Originally posted by Migz - DH:

Originally posted by VN Michael Doan:

turn of VSYNC too, IMHO t's useless and most of the time, it just slow down your game a lot

Vertical Synchronization (VSync) is neither useless nor does it slow down games. For a start, VSync can reduce screen tearing when the framerate numeric value (e.g., 60 FPS) greatly differs from a monitor's refresh rate numeric value (e.g., 60 Hz). It can also be used to keep GPUs from getting very hot by limiting the work required in systems which are GPU bound.

If one uses VSync without triple buffering the frames, visible latency between player actions and events on the screen (e.g., "laggy" mouse movement) may be seen, so I always recommend triple buffering when using VSync.

That's weird, I play battlefield 4 and starcraft 2 on near max setting on my laptop, there's a huge difference between turning Vsync on and off, it does improve performance a lot in my case if you turn it off

Rome II was on a new engine :/

Originally posted by VN Michael Doan:

That's weird, I play battlefield 4 and starcraft 2 on near max setting on my laptop, there's a huge difference between turning Vsync on and off, it does improve performance a lot in my case if you turn it off

Three thoughts on that (I'm assuming you're talking about framerates and not input latency):

1. While VSync does require a small amount of GPU/CPU time, it's almost impossible for players to notice the effort being done to make VSync work, because by design, VSync changes a system's framerate to specific, locked values. This is different from with VSync off where players can watch the framerate to see how each setting affects the work load.

2. By design, VSync limits the GPU output to specific values. If a system with VSync off runs a scene at 200 FPS, with VSync on with a 60 Hz monitor, it'll run at 60 FPS. So, yes, the performance is dropped, but that's intended.

3. If a system can't maintain a framerate value equal to or higher than the monitor's refresh rate, yes, VSync can, by design, drop the GPU's framerate to simple fractions (e.g., 2/3 or 1/2) of the monitor's refresh rate, and this is also intended.
-- Example: if a 60 Hz monitor's system can only do 50 FPS, VSync could drop the framerate down to 40 FPS (i.e., 2/3 of 60) to keep it matched with the monitor.

------------------------

If your laptop isn't capable of maintaining 60 FPS in the games you mentioned, and you don't experience screen tearing with VSync off, then playing with VSync off is probably the correct choice for you.

However, for other systems, using VSync might be very useful for some of the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post.

Originally posted by Yang Law-Li:

Rome II was on a new engine :/

CA used an evolutionary step of the Warscape engine to create TW: Rome 2.

CA has used versions of the Warscape engine for every Total War game since Empire: Total War.

So, no, it's not a completely new engine, but yes, there are some differences from the previous Warscape versions.

Originally posted by y3ivan:

Vsync only helps to remove screen tearing and unsynchronized refreshrates between GPU and Display. If user do not encounter any of those, it is absolutely no point switching them on, since they draw some GPU power on to it.

While VSync does help with screen tearing (as I previously wrote above), that is not the only reason to use VSync. As I also wrote above, VSync can be used to keep GPUs from running at high usage. For instance, if a game with VSync off runs at 300 FPS with the GPU at 99% usage, a player can turn on VSync at 60 Hz, and the GPU usage would drop dramatically.

As to GPU power required to use VSync, as I wrote to VN Michael Doan above, the small amount of effort to make VSync work is almost undetectable by players, because the process itself forces framerates to specific values which will be lower than what the system would run with VSync off.

So, while a GPU might use 0.25% more frametime syncing the frames to the refresh rate, that value will almost always be insignificant compared to the framerate drop required to match the refresh rate.

And, since the GPU will be doing less work with VSync on, because the framerate is lower, the overall power used by the GPU with VSync on will be less than with it off in virtually all cases.

Originally posted by y3ivan:

It does not magically improve FPS or improve imput latency but the opposite (slightly due to buffer time)

I didn't say that VSync improves framerates or input latency.

I said that in order to avoid a visible latency caused by VSync people should use the triple buffering option (in their driver).

Not that VSync has any effect on the appearance of any screenshots of course. The VSync topic is a complete side-track for this thread, and I'm sorry, OP, that it's gone on as long as it has.

Originally posted by Migz - DH:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=381620011
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=381621221

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=381620086
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=381621278

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=381620406
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=381621344

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=381620477
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=381621418

Finally somebody puts screenshots side by side. I don't see any blazing differences between the quality of Rome and Shogun that warrants such criticisms of Rome. Can the OP explain?

Originally posted by Brutus Magna:

I don't see any blazing differences between the quality of Rome and Shogun that warrants such criticisms of Rome. Can the OP explain?

TW: Rome 2 would look better if it had MSAA options like TW: Shogun 2 does, but I agree, other than that, I think they both look pretty good.

CA just sucks nowdays, just dont buy their ♥♥♥♥ products, problem solved. just pushing DLC and new releases instead of delivering what they have promised to deliver. Rome 2 is just pure and utter rubbish. Shogun 2 was atleast somwhat playable, this is NOT

Originally posted by Tutor:

CA just sucks nowdays, just dont buy their ♥♥♥♥ products, problem solved. just pushing DLC and new releases instead of delivering what they have promised to deliver. Rome 2 is just pure and utter rubbish. Shogun 2 was atleast somwhat playable, this is NOT

According to your profile, you have 30 hours in-game and apparently haven't played since September of 2013, so I suspect your knowledge of the game's state is greatly out of date.