SM wrote:

---

you obviously aren't understanding

unless I misunderstood the context in your post, I'm not misunderstanding vsync like you appear to be

I would venture a guess that you aren't comprehending either, but IDGAF

all I can say is read the article someone else posted earlier

SM wrote:

---

triple buffering at least makes sure it is the most current data possible. And I think a ton of people don't really understand the difference between triple and double buffering. Nor when it is actually being used. Without true triple buffering, yes vsync is a terrible idea for an fps. But if you have a utility that forces triple buffering, or the game itself offers it as an option(like l4d2)

SM wrote:

---

so basically what Im gathering is no one here actually read the article? since your missing out on information anyways, triple buffering at least makes sure it is the most current data possible. And I think a ton of people don't really understand the difference between triple and double buffering. Nor when it is actually being used. Without true triple buffering, yes vsync is a terrible idea for an fps. But if you have a utility that forces triple buffering, or the game itself offers it as an option(like l4d2) it is most definitely a valid option for some people.

vsync is a personal preference, I was suggesting reasons why some people might benefit from it. Maybe for you it "destroys" your ability to make twitch shots, but really what that means to me is that you can't or won't adjust your technique. In games where you are heavily dependent on twitch it might pose a SLIGHT disadvantage, but l4d2 isn't that dependent on making twitch shots. Some people actually have an easier time with it on, some people don't. I have no problem getting twitch shots with it on, and many people I know prefer it on as well.

SM wrote:

---

please link to where you got your information on whether l4d2 uses true triple buffering or flip queue only.

AnandTech wrote:

---

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.

SM wrote:

---

lol way to skim...and fail
please link to where you got your information on whether l4d2 uses true triple buffering or flip queue only. also, what page of the comments even mentions l4d2 not having it. Im not really interested in going through 18+ pages of comments just for your sake. Ive already checked out the first few and last few. The article doesn't say that all DX games with a triple buffering setting do it. It just states that some do. Also, if you had skimmed a little farther down from the article to the comments there are people talking about that exact issue. They mention the l4d series and valve games as being games that use true triple buffering. So if you want to try to make a point, please have something to back it up. And I don't mean by taking a small part of an article and applying it falsely to your argument to make it sound correct. Please give a reason why people should trust you over another random internet poster.

Besides, whether the l4d series has triple buffering or not, if you are that worried about whether there is true triple buffering in a game, you can take the 5 minutes to google, download, and install a third party program to force it. From there you can make your own judgment as to whether you prefer it on or not. Which was the point Ive had the whole time. So why act like I am trying convert people to some opposing religion to yours? Rhetorical question btw.

SM wrote:

---

lol way to skim...and fail
please link to where you got your information on whether l4d2 uses true triple buffering or flip queue only. Link provided above, with basic inductive reasoning explaining why it applies to L4D2 also, what page of the comments even mentions l4d2 not having it. Im not really interested in going through 18+ pages of comments just for your sake. Ive already checked out the first few and last few. The article doesn't say that all DX games with a triple buffering setting do it. It just states that some do. Some implement a short render ahead queue, implying that the remaining ones use something else (aka 3 or longer) since DX doesn't include actual triple buffering. Also, if you had skimmed a little farther down from the article to the comments there are people talking about that exact issue. They mention the l4d series and valve games as being games that use true triple buffering. So if you want to try to make a point, please have something to back it up. An article run by a respectable tech website vs a few comments that you can't even be bothered linking us to. Tough call. And I don't mean by taking a small part of an article and applying it falsely to your argument to make it sound correct. Deduction is the most basic type of reasoning and you seem to be the one who is having trouble understanding it Please give a reason why people should trust you over another random internet poster. I am doing basic deductive reasoning of a reliable resource. You are talking about comments to an unreliable resource without even bothering to show us the comments. They could possibly be some super-genious that works for Valve and coded the Vsync functionality, or they could be some random scrub that read "triple buffering" and figured Valve wouldn't lie to them.

Besides, whether the l4d series has triple buffering or not, if you are that worried about whether there is true triple buffering in a game, you can take the 5 minutes to google, download, and install a third party program to force it. From there you can make your own judgment as to whether you prefer it on or not. Which was the point Ive had the whole time. So why act like I am trying convert people to some opposing religion to yours? Rhetorical question btw. I started by only stating that vsync does NOT make the image more accurate, and that disabling vsync does NOT make you lose information, two things that you had said.

CanadaRox wrote:

---

I started by only stating that vsync does NOT make the image more accurate, and that disabling vsync does NOT make you lose information, two things that you had said.

SM wrote:

---

what you actually see can be more accurate

SM wrote:

---

what you actually see can be more accurate

SM wrote:

---

what you actually see can be more accurate

SM wrote:

---

what you actually see can be more accurate

SM wrote:

---

what you actually see can be more accurate

SM wrote:

---

You either didn't read/comprehend the article, or you are retarded. Admit to one....

any response other than "I didn't read and/or comprehend the article" means you are retarded, because the article states exactly the opposite of what you claim.