Pls STOP capping your fps to the monitor refreshrate

[-PB]

In every video LTT posts on youtube testing screens,

especially the last one for Asus PG259Q 360hz, you keep capping the fps to the monitors refreshrates.

 

I beg of you, STOP doing that.

Let the fps flow.

 

BUT there's a catch. 

Having unstable fluctuating high fps is garbage, compared to 10%lower "rock-solid-never-deviating" fps.

 

This will help ANY monitor, regardless if you're running a game @ 60, 120, 144, 240 or now 360hz. 

More fps = more smoother, but it has to be stable fps. 

 

144fps on a 144hz monitor is meh. But have you tried 300fps on a 144hz panel? 

Its like night and day. 

And then again 600 fps on a 144hz panel. Everything just flows and is sooo smooooth

*insert Italian chef tasting good food finger expression*

Now imagine 360hz with 1000fps++!!!!!

 

The reason why pro csgo players run on potato resolutions from 2005 (1280x960) is because they can hit these higher fps ranges.

They lower the graphics waaay down, cap the fps super high(but rock solid)  waaay beyond the monitors refresh rates and go wrecking.

 

Say your game can run at 430 fps, but its unstable and fluctuating. You give the game some overhead by cap it at 400 or 380, even tho your monitor only is "144hz".

You can thank me later.

 

This applies to games that cant even run at that monitor refresh rates. (IM LOOKING AT YOU PUBG AND CIV6)

 

PS

As soon as a monitor comes in a 1440p 360hz 27" version, I'M GETTING IT

Until then, I got my eye on a HP OMEN X27

 

Now you try it.

"It's free real estate."

[Moonzy]

though some games do break at high fps 

7 minutes ago, -PB said:

As soon as a monitor comes in a 1440p 360hz 27" version, I'M GETTING IT

Until then, I got my eye on a HP OMEN X27

until they reduce the pixel response time, im not changing my 240hz, smooth but blurry af

 

Spoiler

why is this in off topic instead of display

 

[Spotty]

48 minutes ago, -PB said:

In every video LTT posts on youtube testing screens,

especially the last one for Asus PG259Q 360hz, you keep capping the fps to the monitors refreshrates.

Where does it say in the video they've capped the FPS to the monitors refresh rate? When they're doing the blind test in CSGO (or valorant? w/e) they mention that the game is running at above 700 FPS.

[Drama Lama]

Not everybody is a ( wannabe ) tryhard who needs to run everything with +1000 FPS 

[Rybo]

Meh, I can't even tell the difference between 100 fps and 144 fps, so I'm not terribly concerned with that stuff -- it's WAY beyond the point of diminishing returns for everyone except those who stand to make tons of money by being The Best™.  

Come to think of it, I can't even tell the difference between 1080p and 4k from a 27" monitor at normal viewing distance (~2.5 feet in my case), so I'm fortunately not the guy to look to for EPIC MONITOR decisions.  Just get me a decent sized 1080p monitor with a 60hz+ refresh rate and good response times and I'm a happy panda.  

[WereCatf]

4 hours ago, -PB said:

Now you try it.

I've tried, went back to using VSYNC.

[starry]

4 hours ago, -PB said:

In every video LTT posts on youtube testing screens,

especially the last one for Asus PG259Q 360hz, you keep capping the fps to the monitors refreshrates.

 

I beg of you, STOP doing that.

Let the fps flow.

 

BUT there's a catch. 

Having unstable fluctuating high fps is garbage, compared to 10%lower "rock-solid-never-deviating" fps.

 

This will help ANY monitor, regardless if you're running a game @ 60, 120, 144, 240 or now 360hz. 

More fps = more smoother, but it has to be stable fps. 

 

144fps on a 144hz monitor is meh. But have you tried 300fps on a 144hz panel? 

Its like night and day. 

And then again 600 fps on a 144hz panel. Everything just flows and is sooo smooooth

*insert Italian chef tasting good food finger expression*

Now imagine 360hz with 1000fps++!!!!!

 

The reason why pro csgo players run on potato resolutions from 2005 (1280x960) is because they can hit these higher fps ranges.

They lower the graphics waaay down, cap the fps super high(but rock solid)  waaay beyond the monitors refresh rates and go wrecking.

 

Say your game can run at 430 fps, but its unstable and fluctuating. You give the game some overhead by cap it at 400 or 380, even tho your monitor only is "144hz".

You can thank me later.

 

This applies to games that cant even run at that monitor refresh rates. (IM LOOKING AT YOU PUBG AND CIV6)

 

PS

As soon as a monitor comes in a 1440p 360hz 27" version, I'M GETTING IT

Until then, I got my eye on a HP OMEN X27

 

Now you try it.

"It's free real estate."

This is untrue. The reason the capping setting exists is because running above your refresh rate is unstable and makes the experience worse and more choppy.

120fps on 60hz will look like garbage and possibly give you nausea.

The reason pro csgo players put their fps on the lowest is to have 0 chance of freezes or hiccups running the game, not to run their game above their monitor refresh rate. They are probably using Gsync anyways, which is the proper way to improve monitor responsiveness, not more FPS that your monitor cant even display.

You also might notice that their resolutions are low, its an FOV trick.

 

If any of my information is outdated, please let me know.

[PCGuy_5960]

18 minutes ago, seapriestess said:

The reason pro csgo players put their fps on the lowest is to have 0 chance of freezes or hiccups running the game, not to run their game above their monitor refresh rate. They are probably using Gsync anyways, which is the proper way to improve monitor responsiveness, not more FPS that your monitor cant even display.

No, they really want 400+ fps at all times. I don't think any CS pro uses G-sync, most of them use the XL2546 which doesn't even have G-sync as an option. The only pros I've seen use G-sync are (some) fortnite pros, but that's mostly because it's very hard to keep 200+FPS at all times in pro fortnite games.

[starry]

4 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

No, they really want 400+ fps at all times. I don't think any CS pro uses G-sync, most of them use the XL2546 which doesn't even have G-sync as an option. The only pros I've seen use G-sync are (some) fortnite pros, but that's mostly because it's very hard to keep 200+FPS at all times in pro fortnite games.

That makes very little sense to me, as running your game at higher refresh rate than your monitor has been proven over and over again to be an overall more choppy experience.

[Nathanpete]

27 minutes ago, seapriestess said:

You also might notice that their resolutions are low, its an FOV trick.

Well then it definitely isn't a good FOV trick bc those that play in 4:3 are at a disadvantage. I just saw a clip from the Cologne major where the spectators could see one of the oponents going right underneath the nose of another player in the bottom left side of the screen, but bc the player they were spectating was playing in 4:3 he didn't notice it. 

 

And CS:GO pros notice everything. 

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, seapriestess said:

That makes very little sense to me, as running your game at higher refresh rate than your monitor has been proven over and over again to be an overall more choppy experience.

It reduces input lag and makes the game feel more responsive. That's all that really matters in pro play.

[starry]

8 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

It reduces input lag and makes the game feel more responsive. That's all that really matters in pro play.

It makes the game feel more responsive but the frames lock up a bunch? Am I missing something here?

 

Edit: Just loaded up CSGO and tried capping at 300 and then capping at my monitor refresh rate. Capping at 300 was so choppy it gave me nausia. Its been this way on every monitor Ive ever had, and Im pretty sure Ive seen videos on why It occurs too.

[starry]

8 minutes ago, Nathanpete said:

Well then it definitely isn't a good FOV trick bc those that play in 4:3 are at a disadvantage. I just saw a clip from the Cologne major where the spectators could see one of the oponents going right underneath the nose of another player in the bottom left side of the screen, but bc the player they were spectating was playing in 4:3 he didn't notice it. 

 

And CS:GO pros notice everything. 

Switch to 4:3 and turn FOV all the way up, it makes it easier to hit moving targets.

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, seapriestess said:

It makes the game feel more responsive but the frames lock up a bunch? Am I missing something here?

Try it for yourself, load up an offline map in CS and cap your FPS to your monitor's refresh rate and then uncap them. Uncapped feels so much more responsive than capped.

2 minutes ago, seapriestess said:

Switch to 4:3 and turn FOV all the way up, it makes it easier to hit moving targets.

You can't change your FOV in CS without sv_cheats 1.

[Intergalacticbits]

I always find this stuff so confusing.

I remember I would run an in game benchmark of an old game with a much newer card than the card specs for the old game.

My monitor was 60hz native resolution.

When I'd watch the game bench test running it looked good. The details were good and the frame rate was 90 to 100 something fps it said at the end of the test.

 

So I started to wonder if it is also more about how much more the graphics card over powers or easily handles the game?

It seemed like it was way easier on my eyes and full of more crisp detail.

Which is more important to me but how can that be if the monitor is only 60hz?

What is happening there?

I didn't know but I decided someday I want to make all my games play at 90 fps with the most crisp detail because that makes my eyes feel good. 

 

 

[starry]

3 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Try it for yourself, load up an offline map in CS and cap your FPS to your monitor's refresh rate and then uncap them. Uncapped feels so much more responsive than capped.

Just did, gave me nausia, its been this way on every monitor Ive ever had, and Ive seen several videos explaining why you shouldnt do this.

An example:

3 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

You can't change your FOV in CS without sv_cheats 1.

Did not know that, Ive never tried to change it myself, just was told that you could at some point.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, seapriestess said:

Just did, gave me nausia, its been this way on every monitor Ive ever had

Personally I don't have any issue, capping my FPS makes the game feel way choppier

3 minutes ago, seapriestess said:

and Ive seen several videos explaining why you shouldnt do this.

Well pretty much every CS pro (or pro in other games) plays uncapped with 300+FPS, so it's probably not that bad.

3 minutes ago, seapriestess said:

Did not know that, Ive never tried to change it myself, just was told that you could at some point.

You can change it offline, but you can't do that in official servers.

[starry]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

Personally I don't have any issue, capping my FPS makes the game feel way choppier

Well pretty much every CS pro (or pro in other games) plays uncapped with 300+FPS, so it's probably not that bad.

You can change it offline, but you can't do that in official servers.

Maybe Im just really sensitive to the downsides of uncapping FPS. I would imagine it does give pro players benefit if they all do it.

I will never recommend not capping though, because I have horrible experiences with it. I wonder why.

[starry]

Yeah just tried it on my other monitor too, they are different makes, still nauseatingly choppy.

I need to stop testing this, I have a headache.

[PCGuy_5960]

2 minutes ago, seapriestess said:

Maybe Im just really sensitive to the downsides of uncapping FPS. I would imagine it does give pro players benefit if they all do it.

I will never recommend not capping though, because I have horrible experiences with it. I wonder why.

It's mostly a preference thing TBH, some people swear by uncapped, some people prefer capped. If you aren't that competitive, capping your FPS will probably give you a better viewing experience most of the time.

[starry]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

It's mostly a preference thing TBH, some people swear by uncapped, some people prefer capped. If you aren't that competitive, capping your FPS will probably give you a better viewing experience most of the time.

Gotcha. The only things Im super competitive about is MMO PvP, and you can do that with 60fps lol.

[starry]

Makes me wonder why the poster is so cranky about LTT opting for a generally better viewing experience over response time though when testing panels. I feel like the panel should do the talking, not a setting in a game.

[Moonzy]

33 minutes ago, seapriestess said:

It makes the game feel more responsive but the frames lock up a bunch? Am I missing something here?

from my personal experience in osu!, having any sort of cap makes me perform about 2-4ms slower (measured by the game as i play)

 

240hz panel, and tested different in-game fps cap:

60fps was obviously bad, no comment

interestingly, i couldn't tell between 120 and 240 fps cap accurately by eye, but there's 2-4ms difference between them avg

so i expected to have no difference between uncapped fps and 240, but when i did (game runs around 1500-2000 fps), there was a 2-4ms difference avg between 240

 

so there are some input latency difference, or at least, visual difference? idk?

maybe my game render the frame right after a refresh, so there's a 4ms gap between the frame and it being displayed, while 2000fps have a delay of 0.5ms max.

 

my testing may be flawed though, i just randomly set fps cap (there's a hotkey) with my eyes closed and played, and recorded the avg offset of when i hit the circle and fps in excel, i'll admit i didn't do a lot of tests, but i did like 15 randomly between those FPS.

 

as for choppiness, didnt feel any, but osu! frametime never goes above 1ms anyways

[starry]

3 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

from my personal experience in osu!, having any sort of cap makes me perform about 2-4ms slower (measured by the game as i play)

 

240hz panel, and tested different in-game fps cap:

60fps was obviously bad, no comment

interestingly, i couldn't tell between 120 and 240 fps cap accurately by eye, but there's 2-4ms difference between them avg

so i expected to have no difference between uncapped fps and 240, but when i did (game runs around 1500-2000 fps), there was a 2-4ms difference avg between 240

 

so there are some input latency difference, or at least, visual difference? idk?

maybe my game render the frame right after a refresh, so there's a 4ms gap between the frame and it being displayed, while 2000fps have a delay of 0.5ms max.

 

my testing may be flawed though, i just randomly set fps cap (there's a hotkey) with my eyes closed and played, and recorded the avg offset of when i hit the circle and fps in excel, i'll admit i didn't do a lot of tests, but i did like 15 randomly between those FPS.

 

as for choppiness, didnt feel any, but osu! frametime never goes above 1ms anyways

Interesting. Im really curious as to why uncapping the framerate consistently makes me nauseated now. It always makes it look like its 20-30 fps to me, even if its in the upper 200s or more.

I feel like Ive seen people with the same experience make videos on it before, but I cant seem to find them.

[Moonzy]

3 minutes ago, seapriestess said:

Im really curious as to why uncapping the framerate consistently makes me nauseated now.

i suspect you're having poor 1% low fps, what's your cpu and gpu?

panel refresh rate?

 

or perhaps you're just sensitive to it.

 

i personally gamed on 20fps just recently (with fps dipping as low as <1 fps when it gets intense)

basically tried to run MHW on my intel hd 630., i felt nauseated at first but i got used to it.

i am less susceptible to motion sickness though (no sea and air sickness, but i cant read in a car ride)