Digital Foundry: Beyond 60FPS: How Running Games at 144FPS/240FPS Can Improve The Gameplay Experience

Ananasas

Member
Jul 11, 2018
46
Holyshit some insane hyperbole going on here, I have gsync 144hz monitor and play games between 60fps and 144fps I bearly see the difference and it's not a slideshow like some of you say, I even get used to 30fps in like few minutes and even that is not a slideshow.
 

Fisty

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,613
Framerates in general dont bother me (I'm still playing UE3 games on PS3 to this day) but I will definitely be happy when we start getting variable refresh rate consoles/screens and unlocked framerate options standard in games going forward
 

reKon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,048
Holyshit some insane hyperbole going on here, I have gsync 144hz monitor and play games between 60fps and 144fps I bearly see the difference and it's not a slideshow like some of you say, I even get used to 30fps in like few minutes and even that is not a slideshow.
I have a feeling there truly is hyperbole going on here, which is why I need to validate this myself by checking out a demo of this.

I use both an 120 hz iPad Pro and Galaxy S10. Yes, I notice the difference, but doesn't really bug me that my S10 is at 60hz switching back and forth between the two.
 

pj-

Member
Oct 25, 2017
995
In Plunkbat and Fortnite at that time, dps was effected by fps.
The fortnite one is irrelevant to this topic (since 60fps is the baseline in the charts):

Lots of discussion about higher Fortnite fire rates with higher frame-rates. We noted a 5.2% increase in fire rate at 60fps vs 30fps in this test, but no further advantage beyond that. Epic says it will be fixed in an update.
Pubg is ue4 so it's probably the same, though the article didn't specify at what fps it becomes a nonissue.
 

RoboPlato

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,500
I'm glad he mentioned temporal resolution. I'm not all that sensitive to input lag outside of first person games so for me that's the biggest improvement.
 

Governergrimm

Member
Jun 25, 2019
410
I fucking love it. It's the perfect TV. I really can't recommend it enough. Whether you're watching TV, movies, Netflix, gaming, it's the best in class for everything. I upgraded from the C6.
I've been trying to decide between that and the sammy Q90 QLED. Super concerned about burn in but sick of bad color uniformity and grey blacks.
 

georaldc

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,616
I have a feeling there truly is hyperbole going on here, which is why I need to validate this myself by checking out a demo of this.

I use both an 120 hz iPad Pro and Galaxy S10. Yes, I notice the difference, but doesn't really bug me that my S10 is at 60hz switching back and forth between the two.
To me, the improvements can be felt more than seen, so it usually leads to more responsive controls and a more enjoyable overall experience.

Still, I do agree that some people seem to exaggerate the improvement. Maybe it's because I don't play at a competitive level? Going up to 120hz and higher is great, but moving back down to 60hz has been a non-issue to me and it still looks good
 

floridaguy954

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,423
I wish they also included 120 fps numbers since I play all my competitive games at 1080p/120hz with my 7700K/1080 ti combo (with supersampling where applicable).

I would assume that the numbers wouldn't be too far off from the 144 fps numbers though.
 

MadMike

Member
Oct 27, 2017
922
144 FPS feels amazing. Going from 60 FPS to 144 FPS is almost as significant as going from 30 to 60.

Calling 60 FPS a "slideshow" is kind of silly, though I know it's intentionally hyperbolic. Even 30 is perfectly playable when done well. Playing on my 144hz G-Sync monitor has definitely spoiled me. It's certainly jarring, but it doesn't take long for me to get used to playing at lower framerates when I don't have another option.
 

Serpens007

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,170
High framerate gaming is awesome but it'll always be a bit too niche for me and out of my price range to boot.
Well, the reality is different for each person, but I'm fairly at mid range specs, below I'd say now. I have an I7-4770 with a 1060 6gb Zotac Mini and just 8 GB of DDR3 RAM. I can still get from 80 to 110 fps in games like Battlefield V tweaking settings (I settled for 60-100 range using mid and high settings. It varies on the map and size of match). Of course, a 144hz Freesync monitor can be expensive, but there are good cheap options that are nice enough. It's not really that expensive when you shop smart and don't fall for the "Ultra or nothing" folks
 

Ploid 6.0

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,564
Oh come on it’s not that bad.

Going from 144 to 30 is rough though. Takes a while to get used to.
It's like that for me too. I hate games that lock framerate to 60, especially when it causes problems with frame rate is tied to physics. For some games it is not a issue (RPGs), but for racing and action games it just feels bad after playing so many games over 100fps, not as bad as 30 obviously.

 

Vov

Member
Dec 4, 2018
3
There may be some truth to this for sure, but I would take any industry “research” with a grain of salt.
 

leng jai

Member
Nov 2, 2017
8,353
It's obvious that high refresh rates are much much better. 120hz on the iPad Pro makes everything incredibly smooth and that's just for browsing/general usage.

For gaming I'm not going to bother with anything over 60fps though. It's just outrageously expensive and unrealistic to play everything at 100+ FPS on PC, not to mention you make 60/30fps games feel much worse. At the end of the day if you play consoles too you still have to deal with 30fps games so it doesn't make sense to make them feel even worse than they already are.
 

KojiKnight

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,814
While I'm sure there is some difference, don't ever trust studies where the results are in the favor of the one who sponsored the research.
 

Clusterdreams

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,463
Atlanta, GA
Linus made a video like this as well recently. It wasn’t really super scientific, but it did show clear improvements at higher framerates.



Oh come on it’s not that bad.

Going from 144 to 30 is rough though. Takes a while to get used to.
Nah it’s true, mostly if it’s the same game. I play FFXIV at 144fps and to see if my GPU would run cooler I tried 60FPS and ewwww
 
Nov 14, 2017
1,790
Consoles will never prioritize 60 fps unfortunately. The next big thing will be 4k/30
If a console can do 4k30, it should be able to do 1080p60 or really, even 120 at that res. Given how a lot of people still won't have 4k TVs next gen, it'd be good for games to have a choice between quality and performance modes that prioritised one or the other.

Holyshit some insane hyperbole going on here, I have gsync 144hz monitor and play games between 60fps and 144fps I bearly see the difference and it's not a slideshow like some of you say, I even get used to 30fps in like few minutes and even that is not a slideshow.
If I go straight from playing D2 on PC to my PS4Pro, I can see the judder. The game looks like stop-motion animation. It's not even the jump from 100+fps to 30 that does it; I can see the same effect if I go from a 60fps game on PS4 like Overwatch or R6S to a 30fps game like D2.
 
Last edited:
Nov 8, 2017
3,653
I stop noticing a difference above 90-100, for the most part. I will generally cap at 80 if I can't get smooth higher. 1440p ips gsync monitor for me. Not happy with colour banding though.
 

Mass Effect

Member
Oct 31, 2017
5,100
It's like that for me too. I hate games that lock framerate to 60, especially when it causes problems with frame rate is tied to physics. For some games it is not a issue (RPGs), but for racing and action games it just feels bad after playing so many games over 100fps, not as bad as 30 obviously.

Nah it’s true, mostly if it’s the same game. I play FFXIV at 144fps and to see if my GPU would run cooler I tried 60FPS and ewwww
Well to that all I can say is I'm glad I'm not *that* sensitive to the difference.

I mean yeah I notice the difference, but 60 still feels smooth even right after coming off 144/120fps. It only takes a minute or two for me to adjust.

Still, I'll take 144/120fps if possible when it comes to any game requiring quick reaction times. It's just too good.
 

Premium Ghoul

Member
Oct 27, 2017
709
Australia
60fps is the minimum acceptable frame rate for me now. Going a bit under that is still fine thanks to G-sync, but ideally I want that number to be really high!

It's also much easier to attain now that I've gotten out of the mindset of needing to run every game on max settings.
 

J_ToSaveTheDay

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
2,990
USA
They had the new 240Hz monitor Razer Blade at my Best Buy and I went hands on with it and just operating Windows 10 in the most basic manner felt incredibly smooth. Like, visually and even just using the touch pad to navigate basic-ass Windows with the 240Hz refresh rate felt almost 1:1, like it was less of a mechanical function and more like an extension of my biology as input.

That's hyperbolic but I assure you it felt incredibly distinct to anything else I'd done before. It's too bad I couldn't demo a game.

I say this as someone who had actually no previous experience with hands-on with 120Hz+ refresh monitors. I've stood by and watched folks playing on 120-144Hz monitors and could see the increase in visual fluidity but I never actually felt the faster input response hands on until that demo Razer laptop at my Best Buy. I was seriously blown away.

This Digital Foundry breakdown is one of the best comprehensive breakdowns of higher-than-60 refresh rates and the various boons it provides to gaming. On a regular use basis, it's also INCREDIBLY pleasing.
 

Dreams-Visions

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
13,823
Miami, FL
It's really hard to go back to 60 after 144. Feels like mud. It could definitely effect your gameplay.

30 is blehhhhh.
yep.

Oh come on it’s not that bad.

Going from 144 to 30 is rough though. Takes a while to get used to.
I find it depends entirely on the genre.

GTA, God of War, Tomb Raider, and games like that? 30fps is okay.

Competitive shooters where turn speeds are going to be high and your ability to see your target (often times a relatively small object) instead of a bunch of blur can be the difference between getting off the first shot vs still trying to locate them? Yea, it matters and it is pretty substantial. Fighting games too. Even for non-competitive genres like racers, it can make things feel considerably more natural and fluid.

I went from 60fps -> 120fps to combat that kind of blur in games like Apex Legends and Destiny 2 in particular. I'll never play a competitive shooter below 120fps ever again. It made a huge difference.

For the people in the know, are there any disadvantages to gameplay with higher FPS?
The only disadvantage is having to pay the cost required to buy a GPU and monitor that can reach higher FPS.

There are nothing but upsides and advantages from a gameplay perspective.

Going back to playing on your consoles might be jarring sometimes.
 

MrH

Member
Nov 3, 2017
2,778
I've been using 144Hz for over a year and 60Hz feels OKish, 30Hz just feels horrible, almost unplayable.
 

DonMigs85

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,946
I can see them offering 1080p/120fps modes in at least some next-gen FPS or racing titles. There should be enough CPU grunt now
 

Dreams-Visions

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
13,823
Miami, FL
One of the most startling things to me after moving to 120fps is how muddy 60fps became for the games I play.

That was unexpected, as I always felt 60fps was the "gold standard". It is not.
 

Rbk_3

Member
Oct 27, 2017
213
Last fall I bought a 1440p 165hz Gsync monitor and while it was cool, it certainly didn't blow me away and going back to 60fps wasn't a problem at all. I ended up returning the monitor and buying an OLED TV and am much more happy relaxing on the couch at 4k/60.

30fps is unplayable for me though. I went back and tried playing GTA SA and literally felt violently ill after.
 

DC5remy

Member
Jan 20, 2018
917
Come the fudge on here. We have been fighting for 60fps titles for what feels like all my life, now you go and say 240 helps gameplay. Ruthless. Just plain ruthless.
 

K.Jack

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,333
Dark Space
Wow, I suddenly wish I was gaming at 240fps, but the financial investments dictate that I'm going to have to be happy with my 120Hz for now.

I'm glad they put a name to temporal resolution for a lot of people. I did a fist pump when Richard uttered that phrase.

Great video, work, and effort put in by DF.

Holyshit some insane hyperbole going on here, I have gsync 144hz monitor and play games between 60fps and 144fps I bearly see the difference and it's not a slideshow like some of you say, I even get used to 30fps in like few minutes and even that is not a slideshow.
Hyperbole is a literary device, a way of using exaggeration to express strong feelings and impressions. It is an intensifier. You as the reader are not supposed to go to the point of taking it as a literal statement, as it would obviously be ridiculous to call 60fps a "slideshow" as we know what a 5fps slideshow actually looks like.
 

Bluelote

Member
Oct 27, 2017
943
the funny thing for me is that in the mid-90s until my first LCD in 2005 I was always using monitors at 75-85Hz
now I'm still using 60Hz, and while the LCDs don't flicker like CRTs at low refresh, at times the blur/ghosting whatever from the pixels retention is pretty noticeable, I don't really feel bad about the animation rate, but that's a little annoying, and I think 240Hz could help
 

Kyle Cross

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,029
I refuse to allow myself to play higher than 60. I tried 120 briefly and then cut myself off, I will not let myself get use to those higher framerates because I do not want to make 60, and 30, worse for me. I don't want to start giving up resolution and graphical settings because I let myself long for high framerates.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,777
Correlation vs. causation.
Nope - it's data in the wild, so that's telling you "the median player with a GTX1080 has a better K/D than the median player with a 1050", but they're different people - they're not giving different video cards to a group of players and see how their performance changes across different rigs or whatever.
I came in to say this. There is a large amount of self selection here in that the types of people who will commit to buying more expensive cards and monitors (and likely other hardware) are obviously going to be more committed to gaming and do better in these tests.

A better test would have been to get the same people to play across different hardware variants (in a randomised order) and compare their differing performances against themselves.
 

Dreams-Visions

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
13,823
Miami, FL
I came in to say this. There is a large amount of self selection here in that the types of people who will commit to buying more expensive cards and monitors (and likely other hardware) are obviously going to be more committed to gaming and do better in these tests.

A better test would have been to get the same people to play across different hardware variants (in a randomised order) and compare their differing performances against themselves.
But this has been done too.



You can go straight to the conclusion here: https://youtu.be/tV8P6T5tTYs?t=1172

We already know higher refresh rates matter. It's objectively true. It's no longer a point of debate; it's just a matter of whether you want to pay the cost to begin playing at high frame rates, which means gaming more on PC and with equipment that can give you those refresh rates on the games you want to play or not.
 

Matthew23

Member
Oct 31, 2017
446
It sounds nice but I'm more than happy with 1080p 60. If I get to the point where I can budget more money into PC hardware I might pick up a high refresh monitor, but there's also ray tracing to consider.

Growing up playing dos games on the family PC getting 1 fps at times on certain titles will always stick with me. It's hard for me to not be happy with what I have now.