[SOLVED] Limit FPS or Unlimited FPS?

Oxicoi

Commendable
Feb 7, 2017
234
1
1,685
0
Probably a dumb question, but...

Does capping the amount of frames the GPU can render increase the lifespan of a GPU?

I have always wondered and I have always kept my old GTX 970 limited to 60, never beyond. I now have an RTX 2060 and everything is very smooth with unlimited FPS, but I'm scared it will reduce the lifetime of that card because temps will go up higher than needed.

Simple question.
 

Mitsosmux

Reputable
Apr 20, 2015
19
0
4,510
3
I always cap my games. Either at 60, 90, 100, 120 or 144 depending on the game and the settings it offers. There is no reason to play Witcher 3 with more than 90. Unnecessary stress and heat for the GPU. Now i'm playing Kindgom Come Deliverance and i've capped it at 72. It gives the GPU some breathe time
 

Groveling_Wyrm

Distinguished
No. Only overclocking can reduce the lifespan of an component.
I disagree with that statement.

The GPU, when capped, tends to work less, creating less heat. This causes less damage from heat cycles (Getting hot, then cold, hot, cold...etc...) and that can enhance the life. You may or may not have seen the trick people use to "Recondition" their gpu by cooking it in the oven for a short time.

This is directly caused by heat cycling, as the solder on the circuit board of the gpu heats up and cools, and loses connection. You also have to worry about the Thermal Interface Material (TIM, Thermal grease) used on the GPU. Higher heat can dry it out. With the newer video cards, they get hotter and this risk is ever increasing.

To the OP, on a side note, another thing to consider is that if you aren't pushing your GPU to a greater speed, by asking it to give more fps, then you are saving money in electricity. Think of it like this....you have a car....it can go 120 mph. You can get it to do the max speed, but it costs you more fuel and more wear and tear to keep it running that fast. Whereas, you keep it down to a reasonable speed, such as 60 mph, then less wear and tear, and greater longevity.
 

Oxicoi

Commendable
Feb 7, 2017
234
1
1,685
0
I disagree with that statement.

The GPU, when capped, tends to work less, creating less heat. This causes less damage from heat cycles (Getting hot, then cold, hot, cold...etc...) and that can enhance the life. You may or may not have seen the trick people use to "Recondition" their gpu by cooking it in the oven for a short time.

This is directly caused by heat cycling, as the solder on the circuit board of the gpu heats up and cools, and loses connection. You also have to worry about the Thermal Interface Material (TIM, Thermal grease) used on the GPU. Higher heat can dry it out. With the newer video cards, they get hotter and this risk is ever increasing.

To the OP, on a side note, another thing to consider is that if you aren't pushing your GPU to a greater speed, by asking it to give more fps, then you are saving money in electricity. Think of it like this....you have a car....it can go 120 mph. You can get it to do the max speed, but it costs you more fuel and more wear and tear to keep it running that fast. Whereas, you keep it down to a reasonable speed, such as 60 mph, then less wear and tear, and greater longevity.
This makes sense, though I thought the certification of a PSU increases the efficiency of electricity delivered, reducing cost?

I like capping frames, but on some games it feels there is latency.
 

Third-Eye

Distinguished
Jun 26, 2011
392
58
18,840
20
The only times I cap fps is when a game is directly affected by unlimited fps causing glitching or to reduce overall heat output on a system with a stock or inadequate CPU cooler.
 

Groveling_Wyrm

Distinguished
This makes sense, though I thought the certification of a PSU increases the efficiency of electricity delivered, reducing cost?
It's not the PSU that is the problem. When a gpu or cpu is used harder, it pulls more power, thus increasing cost. For example. A cpu at idle uses roughly 5-10 watts. That CPU when fully loaded can pull as much as 130-150 watts. Over a given hour, that is a much higher cost. Over a given week, you just hit your pocketbook.
 

Groveling_Wyrm

Distinguished
On paper capping FPS would technically result in a longer lifespan. Capped FPS=lower demand on the card="longer" lifespan.

In reality, you would never see a difference.
I have personally seen and experienced the lowered lifespan of gpu's. I had a customer that had a GPU fail completely because he maxxed it out. I also personally, have had BOTH of the fans of a gpu fail because of heavy use. So, yes, I have seen a difference.
 

Gam3r01

Titan
Moderator
Im sure it does happen to some users, I however have not shared the same experience, my 290 maxes out in most games that I play, still going great.
Averaged overall, I doubt there is significant differences in lifespans running cards within spec.
 
Oxicoi If I were in your position, I would not bother capping your FPS. Even if it did increase the lifespan, it would be by a negligible amount of time. What's more likely is that the GPU's architecture would become obsolete, or will Nvidia slow down driver support for it, before it would actually die from the longevity delta between 60 FPS and full utilization.

However, if you did want to increase the chances of longevity of both your GPU and other components, I would recommend that you assess your power supply. What's it's manufacturer and model, and what year was it purchased? In my opinion, that's a much bigger factor than whether you run your graphics card at full utilization.
 
Last edited:

Mitsosmux

Reputable
Apr 20, 2015
19
0
4,510
3
I always cap my games. Either at 60, 90, 100, 120 or 144 depending on the game and the settings it offers. There is no reason to play Witcher 3 with more than 90. Unnecessary stress and heat for the GPU. Now i'm playing Kindgom Come Deliverance and i've capped it at 72. It gives the GPU some breathe time
 

Oxicoi

Commendable
Feb 7, 2017
234
1
1,685
0
Oxicoi If I were in your position, I would not bother capping your FPS. Even if it did increase the lifespan, it would be by a negligible amount of time. What's more likely is that the GPU's architecture would become obsolete, or will Nvidia slow down driver support for it, before it would actually die from the longevity delta between 60 FPS and full utilization.

However, if you did want to increase the chances of longevity of both your GPU and other components, I would recommend that you assess your power supply. What's it's manufacturer and model, and what year was it purchased? In my opinion, that's a much bigger factor than whether you run your graphics card at full utilization.
I used to have a Thermaltake 650W Bronze PSU that was bought in 2013. I just recently bought a Corsair 850W Platinum the first of Sept.

What makes it a negligible amount though? Doesn't heat damage hardware over time? Rendering unlimited frames makes that heat noticeable by an extreme amount, right?

EDIT: I used to have a GTX 970 and I would always cap at 60, never unlimited. I had it for like 3+ years. If I uncapped it, would it even last 3 years?
 
Last edited:

LordVile

Admirable
Depends on tour display. I have a 75Hz 1440p Freesync monitor. I always cap it at 80-90 depending on the game because if you leave it unlimited the GPU goes to spitting out all the frames is can, pegging it at 100% meaning it gets hot and loud.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY