Any advantage to reducing picture quality to boost FPS?

[cjl9 12]

If I turn everything to the lowest settings I can run at 100 to 130 fps, If I run with everything maxed out, except for Advanced Blending (my usual settings) I get 45 to 60 fps.

At the lower settings my stage times are no faster. And I miss all the nice screen detail.

So, is there any point in getting more FPS?

[BadD0g 0]

Assuming you have a 60Hz monitor, the game will look choppy if it's running less than 60fps, and you won't see any benefits above 60 unless you get a monitor with a higher refresh rate, so adjust the settings around a target of 60fps and you'll be fine. 

[cjl9 12]

Thanks. Now I understand.

Yes my monitor runs at 60 Hz.

[shadow118 18]

I run everything on high to ultra (adv blending off) and have V-sync on. If I leave it off, even at higher framerates the game has microstutters and they are really annoying. I don't really mind the input-lag (if there even is any, it's way less noticeable than the stutters)
I suggest find the settings that won't dip below 60fps and just keep it at that, no need to go lower (so probably a notch down from your usual settings, so it's like 60-75 fps), also, try v-sync, at least for me it's just way smoother

[bogani 756]

I just want it to be as stable as possible without tearing, so v-sync it is!

There will be input lag though.

[versedi 39]

bogani said:

I just want it to be as stable as possible without tearing, so v-sync it is!

There will be input lag though.

Vsync off. Frame rate limit around 4 frames from your monitor refresh rate value (test each framerate from 56 to 64 - one of them will be completely tearless).

0 input lag.

[shadow118 18]

versedi said:

bogani said:

I just want it to be as stable as possible without tearing, so v-sync it is!

There will be input lag though.

Vsync off. Frame rate limit around 4 frames from your monitor refresh rate value (test each framerate from 56 to 64 - one of them will be completely tearless).

0 input lag.

It's not the tearing, but microstutters, that bother me in DiRT. I did try the driver side frame limiter (I didn't try it under 60 fps though), but it's just stuttery, not enough to be unplayable, but enough to make your head hurt after a few minutes. With v-sync it's just way smoother, and regarding input lag, with my setup I just can't tell the difference

[RyuMakkuro 6]

Didzis said:
It's not the tearing, but microstutters, that bother me in DiRT. I did try the driver side frame limiter (I didn't try it under 60 fps though), but it's just stuttery, not enough to be unplayable, but enough to make your head hurt after a few minutes. With v-sync it's just way smoother, and regarding input lag, with my setup I just can't tell the difference

I was wondering how is that even possible, because believe it or not, but I can get microstutters with V-Sync while I don't get them at all when I run at 76FPS locked through 3rd party software (74Hz refresh rate here). Then I took a look at what GPU you're running and everything became clear xD

#JustAMDthings

Now, as to the FPS amount. The more FPS you do have, the more responsive the game will be as it will be taking your input more often. For example at 45FPS, it takes your input 45 times per second, while at 100FPS it does it 100 times per second. That's why even though higher refresh monitors are obviously being used to make the picture more smooth, the "pro" gamers still run at framerates way above the refresh rate to have as much input as possible, even when they can't see it.
It really comes down to personal preference. I personally don't like having input I can't see, as that kind of throws my rhythm off. I do enjoy the improved responsibility but it does come at the price of the aforementioned loss of rhythm for me. You really have to see for yourself how you enjoy playing the game more. Whether you prefer how the cars feel at higher refresh rates or at ones that are more synced with your refresh rate.

[shadow118 18]

RyuMakkuro said:

Didzis said:
It's not the tearing, but microstutters, that bother me in DiRT. I did try the driver side frame limiter (I didn't try it under 60 fps though), but it's just stuttery, not enough to be unplayable, but enough to make your head hurt after a few minutes. With v-sync it's just way smoother, and regarding input lag, with my setup I just can't tell the difference

I was wondering how is that even possible, because believe it or not, but I can get microstutters with V-Sync while I don't get them at all when I run at 76FPS locked through 3rd party software (74Hz refresh rate here). Then I took a look at what GPU you're running and everything became clear xD

#JustAMDthings

Now, as to the FPS amount. The more FPS you do have, the more responsive the game will be as it will be taking your input more often. For example at 45FPS, it takes your input 45 times per second, while at 100FPS it does it 100 times per second. That's why even though higher refresh monitors are obviously being used to make the picture more smooth, the "pro" gamers still run at framerates way above the refresh rate to have as much input as possible, even when they can't see it.
It really comes down to personal preference. I personally don't like having input I can't see, as that kind of throws my rhythm off. I do enjoy the improved responsibility but it does come at the price of the aforementioned loss of rhythm for me. You really have to see for yourself how you enjoy playing the game more. Whether you prefer how the cars feel at higher refresh rates or at ones that are more synced with your refresh rate.

If I get about 70-80 fps without v-sync, I don't think there's much difference. And does v-sync add extra lag, compared to v-sync off 60 fps, or is it just because it is limited to 60 fps? Because I can't really tell the difference in terms of input lag between v-sync and limiting it to 60 via driver (apart from v-sync being smooth and without any stutters)

And what's wrong with my GPU? #TeamRed :D 

[RyuMakkuro 6]

Didzis said:
If I get about 70-80 fps without v-sync, I don't think there's much difference. And does v-sync add extra lag, compared to v-sync off 60 fps, or is it just because it is limited to 60 fps? Because I can't really tell the difference in terms of input lag between v-sync and limiting it to 60 via driver (apart from v-sync being smooth and without any stutters)

And what's wrong with my GPU? #TeamRed :D 

Here's a nice explanation of how it works. Also apparently driver limiting adds the same input lag as V-Sync, so yeah...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rs0PYCpBJjc

And nothing wrong with your GPU. You just bought into the team that is known for having... "peculiar" issues xD :D

[BadD0g 0]

I get microstutter when I turn vsync off (or use driver vsync) as well, it's been like that since Early Access for me, on two different computers. I've ironed it out by setting drt.exe to run as administrator, using in-game vsync, and using Nvidia 376.33 drivers (newer ones make it worse). Weird. Gotta love PC gaming!

[shadow118 18]

RyuMakkuro said:

And nothing wrong with your GPU. You just bought into the team that is known for having... "peculiar" issues xD :D

Well, it's not like the grass on the other side is any greener... (see what I did there? :D) 
At least not according to BadD0g, jsut seems to be an issue with DiRT Rally in general. And I don't have such microstutters in other games

[RyuMakkuro 6]

Didzis said:

RyuMakkuro said:

And nothing wrong with your GPU. You just bought into the team that is known for having... "peculiar" issues xD :D

Well, it's not like the grass on the other side is any greener... (see what I did there? :D) 
At least not according to BadD0g, jsut seems to be an issue with DiRT Rally in general. And I don't have such microstutters in other games

Yeah, DiRT Rally is definitely a very weird title (and nVidia drivers for the past 1,5 year are a total garbage), I get either massive stuttering when playing under the refresh rate, or BS screen tearing at exactly the refresh rate, no stutter, input lag and screen tearing at +2 FPS over refresh rate and not much screen tearing at unlocked frame rate xD

Still, while nVidia users in majority of situations when they have issues it's stability or performance, on AMD... yeah, well, ask @Snaky115 about his issues with DR. It's quite fascinating.

[shadow118 18]

RyuMakkuro said:

Still, while nVidia users in majority of situations when they have issues it's stability or performance, on AMD... yeah, well, ask @Snaky115 about his issues with DR. It's quite fascinating.

If you mean the transparent or black textures in the stages, I've had that too, but that was some time ago and I haven't had that problem for some time now. 
Speaking of AMD, the drivers have gotten a lot better lately, especially since the Crimson update. Another thing that they got going for them is that their cards seem to age better

[Snaky115 18]

Age Better or launch badly, depends on the viewpoint.

And hey, i am done with DR / AMD issues since i got a free pity FX8350. :D Well, apart from SOMETHING in the background eventually causing a microstutter every 3-4 minutes if i have been using a lot of programs before launching DR. Though i do a restart before playing DR Leagues most times now which fixes this already rare occurrence. Helps avoid DR's own bugs, if it decides to have any.

Shorter version - about 60% if not more of my issues were CPU or other stuff, not the video card.

[RyuMakkuro 6]

Didzis said:
If you mean the transparent or black textures in the stages, I've had that too, but that was some time ago and I haven't had that problem for some time now. 

Had that issue myself. That was purely down to the game itself, not compatibility with different GPUs etc.

I do mean really weird things, like disabling one very certain option to not cause some artifacting on the textures, or stuff that affects the gameplay, not just graphics. Generally like really weird stuff that just you never would think that is GPU related. Although like Snaky mentioned, majority of those are due to CPU, rather than GPU. But the reputation is there not without a reason.

And yeah, the age thing depends on the viewpoint. Not many people realise that the nVidia GPUs also increase in performance with drivers, or at least they did. And we're talking here about over 20%. The thing is, if someone is looking for the used GPU, AMD will probably be a better option, but when someone is buying a new one, AMD is the worst choice, because you have to wait to get the actual performance out of it, while with nVidia you get pretty much all of it from the get go.
Both sides have their issues but unlike AMD, you always know what you're getting with nVidia (same as with Intel). AMD has always that air of "risk" about it. On all other fronts though, it's a draw basically.

[shadow118 18]

RyuMakkuro said:

Both sides have their issues but unlike AMD, you always know what you're getting with nVidia (same as with Intel). AMD has always that air of "risk" about it. On all other fronts though, it's a draw basically.

nVidia is a bit like Apple - great products, not so great company, with all it's proprietary technologies (G-Sync, Gameworks, PhysX etc.), high prices (until the GTX680 it was 500$ for the x80 card, the 780 was already 650$, the 1080 was 700$ at launch) and things like GeForce experience requiring registration for you to receive driver updates (like WTF?)

RyuMakkuro said:

but when someone is buying a new one, AMD is the worst choice, because you have to wait to get the actual performance out of it, while with nVidia you get pretty much all of it from the get go.

Well, their drivers work in mysterious ways, but I wouldn't mind getting extra performance :D
We should probably stop before this turns into a flamewar :D 

[versedi 39]

Recently I have a new issue with my GTX 760 - the car throws a weird shadow which is visible too much. I'll try to catch a screenshot in near future. 
@RyuMakkuro  you're right about drivers being garbage lately.