Possibly Reduce Input Lag, System Latency, and Stutters, and Possibly Raise FPS

[Spinelli]

What is Timer Resolution?
How did this application get created?
Answered here --> http://www.lucashale.com/timer-resolution/

The free v1.2 works perfectly with Win 7, 8, and 8.1. Also, it sets the timer resolution to 0.500ms (which is what it should be for best results) rather than only 1.000ms like the chart says.

Just download the free v1.2, open it, click "maximum", see the number change from either 15.625 or 1.001, to 0.500, and minimize the program. Make sure to not actually close it though.


NOTE: Some games can request a lower timer from Windows, for example 10.000ms or even 1.000ms - and I'm betting most sims, especially ISI-engine based ones, do this - but this program will ensure you're running at just 0.500ms.


- Some people get framerate increases, some get quite large framerate increases in certain areas of CryEngine games like Crysis 3.

- It may reduce overall PC-system latency (great for people trying to run a server, or just overall PC and gaming use in general)

- It may reduce input lag (obviously great for simracing)

- Some people running servers have reported smoother online experiences due to the reduced latency

I have experienced slightly less input lag in some games with this program in the backround and have now made a habit of always running it - especially during gaming - for the past few years. In an absolute worst-case scenario it won't do any harm.


Some people's/gamers' experiences:

A.

According to http://www.shoot-em.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3981 my little program TimerResolution can be used to run a lag free counter strike server.

The internal windows timer is optimized for desktop applications and not for game servers.
This timer controls the time a thread gains to do it's work. By the default this interval is too long and you won't get more than 100 fps without lowering it.

(referring to a Counter Strike gaming server)

B.

C.

I’m told one of the uses for TimerResolution is to help reduce DPC Latency on Windows. This is supposed to improve performance of many games and applications.

I suspect that all that is really happening is that some poorly written drivers are getting a boost.

A great utility to check the DPC Latency on your system is http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml, try it with and without TimerResolution running and see if it makes any difference on your system.

For a long technical write-up about all this stuff (way over my head) --> https://randomascii.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/windows-timer-resolution-megawatts-wasted/



P.S. Tim Wheatley from ISI immediately locked my thread about this on the ISI forums (yes, a technical PC program which may help simracers apparently cannot even be discussed there, not even just for the sake of testing and curiosity - unbelievable), and then banned me for an entire month just because I re-posted about it, so I am posting it here (RD is my 2nd most visited forum). I would love to hear people's feedback regarding the Windows timer resolution changes(which, in a worst case scenario, shouldn't do anything bad). I tried doing DPC latency tests using the program "LatencyMon" but I have no idea how to read all the values in that program. The program "Latency Check" (link in point "C") seems simpler to use/read but I haven't tried it yet.

 

[Spinelli]

Marc, why are you posting here if you have nothing to contribute? Just to fight?

I never said that decreasing the windows resolution timer down to 0.500ms is a godsend that'll magically fix everyones machines. Please stop "putting words in my mouth".

However, it has been PROVEN to lower DPC latency, which in-turn may have positive benefits. It has been PROVEN to increase fps in some CryEngine games. It has been PROVEN to help with running servers (most notably in CounterStrike). And on top of that, some audio engineers who need the absolute lowest DPC latency have mentioned their use of a 0.500ms setting. That seems like A LOT of proof and evidence regarding good results. So why can I not let people know about this?

Also, again (I've said this multiple times now), setting it to 0.500ms will not cause any harm. Noone that I've read about has reported a negative experience in doing so. I've also been using it for years and leave it running all the time, and it's never cause a problem, ever.

This is just a technical discussion about DPC latency and gaming (mostly RF2 but simracing in general). What is the problem? We can't have a discussion? We can't do tests? We can't try things out?

If you have nothing to add to the OP then please keep it out of this thread. This is supposed to be about rFactor 2 (and simracing in general) and DPC latency, that's it. If you feel like posting just for the sake of trying to put down other people or just generally being a jerk, then go somewhere else please.

 

[Spinelli]

I'm trying to get the hang of reading the LatencyMon program...

Apparently you should run it for an hour while you use the computer and then read all sorts of results and numbers but it seems pretty confusing and "messy" to me. Does anyone here know how to use LatencyMon?...

@Spinelli ,

Just a question:
Do you notice a CPU increase with the adjusted timer resolution?

I think it should if it's working. Because some processes are proccesed twice as much if you go from 1ms to 0,5ms.

I haven't really checked the CPU usage. I can say that it definitely does work though because I can feel and see a difference when I set it from 15.xxx to 0.500. Also, I have another program running that displays and updates the resolution timer in real-time and it displays 0.500ms and stays there once I set the resolution timer to 0.500 ("maximized")

 

[Marcel Offermans]

So has anybody been able to get a measurable and reproducible benefit? I personally would highly doubt that this makes a difference: in short I think Microsoft and ISI have probably done a decent job on optimising their systems, and without any proof otherwise, I tend to think the defaults that Windows provide for these timers in general have been chosen for a very good reason.

The physics thread runs at 400 Hz and in order for rFactor 2 to work well on all systems, this thread should always be able to comfortably complete its calculation well within that time slot. No doubt ISI uses some method of "waiting" for the next time slot that might or might not involve setting a high resolution timer, but after being in the simulation business for over 20 years I think it is safe to assume that they have managed to optimise this thread to work well on all systems.

I'm pretty sure they also run the input at the same frequency. Any input lag is more likely to come from the electronics inside the physical input device than from Windows itself.

As far as this tool helping with stutters, I don't know. I guess that depends a lot on the actual cause of the stutters. Has this worked for anybody here at RD?

Finally, raising FPS I again doubt it. These timers are used when the system is too quick and needs to wait. The graphics thread/pipeline usually runs as fast as it can (unless you've set a maximum frame rate) so again I doubt it will help.

 

[MarcG]

Marc, why are you posting here if you have nothing to contribute? Just to fight?

I never said that decreasing the windows resolution timer down to 0.500ms is a godsend that'll magically fix everyones machines. Please stop "putting words in my mouth".

However, it has been PROVEN to lower DPC latency, which in-turn may have positive benefits. It has been PROVEN to increase fps in some CryEngine games. It has been PROVEN to help with running servers (most notably in CounterStrike). And on top of that, some audio engineers who need the absolute lowest DPC latency have mentioned their use of a 0.500ms setting. That seems like A LOT of proof and evidence regarding good results. So why can I not let people know about this?

Also, again (I've said this multiple times now), setting it to 0.500ms will not cause any harm. Noone that I've read about has reported a negative experience in doing so. I've also been using it for years and leave it running all the time, and it's never cause a problem, ever.

This is just a technical discussion about DPC latency and gaming (mostly RF2 but simracing in general). What is the problem? We can't have a discussion? We can't do tests? We can't try things out?

If you have nothing to add to the OP then please keep it out of this thread. This is supposed to be about rFactor 2 (and simracing in general) and DPC latency, that's it. If you feel like posting just for the sake of trying to put down other people or just generally being a jerk, then go somewhere else please.

Oh but I am adding to the original post, last paragraph? Your amazement at your threads being locked? See what I'm getting at? I'm trying (and obviously failing) to tell you these latency "tricks" do barely bugger all if anything to RF2, so what if CryEngines run better...what have they got to do with ISI exactly!? THAT is why your posts were locked, THAT is why you got banned for repeatedly being annoying, got it yet!?!

I'm trying to make you see the light of day, again...not every thread you create helps everybody out, they can actually make matters worse.

 

[Ari Antero]

Oh but I am adding to the original post, last paragraph? Your amazement at your threads being locked? See what I'm getting at? I'm trying (and obviously failing) to tell you these latency "tricks" do barely bugger all if anything to RF2, so what if CryEngines run better...what have they got to do with ISI exactly!? THAT is why your posts were locked, THAT is why you got banned for repeatedly being annoying, got it yet!?!

I'm trying to make you see the light of day, again...not every thread you create helps everybody out, they can actually make matters worse.

Hehe,

You attitude is why you are banned from ISI forums, got it?
I am also happy to se that Spinelli is the bigger man then you are and don't reply, well done.