What's better to do? V-sync, or use the in game FPS limiter? What is better in terms of performance, and looks?

PS... I like the search results that come up when typing thread title, hopefully it should stop double topics...
~Bryan~

Limiting fps in game can greatly reduce CPU usage, v-sync doesn't really do anything performance wise, it might even slow your fps. I limit my frame rate to 60/62fps in game, that's plenty smooth enough for me and my screen has a refrsh rate of 60hz. It also frees up some cpu cycles to do more physics calcs for the other cars on the track.

^^ I do the same

CRT with refresh of 85, which is my normal FPS online anyways. So to eliminate fluctuations, I cap it at 50. Just random there, I could do 60 I guess. I don't see much difference until they drop way down to sub 30's anyways.

well i played for years at 5-15fps so i revel in the luxury of capping it at 60

Quote from Davo :

Limiting fps in game can greatly reduce CPU usage, v-sync doesn't really do anything performance wise, it might even slow your fps. I limit my frame rate to 60/62fps in game, that's plenty smooth enough for me and my screen has a refrsh rate of 60hz. It also frees up some cpu cycles to do more physics calcs for the other cars on the track.

Actually doesn't the graphics engine wait for the physics engine or vice versa to complete it's calculations? I always thought that the FPS cap is just to lower the CPU usage. Why do you need to calculate physics 200 times a second, when you only see it 50 times per second anyway?

Quote from Stone in Focus :

well i played for years at 5-15fps so i revel in the luxury of capping it at 60

Welcome to my life. I just posted this question because I've heard alot of rave about each having their own set-backs. I would be honestly happy with a capped 30, 25 even.
~Bryan~

Quote from Stone in Focus :

well i played for years at 5-15fps so i revel in the luxury of capping it at 60

Well, so did I, my friend, so did I.

Had I realized the system ram was much faster than the very old gfx card I had was, I would have left it with onboard and gotten 30.

Celeron 667 MHz, 512 Mb RAM, and ATI Rage128 16 Mb graphics. Should have used the 11 Mb onboard gfx, I had twice the framerate (daughter still uses it racing LFS and flying FS9)

What is FS9 anyways? I'm curious to check it out, sounds like a game that runs on any spec system, got linkage?
~Bryan~

Quote from dropin_biking :

What is FS9 anyways? I'm curious to check it out, sounds like a game that runs on any spec system, got linkage?

FS9 is Microsoft Flight Sim 2004.

Though how it runs to any satisfactory level on a 667mhz Celeron i don't know.
I'm only just happy with it now on an Athlon64 3200, 1 gig ram and a 6800GS.

I never said it runs satisfactory, just that it runs <wink>. What's 10 FPS to a 6 year old, hehe.

And yes, when S2 demo was released, I ran that 667 MHz at about 20 or so FPS in wheels view. It ran the old 0.3H S1 much better. I have a Radeon 9250 in it now and it gets 35 FPS (low options is a given) with S2.

Quote from mrodgers :

I never said it runs satisfactory, just that it runs <wink>.

hehe, do you work in games marketing