Overclock.net banner

[PCP] AMD Radeon Software Crimson Improves FreeSync and Frame Pacing Support

12K views 155 replies 45 participants last post by  Majin SSJ Eric 
#1 ·
FreeSync: Low Frame Rate Compensation
Quote:
One disadvantage that AMD has had when going up against the NVIDIA technology was prominent at low frame rates. AMD has had "variable refresh rate windows" that have varied from a narrow 48-75Hz (our first 21:9 IPS panel) to a much wider 40-144Hz (TN 2560x1440). When you went above or below that refresh rate with your game render rate (frame rate) you would either revert to a non-variable refresh rate state of either having V-Sync enabled or V-Sync disabled, at the users selection. The result, when your frame rate when below that minimum VRR range, was an experience that was sub-par - you either had tearing on your screen or judder/stutter in the animation. Those were the exact things that VRR technology was supposed to prevent!

...

Also, AMD's LFC can only be enabled on monitors in which the maximum refresh rate is 2.5x (or more) higher than the minimum variable refresh rate. Do you have a monitor with a 40-144Hz FreeSync range? You're good. Do you have one of the first 48-75Hz displays? Sorry, you are out luck. AMD has a wide range of FreeSync monitors on the market today and they don't actively advertise that range, so you won't know for sure without reading other reviews (like ours) if your monitor will support Low Frame Rate Compensation or not - which could be a concern for buyers going forward. 4K FreeSync monitors which often have a ~32Hz to 60Hz range will not have the ability to support LFC, which is unfortunate as this is one key configuration where the feature is needed!

...

I will also tell you that the smoothness of the doubled frame rate with AMD FreeSync and LFC doesn't feel as good as that on our various G-Sync monitors. I am interested to get more detail from AMD and NVIDIA to see how their algorithms compare on when and how to insert a new frame - my guess is that NVIDIA has had more time to perfect its module logic than AMD's driver team has and any fringe cases that crop up (Are you just on the edge of the VRR range? How long have you been on that edge? Is the frame rate set to spike back up above it in the next frame or two?) aren't dealt with differently.

Despite those couple of complaints, my first impression of LFC with the Crimson driver is one of satisfied acceptance. It's a great start, there is room to improve, but AMD is listening and fixing technologies to better compete with NVIDIA as we head into 2016.

Frame Pacing: Legacy DX9 Support

]

Quote:
This is Skyrim, the last remaining DX9 title that we use in our tests (most of the time), running at 3840x2160 (4K) on the Radeon R9 295X2 dual-Fiji graphics card. The orange line is a result from an older driver, before DX9 frame pacing was enabled and you can clearly see the effect that AMD's older driver architecture had on gaming experience. That ugly blob of orange on the Frame Times graph shows you the "runt" frames that the GPUs were rendering but not displaying in an even manner, artificially raising performance results and making the gamer's experience a stuttery mess.

The black line is what we tested with the new Radeon Software Crimson driver - a much more polished experience! Frame pacing is 1000x better than it was before and you can just FEEL the difference when playing the game. Actual user experienced average frame rates jumped from ~90 FPS to ~130 FPS which is a nice improvement at the 4K resolution. Frame time variance on the 95th percentile drops from from about 7ms to 2ms showing in data what playing the game for yourself does - its just so much better than it was before.
Source

Bottom line: It sounds like AMD hit 2 major points I've been complaining about for years now. While not perfect, it is infinitely better than before the release of Crimson.

Good Job RTG, you may actually get me to put AMD in my next gaming rig again!
thumb.gif
 
See less See more
2
#2 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by 47 Knucklehead View Post

FreeSync: Low Frame Rate Compensation

Frame Pacing: Legacy DX9 Support



Bottom line: It sounds like AMD hit 2 major points I've been complaining about for years now. While not perfect, it is infinitely better than before the release of Crimson.

Good Job RTG, you may actually get me to put AMD in my next gaming rig again!
thumb.gif
Never thought that I would hear that statement from you. I mean ever. Anyway I agree this driver is a good start. Hopefully they can execute better in 2016. Raja Koduri is just getting his act started. This is an appetizer. I want the main course to be much better. Arctic Islands and Greenland. Then we will have a good old contest between red and green. The last few years has been completely one-sided with green running away with GPU marketshare and profits due to AMD's poor and in some cases non existent execution. Koduri should change that with his leadership. I want AMD to turn up for the fight like they did back in 2008 with the HD 4870.
thumb.gif
 
#4 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by raghu78 View Post

Never thought that I would hear that statement from you. I mean ever.

I want AMD to turn up for the fight like they did back in 2008 with the HD 4870.
thumb.gif
I'm a loudmouth, opinionated, hard headed, yahoo ... but I'm no fanboy. I'll give credit where credit is due.

I had a list of issues with AMD and have always said why I left Team Red. Now that they are addressing those issues, I may very well come home after four years of being on Team Green.

Aside from being heat beasts and power hogs, I loved my Quadfire 4870X2's. It's because of that card that I really got into water cooling (actually my first attempt at water cooling was on my ATI 3870 card), and a whole new passion. That's why, while I've been vocal, I have always stayed on top of what AMD was doing and praying for the return of "the good old days".

Aside from optimizations with Freesync ... I really only have one and a half hang ups with AMD drivers, that is the fact that Crossfire doesn't work in windowed mode and neither does Freesync. I think that both CAN be addressed and hopefully fixed.

But yeah, this is a very bright day for AMD and RTG.
thumb.gif
 
#5 ·
I had very minor issues with previous AMD drivers. These drivers look awesome, can't wait to try the new design with my next-gen card when AMD brings a competitive high-end graphics card next generation. I like how AMD still support even older cards like 7970 and those 4 years old cards still get performance increases.
 
#6 ·
Actually, "2.5 x lower limit >= upper limit" formula is not correct. I have my monitor set-up 60-144, and freesync is working below 60.

But if lower limit is more than half of upper limit it can't work. I would guess 2.2x or more is needed
 
#7 ·
Display port to HDMI 2.0 adapter supported now, which if I recall was a fairly big issue for those looking to use AMD in their HTPC setups. Not really concern of mine, I just want to try the new GUI and see if I notice any performance improvements, which it sounds like I will. Just installing them now.
 
#8 ·
VSR has been upgraded! Finally we have custom resolutions.



The driver team is moving in the right direction.
 
#12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ha-Nocri View Post

Actually, "2.5 x lower limit >= upper limit" formula is not correct. I have my monitor set-up 60-144, and freesync is working below 60.

But if lower limit is more than half of upper limit it can't work. I would guess 2.2x or more is needed
From my meeting with AMD several months ago - it is actually 2.0x... 2.5 is recommended to be safe.... so if the lower FreeSync range of the monitor is 50Hz then the highest FreeSync range must be at least 100Hz for it to be automatically supported.
 
#14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Nixeus View Post

From my meeting with AMD several months ago - it is actually 2.0x... 2.5 is recommended to be safe.... so if the lower FreeSync range of the monitor is 50Hz then the highest FreeSync range must be at least 100Hz for it to be automatically supported.
Yeah, just heard it is 2.0x

But I think I have some problems with 60-144. I think for brief moments it exits freesync mode, or it is using multiplier that exceeds 144 . So I lowered it to 55-144. Think there are still problems. Less then before tho. I think AMD has more work to do here.
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ha-Nocri View Post

Yeah, just heard it is 2.0x

But I think I have some problems with 60-144. I think for brief moments it exits freesync mode, or it is using multiplier that exceeds 144 . So I lowered it to 55-144. Think there are still problems. Less then before tho. I think AMD has more work to do here.
I saw your posts in the "Hacking FreeSync Range" thread - that may be your problem there if you are using the hacked settings. It has to be the monitor's default AMD FreeSync Certified range settings which is embedded in the firmware of the monitor. The EDID over ride or hacked settings maybe causing conflicts. Because the hacked ranges are not FreeSync certified - it may cause conflicts with the Algorithm that automatically enables that feature in AMD FreeSync Certified monitors.
 
#16 ·
Custom resolutions do not do much. Still can't get 4K with my 290X with 1440p monitor.
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Nixeus View Post

I saw your posts in the "Hacking FreeSync Range" thread - that may be your problem there if you are using the hacked settings. It has to be the monitor's default AMD FreeSync Certified range settings which is embedded in the firmware of the monitor. The EDID over ride or hacked settings maybe causing conflicts. Because the hacked ranges are not FreeSync certified - it may cause conflicts with the Algorithm that automatically enables that feature in AMD FreeSync Certified monitors.
Maybe, but Radeon settings recognizes the range correctly. What made me suspicious is that they recommend 2.5x, even tho, mathematically, it is possible to make it work, w/o errors, @2.0x.
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ha-Nocri View Post

Maybe, but Radeon settings recognizes the range correctly. What made me suspicious is that they recommend 2.5x, even tho, mathematically, it is possible to make it work, w/o errors, @2.0x.
I do know for all AMD FreeSync Certified Monitors - AMD have all the monitors to test in their labs to constantly test on before releasing new FreeSync drivers/features to ensure they work well with them. I was briefed that at minimum it needed to be at 2.0x and never told about the 2.5x part until today, and that it would be automatically enabled with us not having to do anything on our end with the monitors. Try eliminating the hack from your system and run at default range for your monitor.
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Nixeus View Post

I do know for all AMD FreeSync Certified Monitors - AMD have all the monitors to test in their labs to constantly test on before releasing new FreeSync drivers/features to ensure they work well with them. I was briefed that at minimum it needed to be at 2.0x and never told about the 2.5x part until today, and that it would be automatically enabled with us not having to do anything on our end with the monitors. Try eliminating the hack from your system and run at default range for your monitor.
So Peter, does this mean your monitors will now run from 0-144hz effectively with this driver and is it safe to conclude that this will allow monitor manufacturers greater freedom in setting their fs minimums?
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlugSeven View Post

So Peter, does this mean your monitors will now run from 0-144hz effectively with this driver and is it safe to conclude that this will allow monitor manufacturers greater freedom in setting their fs minimums?
I am not sure about other monitor manufacturers. The performance may be different for other monitors due to the algorithm being used. I just finished running some quick tests with the Fire Strike Demo and these were the results with our NX-VU24 FreeSync Monitor that is AMD FreeSync Certified from 30Hz to 144Hz

The FPS is the counter that I see inside the the Fire Strike Demo itself. The Hz is what the monitor's Output OSD shows on the top right corner when switching demo scenes. Also when I press the "1" button for the OSD menu it shows the exact Hz (refresh rate at the moment I press the button - the OSD MENU Hz counter won't display the Hz being variable, just what the Hz is at when I press the OSD menu button).

22 FPS the NX-VUE24 monitor was at 44Hz - our monitor's lowest refresh rate is 30hz and it is not automatically doubling the frames of the lowest Hz to Sync it to 60Hz. The new FreeSync feature is actually doubling the REAL FPS to put the FPS/Hz back into our monitor's FreeSync range!

29 FPS the NX-VUE24 monitor was at about 60Hz - this was observed during the loading screens before each Fire Strike Demo. The new FreeSync feature doubled the FPS to Sync the monitor at 60Hz

12 FPS the NX-VUE24 monitor was at 36Hz - The new FreeSync feature ALSO TRIPLES FPS to Sync back to the monitor's FreeSync range!
 
#22 ·
My overclocks on Witcher 3 do not work anymore. Game artifacts and then I get a driver crash (Driver Crashed and Recovered error).

Witcher 3 is not even recognized under the "Gaming" tab (was downloaded and installed through GOG Galaxy).

Edit 1:

Maybe Overdrive is getting in the way with this version, but can't find where it is since I can't find it under "Preferences" tab.

Edit 2:

I disabled ULPS (became unchecked in Afterburner when I installed the new driver) and now I regained my stable overclocks!
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imouto View Post

Isn't this the thing that naysayers said that FreeSync could never ever have?
Your belief anyone said never was a delusion.

With this change I can recommend either competing offering. The only nagging point is that the selction of Freesync monitors I would suggest are vastly smaller because ULMB is a great feature than only Benq, Eizo and LG bother replicating that is possible for both gpu brands.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imouto View Post

Isn't this the thing that naysayers said that FreeSync could never ever have?

Because I'm running out of things that the awesome G-Sync can do and FreeSync cannot.
We said didn't, not couldn't ever.

Now it can, under a limited set of circumstances, and that progress is a good thing. Try not to be so petty. I hope that list runs out completely - but it hasn't yet, and it's not wrong to acknowledge that it hasn't.
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imouto View Post

Isn't this the thing that naysayers said that FreeSync could never ever have?

Because I'm running out of things that the awesome G-Sync can do and FreeSync cannot.
I'm all for progress and good competition to drive prices down, but that one bit about:

"I will also tell you that the smoothness of the doubled frame rate with AMD FreeSync and LFC doesn't feel as good as that on our various G-Sync monitors. I am interested to get more detail from AMD and NVIDIA to see how their algorithms compare on when and how to insert a new frame - my guess is that NVIDIA has had more time to perfect its module logic than AMD's driver team has and any fringe cases that crop up"

That's because of the dedicated module on GSYNC displays handling the variable refresh rate correct? If I'm understanding it right at least, that does make a lot of sense. Hard to imagine a software solution being a true equal to a hardware solution.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top