Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Another common fix for games (assuming the frame rate cap isn't the issue) is enabling triple buffering. Triple buffering is known to *possibly* introduce input delay so many developers don't opt for it as an option. However, triple buffering helps a game run that's struggling to *look* smooth despite maintaining a target frame rate, or even higher. The Final Fantasy Pixel Remasters are a good example of this.
I just would like to know why we should need to cap FPS ?
Put your screen the frequency you want and a Vsync ? What is the problem ? The Vsync of the game is not precise enough ? So why we should keep it ?
I am sûr you are right, i am just curious, i really want to understand ^^
Peace all, and thank you for the fix (my 2080Ti seams to do fluent 120fps when it can)
RivaTuner Statistics Server, a tool that comes with MSI Afterburner, has a very good frame cap function. The difference is, it stabilizes the frame time more consistently than other frame caps, and frame time is almost more important than frame rate.