question about hz?

[Nick Ger]

If you hit 90 fps in csgo but your monitor is only 60 hz will you see 90 fps or only 60?

 

And can i use free

[WereCat]

You will see 60FPS but by having 90FPS you will see the more recent frames that were rendered closest to the refresh cycle of the screen which means lower input lag. 

[Jurrunio]

2 minutes ago, Nick Ger said:

If you hit 90 fps in csgo but your monitor is only 60 hz will you see 90 fps or only 60?

 

you'll see 90 incomplete frames, as the monitor doesn't refresh fast enough to show the entire picture before it starts with the next frame. That's how you get screen tearing.

[i_build_nanosuits]

6 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

you'll see 90 incomplete frames, as the monitor doesn't refresh fast enough to show the entire picture before it starts with the next frame. That's how you get screen tearing.

oh come on...if you're lucky maybe a few of them frames will land completed at the same time the screen refresh...so you might get a few full frames from time to time

i know it's horrible right...

 

Get a freesync or gsync monitor it'll change your life...you don't notice screen tearing much you might think, until it's gone...only then can you realize how bad it was.

[Mira Yurizaki]

18 minutes ago, Nick Ger said:

If you hit 90 fps in csgo but your monitor is only 60 hz will you see 90 fps or only 60?

Assuming triple buffering isn't enabled, you will see 90 frames, but you'll only see partial frames.

 

As an explanation, the simplest way to render and display something is to render the image in one area while the monitor reads from another. When the GPU is done rendering the image, it swaps it with what the monitor is reading, but the monitor continues one from the place it was reading at. So for example, if the monitor was at line 500 of an image and it gets swapped, the monitor will display the new image from line 501.

 

The mentioning of triple buffering is that the GPU is given two places to draw images into. The image the monitor reads from is swapped with the last rendered image instead.

[Mark Kaine]

On 1/7/2020 at 5:58 PM, WereCat said:

You will see 60FPS but by having 90FPS you will see the more recent frames that were rendered closest to the refresh cycle of the screen which means lower input lag. 

And that's how you get terrible jitter and screen tearing for no noticeable advantage. 

 

Really, input lag?  This doesn't even make sense that would lower it and if then by how much? 

 

Are you aware that the average game has 100-200 ms "internal input lag"?

 

For example Tekken 7, a fighting game where input lag is extremely important,  has 60ms input lag (internal)  which is considered very low. 

 

... Either way,  I tried this,  I'm extremely sensitive to input lag and similar things,  framerate not proportional to refresh rate = unplayable.  

 

If anyone thinks they get an advantage from that,  it's called placebo effect.  

 

 

[WereCat]

2 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

And that's how you get terrible jitter and screen tearing for no noticeable advantage. 

 

Really, input lag?  This doesn't even make sense that would lower it and if then by how much? 

 

Are you aware that the average game has 100-200 ms "internal input lag"?

 

For example Tekken 7, a fighting game where input lag is extremely important,  has 60ms input lag (internal)  which is considered very low. 

 

... Either way,  I tried this,  I'm extremely sensitive to input lag and similar things,  framerate not proportional to refresh rate = unplayable.  

 

If anyone thinks they get an advantage from that,  it's called placebo effect.  

 

 

You are aware that you get jitter and tearing even if you play at 60FPS on 60Hz as long as you dont use an adaptive refresh rate or V-Sync? Because FPS is pretty much a meaningless number in this case. You are not guaranteed to render each frame exactly at the start of the refresh cycle of the monitor. You can miss every single one and get tearing.

In theory a 60FPS = 16.66ms on avg but it never actually works like that, you often render some frames faster or later so it varies and thats where the worse input lag comes in when the frame takes longer to render and you get a static image for multiple refresh cycles. If you were as sensitive to input lag as you claim you would definitely notice it. It is not a placebo effect. Obviously, in some games it wont matter at all but in a fast paced shooters it will make a difference. It also depends on the game engine and HW performance, if your PC can render frames evenly enough it will be less noticeable, there are way too many factors.

 

And IDK where you got the 100ms to 200ms avg input lag number but if you can't notice 0.2s of input lag then IDK what to tell you. 

 

AVG game definitely doesn't have that kind of input lag.

[Doobeedoo]

14 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

And that's how you get terrible jitter and screen tearing for no noticeable advantage. 

 

Really, input lag?  This doesn't even make sense that would lower it and if then by how much? 

 

Are you aware that the average game has 100-200 ms "internal input lag"?

 

For example Tekken 7, a fighting game where input lag is extremely important,  has 60ms input lag (internal)  which is considered very low. 

 

... Either way,  I tried this,  I'm extremely sensitive to input lag and similar things,  framerate not proportional to refresh rate = unplayable.  

 

If anyone thinks they get an advantage from that,  it's called placebo effect.  

 

 

You'll get jitter and tearing with 60hz 60fps cap, just that it will feel even worse on lower framerate. Adaptive sync would help, still higher framerate is better. Also definitely no V-sync. Having higher fps will help with tearing and yes it lowers input lag because more update frame can be drawn between monitor refresh rate cycles.

And where did you get that average game has such obscene input lag dude, even 60ms would be high what. 

If you say you're sensitive to input lag it's confusing that you say you wouldn't want more fps even though lower refresh rate. Obviously if you want them hz and fps synced without V-sync, because input lag, get a Freesync monitor.

I'm not sure how you concluded some things but if you'd play online fps you wouldn't say some of these things. on like 60hz monitor having like 120fps is better than 60fps it's easily provable. Just moving around aiming it's noticeable. So it's not a placebo effect at all.

[Mark Kaine]

39 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

And where did you get that average game has such obscene input lag dude, even 60ms would be high what. 

If you say you're sensitive to input lag it's confusing

This is only confusing to you because you do not understand how games work internally. 

 

 

TEKKEN 7 (it's a fighting game where "input lag" is very important)  has ~60ms of internal input lag,  which is considered very low. 

 

The average shootbang shooter has more like 150-200ms "internal input lag".

 

 

What this really means is that "low internal input lag" isn't that important as you think... If you shave off a few milliseconds from those ~200ms *internally*  you aren't going to notice at all. This isn't exactly the same as display lag because that's individually different for the display you're using,  games are made with this internal delay or lag in mind, and again, shaving a few ms off will not give you a better experience - hence placebo. 

 

 

Which of course is very powerful in itself so you may as well keep believing it,  I prefer no tearing,  it's the worst there is and I refuse to play games with it. 

 

The only input lag that should concern you is display lag, and everything between 10 and 30ms is deemed *very good* although low is better of course. 

 

But you aren't going to notice like a 5ms difference, that's hilarious, average human reaction time isn't anywhere that fast.  

 

 

PS: I agree about the adaptive sync,  I can see how that actually improves things especially because it eliminates the horrible discrepancies between framerate and refresh rate (ideally)

[Doobeedoo]

36 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

This is only confusing to you because you do not understand how games work internally. 

 

 

TEKKEN 7 (it's a fighting game where "input lag" is very important)  has ~60ms of internal input lag,  which is considered very low. 

 

The average shootbang shooter has more like 150-200ms "internal input lag".

 

 

What this really means is that "low internal input lag" isn't that important as you think... If you shave off a few milliseconds from those ~200ms *internally*  you aren't going to notice at all. This isn't exactly the same as display lag because that's individually different for the display you're using,  games are made with this internal delay or lag in mind, and again, shaving a few ms off will not give you a better experience - hence placebo. 

 

 

Which of course is very powerful in itself so you may as well keep believing it,  I prefer no tearing,  it's the worst there is and I refuse to play games with it. 

 

The only input lag that should concern you is display lag, and everything between 10 and 30ms is deemed *very good* although low is better of course. 

 

But you aren't going to notice like a 5ms difference, that's hilarious, average human reaction time isn't anywhere that fast.  

 

 

PS: I agree about the adaptive sync,  I can see how that actually improves things especially because it eliminates the horrible discrepancies between framerate and refresh rate (ideally)

I understand how graphics pipeline and how games render frames work. I've played fighting games like Tekken and Mortal Kombat so. The mentioned 60ms is for their 60fps no.

 

Now you're saying that shooter games are much higher which makes no sense, since they're even more sensitive type of games for that. I'm not talking about average shooter games but certain popular esport titles though. 

Again such fps games don't have 200ms delay you speak of. As for tearing, which gets less noticeable on higher framerate too anyway and you have Freesync as an option so yeah. 60hz and 60fps cap will look ass without adaptive sync.

 

Obviously you want a solid display like 144Hz at minimum. But you also obviously want high framerate too. 

You can't compare 5ms difference in monitors vs human reaction times, obviously humans react slower, doesn't mean that faster monitor still can't help. There is definitely difference in fast motion between even high refresh rate monitors. LCD is not that fast for perfect clarity, we'd need much higher refresh rate.

[Raging-Storm]

On 1/7/2020 at 11:55 AM, Nick Ger said:

If you hit 90 fps in csgo but your monitor is only 60 hz will you see 90 fps or only 60?

 

And can i use free

Watch this video    The compare pros vs amateurs on different fps set ups.  One of the set ups was 60hz monitor putting out higher FPS and its CSGO

 

 

 

[Glenwing]

2 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

The average shootbang shooter has more like 150-200ms "internal input lag".

Source?