I blame the competitive gamers that barely understand what theyre doing. I seen guys complaining about their frame rates dropping below 120 on a 2k display.
Maybe, something higher than 120 provides an advantage to players with extreme reactive skills in the most intense close quarter first-person combat, but there otherwise wouldnt be a reason to sustain anything above 120. I dont think there are any monitors that refresh above 120.
Imagine bottlenecking 200+ frames a second, at 2k resolution, through a 60 hertz monitor. What a waste of gpu.
I dont think there are any monitors that refresh above 120.
I’m sorry what are you talking about? I have a 240Hz monitor and you can easily buy one with over 500Hz. And 240 feels so much smoother than 120, even in story heavy games.
I see. I hope you’ve optimized your gpu, otherwise you could be burning out that thing for no good reason.
The science behind how much visual information the brain can process is ongoing. I guess the consensus is that humans can process as much as 200 frames a second with some suggesting that a person could reach 1000 frames a second.
That last one sounds ridiculous to me.
It’s funny you blame competitive gamers who don’t understand what they’re doing, yet don’t seem to know how any of this works.
Higher refresh rates reduce frame timing, reducing both visual and input latency. It’s why a game at 30 fps often “feels” laggy compared to one at 60 or 120 fps. Even if you can’t see the increased frame rate you can certainly feel input latency. It’s also why “fake frames” from things like optiscaler or FSR/DLSS don’t help when already at low frame rates, they actually increase latency, which is already bad when your frame times are higher.
I’m not into competitive gaming at all, btw, just sensitive to (and annoyed by) input lag.
I blame the competitive gamers that barely understand what theyre doing. I seen guys complaining about their frame rates dropping below 120 on a 2k display.
Maybe, something higher than 120 provides an advantage to players with extreme reactive skills in the most intense close quarter first-person combat, but there otherwise wouldnt be a reason to sustain anything above 120. I dont think there are any monitors that refresh above 120.
Imagine bottlenecking 200+ frames a second, at 2k resolution, through a 60 hertz monitor. What a waste of gpu.
I’m sorry what are you talking about? I have a 240Hz monitor and you can easily buy one with over 500Hz. And 240 feels so much smoother than 120, even in story heavy games.
Yeah, wtf. I have a cheap (or was cheap at the time) LG 1440p ultrawide, nothing fancy, and it can do up to 165 Hz.
I see. I hope you’ve optimized your gpu, otherwise you could be burning out that thing for no good reason. The science behind how much visual information the brain can process is ongoing. I guess the consensus is that humans can process as much as 200 frames a second with some suggesting that a person could reach 1000 frames a second. That last one sounds ridiculous to me.
It’s funny you blame competitive gamers who don’t understand what they’re doing, yet don’t seem to know how any of this works.
Higher refresh rates reduce frame timing, reducing both visual and input latency. It’s why a game at 30 fps often “feels” laggy compared to one at 60 or 120 fps. Even if you can’t see the increased frame rate you can certainly feel input latency. It’s also why “fake frames” from things like optiscaler or FSR/DLSS don’t help when already at low frame rates, they actually increase latency, which is already bad when your frame times are higher.
I’m not into competitive gaming at all, btw, just sensitive to (and annoyed by) input lag.