FPS

[mkU1tra762]

Stupid question, but does 60 FPS look better on a 144Hz screen than on a 60Hz screen?

[Crunchy Dragon]

I believe so

[EPPHO]

It's the same

[jorenc]

13 minutes ago, MattKnutson84 said:

Stupid question, but does 60 FPS look better on a 144Hz screen than on a 60Hz screen?

Depends on frame timing.

 

So if you're card can only eek out 60 fps max (144hz screen or not), the time in-between frames will probably increase and make the game quality very meh.

 

But if you have a sick ass card that can play games at 144hz, It'll be capped to 144hz unless you set it to 60 (so why would you bother)

[Subtle Corruption]

Exactly the same, only difference being if Vsync is off you have more head room before screen tearing appears as an issue on 144hz.

[-TesseracT-]

Let's say that the fps was above 60 (but not much above), then I think it would be better on the 60 hz, for u would get stuttering on the 144 hz when the fps would go up and down. I believe anyways.

[vanished]

It's worse because it's trying to map that content to a refresh rate that doesn't match.  Same thing happens trying to watch 24 fps content on a 60 hz screen (look up 3:2 pulldown to learn more).  Freesync and Gsync were invented to avoid this problem.

[kelvinhall05]

No.

[Princess Luna]

It is worse, native > all custom always, same thing with 1080p on a 4k display will look worse than if a 1080p native display.

[ARikozuM]

60Hz on a 144Hz monitor won't look as good as the panel isn't given enough to refresh at a 1:1 rate and you're left with extra milliseconds where nothing is changed. For best results, you should try to hit 72Hz as often as possible and as fluidly as possible. 

[vanished]

-moved to displays-

Just now, ARikozuM said:

60Hz on a 144Hz monitor won't look as good as the panel isn't given enough to refresh at a 1:1 rate and you're left with extra milliseconds where nothing is changed. For best results, you should try to hit 72Hz as often as possible and as fluidly as possible. 

Yeah, it comes down to making sure you get 1 frame per refresh, or at least a whole number multiple.

 

Showing 72 fps content on a 144 hz panel means every frame is shown for 2 refreshes, which is nice and smooth, but trying to display 60 fps content doesn't work very well because it's 2.4x more (not an integer).  This means that it has to show one frame for 2 refreshes, and then the next frame for 3 refreshes, etc. alternating as necessary, and that causes a stuttery look.

[Glenwing]

60 fps looks worse on a 144 Hz than a 60 Hz screen.

[mkU1tra762]

27 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

-moved to displays-

Yeah, it comes down to making sure you get 1 frame per refresh, or at least a whole number multiple.

 

Showing 72 fps content on a 144 hz panel means every frame is shown for 2 refreshes, which is nice and smooth, but trying to display 60 fps content doesn't work very well because it's 2.4x more (not an integer).  This means that it has to show one frame for 2 refreshes, and then the next frame for 3 refreshes, etc. alternating as necessary, and that causes a stuttery look.

So with that said would a 120Hz pannel work better for 60 FPS content than a 144Hz pannel would?

[vanished]

2 minutes ago, MattKnutson84 said:

So with that said would a 120Hz pannel work better for 60 FPS content than a 144Hz pannel would?

A 120 hz panel should make 60 fps content look just as good as a 60 hz monitor, yes, so it would be better for that than a 144 hz one