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

Dreams-Visions

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
14,123
Miami, FL
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.
This is one of those things were it doesn't matter for every game or every genre. But for games that move very fast and require the combination of fast reactions and accuracy -- specifically, FPS games -- high refresh rates matter a lot. For many other genres, it simply makes the overall experience more pleasant, but not so much so that you can't do without higher refresh rates. Nobody is missing not having 150fps on Civilization V or plodding games like God of War, but you'd appreciate it in GTAV or League of Legends, and you'd be at a measurable disadvantage without the highest refresh rates you can have in something like competitive Destiny 2, CSGo, etc.
 

Matthew23

Member
Oct 31, 2017
451
This is one of those things were it doesn't matter for every game or every genre. But for games that move very fast and require the combination of fast reactions and accuracy -- specifically, FPS games -- high refresh rates matter a lot. For many other genres, it simply makes the overall experience more pleasant, but not so much so that you can't do without higher refresh rates. Nobody is missing not having 150fps on Civilization V or plodding games like God of War, but you'd appreciate it in GTAV or League of Legends, and you'd be at a measurable disadvantage without the highest refresh rates you can have in something like competitive Destiny 2, CSGo, etc.
This makes me feel a bit better as I don't play any competitive shooters. There are times when fast turning or scrolling where I'll think I "wish I had a few more frames here," but this really seems like one of those things you don't care about until you switch back and forth between the two. I just need to keep myself in the dark for a while longer until it's more mainstream/affordable. I worry with the next gen of consoles coming with much improved CPUs that it's going to take a lot of horsepower for PCs to keep up the current gap in fps.
 

dsk1210

Member
Oct 25, 2017
575
Edinburgh UK
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.
Just need some fully HDMI 2.1 compatible graphics cards so variable frame rates can be used. It's the reason why I have held off upgrading my B6 OLED yet.
 
Oct 28, 2017
3,066
1080p 144hz gang for life, or at least until GPU's get efficient enough to meet that at higher resolutions with maxed out settings.
 

daninthemix

Member
Nov 2, 2017
1,485
I'm in camp High Settings, Aim for 60 with G-Sync and even then That's a Stretch with a 2080Ti sometimes.
 

Raide

Member
Oct 31, 2017
7,650
Really interesting look at this tech. Mainly for people with super high end rigs and screens, to play old ass games at 500fps. Reminds me of spending money to build a nice rig, just to play WoW on it haha.

Will be interesting for console users next gen as higher refresh TVs become normal. Not sure how long that will be.
 

daninthemix

Member
Nov 2, 2017
1,485
what games are you playing that you cant hit 60fps with 2080ti? damn
There have been several, though I can't remember right now. I also don't like it going flat out because it howls like a banshee. Give the card overhead and it can be quiet, even silent which is also worth more to me than 120fps+
 

Dorkmgl

Member
Oct 26, 2017
68
Interesting results. I've always assumed that 144hz and 240hz provide some advantage but not so much and it probably varies by game and how they respond to the increase in framerate.

I'd also be wary of any bias where you may see more serious players who practice and look to improve their K/D show preference towards buying higher end hardware.
 

Dreams-Visions

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
14,123
Miami, FL
Interesting results. I've always assumed that 144hz and 240hz provide some advantage but not so much and it probably varies by game and how they respond to the increase in framerate.

I'd also be wary of any bias where you may see more serious players who practice and look to improve their K/D show preference towards buying higher end hardware.
this was tailor-made for you

 

Flash

Member
Oct 27, 2017
211
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
Yes, 240hz with backlight strobing helps with image clarity when it comes to fast motion on screen. Most 240hz panels [that support backlight strobing] will disable features if you turn backlight strobing on like Freesync. It becomes a game of picking and choosing what features are important to you at the time.

The newest 240hz panels [AU Optronics M250HTN01] have been certified to reach a MPRT [Motion/Moving Picture Response Time] of 0.5ms with the help of backlight strobing methods. A caveat of using these strobing methods will be how much the monitor's brightness is dimmed with it turned on. As every year passes the brightness on these proprietary strobing methods gets better and better so it becoming more of a non-factor.

It's actually pretty nutty what the top of the line competitive gaming monitors can do in 2019. Pixel retention [ghosting effects] isn't a thing anymore if you buy a quality high refresh monitor that have independent features that improve motion clarity.
 

Arkanius

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,712
I have a XB270HU which has both G-Sync and ULMB

G-Sync is a god send for motion smoothing, but god damn, ULMB made me feel I had a CRT again.
I hate having to choose between the two
 

Flash

Member
Oct 27, 2017
211
I have a XB270HU which has both G-Sync and ULMB

G-Sync is a god send for motion smoothing, but god damn, ULMB made me feel I had a CRT again.
I hate having to choose between the two
Yeah for me adaptive sync isn't really important unless I'm hitting disgustingly low frames per second like 30-55. I just disable it and use ULMB. The advantage in clarity when it comes to competitive shooters is too much to give up imo.
 

Arkanius

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,712
Yeah for me adaptive sync isn't really important unless I'm hitting disgustingly low frames per second like 30-55. I just disable it and use ULMB. The advantage in clarity when it comes to competitive shooters is too much to give up imo.
But the low Input lag of G-Sync is also an advantage for competitive shooters :(
 

Zephyriel

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,174
I remember that Tinder date where the girl tried to convince me that the human eye can't see more than 60fps. And I have a 144Hz monitor... Though I only use it in 60Hz mode, the difference is obvious, even when moving the cursor in Windows. It's not surprise more fluid animation would lead to better ability to track moving objects in games.
 

Zonal Hertz

Member
Jun 13, 2018
504

Arthands

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,775
I mean 60Hz gaming is like low tier gaming for a couple of years now. 144Hz is mid-mid/high tier gaming nowadays. 240Hz being top tier high end gaming
 

P40L0

Member
Jun 12, 2018
853
Italy
Always Native 4K @ steady 60fps with Ultra graphic for all games would be the best target to aim and to expect for next gen consoles, in my opinion.

Further that is a bit of an overkill to me right now.
 
Oct 28, 2017
3,066
Always Native 4K @ steady 60fps with Ultra graphic for all games would be the best target to aim and to expect for next gen consoles, in my opinion.

Further that is a bit of an overkill to me right now.
You're asking for consoles to have 2080's in them at minimum, and even then it'd be a strain. Nobody is paying 1000 dollarydoos for a console.
 

Flash

Member
Oct 27, 2017
211
But the low Input lag of G-Sync is also an advantage for competitive shooters :(
Input lag isn't as big of a factor as you think. Most cases G-Sync on adds a couple of ms of input lag compared to it off [as long as you don't exceed your monitor's refresh rate].


I'm sure you've ran across this. Give it a read if you haven't it's very informative.
 

khamakazee

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,936
Game consoles have definitely had an impact on game development. We have seen many PC ports that don't even offer unlocked frame rates or worse, no PC version at all and hovering around 30 on the console. Trouble is graphics are better for marketing and console software sells well.
 

Arkanius

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,712
Input lag isn't as big of a factor as you think. Most cases G-Sync on adds a couple of ms of input lag compared to it off [as long as you don't exceed your monitor's refresh rate].


I'm sure you've ran across this. Give it a read if you haven't it's very informative.
Yeah I have my setup like that research suggested ever since it was released.

Frame limit to 142 FPS
G-Sync on
Vsync on on NVCP
 

Flash

Member
Oct 27, 2017
211
Sucks that Nvidia is still married to Gsync though, so you'll have to go AMD.
This is actually half true. Ever since GeForce released their 417.71 drivers Nvidia GPUs have supported a lot of Freesync panels. As time passes I do not think we will be dealing with picking and choosing which GPU supports what monitor.

Gaming panels are already being released that support both G-Sync and Freesync natively out of the box. GeForce/Nvidia knew they weren't going to win that battle so they caved in.

I suspect the monikers "G-Sync" and "Freesync" will go by the wayside and panel manufacturers will adopt an umbrella term like "Universal Adaptive Sync" or something like that.
 

Xharos

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,706
Canary Islands, Spain
The difference is crazy. Ever since I got a 144 Hz monitor for my desktop PC, I am completely unable to play Apex Legends on my 60 Hz laptop. I just can't. The game runs at a rock solid 60 FPS there but it feels like 20 FPS. My aiming has considerably improved since I got the 144 Hz monitor, too. People who say there is no difference are just lying to themselves. It's fantastic. Console people should be pushing for it to be a thing there too.

And of course, Free-Sync/Gsync is a game changer. My monitor is FreeSync with official Gsync compatibility. No more tearing OR microstutter OR input lag! Yay! Meanwhile on my shitty ass 60 Hz non-gsync laptop I have to choose between tearing or horrendous input lag with Vsync
 

Spark

Member
Dec 6, 2017
241
I've been on high framerate monitors since 2015 and I have to agree, I can never go back to a 60Hz non-variable framerate display these days. It's not even a novelty anymore, it should be the new normal with any gaming display. A decent monitor should be in the budget for any new PC build.
 

Hyun Sai

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,860
Now tell that to console devs so we may have some semblance of locked 60FPS outside of fighting games :(

I wouldn't hold my breath though with all those 4K talks.
 

khamakazee

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,936
Now tell that to console devs so we may have some semblance of locked 60FPS outside of fighting games :(

I wouldn't hold my breath though with all those 4K talks.
Xbox Scarlett Is Focused On More Than Just Prettier Graphics

"I think the area that we really want to focus on next generation is frame rate and playability of the games," Spencer said. "Ensuring that the games load incredibly fast, ensuring that the game is running at the highest frame rate possible. We're also the Windows company, so we see the work that goes on [for] PC and the work that developers are doing. People love 60 frames-per-second games, so getting games to run at 4K 60 [FPS] I think will be a real design goal for us."

Consoles may finally have the GPU and CPU at a point where they ought to be. Both Sony and Microsoft are getting AMD Ryzen CPU's which will be a huge upgrade over the current gen.
 

Adamska

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,656
While the findings are interesting, it only goes to show that competitive games need some sort of cap, preferably a steady one, and it'll probably be 30 or 60 depending on the game, especially if the competition takes place on consoles.
 

Strings

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,168
It's really hard to go back to 60 after 144. Feels like mud. It could definitely effect your gameplay.

30 is blehhhhh.
I honestly never get this. I have a 144Hz monitor, but have no trouble jumping to 30fps console games, etc.

The only thing that sort of annoys me is how much less crisp moving around a mouse feels on other screens.
 

F34R

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,702
So, maybe I'm wrong... others with experience with this, let me know. So, I put my monitor at 144Hz, and playing Assetto and Forza Horizon 4. Recording them at 60fps. When I watch the videos after playing at a much higher frame rate, does it seem like the 60fps is "choppy" in a sense?
 

grandwizorb

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,657
It's good they finally talked about this because it's been annoying seeing it be ignored as a feature of PC gaming in many of the videos they do which instead look at all the comparisons through a console lens; 4k, 30/60fps, motion blur, etc. >60hz screens have been a standard gaming monitor feature for a decade now but we never get to hear about it on the PC side of the comparisons when it's probably the most important thing.
 

Prefty

Banned
Jun 4, 2019
103
I have a 144 Hz Display, I also use RivaTuner to cap FPS, sometimes I play games that cap at 60 fps no matter what so I cap it on RivaTuner too, when I forget to revert it back when playing normal games is so noticeable that I need to alt-tab even if is in the middle of the match (never happens tho because as soon as I start I notice it).
 

Dorkmgl

Member
Oct 26, 2017
68
this was tailor-made for you

Haha that video is fun. I love how at the end even they can't really quantify why 240hz was better but it clearly is in their results and its more than just the physical redraw speed of the monitor.

I've seen tests like these around the industry before but many of them are automated and use tooling to measure button to pixel so it fails to take into account any "human element" and just measures the mechanical change in time to draw.
 

MCD

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,732
I'm new to this but one thing is confusing me is how to properly enable freesync

Vsync off? Enhanced vsync off? Radeon chill? Riva tuner? Limit fps via in game?


I own Ryzen 3700x and Radeon 5700XT btw. All around reddit it seems a bit conflicted.
 

Fishsnot

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,341
Japan
"brought to you by Digital Foundry and Nvidia"... so no bias here then.
Seriously though, I always play at 144fps when the game allows me to do so.
Really is a game changer.
 

shark97

Member
Nov 7, 2017
2,863
This is one of those things were it doesn't matter for every game or every genre. But for games that move very fast and require the combination of fast reactions and accuracy -- specifically, FPS games -- high refresh rates matter a lot. For many other genres, it simply makes the overall experience more pleasant, but not so much so that you can't do without higher refresh rates. Nobody is missing not having 150fps on Civilization V or plodding games like God of War, but you'd appreciate it in GTAV or League of Legends, and you'd be at a measurable disadvantage without the highest refresh rates you can have in something like competitive Destiny 2, CSGo, etc.

I dont know, human reaction time is supposedly like .25 seconds. That means if you hit a button on a buzzer, or something. At least a long time ago I learned this just from people, so it's probably nonsense, but sounds about right. Even if it's half or even 1/10 that, it's slower than 1/60.

So 1/60 of a second to 1/144 to 1/240, I have my doubts this is real. Maybe just big Nvidia ponzi scheme. Of course I'm sure some will defend it to the death.

i would need double blind studies, not people's claims.
 

pswii60

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,792
UK
So, maybe I'm wrong... others with experience with this, let me know. So, I put my monitor at 144Hz, and playing Assetto and Forza Horizon 4. Recording them at 60fps. When I watch the videos after playing at a much higher frame rate, does it seem like the 60fps is "choppy" in a sense?
That's because 144 isn't a multiple of 60, so you're seeing judder. Wouldn't be an issue at 120hz instead.
 

TheRulingRing

Member
Apr 6, 2018
3,082
He keeps saying it's the "advantage of the PC", but to me it's the exact opposite and just turns me off PC.

So someone who pays way more than me for their hardware has a competitive advantage over me in multiplayer. Great... keep your pay2win.

I'd much rather have a standard fixed setting for everyone like on consoles, even if that means a subpar 30fps.
 

Intoxicate

Member
Oct 30, 2018
248
That’s pure marketing bla bla, like super Super Retina displays, where you need a magnification glass to see the difference. Ridiculous to slow down the video to show the difference when the human eye is not capable of even doing 60 FPS.