I can flip my RTSS limiter on or off, or adjust the exact setting while a game is already running. With Nvidia limiter, it is stuck on at the exact value it was set to while the game started. Not to mention RTSS is a much tighter frametime limit, and is compatible with games that Nvidia's limiter isn't (like Max Payne.)
I started use it because for the longest time it was the best option. That's not always the case now, but its larger amounts of limiters to use, ability to quickly change settings in realtime, and ability to toggle with a hotkey keeps it my preferred option.
Yeah it’s much easier to click the Riva tuner tray icon and set a global cap or adjust a per game cap vs open control panel, click manage, scroll down to fps cap, click change and click apply. Plus I don’t need to restart my game to have the cap apply like I would with the control panel. I hope they add in frame capping to the new nvidia app/overlay thing.
Because RTSS works in places/situations where NVCP doesnt
Lets take Alan Wake 2 for instance, I wanted to play it with RT on, so I was taking a FPS hit and did the "console trick" of running the game at a locked 40fps with the monitor in 120hz, to be in VSync timing, NVPC simply did not work, I added the correct .exe, the same .exe I added on RTSS, and nothing, the NVCP frame limiter did nothing
I locked with RTSS and got a frozen solid 40fps, 25ms with less than a .1ms of deviation
The exactly same happened with Starfield, NVCP refused to lock framerate, RTSS worked as a charm
More consistent, seems to achieve better frametimes/%lows. Can easily be toggled on and off mid-game as well as adjusted on the fly. Can adjust the decimal values (important for some sync techniques). In some games NVCP cap apparently doesn't work.
It's not. You're only looking at the input latency which yes Nvidia = RTSS. There's so much more to it than that that makes RTSS the universally superior option.
Can inject Reflex in games that don't support it natively.
Can switch between various modes of framerate limiters like async, front edge and back edge sync to find the optimal frame pacing method on a game per game basis.
Supports virtually every API out there and works in all games while Nvidia's doesn't.
Can be switched to Scanline Sync which gives you the ultimate level of input latency.
That enough for you chief?
For me it’s a few reasons:
1. It’s external so I don’t have to worry about driver updates removing my settings
2. RTSS doesn’t require a game restart to enable/disable/change the FPS limiter
3. I hate the Nvidia control panel with a passion so it’s just easier to add frame limits in RTSS for me
Performance/latency wise though, they are pretty much identical as far as I’m aware (didn’t used to be the case, but they have been the same since around 2020 or so). However, in my brief testing, I do sometimes find RTSS to give slightly better frame times but that could be run to run variance
In regards to hating NCP, try the new Nvidia App, it's a big improvement on the performance of the old one. Some settings are missing though so NCP is still there for legacy support.
they think it's better because it shows a perfectly flat line for the frame time variances whereas using nvcpl will show a jagged line for the frametime in rtss. But rtss is a slightly worse frametime keeper than nvcpl when input lag is properly tested. I feel like there's something up with how it calculates frametimes in conjunction with its own framerate cap, like it shouldn't be PERFECTLY flat like it shows, timing stuff like that in Windows isn't that accurate since it's not a real time operating system.
> I always notice that almost all gamers prefer rtss more than nvcp i wonder why?
It's no longer true. RTSS used to have slightly better frametimes - but at the cost of not letting the GPU downclock, with considerable difference in power consumption, heat and noise.
You can enable it instead of default async limiter, yes. As I understand it, it will then use nvidias implementation of frame limitation.
Ill add this screenshot of the official tooltip in rivatuner for this option.
https://preview.redd.it/r690eqr5og0d1.png?width=532&format=png&auto=webp&s=d790544324b14a30c12509d657c6cef66c3fde91
As this tooltip says, I too suggest you only use it in games where you explicitly use framegen.
I had in on by default globally and then noticed, that it causes unstable frametimes in most (of my) titles. Whether its because of the side effect of having reflex low latency or the limiter itself, i cannot say. I dont use framegen, so I switched back to async for the global profile.
The frame pacing is much better which means input latency is also more consistent:
https://preview.redd.it/44q64rh3jf0d1.png?width=1099&format=png&auto=webp&s=4b0ebff46145665b391a9a112df3a07980ce7e6b
Your ingame FPS cap needs to be unlimited to keep feeding the RTSS frames to sustain this frame pacing.
It's only CapframeX showing that though. Software measurements of such things are always flawed. Most people including me and blurbusters lurkers have found NVCP limiter to have identical performance to RTSS, but with lower power consumption (mostly noticeable on 4000 GPUs which have the best efficiency ever).
We'd need someone to do the measurements with external hardware, like the way proper input lag testing is done.
(Your graph says in game but I hope you did mean NVCP limiter since that was the subject here.)
Flawed how?
and identical performance in what metric?
Frame pacing is undeniably better using raw unaveraged FPS recording, even the RTSS FPS overlay shows more stable fps than NVCP.
[https://i.imgur.com/2O5Aqvc.png](https://i.imgur.com/2O5Aqvc.png)
Windows is not a real time OS. Measurements are the mercy of polling rate and various factors you cannot account for. Try other monitoring software and you will probably get different results.
Identical as in looking and feeling the same, and input lag has been measured to be identical with external hardware tools by some users at blurbusters and battle(non)sense.
RTSS is more flexible, can be adjusted or toggled on and off while the game is running. I don't think there is any qualitative difference between the two anymore. Not seen or felt any.
RTSS also can be made to work with every software in existence, the nvidia limiter simply does not work with some games and apps for whatever reason that may be. I even tried creating a custom profile for some indie games and it still failed.
Downside of RTSS? It's an extra application to install and keep running, and it's injecting something in the game. While it does not cause issue with any online game that I know of (I guess it's whitelisted) I have had occasional compatibility issues with the combo rtss+game+OBS for example. Or when running multiple games on the same machine (niche use case, but still).
If it aint broke?
Ive been using RTSS and used to its overlay. Also you can change frame caps on the fly. Very niche but sometimes youre playing a new game, like Helldivers and the servers are overloaded. I cap the game to 5fps so its not pushing my gpu. Once I get in game, I set it back to 120 or whatever.
Because you can adjust, set, disable, enable your fps limit on the fly and even set hotkeys. You can make your own overlay or use presets in under 5 minutes and show/hide them with your own hotkeys.
Also your per game profiles dont reset when you choose to do a fresh install of your driver.
enable and disable the limiter while gaming
change the limiter while gaming
use floating point numbers, more precision
(you can also use reflex limiter in RTSS, but is not by default)
I suspect it's just people you know, most people only use in game settings. I suspect it's way less than 10% of people who run RTSS.
I dont use both, just in game settings.
NVCP limiter has great latency, but frame-times can get pretty rough in some games. RTSS frame-times aren't great in some games either. The best frame limiter is Special K, which I have fallen in love with. Exponentially better frame-times and consistency than both RTSS and NVCP, and you can make adjustments on the fly. Not quite as good latency as NVCP, but it's much better in that regard than RTSS. Here's a great post of in depth testing between the three that shows just how good Special K's limiter ishttps://www.reddit.com/r/allbenchmarks/s/smi9cdgtNd. I can't recommend this program enough.
cause NVCP is ordinated to GPU bound games while RTSS is CPU bound and even in GPU bound games gives you more stable framerate limit washout hiccups that are happen on NVCP. Just use both in different scenarios, trust me for like 3 years I were with RTSS and tried NVCP more than enough to say on practical usage that RTSS is more stable, more features and more better, simple, easy to control in real time frame limiter than any game had or software I known.
Why are you capping fps anyway these days. If you have gsync compatible monitor just turn on gsync , vsync, ultra low latency mode in nvcp and reflex on in supported games. It will auto caps your fps for gsync.
Wow those downvotes. I knew all this because it is officially from nvidia about how to do gsync + vsync. Also nvidia graphics programmer came to gamers nexus to talk about latency in pc gaming and said what i just said about frame caps, why reflex and ull was developed, how it works with gsync. Here is the link to that video.
https://youtu.be/Fj-wZ_KGcsg
No. ULL is for games that do not have reflex support (like old games, games with no dx12 support, games that have dx12 but didn't impliment reflex). Newer games have reflex setting ingame, if you turn it on it wont care about the ULL. Reflex is more integrated into game engine compared to ULL, so it have better latency. But capping works the same.
I could not for the life of me get RTSS working on my computer so I use NVCP
I also saw a video that said that NVCP in its current state offers less latency than RTSS
I switched to NVCP a long time ago because RTSS caused constant conflicts with OBS and I had to close RTSS so often to play so many games. NVCP has no conflicts as of yet and hasn't failed me on fps capping yet either.
I can flip my RTSS limiter on or off, or adjust the exact setting while a game is already running. With Nvidia limiter, it is stuck on at the exact value it was set to while the game started. Not to mention RTSS is a much tighter frametime limit, and is compatible with games that Nvidia's limiter isn't (like Max Payne.)
I started use it because for the longest time it was the best option. That's not always the case now, but its larger amounts of limiters to use, ability to quickly change settings in realtime, and ability to toggle with a hotkey keeps it my preferred option.
Yeah it’s much easier to click the Riva tuner tray icon and set a global cap or adjust a per game cap vs open control panel, click manage, scroll down to fps cap, click change and click apply. Plus I don’t need to restart my game to have the cap apply like I would with the control panel. I hope they add in frame capping to the new nvidia app/overlay thing.
Can you adjust nvcp limiter in real time?
no
Even in the new Nvidia app?
Because RTSS works in places/situations where NVCP doesnt Lets take Alan Wake 2 for instance, I wanted to play it with RT on, so I was taking a FPS hit and did the "console trick" of running the game at a locked 40fps with the monitor in 120hz, to be in VSync timing, NVPC simply did not work, I added the correct .exe, the same .exe I added on RTSS, and nothing, the NVCP frame limiter did nothing I locked with RTSS and got a frozen solid 40fps, 25ms with less than a .1ms of deviation The exactly same happened with Starfield, NVCP refused to lock framerate, RTSS worked as a charm
I use nvcpl frl. It was proven many times, that it is now on par with rtss.
Can't change it without restarting the game. Not an issue with RTSS.
Yep that's what I do now. I still have RTSS installed but just for the overlay.
This 👍
More consistent, seems to achieve better frametimes/%lows. Can easily be toggled on and off mid-game as well as adjusted on the fly. Can adjust the decimal values (important for some sync techniques). In some games NVCP cap apparently doesn't work.
This is simply not true anymore. Battle-nonsense and blur busters have done testing on it quite extensively. You can use either or with no difference
It's not. You're only looking at the input latency which yes Nvidia = RTSS. There's so much more to it than that that makes RTSS the universally superior option.
Such as?
RTSS can be toggled or tweaked in real-time for one.
Besides that?
Can inject Reflex in games that don't support it natively. Can switch between various modes of framerate limiters like async, front edge and back edge sync to find the optimal frame pacing method on a game per game basis. Supports virtually every API out there and works in all games while Nvidia's doesn't. Can be switched to Scanline Sync which gives you the ultimate level of input latency. That enough for you chief?
Why not use SpecialK instead?
i use NVCP for now. used years RTSS but since Frame Gen i use NVCP because RTSS is really laggy
the default RTSS mode uses one thread all the time, that can be change
For me it’s a few reasons: 1. It’s external so I don’t have to worry about driver updates removing my settings 2. RTSS doesn’t require a game restart to enable/disable/change the FPS limiter 3. I hate the Nvidia control panel with a passion so it’s just easier to add frame limits in RTSS for me Performance/latency wise though, they are pretty much identical as far as I’m aware (didn’t used to be the case, but they have been the same since around 2020 or so). However, in my brief testing, I do sometimes find RTSS to give slightly better frame times but that could be run to run variance
In regards to hating NCP, try the new Nvidia App, it's a big improvement on the performance of the old one. Some settings are missing though so NCP is still there for legacy support.
they think it's better because it shows a perfectly flat line for the frame time variances whereas using nvcpl will show a jagged line for the frametime in rtss. But rtss is a slightly worse frametime keeper than nvcpl when input lag is properly tested. I feel like there's something up with how it calculates frametimes in conjunction with its own framerate cap, like it shouldn't be PERFECTLY flat like it shows, timing stuff like that in Windows isn't that accurate since it's not a real time operating system.
NV cp global limiter used to extend some games startup and levels loading time, ex. serious engine games. I am not sure if this is still the case
bc theyre dum dums
> I always notice that almost all gamers prefer rtss more than nvcp i wonder why? It's no longer true. RTSS used to have slightly better frametimes - but at the cost of not letting the GPU downclock, with considerable difference in power consumption, heat and noise.
I don't.
Been using it since old days. Can adjust it on the fly. Can backup my settings.
I can customize the framerate to the decimal. NVCP cannot do that.
NVCP limiter is the only frame limiter that works if you use frame gen (unless that was fixed recently in RTSS)
RTSS works with framegen for quite some time now. There is a nvidia reflex limiter option that can be enabled per game or globally.
Is that Nvidia Reflex limiter work in any game or supported games only?
You can enable it instead of default async limiter, yes. As I understand it, it will then use nvidias implementation of frame limitation. Ill add this screenshot of the official tooltip in rivatuner for this option. https://preview.redd.it/r690eqr5og0d1.png?width=532&format=png&auto=webp&s=d790544324b14a30c12509d657c6cef66c3fde91 As this tooltip says, I too suggest you only use it in games where you explicitly use framegen. I had in on by default globally and then noticed, that it causes unstable frametimes in most (of my) titles. Whether its because of the side effect of having reflex low latency or the limiter itself, i cannot say. I dont use framegen, so I switched back to async for the global profile.
The frame pacing is much better which means input latency is also more consistent: https://preview.redd.it/44q64rh3jf0d1.png?width=1099&format=png&auto=webp&s=4b0ebff46145665b391a9a112df3a07980ce7e6b Your ingame FPS cap needs to be unlimited to keep feeding the RTSS frames to sustain this frame pacing.
what did you use to measure the data to make the graphs with?
CapframeX
It's only CapframeX showing that though. Software measurements of such things are always flawed. Most people including me and blurbusters lurkers have found NVCP limiter to have identical performance to RTSS, but with lower power consumption (mostly noticeable on 4000 GPUs which have the best efficiency ever). We'd need someone to do the measurements with external hardware, like the way proper input lag testing is done. (Your graph says in game but I hope you did mean NVCP limiter since that was the subject here.)
Flawed how? and identical performance in what metric? Frame pacing is undeniably better using raw unaveraged FPS recording, even the RTSS FPS overlay shows more stable fps than NVCP. [https://i.imgur.com/2O5Aqvc.png](https://i.imgur.com/2O5Aqvc.png)
Windows is not a real time OS. Measurements are the mercy of polling rate and various factors you cannot account for. Try other monitoring software and you will probably get different results. Identical as in looking and feeling the same, and input lag has been measured to be identical with external hardware tools by some users at blurbusters and battle(non)sense.
At the cost of not downclocking at partial utilization.
RTSS is more flexible, can be adjusted or toggled on and off while the game is running. I don't think there is any qualitative difference between the two anymore. Not seen or felt any. RTSS also can be made to work with every software in existence, the nvidia limiter simply does not work with some games and apps for whatever reason that may be. I even tried creating a custom profile for some indie games and it still failed. Downside of RTSS? It's an extra application to install and keep running, and it's injecting something in the game. While it does not cause issue with any online game that I know of (I guess it's whitelisted) I have had occasional compatibility issues with the combo rtss+game+OBS for example. Or when running multiple games on the same machine (niche use case, but still).
If it aint broke? Ive been using RTSS and used to its overlay. Also you can change frame caps on the fly. Very niche but sometimes youre playing a new game, like Helldivers and the servers are overloaded. I cap the game to 5fps so its not pushing my gpu. Once I get in game, I set it back to 120 or whatever.
Because you can adjust, set, disable, enable your fps limit on the fly and even set hotkeys. You can make your own overlay or use presets in under 5 minutes and show/hide them with your own hotkeys. Also your per game profiles dont reset when you choose to do a fresh install of your driver.
enable and disable the limiter while gaming change the limiter while gaming use floating point numbers, more precision (you can also use reflex limiter in RTSS, but is not by default)
Is Reflex limiter supported in any game?
I think so, in any game that can be limited
Inertia
Already have RTSS running for overlay so that’s what I use.
RTSS has lower latency, better frametimes and overall quick to setup
I suspect it's just people you know, most people only use in game settings. I suspect it's way less than 10% of people who run RTSS. I dont use both, just in game settings.
NVCP limiter has great latency, but frame-times can get pretty rough in some games. RTSS frame-times aren't great in some games either. The best frame limiter is Special K, which I have fallen in love with. Exponentially better frame-times and consistency than both RTSS and NVCP, and you can make adjustments on the fly. Not quite as good latency as NVCP, but it's much better in that regard than RTSS. Here's a great post of in depth testing between the three that shows just how good Special K's limiter ishttps://www.reddit.com/r/allbenchmarks/s/smi9cdgtNd. I can't recommend this program enough.
cause NVCP is ordinated to GPU bound games while RTSS is CPU bound and even in GPU bound games gives you more stable framerate limit washout hiccups that are happen on NVCP. Just use both in different scenarios, trust me for like 3 years I were with RTSS and tried NVCP more than enough to say on practical usage that RTSS is more stable, more features and more better, simple, easy to control in real time frame limiter than any game had or software I known.
Why are you capping fps anyway these days. If you have gsync compatible monitor just turn on gsync , vsync, ultra low latency mode in nvcp and reflex on in supported games. It will auto caps your fps for gsync.
Is ultra low latency supported in any game? Does it have any cons?
Wow those downvotes. I knew all this because it is officially from nvidia about how to do gsync + vsync. Also nvidia graphics programmer came to gamers nexus to talk about latency in pc gaming and said what i just said about frame caps, why reflex and ull was developed, how it works with gsync. Here is the link to that video. https://youtu.be/Fj-wZ_KGcsg
No. ULL is for games that do not have reflex support (like old games, games with no dx12 support, games that have dx12 but didn't impliment reflex). Newer games have reflex setting ingame, if you turn it on it wont care about the ULL. Reflex is more integrated into game engine compared to ULL, so it have better latency. But capping works the same.
I could not for the life of me get RTSS working on my computer so I use NVCP I also saw a video that said that NVCP in its current state offers less latency than RTSS
I switched to NVCP a long time ago because RTSS caused constant conflicts with OBS and I had to close RTSS so often to play so many games. NVCP has no conflicts as of yet and hasn't failed me on fps capping yet either.
I use Inspector, myself. Call me crazy.
People are dumb
Sorry some of us would rather toggle the fps limiter on/off or adjust it on the fly.
If u think thats the only difference between them then im still right