Support NeoGAF

[Drell]

I've got a 75hz screen and can't see the difference between 60 and 75. I'm sure 120 looks better and that I could see it but 60 is already totally fine if it's to use the extra power for better graphics.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

I really didn’t think I’d notice the difference between 60 and 120, but CoD feels so much better at 120.

Most games 60 is absolutely plenty.

30 is rough nowadays unless it’s rock solid with decent motion blur.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I have a laptop with a 165hz screen and my gaming PC is currently connected to a 120hz TV and I struggle to see any difference so I'm gonna say I tap out at 120hz

 

[LRKD]

120, But I'm not 100% sure because I always cap my pc at 60fps. I think 60 is good enough, 120 is a nice bonus, anything past that is excessive.

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

I thought I've read somewhere that, in order to achieve the smoothness old CRT monitors provided, a modern LED display would have to run at 1000Hz. Isn't that true anymore?

 

[Justin9mm]

I'm happy with 60 if it means higher resolution. Otherwise I will sacrifice res to achieve 60. If it's going to be 4K with all the bells and whistles on console, I will settle for 40fps VRR. Otherwise it's performance mode all the way. I love playing above 60 but I'm not sure I can tell much of a difference after 90fps. I can't understand how people can't tell the difference above 60 or between 30 and 60. It's pretty night and day.

 

[raduque]

60 fps is what I aim for. Though I've recently started gaming on my laptop again, and playing HZD and Shadows of the Tomb Raider both at 30, and I have to say the game itself makes aBIIIIIG difference.

HZD feels janky at 30, while STR feels perfectly fine at 30. Both with an Xbox pad.

 

[hinch7]

90fps on console and controller. 144fps on PC with mouse and keyboard.

With that said 200fps and over (I have a 240hz monitor) for competitive play is so smooth and responsive with low input lag. That, even if I can't see much different past 160fps.. I can certainly feel it as the overall system latency is lower. And does make tracking moving targets much easier for fast paced multiplayer games - like CoD for example. Due to much better motion clarity, from the display and more frames updated faster.

 

[crackajack]

I would have thought the area right between 30 and 60 would be most interesting. With 40fps VRR being a thing, which I have yet to see if that is actually okay or good as some think it is. 30 is objectively just gross for games that are supposed to look fhd or 4k clear, while it was never a problem for me with PS3 games, still isn't. Games that are blurry anywy aren't destroyed by the inherent 30fps motion blur. I have not really tested anything beyond 60 properly. My monitor and TV does support it but since my PC is not top notch, achieving something much above 60 is not possible unless reducing details much and I am not sure any console game I played supports modes above 60.

I would assume 90 might still be noticeable though, maybe more in when going back to something slower, I guess, diminishing return should definitely set in then, since 120 and above require either impossible beasts of machines or reducing details quite significantly, much more noticeable than some minor more smoothness. I am certainly no Pro CS gamer that values that that much.

 

[Bulletbrain]

I would have thought the area right between 30 and 60 would be most interesting. With 40fps VRR being a thing, which I have yet to see if that is actually okay or good as some think it is. 30 is objectively just gross for games that are supposed to look fhd or 4k clear, while it was never a problem for me with PS3 games, still isn't. Games that are blurry anywy aren't destroyed by the inherent 30fps motion blur. I have not really tested anything beyond 60 properly. My monitor and TV does support it but since my PC is not top notch, achieving something much above 60 is not possible unless reducing details much and I am not sure any console game I played supports modes above 60.

I would assume 90 might still be noticeable though, maybe more in when going back to something slower, I guess, diminishing return should definitely set in then, since 120 and above require either impossible beasts of machines or reducing details quite significantly, much more noticeable than some minor more smoothness. I am certainly no Pro CS gamer that values that that much.

As someone who cannot adjust to 30fps no matter how hard I try, 40fps (perfectly framepaced 40fps) with VRR or a 120hz refresh is actually quite decent. Especially for third person games. Gives me hope that on the day my 4070 cannot hold a 50+ frame rate on decent settings, I have a decent enough option to fall back on.

 

[Roberts]

I can tell a difference between 60 and 120 but it is nowhere near as noticeable as the one from 30 to 60. I have to admit, I have never seen framerate higher than 120. Have no clue how it feels.

 

[Black_Stride]

80 - 100 I don't feel much difference going beyond that.

I crank up settings then lock fps.
I think unreal tournament(rip) is the only game that I actually ran at 180hz.

 

[blue velvet]

75fps. Aside from latency, I couldn't tell any difference higher than that.

 

[Kiya's Guard]

My sweet point has been 75-90 for a while in 3d games that aren't fps. Smoother camera and friendly heat /energy consumption

 

[Spyxos]

60 is perfect for me, 120 I don't notice the difference after a few seconds. But I can also adjust to 30 fps very quickly and it doesn't bother me.

 

[M1chl]

Hard to say really, I bought new monitor which is strangely 165hz, its this one: HP E45c G5 DQHD Curved Monitor, I needed something smaller and still 32:9, because fucking SCRUM and meetings and people don't have 21:9 screens, so I can divide this easily to 16:9 (x2).

And yeah I can see immediate change from 120 vs 165hz, I don't have experience with more hz as of now.

 

[DaGwaphics]

100hz Because that's what my monitor tops out at.

 

[tvdaXD]

144 because that is how far my current monitor goes, haven't experienced anything faster.