fps hz Fps and hz

[Marsh]

• Quick question, can a 60hz monitor show more than 60fps? If getting a good rig without a 144hz monitor pointless?

[Josephdalepi]

Just now, Marsh said:

• Quick question, can a 60hz monitor show more than 60fps? If getting a good rig without a 144hz monitor pointless?

no

and no

1 hz=1 fps

a better rig will give you better performance in games, even if not higher fps

[byalexandr]

It will not display anything over the refresh rate of the monitor. If it outputs more than it will begin drawing multiple frames while one is still being outputted and this causing the tearing effect. I personally prefer a high refresh rate instead of a higher resolution (i.e. 1440p or 4K, 1080p is just fine for me if it's 144Hz).

[Flowey]

3 minutes ago, Josephdalepi said:

no

and no

1 hz=1 fps

a better rig will give you better performance in games, even if not higher fps

Can't you overclock a monitor? Not a cathodic one of course

[Marsh]

How about gaiming laptops? How many hz panels do they have? 

[Flashport]

check adapter properties in windows. it will tell you the panels hz. some panels allow a bit of OC. so 60Hz to 75Hz. but make sure, grab your model number and google.

[Josephdalepi]

11 hours ago, Flowey said:

Can't you overclock a monitor? Not a cathodic one of course

depends on the monitor and panel

[Wolf_Lbh]

16 hours ago, Marsh said:

• Quick question, can a 60hz monitor show more than 60fps? If getting a good rig without a 144hz monitor pointless?

1) Not really. Monitor overclocking is a thing but for the headaches it can cause and the relatively small performance to be gained I personally would never recommend it.

2) Not at all. 120 fps is not going to feel that different from 144 fps and you probably won't even notice it at all unless you play some extremely fast paced games. Even 60 fps is completely playable.

Something to remember is that graphics cards do not only translate into fps. They also handle physx, rendering times, and textures. So with a good graphics card even at less fps you can have faster loading times, smoother gameplay, and take things up to max (or at least higher) detail settings and even possibly add custom texture packs and graphic intensive mods.

Fps isn't everything. Hell g-sync, free-sync, v-sync, and all that crap even turn fps down so that the user gets less images but smoother transition between them.

If possible get the highest fps you can but I would rather have 60fps and a beast graphics card if I was on a budget.

[Flashport]

4 hours ago, Wolf_Lbh said:

Fps isn't everything. Hell g-sync, free-sync, v-sync, and all that crap even turn fps down so that the user gets less images but smoother transition between them.

gsync & fsync do not work like vsync. maybe a bit more research is needed from both of our parts. but I'm certain they are very different.

I have a 60Hz monitor, my neighbor has a 144hz panel and plays at 120fps. the difference is night and day. He turns down stuff like heavy AA/shadows/ambient so to get the smoothness that is 120fps. I do the same for 60fps. sacrifice visuals for fps.

 

honestly, I'm confused by your comments:
" even at less fps you can have faster loading times, smoother gameplay, and take things up to max (or at least higher) detail settings and even possibly add custom texture packs and graphic intensive mods. "

faster loading times? thats the job of the SSD.

smoother gameplay? you mean at a higher framerate?

 

I can make Witcher 3 look AMAZING with an i5-4690k, 16GBs, and R9 290. but it is not "smooth" unless you think heavy motion blur is "smooth" because the framerate tanks to 30-45fps. thats horrible

 

also

"Monitor overclocking is a thing but for the headaches it can cause and the relatively small performance to be gained I personally would never recommend it"

is that in your experience? because for me, it has been the opposite. one click OC, no issues/hiccups and visually smoother gameplay.

[Wolf_Lbh]

1 minute ago, Flashport said:

gsync & fsync do not work like vsync. maybe a bit more research is needed from both of our parts. but I'm certain they are very different.

I have a 60Hz monitor, my neighbor has a 144hz panel and plays at 120fps. the difference is night and day. He turns down stuff like heavy AA/shadows/ambient so to get the smoothness that is 120fps. I do the same for 60fps. sacrifice visuals for fps.

 

honestly, I'm confused by your comments:
" even at less fps you can have faster loading times, smoother gameplay, and take things up to max (or at least higher) detail settings and even possibly add custom texture packs and graphic intensive mods. "

faster loading times? thats the job of the SSD.

smoother gameplay? you mean at a higher framerate?

 

I can make Witcher 3 look AMAZING with an i5-4690k, 16GBs, and R9 290. but it is not "smooth" unless you think heavy motion blur is "smooth" because the framerate tanks to 30-45fps. thats horrible

yea, I only have experience with g-sync but freesync operates functionally the same. Nvidia of course claims g-sync is better because it has "better tolerances" but other than that... functionally the same.

Yes, over double the refresh rate is noticeable. But it isn't as noticeable as the improvements a better gpu offers. And speaking of which... are you and your neighbor using the same computers? If he also has a better cpu and gpu it will clearly make his performance even higher above yours. The point I'm making is that higher end gpu + mid rang monitor = better visual quality than lower end gpu and higher end monitor.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here... if you turn down settings at 60fps and he turns down settings at 120fps the same situation holds constant where 120 fps looks better. The advantages of a better gpu are that you have HIGHER settings at lower fps while he would have lower settings at higher fps assuming you run the exact same setups beside gpu and monitor.

Loading times on a game can be effected by how fast physx is rendered and available vram. Vram is more abundant and physx faster on higher quality gpus.

Once again it sounds like you are confused. If you use a lower end gpu and monitor naturally it will perform worse than a higher end monitor and gpu... my point was that by getting an acceptable monitor he could milk the budget for his gpu.

[Flashport]

1 hour ago, Wolf_Lbh said:

nce again it sounds like you are confused. If you use a lower end gpu and monitor naturally it will perform worse than a higher end monitor and gpu... my point was that by getting an acceptable monitor he could milk the budget for his gpu.

hmm, I thought he already had a build and was just looking for a monitor. instead, you're saying he isn't. he is trying to buy parts+monitor? 

 

" But it isn't as noticeable as the improvements a better gpu offers. "

I don't understand this.. what improvements? you mean particles?

 

fps over graphics any day man. wtf? lol

[Wolf_Lbh]

23 hours ago, Marsh said:

• If getting a good rig without a 144hz monitor pointless?

 

5 minutes ago, Flashport said:

hmm, I thought he already had a build and was just looking for a monitor. instead, you're saying he isn't. he is trying to buy parts+monitor? 

It may be hard to understand given that I'm assuming op's first language is not English but he seems to be asking if he gets a good setup will it suck if he doesn't get a 144hz monitor. I was pointing out that if he is on a budget (which evidently he is otherwise he would just get the best monitor he could and not worry about the rig) then an average monitor with a better gpu would offer the most performance per cost.

[Flashport]

6 minutes ago, Wolf_Lbh said:

It may be hard to understand given that I'm assuming op's first language is not English but he seems to be asking if he gets a good setup will it suck if he doesn't get a 144hz monitor. I was pointing out that if he is on a budget (which evidently he is otherwise he would just get the best monitor he could and not worry about the rig) than an average monitor with a better gpu would offer the most performance per cost.

well it would suck, yes.

playing csgo at 120hz is much better than playing it at 60hz.

a toaster can make csgo push over 100 frames. come on.

 

edit:

ok maybe not a toaster, but y'know.

[Wolf_Lbh]

4 minutes ago, Flashport said:

well it would suck, yes.

playing csgo at 120hz is much better than playing it at 60hz.

a toaster can make csgo push over 100 frames. come on.

 

edit:

ok maybe not a toaster, but y'know.

He didn't mention anything about cs:go though. And I specifically said:

7 hours ago, Wolf_Lbh said:

2) Not at all. 120 fps is not going to feel that different from 144 fps and you probably won't even notice it at all unless you play some extremely fast paced games. Even 60 fps is completely playable.

So I made him fully aware in the case of cs:go or say a racing game then he would want to prioritize fps, but in games like wow, skyrim, ect a better gpu for higher detail settings would do him a lot more good.

I don't think you understand what I've been saying or at least have not been paying attention because your counterpoint was simply to agree with something I said earlier...