|
|
|
|
|
|
by taw55
3251 days ago
|
|
|
I don't think that's correct. The way I understand it tripple buffering adds latency in exchange for higher sub display hz framerates. Double buffering renders the next frame while displaying the current.
That results in latency of 1 frame since input.
Triple buffering adds another frame to the queue, resulting in a 2 frame lag. With double buffering the framerate gets cut in half if it cannot meet vsync, with triple buffering it can also get cut in thirds. So double buffering is 60 -> 30, where the frame lasts 2 refreshes. Triple is 60 -> 40, where one frame is displayed for 1 refresh and another is displayed for 2. Nowadays it's probably better to use adaptive vsync, which simply disables vsync when the framerate drops. This will reintroduce tearing, which might be preferable in fast action games. |
|
|
"In triple buffering the program has two back buffers and can immediately start drawing in the one that is not involved in such copying. The third buffer, the front buffer, is read by the graphics card to display the image on the monitor. Once the image has been sent to the monitor, the front buffer is flipped with (or copied from) the back buffer holding the most recent complete image. Since one of the back buffers is always complete, the graphics card never has to wait for the software to complete. Consequently, the software and the graphics card are completely independent and can run at their own pace. Finally, the displayed image was started without waiting for synchronization and thus with minimum lag.[1]
Due to the software algorithm not having to poll the graphics hardware for monitor refresh events, the algorithm is free to run as fast as possible. This can mean that several drawings that are never displayed are written to the back buffers. Nvidia has implemented this method under the name "Fast sync"."