Yeah, but we really need like the RTX 4080Ti...zero graphics cards today can run 2019 games much above 4K60 at really high settings.
Does high FPS matter? 60fps vs. 144fps vs. 240fps - Linus Tech Tips (ft. Shroud, Grimmmz, Overwatch Pro)
- Thread starter pj-
- Start date
I'm glad they brought up 60+ FPS even on 60Hz displays. I used to play Siege with friends who played on laptops with 60Hz screens, and they noticed a stark, and improved difference when I told them to run at 120FPS (capped in-game or in RTSS to maintain consistent frame times) even if they wouldn't 'see it'.
Yeah, and, I can see the difference on like, everything but games. It's weird!
What about something like Devil May Cry? It's not competitive, but the framerate increase makes a huge difference.
I'm not a competitive gamer. Hell, I have the like no reflexes. High frame rates just feel better. Now, I probably don't need anything over 144 hz though.
I find something similar, and can generally get away with 100fps and be okay - which is probably a good thing as I only have a 1070 to power 1440p.
Past that initial leap I notice 100 to 165 a lot less. It's smoother, certainly, but not mindblowingly so. Never experienced 240hz, though.
Interesting. Thx for the post, OP!
I'd say it's definitely not scientific, given that it's sponsored by a graphics card manufacturer, and they complicated things by putting a different graphics card in each machine. It's unclear whether the issues w/ the 60fps machine were due to framerate alone, or due to frame timing issues as a result of the slower graphics card. And while the testers didn't know which machine they were playing on, the experimenters knew, and Linus is pretty blatantly pro high framerates -- he's cool and all, but I'm not sure that I trust him to be able to set aside his biases, here. On top of that, they were testing in engine, but not testing a networked multiplayer game -- I don't know how much the differences they saw would matter once you add network shenanigans to the mix.
That said, that is a pretty dramatic difference, and I might be wrong in stuff I've said earlier about high refresh displays being a placebo. :-)
Too bad that this isn't something with a lot of academic appeal. It would be neat to have some better design, unsponsored studies to look at. A lot of the tech world runs on gut feels and hearsay; I wish that more of it was based in more rigorous research.
I'd say it's definitely not scientific, given that it's sponsored by a graphics card manufacturer, and they complicated things by putting a different graphics card in each machine. It's unclear whether the issues w/ the 60fps machine were due to framerate alone, or due to frame timing issues as a result of the slower graphics card. And while the testers didn't know which machine they were playing on, the experimenters knew, and Linus is pretty blatantly pro high framerates -- he's cool and all, but I'm not sure that I trust him to be able to set aside his biases, here. On top of that, they were testing in engine, but not testing a networked multiplayer game -- I don't know how much the differences they saw would matter once you add network shenanigans to the mix.
That said, that is a pretty dramatic difference, and I might be wrong in stuff I've said earlier about high refresh displays being a placebo. :-)
Too bad that this isn't something with a lot of academic appeal. It would be neat to have some better design, unsponsored studies to look at. A lot of the tech world runs on gut feels and hearsay; I wish that more of it was based in more rigorous research.
Linus isn't the best player there and the results puts him on par with pro players at 240hz.
So.... if I buy a 240hz I'll be a Pro Player?
Guess it's time to ditch my 1070 gtx and my 144hz monitor.
So.... if I buy a 240hz I'll be a Pro Player?
Guess it's time to ditch my 1070 gtx and my 144hz monitor.
I'd like to see this done with 500hz screens. The Air Force did tests with pilots and they capped out around 500 images a second while identifying an individual picture.
The jump from 30 to 60 to 144 is extremely noticeable. All you have to do is sit somebody down with two monitors - one at 30Hz and one at 144Hz and it's like going from a slideshow to seamless motion.
Yeah 144hz from 60hz is a huge diff and add g sync in it is even better. When I go back to my consoles sometimes it looks like my shit is broken haha. I looking like why is it so choppy! Or when some games lock the cutscenes to 60 its kind of jarring. After I play on consoles for a while though I get used to it again.
Glad I was able to find this thread. I thought no one had made one. I thought it was interesting how the player that came from fighting games, where everything revolves around 60fps, did the best at 60.
I wish I was more sensitive to refresh rate/fps. I a run at 1440p 144hz but I'm able to switch back to console gaming at even 30 (like with Astral Chain) quite easily. Im way more sensitive to changes in frame rate than frame rate itself it seems. I may also just need a better 144hz monitor.
I wish I was more sensitive to refresh rate/fps. I a run at 1440p 144hz but I'm able to switch back to console gaming at even 30 (like with Astral Chain) quite easily. Im way more sensitive to changes in frame rate than frame rate itself it seems. I may also just need a better 144hz monitor.
Just had to go back to a 60hz Dell and I got a hint of motion sickness after years of using a 60hz screen. My LG 144hz which I've only had since the weekend has spoilt me.
I'm no expert here, but it would be worth testing a lower fps with VRR on a 'normal' or 60hz monitor? Since the results seem to plateau a bit past 144hz, I wonder if you could hit the same user performance at a lower framerate, if you had display refresh to match, or if not, if VRR would bridge the gap. Like maybe the sweetspot is lower down the curve?
I think the way to go for competitive FPS is ultrawide 1440p and the highest refresh rate you can get. 60hz is definitely a no go.