How to reduce maximum number of FPS ? to avoid heat, noise and wasting energy
  1 / 2    
Hello.

I'm new to this forum and I have a question about the driver... Is there any way to reduce the maximum number of frames per second ?

I'm using the 173.12 driver on Ubuntu 8.04 with a 8800GT board. It's working fine. Now I noticed very high frame rates (above 150) when vsync was disabled on the driver. After vsync was enabled via nvidia-settings I noticed that the FPS where limited to 60. Great ! I can hear the difference ! Fan makes less noise ! Don't ask me if it was the CPU or GPU fan... But I saw also the difference on the Nvidia Thermal Monitor: less heat.

60Hz is my LCD screen refresh-rate. Render more frames that will never be displayed is just useless.

But now if I'm not using an action game, and I would like to tell the driver, "just render a maximum of 20 or 40 FPS... it's far enough for my needs..." Is there a hidden setting where I can do this ? If the driver is able to limit the frames to the screen refresh rate... I'm sure it would not be a big issue to limit the rendered frames rates to another value.

PS: I don't have an option like "FPS limit" in my games.

Thanks and best regards.
Hello.



I'm new to this forum and I have a question about the driver... Is there any way to reduce the maximum number of frames per second ?



I'm using the 173.12 driver on Ubuntu 8.04 with a 8800GT board. It's working fine. Now I noticed very high frame rates (above 150) when vsync was disabled on the driver. After vsync was enabled via nvidia-settings I noticed that the FPS where limited to 60. Great ! I can hear the difference ! Fan makes less noise ! Don't ask me if it was the CPU or GPU fan... But I saw also the difference on the Nvidia Thermal Monitor: less heat.



60Hz is my LCD screen refresh-rate. Render more frames that will never be displayed is just useless.



But now if I'm not using an action game, and I would like to tell the driver, "just render a maximum of 20 or 40 FPS... it's far enough for my needs..." Is there a hidden setting where I can do this ? If the driver is able to limit the frames to the screen refresh rate... I'm sure it would not be a big issue to limit the rendered frames rates to another value.



PS: I don't have an option like "FPS limit" in my games.



Thanks and best regards.

#1
Posted 09/10/2008 02:56 PM   
Since you are linking to this posting, go ahead and close the other one. That way we can keep all the responses in one place. thanx.

There is no need to limit the max fps if you are not running 3D apps. The card can power down to almost nothing to run any 2D app like your dekstop or the web browser. If you really want to save noise and power, grab a new GeForce 200 card and an nforce Hybrid Sli mobo and let the main card turn off when not needed and just run off the onboard chip to save power and reduce noise.
Since you are linking to this posting, go ahead and close the other one. That way we can keep all the responses in one place. thanx.



There is no need to limit the max fps if you are not running 3D apps. The card can power down to almost nothing to run any 2D app like your dekstop or the web browser. If you really want to save noise and power, grab a new GeForce 200 card and an nforce Hybrid Sli mobo and let the main card turn off when not needed and just run off the onboard chip to save power and reduce noise.

#2
Posted 09/13/2008 03:15 AM   
Hello Hexen ! Thanks I found out how to close the other topic now. Back to the energy waste issue. You're right, with another board it should be possible reduce FPS. But this will also reduce minimum FPS. It's like underclocking. It will also reduce FPS when you need them the most.

When I'm talking about FPS I'm talking about 3D applications of course. Framerates are depending on many things. The first thing is of course the scene you have to render. How many polygons, particles, textures, effects, light sources... what will be the rendering cost of the things you'll display ? The quality of the 3D engine can sometimes be a problem too for framerates. Well for now computers were often unable to reach the framerates wanted by the player. He wants it smooth and fast all the time. If you push graphic details to the max and use a new game... you may get bad framerates that will affect your gameplay.

But with some applications designed a few years ago, or applications designed to work with more computers and less hardware requirements, framerates will be high all the time. In some situations, needs can change during the game: at the begining you're in a desert and later in a town full of details and much more polygons, textures, objects around you. The 1st scene will be easy for your GPU, and the loop of the game designed to render as much frames as possible may reach 200FPS. Later in town, framerates may drop to 30 or 10FPS with many "multiplayers". So I just want to limit the maximum (the useless FPS), not the minimum.

I was able to limit the maximum to the screen refresh rate (60). But I would like to go further and limit my FPS at 40 or 30. [url="http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=119297"]Dxx from the nV News Forum[/url] had a good idea with using custom resolutions and custom framerates... but I think my monitor refuses 40Hz. Will have to make more tests and read the specifications to be sure.
Hello Hexen ! Thanks I found out how to close the other topic now. Back to the energy waste issue. You're right, with another board it should be possible reduce FPS. But this will also reduce minimum FPS. It's like underclocking. It will also reduce FPS when you need them the most.



When I'm talking about FPS I'm talking about 3D applications of course. Framerates are depending on many things. The first thing is of course the scene you have to render. How many polygons, particles, textures, effects, light sources... what will be the rendering cost of the things you'll display ? The quality of the 3D engine can sometimes be a problem too for framerates. Well for now computers were often unable to reach the framerates wanted by the player. He wants it smooth and fast all the time. If you push graphic details to the max and use a new game... you may get bad framerates that will affect your gameplay.



But with some applications designed a few years ago, or applications designed to work with more computers and less hardware requirements, framerates will be high all the time. In some situations, needs can change during the game: at the begining you're in a desert and later in a town full of details and much more polygons, textures, objects around you. The 1st scene will be easy for your GPU, and the loop of the game designed to render as much frames as possible may reach 200FPS. Later in town, framerates may drop to 30 or 10FPS with many "multiplayers". So I just want to limit the maximum (the useless FPS), not the minimum.



I was able to limit the maximum to the screen refresh rate (60). But I would like to go further and limit my FPS at 40 or 30. Dxx from the nV News Forum had a good idea with using custom resolutions and custom framerates... but I think my monitor refuses 40Hz. Will have to make more tests and read the specifications to be sure.

#3
Posted 09/13/2008 02:22 PM   
I'm not quite sure why you need to do this. I mean is heat actually an issue? Are you running too close to threshold temps? If that's the case, this doesn't solve your problem because when you need all the processing power of your card just to reach 40 FPS, it's still gonna generate all that heat.
I'm not quite sure why you need to do this. I mean is heat actually an issue? Are you running too close to threshold temps? If that's the case, this doesn't solve your problem because when you need all the processing power of your card just to reach 40 FPS, it's still gonna generate all that heat.

#4
Posted 09/13/2008 02:38 PM   
Well for now heat is not really a problem. In winter it will even help me to warm the room. I have a copper heatsink with "silent" fan. I guess I'm far from the threshold temps. I saw 65°C the day I was rendering 150+FPS.

But even 60FPS is just energy waste and rendering of useless frames in many situations. But I can't imagine I'm the only one who cares about this. It's just like being in a traffic jam with powerful V12 engine. Just ridiculous.

It's not a need, it's a wish to render only what my eyes will be able to see and a wish to use my hardware more efficiently. You're right: in situations where I need all the processing power to reach 40 FPS, it will generate all that heat. But in most situations I have, I reach 60FPS (or more) and would be happy to be able to limit at 40 or 30.
Well for now heat is not really a problem. In winter it will even help me to warm the room. I have a copper heatsink with "silent" fan. I guess I'm far from the threshold temps. I saw 65°C the day I was rendering 150+FPS.



But even 60FPS is just energy waste and rendering of useless frames in many situations. But I can't imagine I'm the only one who cares about this. It's just like being in a traffic jam with powerful V12 engine. Just ridiculous.



It's not a need, it's a wish to render only what my eyes will be able to see and a wish to use my hardware more efficiently. You're right: in situations where I need all the processing power to reach 40 FPS, it will generate all that heat. But in most situations I have, I reach 60FPS (or more) and would be happy to be able to limit at 40 or 30.

#5
Posted 09/13/2008 06:50 PM   
If you're happy with performance, you could always underclock the card a little bit using Rivatuner.
If you're happy with performance, you could always underclock the card a little bit using Rivatuner.

#6
Posted 09/13/2008 07:37 PM   
Underclock the card will reduce performance in all cases: also when there's a heavy scene to render and I need the performance to reach 30FPS...

I just whant to limit the maximum, not the minimum or global performance, nor reducing image quality.

I only want to avoid rendering frames above, let's say 40FPS. Avoid the 30% of useless frames rendered by the PC I can't see because I'm a human, or don't need because I'm not in a 1st person shooter. I think 40FPS is smoth and fast enough for my eyes, when I'm not in an action game. I just want a sort of "FPS limit".

Thanks for your help if you have an idea.
Underclock the card will reduce performance in all cases: also when there's a heavy scene to render and I need the performance to reach 30FPS...



I just whant to limit the maximum, not the minimum or global performance, nor reducing image quality.



I only want to avoid rendering frames above, let's say 40FPS. Avoid the 30% of useless frames rendered by the PC I can't see because I'm a human, or don't need because I'm not in a 1st person shooter. I think 40FPS is smoth and fast enough for my eyes, when I'm not in an action game. I just want a sort of "FPS limit".



Thanks for your help if you have an idea.

#7
Posted 09/15/2008 09:41 AM   
A FPS limiter will just drop the extra frames. This doesn't reduce the heat or power consumed by a GPU. If you want to reduce heat and save power either buy a low-end card or underclock the GPU. There aren't any other ways.


Amorphous

[quote name='MdMax' date='Sep 15 2008, 01:41 AM']Underclock the card will reduce performance in all cases: also when there's a heavy scene to render and I need the performance to reach 30FPS...

I just whant to limit the maximum, not the minimum or global performance, nor reducing image quality.

I only want to avoid rendering frames above, let's say 40FPS. Avoid the 30% of useless frames rendered by the PC I can't see because I'm a human, or don't need because I'm not in a 1st person shooter. I think 40FPS is smoth and fast enough for my eyes, when I'm not in an action game. I just want a sort of "FPS limit".

Thanks for your help if you have an idea.
[right][snapback]440136[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
A FPS limiter will just drop the extra frames. This doesn't reduce the heat or power consumed by a GPU. If you want to reduce heat and save power either buy a low-end card or underclock the GPU. There aren't any other ways.





Amorphous



[quote name='MdMax' date='Sep 15 2008, 01:41 AM']Underclock the card will reduce performance in all cases: also when there's a heavy scene to render and I need the performance to reach 30FPS...



I just whant to limit the maximum, not the minimum or global performance, nor reducing image quality.



I only want to avoid rendering frames above, let's say 40FPS. Avoid the 30% of useless frames rendered by the PC I can't see because I'm a human, or don't need because I'm not in a 1st person shooter. I think 40FPS is smoth and fast enough for my eyes, when I'm not in an action game. I just want a sort of "FPS limit".



Thanks for your help if you have an idea.

[snapback]440136[/snapback]


Advanced Moderator Operations and Recursive Posting Hermetic/Omnigenous User-Simulating AI



Overclocking Hall of Fame - Post your 3DMark scores today!



NVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate

the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the members.

#8
Posted 09/15/2008 11:01 PM   
One thought would be to lower your refresh rate on your monitor (say 30Hz?) and then turn V. Sync on.

But like Morph said, heat and power consumption should remain close to original spec so I don't quite see what this accomplishes. A V. Sync at 60Hz gives great IQ and keeps the screen fluid.
One thought would be to lower your refresh rate on your monitor (say 30Hz?) and then turn V. Sync on.



But like Morph said, heat and power consumption should remain close to original spec so I don't quite see what this accomplishes. A V. Sync at 60Hz gives great IQ and keeps the screen fluid.

#9
Posted 09/16/2008 08:01 AM   
Since you don't like framerate caps the only way you can lower the framerate further is if you disable triple buffering while using vsync. Then in some situations your framerate will drop to 30 FPS or even 15 FPS if you do this, though it's not guaranteed. Another way is to crank up your AA level to bring down the framerate.

[quote]A FPS limiter will just drop the extra frames. This doesn't reduce the heat or power consumed by a GPU.[/quote]
Uh, this is plain false. Framerate caps and vsync reduce the workload of the card as it doesn't process as many frames so it reduces power consumption and heat.

For example, I found with my 8800 Ultra that Doom 3 based games don't spin up its fan as much as other games because they're capped to 60 FPS. Also enabling vsync and/or framerate limiters in Quake 3 based games had the same effect.
Since you don't like framerate caps the only way you can lower the framerate further is if you disable triple buffering while using vsync. Then in some situations your framerate will drop to 30 FPS or even 15 FPS if you do this, though it's not guaranteed. Another way is to crank up your AA level to bring down the framerate.



A FPS limiter will just drop the extra frames. This doesn't reduce the heat or power consumed by a GPU.


Uh, this is plain false. Framerate caps and vsync reduce the workload of the card as it doesn't process as many frames so it reduces power consumption and heat.



For example, I found with my 8800 Ultra that Doom 3 based games don't spin up its fan as much as other games because they're capped to 60 FPS. Also enabling vsync and/or framerate limiters in Quake 3 based games had the same effect.

#10
Posted 09/16/2008 01:35 PM   
Hi All !

OK I made a test with keeping my monitor at 60Hz. I decided to measure the power usage of my whole system in 3 situations: My system includes an inverter, the computer (E8400 + 8800GT + 2Gb RAM), a monitor, a modem/router...

Test was made with Ubuntu Linux and the 173.14.12 official Nvidia driver: 8xAA, 4xAF. I tested several games. Most of them do not care about maximum frame rates.

But others are fine, for example, now in X-Plane (9.21) you can select these options in the game:
- lock to or below the frame-rate of your monitor
- lock to or below half the frame-rate of your monitor

30 FPS is far enough for most flight situations.

Here's a picture where you can see my system using [b]118W[/b] (idle, on the desktop):

[url="http://img376.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wdpowerpc8.jpg"]http://img376.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wdpowerpc8.jpg[/url]

[url="http://img376.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wdpowerpc8.jpg"][img]http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/489/wdpowerpc8.jpg[/img][/url]

I took [url="http://torcs.sourceforge.net/"]TORCS[/url] to test how much it can cost to render useless frames. TORCS is a nice car racing game (free and open), but with games like X-Plane, Quake 4, Second Life, you may find similar results:

- With [b]VSync ON[/b], game locked at 60FPS, [b]127W[/b].
- With [b]VSync OFF[/b], game between 220-250FPS, [b]152W[/b].

That's 25W more for useless frames that my monitor will never display completely. This also explains why the fan is faster. ;)


Well if I select a lower refresh rate (30Hz or 40Hz), it works in some situations... I may find a power usage between 118 and 127W. It can be usefull on overheating notebooks with bad heatsinks and fans. But I had some bugs: like a game detecting a 16bit color mode and refused to start... I had a 24bit color mode...

So a lower refresh rate does not always work fine, and it's not easy to setup in Linux: you have to play with your xorg.conf file...

In Windows, selecting a lower refresh rate is much easier using the NVidia control panel and the custom modes. But I still had the color mode bug in one game.

So it would still be nice to have a maximum frame rate setting in the driver, and a VSync activated by default when a Nvidia driver is installed on a new system. Most people don't care about settings and power usage.
Hi All !



OK I made a test with keeping my monitor at 60Hz. I decided to measure the power usage of my whole system in 3 situations: My system includes an inverter, the computer (E8400 + 8800GT + 2Gb RAM), a monitor, a modem/router...



Test was made with Ubuntu Linux and the 173.14.12 official Nvidia driver: 8xAA, 4xAF. I tested several games. Most of them do not care about maximum frame rates.



But others are fine, for example, now in X-Plane (9.21) you can select these options in the game:

- lock to or below the frame-rate of your monitor

- lock to or below half the frame-rate of your monitor



30 FPS is far enough for most flight situations.



Here's a picture where you can see my system using 118W (idle, on the desktop):



http://img376.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wdpowerpc8.jpg



Image



I took TORCS to test how much it can cost to render useless frames. TORCS is a nice car racing game (free and open), but with games like X-Plane, Quake 4, Second Life, you may find similar results:



- With VSync ON, game locked at 60FPS, 127W.

- With VSync OFF, game between 220-250FPS, 152W.



That's 25W more for useless frames that my monitor will never display completely. This also explains why the fan is faster. ;)





Well if I select a lower refresh rate (30Hz or 40Hz), it works in some situations... I may find a power usage between 118 and 127W. It can be usefull on overheating notebooks with bad heatsinks and fans. But I had some bugs: like a game detecting a 16bit color mode and refused to start... I had a 24bit color mode...



So a lower refresh rate does not always work fine, and it's not easy to setup in Linux: you have to play with your xorg.conf file...



In Windows, selecting a lower refresh rate is much easier using the NVidia control panel and the custom modes. But I still had the color mode bug in one game.



So it would still be nice to have a maximum frame rate setting in the driver, and a VSync activated by default when a Nvidia driver is installed on a new system. Most people don't care about settings and power usage.

#11
Posted 10/19/2008 11:30 AM   
Hello again !

After the test with TORCS, I made another test with a free game: [url="http://secondlife.com/"]Second Life[/url]

While TORCS just displays in a corner of the screen how much FPS it renders, in Second Life you need to open a [url="http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Statistics_Bar_Guide"]Statistics Bar[/url].

[url="http://img381.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sl210fpshg5.png"][img]http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/9913/sl210fpshg5.png[/img][/url]

Of course you will not always get 210 FPS like me here. It depends a lot on the situation and what's around you. But builders like desert regions to avoid lag and when they zoom to display only a few polygons, they may even reach higher frame rates.

Now I wanted only to measure the power usage of what's in my PC tower case. Here are the results:

Electrical Power Wire connected but system off: [b]18W[/b]
System on, idle, only running the OS and Firefox: [b]84W[/b]
Second Life running at [b]60FPS[/b] (limited with VSync in driver): [b]108W[/b]
Second Life running at [b]210FPS[/b] (unlimited, VSync off): [b]140W[/b]

As you can see, you can waste about 32W on a system like mine if you forget to enable VSync ! But how can I run this game with less than 60FPS ? [b]Here again, a FPS limiter inside the driver would be very useful ![/b]
Hello again !



After the test with TORCS, I made another test with a free game: Second Life



While TORCS just displays in a corner of the screen how much FPS it renders, in Second Life you need to open a Statistics Bar.



Image



Of course you will not always get 210 FPS like me here. It depends a lot on the situation and what's around you. But builders like desert regions to avoid lag and when they zoom to display only a few polygons, they may even reach higher frame rates.



Now I wanted only to measure the power usage of what's in my PC tower case. Here are the results:



Electrical Power Wire connected but system off: 18W

System on, idle, only running the OS and Firefox: 84W

Second Life running at 60FPS (limited with VSync in driver): 108W

Second Life running at 210FPS (unlimited, VSync off): 140W



As you can see, you can waste about 32W on a system like mine if you forget to enable VSync ! But how can I run this game with less than 60FPS ? Here again, a FPS limiter inside the driver would be very useful !

#12
Posted 10/24/2008 07:31 PM   
So....what...?
So....what...?

#13
Posted 10/24/2008 09:55 PM   
I'm glad Nvidia is now considering adding this feature in their drivers ! /thumbup.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thumbup:' />
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=201570&st=80&p=1289441&#entry1289441
I'm glad Nvidia is now considering adding this feature in their drivers ! /thumbup.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thumbup:' />

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=201570&st=80&p=1289441&#entry1289441

#14
Posted 12/31/2011 10:37 AM   
[quote name='MdMax' date='31 December 2011 - 10:37 AM' timestamp='1325327835' post='1349581']
I'm glad Nvidia is now considering adding this feature in their drivers ! /thumbup.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thumbup:' />
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=201570&st=80&p=1289441&#entry1289441
[/quote]
Necromancy! Anyway, if you were running the newest drivers on windows [url="http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=218925&st=40&p=1345512&#entry1345512"]this post would be of interest.[/url]

But I guess that is a better link for your interest than the one you just posted.
[quote name='MdMax' date='31 December 2011 - 10:37 AM' timestamp='1325327835' post='1349581']

I'm glad Nvidia is now considering adding this feature in their drivers ! /thumbup.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':thumbup:' />

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=201570&st=80&p=1289441&#entry1289441



Necromancy! Anyway, if you were running the newest drivers on windows this post would be of interest.



But I guess that is a better link for your interest than the one you just posted.

GPU: MSI GTX560Ti Twin Frozr II OC 880/4200 (factory overclock)

Monitor: Dell 2312HM 1920x1080@60hz
Monitor/TV: LG32LH5000 1920x1080@50hz

#15
Posted 12/31/2011 02:27 PM   
  1 / 2    
Scroll To Top