied double buffering for minimal latency.



What part of Alex Fry is the senior engineer at Criterion Games and you're a full time poser didn't you comprehend?

One more thing, try to quit re-editing your messages. It's really unfair for the people that get it right the first time.
Your last two or three responses have basically been "Alex Fry is amazing, [insult insult]." I honestly can't quite comprehend what you're doing if you're NOT trolling, unless you actually work for the company and have some weird sense of honor for the guy. I looked at Wikipedia and I don't even really recognize the game names besides Burnout. But let's just say for a minute that he's the best developer in the world.

brain_stew just said "Sure, what he said in your quote is accurate, but doesn't affect this SINGLE PARTICULAR POINT I'M TALKING ABOUT". You then proceeded to ignore his point and insult him, citing Alex Fry...with whom he just DIDN'T DISAGREE, unless Alex Fry was talking about vsync'd triple buffering.

And what article are you talking about? I didn't see you link anything.
 
I'm not a fan of triple buffering...but wow Truespeed, you're an idiot.

What argument could you possibly have about not leaving it as an option in games.
 
I always use Vsync and if i cant manage a constant 60fps i use triple buffering.
For online FPS games i have Vsync turned off though.
 
TheExodu5 said:
I'm not a fan of triple buffering...but wow Truespeed, you're an idiot.

What argument could you possibly have about not leaving it as an option in games.

If you're going to call someone an idiot don't you think you should cite the specific reference as to why you're calling them one? Otherwise you end up looking like a, well you get the idea. I'm a proponent of putting in as many graphical tweaking features as possible and I can even 'reference' the messages I state that in. My issue with him is that he seems to think triple buffering is the panacea of screen tearing and I'm countering by saying that there's a reason why it's not pervasively used as the default option in console or PC games. That's it.
 
brain_stew said:
Please explain to me what double buffer v-sync offers over triple buffer v-sync if you have the memory to spare? Please tell me. You claim developers do not include triple buffering because it increases latency and reduces performance yet they do include double buffer v-sync that absolutely does both of these things. By your lprevious logic this should simply not be possible. The whole fucking raison d'etre of tripple buffering is to increase performance and reduce latency comapred to double buffer v-sync.[/B]


It depends on your average frame rate and how much it varies.


Here's 6 frames of v-synched double buffering, taking 75% of a frame to draw. The frame being drawn is always displayed as soon as the previous frame has finished being displayed.

Code:
-------------#1------------
000% DRAW B2     DISPLAY B1
025% DRAW B2     DISPLAY B1
050% DRAW B2	 DISPLAY B1
075% WAIT	 DISPLAY B1
-------------#2------------
000% DRAW B1	 DISPLAY B2
025% DRAW B1	 DISPLAY B2
050% DRAW B1	 DISPLAY B2
075% WAIT	 DISPLAY B2
-------------#3------------
000% DRAW B2	 DISPLAY B1
025% DRAW B2	 DISPLAY B1
050% DRAW B2	 DISPLAY B1
075% WAIT	 DISPLAY B1
-------------#4------------
000% DRAW B1	 DISPLAY B2
025% DRAW B1	 DISPLAY B2
050% DRAW B1	 DISPLAY B2
075% WAIT	 DISPLAY B2
-------------#5------------
000% DRAW B2	 DISPLAY B1
025% DRAW B2	 DISPLAY B1
050% DRAW B2	 DISPLAY B1
075% WAIT	 DISPLAY B1
-------------#6------------
000% DRAW B1	 DISPLAY B2
025% DRAW B1	 DISPLAY B2
050% DRAW B1	 DISPLAY B2
075% WAIT	 DISPLAY B2

With triple buffering, you can see a frame of latency building up as the drawing phase gets further away from its display phase.

Code:
-------------#1------------
000% DRAW B2     DISPLAY B1
025% DRAW B2     DISPLAY B1
050% DRAW B2	 DISPLAY B1
075% DRAW B3	 DISPLAY B1
-------------#2------------
000% DRAW B3	 DISPLAY B2
025% DRAW B3	 DISPLAY B2
050% DRAW B1	 DISPLAY B2
075% DRAW B1	 DISPLAY B2
-------------#3------------
000% DRAW B1	 DISPLAY B3
025% DRAW B2	 DISPLAY B3
050% DRAW B2	 DISPLAY B3
075% DRAW B2	 DISPLAY B3
-------------#4------------
000% WAIT	 DISPLAY B1
025% WAIT	 DISPLAY B1
050% WAIT	 DISPLAY B1
075% WAIT	 DISPLAY B1
-------------#5------------
000% DRAW B1	 DISPLAY B2
025% DRAW B1	 DISPLAY B2
050% DRAW B1	 DISPLAY B2
075% WAIT	 DISPLAY B2
-------------#6------------
000% DRAW B2	 DISPLAY B3
025% DRAW B2	 DISPLAY B3
050% DRAW B2	 DISPLAY B3
075% WAIT	 DISPLAY B3

Soon you build up a whole frame in reserve and the only difference is your display is a frame behind what it would be in double buffering + vsync. (remember, this is only for the example of using 75% of a frame to fully draw each buffer.)
 
Blizzard said:
Your last two or three responses have basically been "Alex Fry is amazing, [insult insult]." I honestly can't quite comprehend what you're doing if you're NOT trolling, unless you actually work for the company and have some weird sense of honor for the guy. I looked at Wikipedia and I don't even really recognize the game names besides Burnout. But let's just say for a minute that he's the best developer in the world.

brain_stew just said "Sure, what he said in your quote is accurate, but doesn't affect this SINGLE PARTICULAR POINT I'M TALKING ABOUT". You then proceeded to ignore his point and insult him, citing Alex Fry...with whom he just DIDN'T DISAGREE, unless Alex Fry was talking about vsync'd triple buffering.

And what article are you talking about? I didn't see you link anything.

I insulted him? I think it's the other way around. He feels the need to insult people when they disagree with him and then constantly re-edits his messages to remove or adjust them.

Also, can you cite the comment where Alex Fry was talking about vsync tripple buffering? Alex was presented a question in regards to what process they were using to get the silky smooth 60fps performance in Burnout Paradise. Eurogamer asked whether it was achieved using vsync, triple buffering (he was basically throwing out multiple idea's as to what they were doing and not saying if they were explicitly using vsync triple buffering) and he responded double buffering for minimal latency.
 
brain_stew said:
Just answer the question I've been asking you for two pages so we can be done with this. Stop dodging the bullet.

Please explain to me what double buffer v-sync offers over triple buffer v-sync if you have the memory to spare? Please tell me. You claim developers do not include triple buffering because it increases latency and reduces performance yet they do include double buffer v-sync that absolutely does both of these things. By your lprevious logic this should simply not be possible. The whole fucking raison d'etre of tripple buffering is to increase performance and reduce latency comapred to double buffer v-sync.

I think we have a mis-understanding - on your part, of course. Did I explicitly state that double buffer v-sync was more advantageous than triple buffer v-sync? If I did then I apologize, but you seem to have this habitual habit of incorrectly inferring what people are saying and substituting words into statements they never made. As for the real question, what does double buffering offer over triple buffering and that is reduced latency and more frames. Did you really think that I was making an argument that a double buffer vsync was more advantageous than a triple buffer vsync? Wouldn't simple 'mathematics' sort of nullify that statement and render it rhetorical and silly?
 
I usually dont' turn this option on in games. I do enable vsync though. That eliminates the tearing (Sacred 2 PC I'm looking at you).
 
Brain_stew, gimme a perfect solution to the microstuttering problem (that 64Hz thing _almost_ works with my lcd) and you'll be the King of NeoGAF*.

*disclaimer: mods may not go for this.
 
Derek updated his Anandtech article to explain why, in some games, Triple Buffering doesn't work as expected:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3591&p=4

UPDATE: There has been a lot of discussion in the comments of the differences between the page flipping method we are discussing in this article and implementations of a render ahead queue. In render ahead, frames cannot be dropped. This means that when the queue is full, what is displayed can have a lot more lag. Microsoft doesn't implement triple buffering in DirectX, they implement render ahead (from 0 to 8 frames with 3 being the default).

The major difference in the technique we've described here is the ability to drop frames when they are outdated. Render ahead forces older frames to be displayed. Queues can help smoothness and stuttering as a few really quick frames followed by a slow frame end up being evened out and spread over more frames. But the price you pay is in lag (the more frames in the queue, the longer it takes to empty the queue and the older the frames are that are displayed).

In order to maintain smoothness and reduce lag, it is possible to hold on to a limited number of frames in case they are needed but to drop them if they are not (if they get too old). This requires a little more intelligent management of already rendered frames and goes a bit beyond the scope of this article.

Some game developers implement a short render ahead queue and call it triple buffering (because it uses three total buffers). They certainly cannot be faulted for this, as there has been a lot of confusion on the subject and under certain circumstances this setup will perform the same as triple buffering as we have described it (but definitely not when framerate is higher than refresh rate).

Both techniques allow the graphics card to continue doing work while waiting for a vertical refresh when one frame is already completed. When using double buffering (and no render queue), while vertical sync is enabled, after one frame is completed nothing else can be rendered out which can cause stalling and degrade actual performance.

When vsync is not enabled, nothing more than double buffering is needed for performance, but a render queue can still be used to smooth framerate if it requires a few old frames to be kept around. This can keep instantaneous framerate from dipping in some cases, but will (even with double buffering and vsync disabled) add lag and input latency. Even without vsync, render ahead is required for multiGPU systems to work efficiently.

So, this article is as much for gamers as it is for developers. If you are implementing render ahead (aka a flip queue), please don't call it "triple buffering," as that should be reserved for the technique we've described here in order to cut down on the confusion. There are games out there that list triple buffering as an option when the technique used is actually a short render queue. We do realize that this can cause confusion, and we very much hope that this article and discussion help to alleviate this problem.

In other words, because quite often developers are stupid and call it "triple buffering" when it actually isn't :lol
 
Got home and used D3DOverider. Works great.

Counter-Strike: Source does not enjoy v-sync in the least, input lag is intolerable. L4D and TF2 perform great, I guess the newer engine handles it better. I had to reduce my pre-rendered frames in the nv control panel (more frames = more input lag). Haven't tried the games without triple buffering since using D3DOverider, since you can test v-sync without it. Input lag up the wazoo in CSS. Mind you this was maybe a year ago or less.
 
rhfb said:
So I started using this to eliminate the tearing in The Last Remnant, but now, when I'm playing Dragon Age, some of the textures are total shit.

http://social.bioware.com/da_game_screenshots/314000/313213/Screenshot20091221155332968.jpg

The link might work, but if it doesn't not really a big deal anyways as it wasn't at my 1920x1080 resolution I normally play at for some reason.

Anyone know why some of the textures are just plain shitty?

I doubt it has anything to do with D3DOverrider, regardless, you can just create a profile within the application to disable it for Dragon Age if it does. ATI have just delivered a hotfix that fixes some issues with Dragon Age, try that.
 
brain_stew said:
I doubt it has anything to do with D3DOverrider, regardless, you can just create a profile within the application to disable it for Dragon Age if it does. ATI have just delivered a hotfix that fixes some issues with Dragon Age, try that.
Will try the hotfix (9.12 right?) and see if that makes it any better. I'm just thinking it has to have something to do with DA because before I started to use D3DOverrider there were no texture issues at all, but since I've been using it this last week, the textures started to look like something out of a 360 or PS3 game in some areas.
 
rhfb said:
Will try the hotfix (9.12 right?) and see if that makes it any better. I'm just thinking it has to have something to do with DA because before I started to use D3DOverrider there were no texture issues at all, but since I've been using it this last week, the textures started to look like something out of a 360 or PS3 game in some areas.


That's because they do. Started out as a Dwarf noble and I was so appalled at the textures in the room where you start that I played something else for a week. It's my GOTY now that I'm almost through it but many of the textures are just horrid.
 
Sysgen said:
That's because they do. Started out as a Dwarf noble and I was so appalled at the textures in the room where you start that I played something else for a week. It's my GOTY now that I'm almost through it but many of the textures are just horrid.

Well they're on average 4x higher resolution than their console counterparts:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/xbox-360-vs-ps3-face-off-round-23?page=2

Dragon_360_006.jpg.jpg


Dragon_PC_006.jpg.jpg


You have got 16xaf enabled/forced, right?
 
rhfb said:
Will try the hotfix (9.12 right?) and see if that makes it any better. I'm just thinking it has to have something to do with DA because before I started to use D3DOverrider there were no texture issues at all, but since I've been using it this last week, the textures started to look like something out of a 360 or PS3 game in some areas.

Well like I said, you can just create a specific profile within D3DOverrider that stops it from being forced in just Dragon Age if it is indeed the problem. I doubt it is, though.
 
Ok just making sure I set this up right to see if there really is a problem. Where do I enable AA/AF/ect? In game? In the CCC? or somewhere else altogether?
 
This is awesome never knew d3doverrider had gotten so good. I remember when you had to launch games manually from the d3doverrider app.
 
Relix said:
I noticed a performance drop with D3D enabled. WTF?

Who knows, got FRAPS to confirm your suspicions? It's probably not impossible to for there to be a conflict/bug, but I'll be damned if one chooses to play Dead Space without it (if you hate tearing as much as I do)!

I've used it extensively in Dragon Age (and never have seen a messed up blurry texture like above), as well as dozens of other games, works perfectly.
The only drop I've noticed is the one down to 60 that I get with v-sync enabled. :p
 
I cannot stand Triple buffering. After hearing every body rave about it in various PC threads, I decided to get rivatuner and test it out. Got very little improvement, if any it was virtually unnoticeable, and it increased input lag by a substantial amount. I'm sure it varies from computer to computer, but I don't see how anyone could play a PC game with that kind of input delay. Definitely not worth it on my computer.
 
Dipper145 said:
I cannot stand Triple buffering. After hearing every body rave about it in various PC threads, I decided to get rivatuner and test it out. Got very little improvement, if any it was virtually unnoticeable, and it increased input lag by a substantial amount. I'm sure it varies from computer to computer, but I don't see how anyone could play a PC game with that kind of input delay. Definitely not worth it on my computer.

Maybe you're missing the point? The point is to remove tearing. If you do not use v-sync for eliminate tearing, then D3DOverrider will not do anything good really.

Edit: I hope you're not trying to reignite that stupid triple buffering vs triple buffering v-sync debate.
 
I have a newbie question and thought of asking it here since it relates to this topic somehow; how do I know if a game uses OpenGL and not D3D API? Do I check a certain config file? All I know is that most games these days use D3D, as stated in the OP.

And thanks a lot brain_stew for this thread. :D
 
Graphics Horse said:
It depends on your average frame rate and how much it varies.

[...]

Soon you build up a whole frame in reserve and the only difference is your display is a frame behind what it would be in double buffering + vsync. (remember, this is only for the example of using 75% of a frame to fully draw each buffer.)
I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I saw your example and it looked valid at first glance -- which surprised me since I didn't think it was possible for triple buffering to ever be behind double buffering with v-sync by a frame.
After looking at it more closely I don't think your example is valid. With triple buffering, in frame #4 B2 would be displayed. At each vsync the most recently completed frame is shown, that's the difference to any queuing scheme.
 
Durante said:
I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I saw your example and it looked valid at first glance -- which surprised me since I didn't think it was possible for triple buffering to ever be behind double buffering with v-sync by a frame.
After looking at it more closely I don't think your example is valid. With triple buffering, in frame #4 B2 would be displayed. At each vsync the most recently completed frame is shown, that's the difference to any queuing scheme.
what hw does that?
 
Top Bottom