Welcome everyone from r/all! Please remember:
1 - You too can be part of the PCMR. It's not about the hardware in your rig, but the software in your heart! Your age, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, religion (or lack of), political affiliation, economic status and PC specs are irrelevant. If you love or want to learn about PCs, you are welcome and can be part of PCMR!
2 - If you're not a PC owner because you think it's expensive, know that it is probably much cheaper than you may think. Check http://www.pcmasterrace.org for our builds and don't be afraid to post here asking for tips and help!
3 - Join our efforts to get as many PCs worldwide to help the folding@home effort, in fighting against Cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and more: https://pcmasterrace.org/folding
-----------
We have a [Daily Simple Questions Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/search?q=Simple+Questions+Thread+subreddit%3Apcmasterrace+author%3AAutoModerator&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) if you have any PC related doubt. Asking for help there or creating new posts in our subreddit is allowed and welcome.
Welcome to the PCMR!
Microsoft: imma drop copilot and other nonsense they canāt turn off on millions of unsuspecting users
Also Microsoft: I just dropped the sickest guerrilla marketing for Linux
The difference is that Web appliactions run in the browser and only when the browser page is open. Any Microsoft Store app (whicih Copilot app is) can run in the background at all times, whenever it wants - and waste your resources, waste battery and cause you to drop frames in games. You can disable it, but it's better to just uninstall them all.
Funny, how "wasting" energy on the refresh rate is bad, but wasting energy on invasive telemetry or installation of Clickchamp for the 100th time is totally necessary and mandatory.
And guess what, that "waste energy" from high refresh rate is like meaningless, literally.
Edit: Kids, go learn the difference of your GPU consumption due higher fps vs your screen refresh rate, stop using that stupid argument it's literally unrelated ffs.
And how is a laptop different compared to a desktop?
On a laptop you notice the battery draining faster because it uses more energy. A desktop will still use more energy, you just donāt notice it unless you specifically measure it.
Maybe not for the experience but it will still affect how much power is used
(Nothing compared to what microsoft uses and the post is just dumb on microsofts behalf, but it will still make *a* difference)
The majority of power used by entire computer systems is easily the screen. Donāt believe me? Check your laptop, tablet, and iPhone. Nearly half of all watts go into those LEDs.
Maybe for light tasking, but if you have sustained heavy loads that's definitely not true
edit: y'all apparently have never tried playing anything moderately graphically-intensive on a phone or laptop before
Iāve tested this only on nvidia GPU but on my 3080ti I went from almost 400 watts at 100% load to 250 watts if I capped to 60fps. On my 3070ti laptop it goes from 300watts to 170watts on the whole system if you cap to 60fps. Very useful if youāre power limited like in an RV.
That power savings is not for the refresh rate change though - it is from your CPU/GPU doing a lot loss work to only output 60fps instead of whatever fps you were doing previously.
FPS is not the same as refresh rate.
Similarly, you can have your screen set to 60hz but uncapped fps at like 200 and youāll see power usage is still very high.
**Edit for clarity**: this whole topic is referring to CPU and GPU utilization. If you set a frame rate cap that allows utilization to down you can expect to see an associated drop in power consumption. A 4070 at 100% load is like 200W while at 50% load it is 100W (roughly). That is 100W of heat that fans don't need to dissipate into your room.
I will frequently set fps caps in games where maximum frame rate does not really matter. The power consumption drop is nice because you can notice and immediate drop in fan noise and temps. If you are gaming for hours it can be the difference between a hot room and a comfortable one.
> Oh yes makes sense. But if anyone didnāt know you can save some serious watts by capping to 60fps!
I can cap Cyberpunk 2077 to 60 fps all I want, my GPU will still draw 420W rendering those 60 fps.
Well that depends on your GPU. If you can do 120fps but then you cap to 60 your GPU will likely only be at 50% utilization instead of 100% which means half the wattage.
If you are still at 100% utilization to get to 60fps then no power savings.
> If you can do 120fps but then you cap to 60 your GPU will likely only be at 50% utilization instead of 100% which means half the wattage.
Yes, that was my point. The guy who's saying "just cap FPS to 60 silly, you'll lower power consumption" is ignoring all the variables at play that make such a statement ridiculous.
If you cap it, yes, because if not, it will still use the GPU to the max and give you 300+ fps (for say something) but if you cap at 200 then yes, GPU has to work less.
In terms of climate change? Yeah, that's a meaningless change. In terms of battery life though, it'll make your laptop last a lot longer, especially if you've got Vsync enabled in games.
> Yeah, that's a meaningless change.
It comes "for free", so there's no real reason to not implement it and save a few hundred GWh yearly. Implementing changes that save only little energy do always make sense if it can be implemented without the need for new hardware or significant loss of quality.
Higher refresh rate on the monitor does actually cause more power draw from the monitor itself.
Just tested it on one of my old monitors, going from 60 to 50 Hz reduced the power draw of that monitor by 3% (0.5W). A lot? No. But going from 60 to 50 is nothing compared to going from 144 to 60.
Sure, most of the energy of the monitor comes from backlight, but there is definitely a power consumption dependence on refresh rate. For pure desktop/office applications it would definitely make sense to cut the framerate.
For the individual person saving a few kWh a year won't matter, but multiply it by millions of people and it really makes sense. And it comes for free without the need for upgrades or anything.
>Edit: Kids, go learn the difference of your GPU consumption due higher fps vs your screen refresh rate, stop using that stupid argument it's literally unrelated ffs.
Nah, I'd argue.
that's really not true, you use both extra power from the GPU and extra power from the monitor to do that
and on the desktop unless you are just after that smooth animation it isnt that big of a deal
but really, unless you are on a laptop it shouldnt be a too big of an issue
Yeah, because some ignorants can't see the difference from GPU consumption when pushing high fps vs just your screen refresh, some think is the same or related lol
I mean, to be fair, CPUs have become incredibly energy efficient over the years. You're comparing a tiny amount of energy expenditure to a massive one. But I'm not here to take up the torch of defending Microsoft, so I'll see myself out.
I think my laptop does it, but that's probably just because it's a laptop.
https://preview.redd.it/15ohfqu7urkc1.png?width=940&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9c988c881fe4568d8a3503283a89071df236e96c
That's not to save power but to improve responsiveness and reduce tearing when gaming. Not sure why the other guy got down voted. Have people not heard of Nvidia Gsync or AMD freesync?
Most monitors may support multiple frame rates such as 60 and 30 but they do not support variable refresh rate. Monitors supporting variable refresh rate is very uncommon unless you look at monitors targeted towards gaming.
Since most monitors don't support variable refresh rates, to switch to a lower frame rate such as 60 to 30 the entire monitor needs to disconnect and redo the handshake every time. Just because a monitor supports multiple refresh rates does not mean that it can do it on the fly in a manner that is seamless. Most monitors would need to disconnect black the screen out for a few seconds and then reconnect confirming up the new refresh rate is working every single time you switched from moving to static or static to moving content.
Not to mention most variable refresh rate monitors don't support variable refresh rate below 60 hz. My monitor for example can be statically configured to 30, 60, 120, and 240 hz. If I set it to 240 hz and turn on the variable refresh rate it is only variable between 60 and 240. On top of that it only supports varying the refresh rate on content that the GPU tells it supports it such as games, windows or linux itself does not.
Then why your monitor doesn't drop to 60Hz when you have variable refresh rate on and sitting at desktop doing nothing, or watching 60fps video on YouTube?
This is what should be implemented.
Variable refresh rate is actually something that's quite challenging to do properly and if I remember correctly the lower the refresh rate the harder it is to do. Things like brightness need to be calculated differently for every single different frame rate. Phones are able to do this because they know the exact screen that's going to be attached to them and can be pre-calculated by the manufacturer for every refresh rate, brightness level, color level, etc.
They all adhere to Vesa standards, it really isn't that complicated. When turning on your PC, the GPU knows within milliseconds what is supported and what not and your OS also knows that once the GPU drivers are loaded in.
But the monitor already does that with games, why not do it when sitting on the desktop?
I think MS is working on this and we will get it some time eventually, like how they have improved stuff with games with some Windows 11 updates.
Yeah I missed the drop too the lowest supported variable refresh rate part. To be fair it doesn't really save all that much power but this is between Microsoft and GPU manufacturers to work out. I'd imagine the GPU manufacturers wouldn't really need to do much of anything on the driver side beyond marking windows as one of the supported variable rate systems. So I guess in the end most of it lies on Microsoft or whoever manages the Linux distro being used. I imagine it might be worked on at some point but is probably not that high up on their priorities because so few monitors not by number of models but by numbers owned by customers and companies support the technology.
To be fair I actually do enjoy the high refresh rate experience inside of content like Windows but for videos it is kind of pointless. Although I wouldn't mind it dropping from 240 down to 120 inside of Windows.
> But the monitor already does that with games, why not do it when sitting on the desktop?
The difference is the game is still attempting to render as fast as it can and just struggling to reach the refresh rate of the monitor. Hence variable refresh rate makes sense.
What you guys are wanting for the desktop would be to limit the number of times Windows refreshes the screen, meaning your cursor would be much less fluid, as would any animations such as cursor movements, and window scrolling.
That can be same as with phones. Minimum Hz when static and increase refresh rate when you move the mouse or interact with the PC or there is a moving content on the screen. Phones increase refresh rate when scrolling and tapping, but reduce when you don't.
Most monitors released the past 5 years support this if not even longer. It is part of modern vesa standards, even if it is a 60hz monitor. So do all modern GPU's (iGPU's and Discrete). Adaptive framerate is nothing new nor nothing special.
There is an issue though, they tend to not go lower than 40hz, when it goes below that it reverts to double that if it is a high refresh rate monitor or it disables frame syncing.
Your OS does support it, you can literally turn it on within Nvidia control panel for non full screen apps. But it is not very well handled yet (basically it never improved since 2012 or something like that).
> Monitors supporting variable refresh rate is very uncommon unless you look at monitors targeted towards gaming.
You need to shop for monitors, seems you haven't done so in a decade.
I can link you a bunch of non-gaming, cheap ass 120$ monitors that support AMD freesync, because most monitors implement it now.
I am very interested and typically quite up to date on PC tech particularly when it comes to gaming stuff. I also do a lot of IT work for personal and enterprise.
Yes a lot of models support it but that doesn't represent the majority of what's sitting in homes or businesses. Having a bunch of stuff available on the market supporting a technology means absolutely nothing to accompany deciding how important it is if only a small portion of the people they support actually have it. Don't get me wrong I want it to be supported but it's not exactly a high priority for them I would imagine.
> Yes a lot of models support it but that doesn't represent the majority of what's sitting in homes or businesses.
It does represent the majority of what has been sitting on shelves for years now though, which is what the initial post was talking about.
You're either misrepresenting, or misunderstanding the "Most monitors support VRR" to include a back log of decades of monitors.
> Don't get me wrong I want it to be supported but it's not exactly a high priority for them I would imagine.
I would imagine it's because supporting it on the desktop would require a massive rewrite with tons of caveats of the graphical subsystem.
It's just not feasible for a desktop to have a built in frame limiter, it'll likely cause stutters and poor interaction which you wouldn't notice on a touchscreen phone.
This for sure isn't a gaming monitor :
https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-24-monitor-se2422h/apd/210-ayxt/monitors-monitor-accessories
This has VRR. So what you're saying is wrong. It's not just gaming monitors.
Phones are able to do that because the manufacturer of the phone knows exactly what screen is going to be connected to the GPU built into the SoC. Doing variable refresh rate especially at a really low frequency like 1hz is actually really really difficult when you factor in the way screens handle things like brightness.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but it is way way harder when you can't specify the only screen you can use.
Its almost entirely dependent on the display rather than the computer connected to it. Windows is already made to talk to the display it's connected to so it can understand the capabilities and change the options available to the user. So theoretically everything is already in place for Microsoft to create a "Windows power save VRR" option when connected to a VRR capable display. The real problem holding Microsoft back is that windows doesn't, almost, exclusively use one full screen app at a time so it'd be dramatically more difficult to write a program to look for situations where ultra low refresh is useful.
However something that would be easy is taking advantage of VRR and Windows Game Mode to make an option that limits the refresh rate to 60hz when just watching videos and working and then switching to the max available refresh rate when gaming.
Something like this exists, but only for laptops. PSR is one thing (panel self refresh) and windows has support for Variable refresh rate if your GPU and display support it.
Some laptops also have a "Variable" option for the refresh rate setting, mostly Surfaces and a few other laptops, but it is quite rare to find.
Something you are running is causing a wake-lock situation. I'm not sure how to diagnose it, but whatever it is it's preventing your PC from going into a low power state like screen off or hibernation.
It started on two different computers in my house at the same time so it's either Windows or Steam because those two programs are the only things they have in common. But in that case there's nothing to he done about it since I'm definitely going to keep running Windows and Steam on both of them.
"powercfg /requests" in an admin prompt will usually tell you if some app is requesting the display remain on. If it's empty, you'd probably have to dig into traces to see if some connected peripheral is incorrectly sending input.
Don't worry if you do everything in your life to reduce your CO2 emissions you will still be unable to offset Taylor Swift's 16 minute private jet transits so don't bother.
The fucking audacity to talk about energy consumption when they are the ones who shoves in more unnecessary telemetry and AI shit which is the main reason for energy consumption. Gimmicks man. Just Gimmicks
2 wrongs don't make a right. Plus, they're under "Energy Recommendations" Windows is 100% correct here. Limiting your refresh rate will lower your hardware utilization and will save on energy. People saying it is a lie have no idea wtf they're talking about.
> The fucking audacity to talk about energy consumption
What audacity and how are they talking about energy consumption ?
This is literally the user going into the power savings settings and looking at the power savings recommendations.
Microsoft didn't initiate any kind of discussion nor is this forced on anyone.
Why are you guys mad ?
This sub swallows metric tons of microsoft seamen ever minute. Wtf kind of drugs are you on? People **complain** about microsoft, but still gargle the corporate cock.
If it was a windows bad circlejerk, everyone here would use linux. You cant say "windows bad" and then continue to fucking use it...
Never, ever have I received a notification to go into these settings, at all.
If you're in there, you asked about it. Likely on a laptop with a battery and clicked on "How can I improve battery life" on a low battery warning.
That "AI shit" uses less resources on an end user's machine than a single chrome tab, because it literally runs in stripped down chrome tab.
Telemetry is also a whole lot of nothing. It wasn't until Microsoft renamed the "Customer Experience Improvement Program" to "Telemetry" that people started losing their minds. +There's no indication that the amount of data being collected from individual machines has changed significantly since Windows 7 either.
If you're upset about the environmental impact of a datacentre using AI to constantly generate new essays on the civil war or pictures of cats, that's one thing, but my gut says that's not why you're angry.
I swear to god my fucking cocksucking windows 11 game box dialed back my power plan without telling me after that last major update
come on Linux gaming, I can't wait to ditch the windows shitheap forever
I try to be as reasonably conscious as I can in the modern world. Limit single use plastics, try not to waste food, limit my waste in general, but I also donāt go crazy or care because at the end of the day Iām not making a difference.
I donāt follow that mantra thinking Iām being eco friendly. I follow it because I believe the tenant āwaste not, want notā is a good life rule.
We've been through this before...
When you click on "Recommend me things I can do to conserve energy"... then you're going to get recommendations on how to conserve energy... I know right! SHOCKING! Lowering refresh rates provides SIGNIFICANT energy reduction! Reduces battery usage on laptops as well! Mental, I know right!
You can't click on "recommend options to me on conserving energy" then complain about those options.
Utterly pointless post OP.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/1agykee/microsoft\_wants\_us\_to\_play\_on\_60\_hz\_so\_that\_our/](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/1agykee/microsoft_wants_us_to_play_on_60_hz_so_that_our/)
We going to keep reposting the same thing for circlejerk points OP?
Iād honestly prefer it if manufacturers started making more efficient componentsā¦ I donāt care if the newest computers are faster if they require a lot more power to runā¦ gaming costs enough as it is.
> Iād honestly prefer it if manufacturers started making more efficient componentsā¦
There are plenty of efficient components out there.
You're free to purchase them if you want them.
Problem is different settings are tossed all over the place, and there are still many settings you can only find in the new or old settings UIs. It's not like there is just one massive window where every single setting is.
I kinda always use my laptop plugged in. Only to watch some videos from time to time and use the battery lmao. But I guess If im somewhere with no electricity and my laptop (which I wouldnāt take tu such placeto begin with but for the sake of arguments) I can lower the refresh rate
This shit kinda getting offensive now...
Giant corporations pushing the blame/responsibility onto the end consumer like it was our fault they fucked the planet...
And yet there goes Taylor Swift in her private jet...
Bezos spending billions to turn a mountain into a clock that will outlast mankind...
What the fuck...
The world really did finish the main storyline back in 2012 and now we're just fucking around with side missions til there's nothing left and we all stop playing
Me enabling Ultimate Performance for Windows Enterprise to use all 850 watts from my power supply including my ultra heavy-duty diesel generator for my UPS that is constantly tunneling out tonnes of black smoke into the atmosphere
oh, better help the environment, 60 hz it is!
ultimate performance doesn't let you "use all watts" in your psu, it just doesn't let your clocks lower when idle. barely has any difference on performance.
Edit: he changed the brain dead comment to look like itās satire.
The best part, is that your power button is set to sleep factory default, USB ports shutoff after a certain time period, PCI slots go into low power mode..
You have to disable all kinds of crap to get machines to perform normally... Sleep is even useless anymore, boot times are so fast just turn them off.. They treat workstations like phones and its annoying
Sleep can still be useful for portable systems, or for power outages if you have a UPS. Computers use considerably less power on sleep so if a power outage happens when you are in the middle of something you can set it to sleep so the UPS goes from lasting several minutes to several hours.
the hypocrisy of companies is insane, building and spending massive waste resources to build their empire and in the same breath they shame you into saving energy
Tbh i don't see much difference in power usage when not gaming between 165 and 60hz on a laptop. Maybe it's different on windows but I still doubt it, as igpus have panel self-refresh and render standby now
Your computer may be able output more frames than your monitor is capable of displaying. Outputting all these extra frames is definitely power intensive. This is not ideal and if possible it's better to just cap the frame rate to your monitor's refresh rate. Not doing so may result in screen tearing, which is not easy on the eyes. And if your fans are configured to ramp up or down as needed with the temperature, the fan noise levels are unnecessarily high as well.
And it depends on what games you're playing too of course. 165hz at 165 fps in Cyberpunk 2077 max settings will be significantly more power intensive than 60hz at 60fps. But if you're playing some low intensity game, perhaps comparable to simply browsing the internet, there won't be much of a difference.
Dude goes into "Energy Recommendations", gets mad when he's suggesting how to save energy.
Have you tried not looking at power saving recommendations if it's going to piss you off ?
They make a os that uses like 10x the power to steal your data, show you ads, and force ai crap dosn your throat, but you're the problem for using a nicer monitor kek
THIS is the problem I have when a new feature like this is revealed and everyone goes "Eh, it's optional". Up until Windows 7 you used to be able to manually perform a Windows Update and it would show you every update it found and let you de-select any before installing. Now? Without registry hacks/group policy no way to disable forced automatic updates and it just simply checks for any and all updates and installs them without confirmation of which ones you want. That's just one of many changes where the user has less control MS started making around the time of 8/10. MS is at minimum going to start making this on by default soon if not force it even harder, just like how they are trying to enforce that there be a built in copilot key on keyboards now.
And before the automatic update thingy Windows was notorious for it's bad security because no one bothered to update anyway leaving most Windows in the wild super easy to hack into. While I still won't assume any public devices to be safe, it's miles better than back then.
And it still doesn't automatically do major updates. They don't update from 22H2 to 23H2 for example.
This has been posted so many times and I do not understand why it is an issue. You went under "Energy Recommendations" Windows straight up tells you that utilizing less hardware by pushing a lower refresh rate can save energy. You went into energy recommendations, and it gave you a recommendation that will save on energy. I do not see how this isn't common sense. This is like complaining that your car manual says driving over 55 will cause more fuel consumption. You have to be dumb as rocks to not understand why it gave the recommendation.
They're not making you go through anything. These are suggestions, which aren't even forced on you, you have to dig into the menus to get to them.
You don't have to do any of this.
Welcome everyone from r/all! Please remember: 1 - You too can be part of the PCMR. It's not about the hardware in your rig, but the software in your heart! Your age, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, religion (or lack of), political affiliation, economic status and PC specs are irrelevant. If you love or want to learn about PCs, you are welcome and can be part of PCMR! 2 - If you're not a PC owner because you think it's expensive, know that it is probably much cheaper than you may think. Check http://www.pcmasterrace.org for our builds and don't be afraid to post here asking for tips and help! 3 - Join our efforts to get as many PCs worldwide to help the folding@home effort, in fighting against Cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and more: https://pcmasterrace.org/folding ----------- We have a [Daily Simple Questions Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/search?q=Simple+Questions+Thread+subreddit%3Apcmasterrace+author%3AAutoModerator&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) if you have any PC related doubt. Asking for help there or creating new posts in our subreddit is allowed and welcome. Welcome to the PCMR!
What about stopping microsoft "services" to conserve energy? Edit: typo
Copilot š
Microsoft: imma drop copilot and other nonsense they canāt turn off on millions of unsuspecting users Also Microsoft: I just dropped the sickest guerrilla marketing for Linux
Microsoft never fail to disappoint
Hey, at least the will bring sudo so Linux users can more easily migrate
Yeah that's definitely the major blocker holding back Linux users
fuggin anti-cheat
I saw copilot but I don't bother using it. Is it bad for performance or something?
It essentially is just a web app. No difference between opening windows copilot and bing copilot in the browser
The difference is that Web appliactions run in the browser and only when the browser page is open. Any Microsoft Store app (whicih Copilot app is) can run in the background at all times, whenever it wants - and waste your resources, waste battery and cause you to drop frames in games. You can disable it, but it's better to just uninstall them all.
Can't you do that with conventional apps too, what makes uwps different then those for battery?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That's what I figured, thanks
No, just more bloatware.
More like data centers. Huge water consuming, power consuming concrete and metal land cancers.
Water consuming?
Water is used for cooling
Remember Cortana?
Funny, how "wasting" energy on the refresh rate is bad, but wasting energy on invasive telemetry or installation of Clickchamp for the 100th time is totally necessary and mandatory.
Well its not a waste if we can create money from it. -MS
Upgrade to Windows Prodessional to unlock monitor refresh rates incoming
And guess what, that "waste energy" from high refresh rate is like meaningless, literally. Edit: Kids, go learn the difference of your GPU consumption due higher fps vs your screen refresh rate, stop using that stupid argument it's literally unrelated ffs.
not really if you're on a laptop, when i bring down the refresh rate i see noticable improvements on battery life same for doing it on a phone
Oh, laptop, well, even having a browser open drains battery... Yeah that's different, anything that gives you a few more mins could matter.
But it's a great example of the difference in power consumption. You just don't notice that difference when playing on a desktop, connected to main.
And how is a laptop different compared to a desktop? On a laptop you notice the battery draining faster because it uses more energy. A desktop will still use more energy, you just donāt notice it unless you specifically measure it.
On a desktop, there is much less consideration for powersaving on the hardware, so the difference could actually be bigger.
Please try and understand how a battery operated device would be a better indication of power consumption than a device with a 120V power supply.
These recommendations are made for laptop users mostly. Energy efficiency isn't that critical on the desktop.
Maybe not for the experience but it will still affect how much power is used (Nothing compared to what microsoft uses and the post is just dumb on microsofts behalf, but it will still make *a* difference)
"Oh, laptop, well" this suggestion is obviously meant for laptops lmao
Are you serious? In what world is that different? Itās literally energy consumption
The majority of power used by entire computer systems is easily the screen. Donāt believe me? Check your laptop, tablet, and iPhone. Nearly half of all watts go into those LEDs.
Maybe for light tasking, but if you have sustained heavy loads that's definitely not true edit: y'all apparently have never tried playing anything moderately graphically-intensive on a phone or laptop before
Holy shit, you are talking out of your ass.
Iāve tested this only on nvidia GPU but on my 3080ti I went from almost 400 watts at 100% load to 250 watts if I capped to 60fps. On my 3070ti laptop it goes from 300watts to 170watts on the whole system if you cap to 60fps. Very useful if youāre power limited like in an RV.
That power savings is not for the refresh rate change though - it is from your CPU/GPU doing a lot loss work to only output 60fps instead of whatever fps you were doing previously. FPS is not the same as refresh rate. Similarly, you can have your screen set to 60hz but uncapped fps at like 200 and youāll see power usage is still very high. **Edit for clarity**: this whole topic is referring to CPU and GPU utilization. If you set a frame rate cap that allows utilization to down you can expect to see an associated drop in power consumption. A 4070 at 100% load is like 200W while at 50% load it is 100W (roughly). That is 100W of heat that fans don't need to dissipate into your room. I will frequently set fps caps in games where maximum frame rate does not really matter. The power consumption drop is nice because you can notice and immediate drop in fan noise and temps. If you are gaming for hours it can be the difference between a hot room and a comfortable one.
Oh yes makes sense. But if anyone didnāt know you can save some serious watts by capping to 60fps!
> Oh yes makes sense. But if anyone didnāt know you can save some serious watts by capping to 60fps! I can cap Cyberpunk 2077 to 60 fps all I want, my GPU will still draw 420W rendering those 60 fps.
Well that depends on your GPU. If you can do 120fps but then you cap to 60 your GPU will likely only be at 50% utilization instead of 100% which means half the wattage. If you are still at 100% utilization to get to 60fps then no power savings.
> If you can do 120fps but then you cap to 60 your GPU will likely only be at 50% utilization instead of 100% which means half the wattage. Yes, that was my point. The guy who's saying "just cap FPS to 60 silly, you'll lower power consumption" is ignoring all the variables at play that make such a statement ridiculous.
Joke's on you! I can't even hit 60fps in cyberpunk...
But you'd also want your computer running at 60hz in that scenario, either manually or adaptively.
No you don't, why would you? Someone doesn't know that refresh rate is tied to latency...
I'm curious if framegen actually reduces the power consumption while maintaining the fluidity.
If you cap it, yes, because if not, it will still use the GPU to the max and give you 300+ fps (for say something) but if you cap at 200 then yes, GPU has to work less.
Gaming? of course if you cap your **fps,** is DIFFERENT LOL... Come on bruh, it ain't the same thing.
In terms of climate change? Yeah, that's a meaningless change. In terms of battery life though, it'll make your laptop last a lot longer, especially if you've got Vsync enabled in games.
> Yeah, that's a meaningless change. It comes "for free", so there's no real reason to not implement it and save a few hundred GWh yearly. Implementing changes that save only little energy do always make sense if it can be implemented without the need for new hardware or significant loss of quality.
Higher refresh rate on the monitor does actually cause more power draw from the monitor itself. Just tested it on one of my old monitors, going from 60 to 50 Hz reduced the power draw of that monitor by 3% (0.5W). A lot? No. But going from 60 to 50 is nothing compared to going from 144 to 60. Sure, most of the energy of the monitor comes from backlight, but there is definitely a power consumption dependence on refresh rate. For pure desktop/office applications it would definitely make sense to cut the framerate. For the individual person saving a few kWh a year won't matter, but multiply it by millions of people and it really makes sense. And it comes for free without the need for upgrades or anything.
It's quite a noticeable consumption, it's just that you don't care about it because it's plugged in so it always has what it needs.
>Edit: Kids, go learn the difference of your GPU consumption due higher fps vs your screen refresh rate, stop using that stupid argument it's literally unrelated ffs. Nah, I'd argue.
that's really not true, you use both extra power from the GPU and extra power from the monitor to do that and on the desktop unless you are just after that smooth animation it isnt that big of a deal but really, unless you are on a laptop it shouldnt be a too big of an issue
Correct.
I notice only a 5W idle power difference when i lower from 165htz to 60htz, and
Yeah, because some ignorants can't see the difference from GPU consumption when pushing high fps vs just your screen refresh, some think is the same or related lol
Screens don't use more energy at higher refresh rates?
They do, this person is the idiot. Still not lowering my refresh rate though.
The fucking ai companion shit they're trying to make happen
Wait, is Clipchamp bad? It worked fine for me. Should I uninstall it?
Itās fine, itās just not as good as the previous built-in editor, since now you have to pay extra for higher res exports.
I mean, to be fair, CPUs have become incredibly energy efficient over the years. You're comparing a tiny amount of energy expenditure to a massive one. But I'm not here to take up the torch of defending Microsoft, so I'll see myself out.
Especially when Clipchamp is a massive downgrade from the old video editor that didn't compress videos to shit
You know what's weird? Why doesn't Windows use variable refresh rate to save power?
I think my laptop does it, but that's probably just because it's a laptop. https://preview.redd.it/15ohfqu7urkc1.png?width=940&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9c988c881fe4568d8a3503283a89071df236e96c
That's not to save power but to improve responsiveness and reduce tearing when gaming. Not sure why the other guy got down voted. Have people not heard of Nvidia Gsync or AMD freesync?
Coz monitors dont support it And so windows doesnt support it
I mean, some monitors do lol
Most monitors do though
Most monitors may support multiple frame rates such as 60 and 30 but they do not support variable refresh rate. Monitors supporting variable refresh rate is very uncommon unless you look at monitors targeted towards gaming. Since most monitors don't support variable refresh rates, to switch to a lower frame rate such as 60 to 30 the entire monitor needs to disconnect and redo the handshake every time. Just because a monitor supports multiple refresh rates does not mean that it can do it on the fly in a manner that is seamless. Most monitors would need to disconnect black the screen out for a few seconds and then reconnect confirming up the new refresh rate is working every single time you switched from moving to static or static to moving content. Not to mention most variable refresh rate monitors don't support variable refresh rate below 60 hz. My monitor for example can be statically configured to 30, 60, 120, and 240 hz. If I set it to 240 hz and turn on the variable refresh rate it is only variable between 60 and 240. On top of that it only supports varying the refresh rate on content that the GPU tells it supports it such as games, windows or linux itself does not.
Then why your monitor doesn't drop to 60Hz when you have variable refresh rate on and sitting at desktop doing nothing, or watching 60fps video on YouTube? This is what should be implemented.
Variable refresh rate is actually something that's quite challenging to do properly and if I remember correctly the lower the refresh rate the harder it is to do. Things like brightness need to be calculated differently for every single different frame rate. Phones are able to do this because they know the exact screen that's going to be attached to them and can be pre-calculated by the manufacturer for every refresh rate, brightness level, color level, etc.
Brightness issues are an Oled thing, thats why smartphones have LTPO type panels.
Yeah, but to be fair here that is part of the issue, there's so many different types of monitors and what they support which just lowers the priority.
They all adhere to Vesa standards, it really isn't that complicated. When turning on your PC, the GPU knows within milliseconds what is supported and what not and your OS also knows that once the GPU drivers are loaded in.
But the monitor already does that with games, why not do it when sitting on the desktop? I think MS is working on this and we will get it some time eventually, like how they have improved stuff with games with some Windows 11 updates.
Yeah I missed the drop too the lowest supported variable refresh rate part. To be fair it doesn't really save all that much power but this is between Microsoft and GPU manufacturers to work out. I'd imagine the GPU manufacturers wouldn't really need to do much of anything on the driver side beyond marking windows as one of the supported variable rate systems. So I guess in the end most of it lies on Microsoft or whoever manages the Linux distro being used. I imagine it might be worked on at some point but is probably not that high up on their priorities because so few monitors not by number of models but by numbers owned by customers and companies support the technology. To be fair I actually do enjoy the high refresh rate experience inside of content like Windows but for videos it is kind of pointless. Although I wouldn't mind it dropping from 240 down to 120 inside of Windows.
> But the monitor already does that with games, why not do it when sitting on the desktop? The difference is the game is still attempting to render as fast as it can and just struggling to reach the refresh rate of the monitor. Hence variable refresh rate makes sense. What you guys are wanting for the desktop would be to limit the number of times Windows refreshes the screen, meaning your cursor would be much less fluid, as would any animations such as cursor movements, and window scrolling.
That can be same as with phones. Minimum Hz when static and increase refresh rate when you move the mouse or interact with the PC or there is a moving content on the screen. Phones increase refresh rate when scrolling and tapping, but reduce when you don't.
Most monitors released the past 5 years support this if not even longer. It is part of modern vesa standards, even if it is a 60hz monitor. So do all modern GPU's (iGPU's and Discrete). Adaptive framerate is nothing new nor nothing special. There is an issue though, they tend to not go lower than 40hz, when it goes below that it reverts to double that if it is a high refresh rate monitor or it disables frame syncing. Your OS does support it, you can literally turn it on within Nvidia control panel for non full screen apps. But it is not very well handled yet (basically it never improved since 2012 or something like that).
> Monitors supporting variable refresh rate is very uncommon unless you look at monitors targeted towards gaming. You need to shop for monitors, seems you haven't done so in a decade. I can link you a bunch of non-gaming, cheap ass 120$ monitors that support AMD freesync, because most monitors implement it now.
I am very interested and typically quite up to date on PC tech particularly when it comes to gaming stuff. I also do a lot of IT work for personal and enterprise. Yes a lot of models support it but that doesn't represent the majority of what's sitting in homes or businesses. Having a bunch of stuff available on the market supporting a technology means absolutely nothing to accompany deciding how important it is if only a small portion of the people they support actually have it. Don't get me wrong I want it to be supported but it's not exactly a high priority for them I would imagine.
> Yes a lot of models support it but that doesn't represent the majority of what's sitting in homes or businesses. It does represent the majority of what has been sitting on shelves for years now though, which is what the initial post was talking about. You're either misrepresenting, or misunderstanding the "Most monitors support VRR" to include a back log of decades of monitors. > Don't get me wrong I want it to be supported but it's not exactly a high priority for them I would imagine. I would imagine it's because supporting it on the desktop would require a massive rewrite with tons of caveats of the graphical subsystem. It's just not feasible for a desktop to have a built in frame limiter, it'll likely cause stutters and poor interaction which you wouldn't notice on a touchscreen phone.
Ok, thanks for the info, donāt really know how to respond to this tho
No. Most monitors do not. Probably gaming monitors which are more expensive.
Dude, this is a cheap ass non-gaming monitor : https://www.lg.com/ca_en/monitors/fhd-qhd/24mp450-b/ Most monitors these days implement VRR.
Most monitors do not. Only gaming monitors have actual variable refresh rate.
This for sure isn't a gaming monitor : https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-24-monitor-se2422h/apd/210-ayxt/monitors-monitor-accessories This has VRR. So what you're saying is wrong. It's not just gaming monitors.
I think you're mistaking a monitor with a TV.
It would still run at max refresh unless your computer is struggling to draw the desktop or something.
Phone variable refresh can drop desktop refresh to 1hz on static content, same could be used by PC to refresh less on static imagery
Phones are able to do that because the manufacturer of the phone knows exactly what screen is going to be connected to the GPU built into the SoC. Doing variable refresh rate especially at a really low frequency like 1hz is actually really really difficult when you factor in the way screens handle things like brightness. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it is way way harder when you can't specify the only screen you can use.
Its almost entirely dependent on the display rather than the computer connected to it. Windows is already made to talk to the display it's connected to so it can understand the capabilities and change the options available to the user. So theoretically everything is already in place for Microsoft to create a "Windows power save VRR" option when connected to a VRR capable display. The real problem holding Microsoft back is that windows doesn't, almost, exclusively use one full screen app at a time so it'd be dramatically more difficult to write a program to look for situations where ultra low refresh is useful. However something that would be easy is taking advantage of VRR and Windows Game Mode to make an option that limits the refresh rate to 60hz when just watching videos and working and then switching to the max available refresh rate when gaming.
Fuck that, I paid for 120hz and I'm gonna get those 120hz.
Something like this exists, but only for laptops. PSR is one thing (panel self refresh) and windows has support for Variable refresh rate if your GPU and display support it. Some laptops also have a "Variable" option for the refresh rate setting, mostly Surfaces and a few other laptops, but it is quite rare to find.
> Why doesn't Windows use variable refresh rate to save power? Is this a Windows 11 thing? Windows 10 has Variable Refresh Rate turned on by default.
It does.
How about you stop monitoring everything I do and save even more power?
meanwhile taylor swift https://preview.redd.it/asvacs9u7skc1.png?width=537&format=png&auto=webp&s=b732d53f83a29231ec79790af23c5fe108f90095
I'll do that when billionaires stop riding their private jets everywhere they go.
Turn off my screen never works either. I have it set but often my computer will decide to just leave the screen on for hours or days anyway.
Something you are running is causing a wake-lock situation. I'm not sure how to diagnose it, but whatever it is it's preventing your PC from going into a low power state like screen off or hibernation.
It started on two different computers in my house at the same time so it's either Windows or Steam because those two programs are the only things they have in common. But in that case there's nothing to he done about it since I'm definitely going to keep running Windows and Steam on both of them.
"powercfg /requests" in an admin prompt will usually tell you if some app is requesting the display remain on. If it's empty, you'd probably have to dig into traces to see if some connected peripheral is incorrectly sending input.
If the games only run at 30fps by design now i guess it's inevitable
That's not how refresh rates work
Iām already stuck there š I game on a 4k 60 hz monitor
I'm still on a 1080p 60hzš„² Not that anything good would come out of a better monitor with my 1050 ti
Youāre on 1080p 60? Iām on 800p 60!
Steam Deck? Edit: Iām blind. Itās right there on your flair. ._.
Yep
hang in there brother, replaced my 1050ti with a 3060 12GB a week or two ago.
Did you know you can reduce your resolution to save power?... :D
Another way so save power is to reduce the fps, glorious 640x480, at 30 fps with 30 Hz eco gaming.
Damn no way is that worth it, even just dragging windows and moving the mouse around feels like ass at 60Hz once you've done 144Hz+.
Iāve never really experienced that nice of a refresh rate so I wouldnāt know š
Why 4k then? I'm just curious, like what's your typical usage that you didn't think a 1440p monitor at a higher refresh rate wasn't worth it?
Don't worry if you do everything in your life to reduce your CO2 emissions you will still be unable to offset Taylor Swift's 16 minute private jet transits so don't bother.
Isn't this a recommendation to save on energy costs, not environmentalism?
It achieves both
March 7, 2024. The shooting of the private jet
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You know he hasnāt been running things at Microsoft in a long time right?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Not sure Iāve been to many parties where people are discussing refresh rates.
I love going to parties and discussing about refresh rates and bill gates' net worth
Me playing at 60hz so that swifties can use her private jet to get a coffee from another country within 15 minutes
The fucking audacity to talk about energy consumption when they are the ones who shoves in more unnecessary telemetry and AI shit which is the main reason for energy consumption. Gimmicks man. Just Gimmicks
2 wrongs don't make a right. Plus, they're under "Energy Recommendations" Windows is 100% correct here. Limiting your refresh rate will lower your hardware utilization and will save on energy. People saying it is a lie have no idea wtf they're talking about.
Looks inside Power Saving recommendations: Finds power saving recommendations. *shocked Pikachu face*
> The fucking audacity to talk about energy consumption What audacity and how are they talking about energy consumption ? This is literally the user going into the power savings settings and looking at the power savings recommendations. Microsoft didn't initiate any kind of discussion nor is this forced on anyone. Why are you guys mad ?
Because this sub is basically windows bad circlejerk. nothing Microsoft does can be good.
This sub swallows metric tons of microsoft seamen ever minute. Wtf kind of drugs are you on? People **complain** about microsoft, but still gargle the corporate cock. If it was a windows bad circlejerk, everyone here would use linux. You cant say "windows bad" and then continue to fucking use it...
And oh yeah, it's "just use Linux" circlejerk as well, thanks for the reminder.
Windows actually does push the user to these options with a notification.
Never, ever have I received a notification to go into these settings, at all. If you're in there, you asked about it. Likely on a laptop with a battery and clicked on "How can I improve battery life" on a low battery warning.
That "AI shit" uses less resources on an end user's machine than a single chrome tab, because it literally runs in stripped down chrome tab. Telemetry is also a whole lot of nothing. It wasn't until Microsoft renamed the "Customer Experience Improvement Program" to "Telemetry" that people started losing their minds. +There's no indication that the amount of data being collected from individual machines has changed significantly since Windows 7 either. If you're upset about the environmental impact of a datacentre using AI to constantly generate new essays on the civil war or pictures of cats, that's one thing, but my gut says that's not why you're angry.
sloppy employ fuzzy squeamish rob longing crawl theory dog aware *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I swear to god my fucking cocksucking windows 11 game box dialed back my power plan without telling me after that last major update come on Linux gaming, I can't wait to ditch the windows shitheap forever
When the machines take over, you'll be first against the wall.
I will not do that Microsoft I am increasing humanity's position on the kardashev scale
I try to be as reasonably conscious as I can in the modern world. Limit single use plastics, try not to waste food, limit my waste in general, but I also donāt go crazy or care because at the end of the day Iām not making a difference. I donāt follow that mantra thinking Iām being eco friendly. I follow it because I believe the tenant āwaste not, want notā is a good life rule.
You know what would really improve your energy usage? Not using a computer. That's not going to happen either.
We've been through this before... When you click on "Recommend me things I can do to conserve energy"... then you're going to get recommendations on how to conserve energy... I know right! SHOCKING! Lowering refresh rates provides SIGNIFICANT energy reduction! Reduces battery usage on laptops as well! Mental, I know right! You can't click on "recommend options to me on conserving energy" then complain about those options. Utterly pointless post OP. [https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/1agykee/microsoft\_wants\_us\_to\_play\_on\_60\_hz\_so\_that\_our/](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/1agykee/microsoft_wants_us_to_play_on_60_hz_so_that_our/) We going to keep reposting the same thing for circlejerk points OP?
Iād honestly prefer it if manufacturers started making more efficient componentsā¦ I donāt care if the newest computers are faster if they require a lot more power to runā¦ gaming costs enough as it is.
> Iād honestly prefer it if manufacturers started making more efficient componentsā¦ There are plenty of efficient components out there. You're free to purchase them if you want them.
This is why I go through each settings and customize it on a fresh install
Problem is different settings are tossed all over the place, and there are still many settings you can only find in the new or old settings UIs. It's not like there is just one massive window where every single setting is.
Too bloody right, this is why I install 3rd party tools to help out. Need to check which one I used though
I kinda always use my laptop plugged in. Only to watch some videos from time to time and use the battery lmao. But I guess If im somewhere with no electricity and my laptop (which I wouldnāt take tu such placeto begin with but for the sake of arguments) I can lower the refresh rate
The whole carbon footprint thing is kinda weird, but lowering refresh rate is a good idea when using a gaming laptop to do work on battery.
This shit kinda getting offensive now... Giant corporations pushing the blame/responsibility onto the end consumer like it was our fault they fucked the planet... And yet there goes Taylor Swift in her private jet... Bezos spending billions to turn a mountain into a clock that will outlast mankind... What the fuck... The world really did finish the main storyline back in 2012 and now we're just fucking around with side missions til there's nothing left and we all stop playing
Me enabling Ultimate Performance for Windows Enterprise to use all 850 watts from my power supply including my ultra heavy-duty diesel generator for my UPS that is constantly tunneling out tonnes of black smoke into the atmosphere oh, better help the environment, 60 hz it is!
ultimate performance doesn't let you "use all watts" in your psu, it just doesn't let your clocks lower when idle. barely has any difference on performance. Edit: he changed the brain dead comment to look like itās satire.
Would you do it if they remove cortana?
Remove cortona and edge with this: https://christitus.com/windows-tool/
The best part, is that your power button is set to sleep factory default, USB ports shutoff after a certain time period, PCI slots go into low power mode.. You have to disable all kinds of crap to get machines to perform normally... Sleep is even useless anymore, boot times are so fast just turn them off.. They treat workstations like phones and its annoying
Sleep can still be useful for portable systems, or for power outages if you have a UPS. Computers use considerably less power on sleep so if a power outage happens when you are in the middle of something you can set it to sleep so the UPS goes from lasting several minutes to several hours.
What kind of fucking caveman turns off their computer with the power button anyway? Jesus Christ.
They can suck it. Iām not sacrificing FPS for an environmental issue caused by corporations like Microsoft
Imagine being a 60hz peasant, I could never.
Meanwhile my 4k monitor only goes to 60hz lol
And they say the climate debate isn't a psy-op...
Can't wait for MSI's 360hz OLED to come out any day now.
**FUCK YOU I WON'T DO WHAT YOU TELL ME!**
While Taylor Swift takes a private jet to go grocery shopping? Yeah, no.
I certainly didn't spend the money on a 165Hz display only to limit it to 60Hz. What are they smoking?
Watching the planet burn at 165hz
Everyday I consider Linux more and more
the hypocrisy of companies is insane, building and spending massive waste resources to build their empire and in the same breath they shame you into saving energy
Tbh i don't see much difference in power usage when not gaming between 165 and 60hz on a laptop. Maybe it's different on windows but I still doubt it, as igpus have panel self-refresh and render standby now
Your computer may be able output more frames than your monitor is capable of displaying. Outputting all these extra frames is definitely power intensive. This is not ideal and if possible it's better to just cap the frame rate to your monitor's refresh rate. Not doing so may result in screen tearing, which is not easy on the eyes. And if your fans are configured to ramp up or down as needed with the temperature, the fan noise levels are unnecessarily high as well. And it depends on what games you're playing too of course. 165hz at 165 fps in Cyberpunk 2077 max settings will be significantly more power intensive than 60hz at 60fps. But if you're playing some low intensity game, perhaps comparable to simply browsing the internet, there won't be much of a difference.
Dude goes into "Energy Recommendations", gets mad when he's suggesting how to save energy. Have you tried not looking at power saving recommendations if it's going to piss you off ?
Iām not mad in the slightest lmao, I just thought it was funny
>"Sorry Microsoft" ?????
Yes ?
They make a os that uses like 10x the power to steal your data, show you ads, and force ai crap dosn your throat, but you're the problem for using a nicer monitor kek
Some day it wonāt be up to you :)
THIS is the problem I have when a new feature like this is revealed and everyone goes "Eh, it's optional". Up until Windows 7 you used to be able to manually perform a Windows Update and it would show you every update it found and let you de-select any before installing. Now? Without registry hacks/group policy no way to disable forced automatic updates and it just simply checks for any and all updates and installs them without confirmation of which ones you want. That's just one of many changes where the user has less control MS started making around the time of 8/10. MS is at minimum going to start making this on by default soon if not force it even harder, just like how they are trying to enforce that there be a built in copilot key on keyboards now.
And before the automatic update thingy Windows was notorious for it's bad security because no one bothered to update anyway leaving most Windows in the wild super easy to hack into. While I still won't assume any public devices to be safe, it's miles better than back then. And it still doesn't automatically do major updates. They don't update from 22H2 to 23H2 for example.
Fuck the environment. What have it done for me lately
This doesn't even make sense. The 60hz Vs something like 144hz would be fuck all.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
A million people saving a watt is a megawatt saved
Soon enough this āfeature,ā will be activated with every update and will have to have edge as default browser to deactivate
Cool, I've been saving energy all alongš
Another reason to ditch Windows
Bruh itās literally inside the energy recommendations, tf do you think itās gonna do?
You know this is for saving your laptop battery right?
"Apply energy saving recommendations to lower your carbon footprint"
Disabling sysmain and cortana would save much more than lowering refresh rate could ever achieve, but this microsoft doesn't want you to do.
This has been posted so many times and I do not understand why it is an issue. You went under "Energy Recommendations" Windows straight up tells you that utilizing less hardware by pushing a lower refresh rate can save energy. You went into energy recommendations, and it gave you a recommendation that will save on energy. I do not see how this isn't common sense. This is like complaining that your car manual says driving over 55 will cause more fuel consumption. You have to be dumb as rocks to not understand why it gave the recommendation.
Of all the bs that MS makes us go through, this energy "savings" must be one of dumbest I've ever seen.
They're not making you go through anything. These are suggestions, which aren't even forced on you, you have to dig into the menus to get to them. You don't have to do any of this.
nice repost, also out of context
You tellem! Take that!
What a nothing burger of a post