Setting a Max FPS worth it?!

[Beorn_Bear]

For Counter Strike, the FPS count is over 200 fps. I have a 60 hertz monitor. Would it be best to set the FPS cap at 60 fps?! Or allowing the fps to go over the monitor refresh rate ok?

[Slottr]

Doesn't matter

[Downkey]

18 minutes ago, Beorn_Bear said:

For Counter Strike, the FPS count is over 200 fps. I have a 60 hertz monitor. Would it be best to set the FPS cap at 60 fps?! Or allowing the fps to go over the monitor refresh rate ok?

Won’t matter too much. If you are trying to get the best competitive advantage then don’t cap the FPS

[Pixelfie]

60 would give you less tearing, unlocked would give you the least delay.

[Morrie Sells Wigs]

1 hour ago, Beorn_Bear said:

For Counter Strike, the FPS count is over 200 fps. I have a 60 hertz monitor. Would it be best to set the FPS cap at 60 fps?! Or allowing the fps to go over the monitor refresh rate ok?

I tend to lock mine, but only because I'm assumed that it is putting the components under a pointless strain to produce frames I can't even see.

 

This is it at 144hz, however. 

 

 

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

technically yes, let's say you have a 60hz monitor, then you can set it to 120fps, and get the best of both worlds 'fast inputs' and barely any screen tearing as long you can keep it locked at 120fps (no Vsync needed in that case) 

[LloydLynx]

Keep it unlocked. I think 60hz is one frame per ~16ms. Assuming you lock the FPS at 60hz: if the GPU renders a frame in 6ms, it will wait 10ms before drawing the next frame, and there will be a slight delay. If uncapped: the GPU will rapidly render frames, which means one side of a tear will be slightly more up to date than the other side of the tear. 200fps cap will give you lots of small tearing, 60fps cap give you 1 large tear per frame. I personally prefer having many small tears and having low latency so I keep games uncapped.