Really good tip to help get a little more time out your battery to game. although I would rather have my FPS around 60, even if the difference between 45 and 60 to the human eye is minimal. But my friend uses a laptop to game on trips so I gotta show him this
Yep its a Great Tip got to let me gaming dudes know
This seems like it should be fairly elementary. If the GPU doesn't work as hard, it should consume less power.
Sure, but how much less? That was the question.
Without any frame limiting at all, the game ran at about 75 fps at the settings I was using -- so cutting the frame rate by 60% cut the power consumption by 33%. What's more interesting is that in this title, turning all detail levels down *and* clamping the frame rate did nothing to help the power consumption situation.
In other words, even though the GPU was working "less hard" (1280x720, minimum detail) it still drew the same amount of power at 30 fps in both test cases. That's not necessarily what I would've predicted.
You would be surprised on how many people wouldn't even know what a frame rate is.
I really wouldn't.
sweet thanks. i wonder thats why my old battery dies in a mater of minutes
amd did this some time ago
Lol well if the GPU doesnt have to work as hard to increase fps...battery life would obviously be longer
I love how everytime AMD does something, other big names make it a big deal and steal credit.
I do not get way everyone is always so excited about getting more than 60 fps anyway. Most monitors do not refresh at over 60 fps. Also, the human eye cannot tell the difference at more than 20 fps. So running a computer too hot and using unneeded resources to pull 120 fps is just a waste. Personally, I limit all my computer to 40-50 fps. This allows for little network dips that will make it go down to 30 fps without me ever noticing, and leaves the rest of the computer resources to process game info improving performance.
Hmm... That's an interesting perspective ShawnLauseng. Given the fact that it's well known at least 95FPS is needed for optimal immersion for VR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersion_(virtual_reality)), there is some value of going over 20-60 FPS.
There's a reason why a lot of console and gamers are adamant their games play at least 60FPS instead of just 30FPS. You CAN tell the difference, unless you meant you can't tell the difference of the same footage being sampled at 2 different framefrates unless the difference between the two samples is greater than 20FPS.
At the end of the day, the variance can be too severe, making the pursuit of higher frame rates pointless.
The problem with high frame rates variance is the fact GPUs often render frames as quick as possible while Monitors simply render frames at a fixed rate. This leads to an asynchronous refresh cycle that leads to things like screen tearing. For that reason, sometimes, people just try to fix their rate to their monitors.
The problem that occurs with that is the fact you can have choppy visuals/stuttering if your GPU has to repeat frames continuously while waiting for your monitor's refresh cycle that's fixed.
The gamebreaking solution to both these problems is Nvidia's Gsync technology that'll force the MONITOR to wait for the GPU to present a new frame for perfect synchronous behavior between the two.
No screen tearing, no stuttering--a game-changing experience. ATI is looking into a alternative (it's going to be called FreeSync supposedly). In the meantime, with these monitors coming out this year, Nvidia's GPUs are a no-brainer to get these days--if it wasn't obvious enough with their 82% workstation marketshare, their outstanding propriety tech like CUDA, ShadowPlay, and PhysX; and so on...
That in mind, I would think the battery life variance would be minimal (thus the amount of time before the battery dies is more predictable) with Gsync on for a test like this, but it'd be interesting its effect on battery life...
Can Joel Hruska look into this?
I cannot test G-Sync but can confirm the human eye can perceive well above 20 FPS.
The human eye does not perform full refreshes and does not see in frame rate terms, so any attempt to quantify the speed of the eye in these terms is extremely difficult. Nonetheless, there's no question we see above 60 fps.
Hi Joel, great article!
We've been aware of this for some time now - and we have developed a tool which can bring you benefits from both worlds - save power AND keep the gameplay performance. In essence it is a "smart" framerate limiter - it limits the framerate selectively, and gives you full power when needed.
It's free - you can get it here: http://www.hialgo.com/TechnologyCHILL.html
Thanks for the follow-up Joel, and the resource about the extent the human eye can see frames...
NEWS TIPS |
This site is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. The contents are the views and opinion of the author and/or hisassociates. All products and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All content and graphical elements areCopyright © 1999 - 2014 David Altavilla and HotHardware.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy and Terms