Low hz (30 or 60) has a greater impact on eye fatigue than 120hz and above for a very simple reason. Blinking. Meaning you can afford to blink more often when playing at say 120hz as opposed to 60hz as you get twice the information in the same time frame and you don't miss as much information for blinking. I found this to be valid for any fast pace game like an fps or racing game where things happen very quickly and you need to pay attention.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Sigh, I'm fps obsessed.
- Thread starter Zeebedy
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 3,034
If your obsessed with high frame rates go for the faster card i.e. 1070.
Soldato
Do try not to get too obsessed with fps it will kill your bank balance. 60 is a good target, any more along with 1440p it tends to need a lot more oomph.
Andi.
Andi.
Permabanned
I'm now on a 75hz 3440x1440 but before that I briefly owned both a 144hz 2560x1440 and 144hz 2560x1080, All are freesync, I spent the 4 years before those on a 2ms 60hz 1080p panel, I find that keeping a 60 fps minimum target keeps me happy, Some games are okay with dips into the mid 40's which is just as well at 3440x1440 because I haven't got a choice due to the lack of a high end AMD option for Freesync.
Dirt Rally refuses to go above the mid 40's unless I turn just about every setting to it's lowest which sucks as that is a game where anything below 60 is noticed and affects the feel of the game. WRC6 stays above 60 maxed out most of the time and feels a lot better for it. Games like Fallout 4 and Stalker feel fine with 50 plus frame rates while twitch shooters like Doom felt okay pushing 90-100 plus fps on 144 hz but 60 did start to feel off.
Nowadays with my 3440x1440 I try always keep the fps above 45-50 and within the 35-75 working freesync range,
I will move to a 144hz 3440x1440 or 4k panel one day but for now gaming at the speeds mentioned with tweaks on a game to game basis provides an excellent experience.
Dirt Rally refuses to go above the mid 40's unless I turn just about every setting to it's lowest which sucks as that is a game where anything below 60 is noticed and affects the feel of the game. WRC6 stays above 60 maxed out most of the time and feels a lot better for it. Games like Fallout 4 and Stalker feel fine with 50 plus frame rates while twitch shooters like Doom felt okay pushing 90-100 plus fps on 144 hz but 60 did start to feel off.
Nowadays with my 3440x1440 I try always keep the fps above 45-50 and within the 35-75 working freesync range,
I will move to a 144hz 3440x1440 or 4k panel one day but for now gaming at the speeds mentioned with tweaks on a game to game basis provides an excellent experience.
Caporegime
Even a 1080 cant do 1080p high/ultra at high frames, look at the latest ports (with more coming), WD2 for example, that drops into the 20s!, so a 1060 has got no chance.
Last edited:
Permabanned
This is the problem we now face and something needs to give, lately it seems that the leap in available performance that we got with the 1080 and Pascal Titan is being used up with nothing being given back in return. The new games today do not look any better than the new games 6 months or a year ago so we should be getting better performance figures but we're not, Now they're all starting to claim that they're adding stuff that we will need next gen cards to run maxed out. But, to be honest it all feels like a marketing ploy to simply push us to continue buying new cards even though we shouldn't really need to because what we are getting visually is no longer advancing like it has over the last decade. They're struggling to move on and need to come up with ways to make our cards struggle so we get new render techniques which do very little other than hit performance hard.
Soldato
Ew. Not at all true. I've been playing Battlefield 1 at around 100-144fps. If it drops below 80, it feels awful. Your eyes are simply used to it being lower. It doesn't mean there's no improvement. Every little helps in terms of response time in games such as that. If push came to shove, I'd settle for 60fps. But only due to budget.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 1,089
The reason 24 FPS looks fine on TV/movies is good Motion Blurring. For games there's definitely a benefit up to somewhere between 85-100 FPS. Granted 120Hz plus is a bit pointless but 60Hz isn't exactly perfection either.
Associate
it's well known that some of the latest console ports are simply awful. you shouldn't buy a card based on one or 2 games which are simply lazily ported over. 6 gb 1060 will do fine in 1080p for most games.
Soldato
And here I am happy playing Fallout 4 at 20fps.
Associate
reminds me of the days when I was playing Doom on a 286 machine, on a little window in the middle of a huge screen and could see the bullets fired going all the way to the target, in slow motion.
Hopefully it works a bit quicker than that for you
Soldato
reminds me of the days when I was playing Doom on a 286 machine, on a little window in the middle of a huge screen and could see the bullets fired going all the way to the target, in slow motion.
Hopefully it works a bit quicker than that for you
A little, it only gets that slow right in the middle of the biggest city. I guess it servers me right for playing it on high on a Q6600!
Still, makes the VAT system pretty useful if aiming becomes tricky!
Caporegime
Yea, I played it low fps also, around low 30s I think and was happy with it, even though it was not optimal. I remember having my 295x2 at the time but there were no crossfire drivers so I had to play it with only one gpu which was hard to do at 2160p. Had to turn off all the gameworks crap, god rays, dof, motion blur to get it playable, but the rest of the settings were at the highest
I am happy that I can go back to playing games low fps after playing high fps. Some can't do this and they end up having to play at low resolutions or settings.
WOW, a lot to think about it seems...I think I will hold onto the 1060 till christmas time then upgrade to a 1070 if santa gives me some pennies for chrimbo, as this will allow me to stay OCD with FPS and if I upgrade in the to 1440p I have a head start at least..
Cheers guys and gals!
RTJ
Cheers guys and gals!
RTJ
I used to have to play quake2, falcon 4 and total air war at low fps for a while on a 75hz monitor.
Low fps itself shouldn't cause eye strain when on a decent hz display.
I wonder how all you 144hz users whose eyes bleed at anything less would have managed in the 486 days
I'm a 60hz/60fps guy. I can see that higher would be better but I care more about AA
Low fps itself shouldn't cause eye strain when on a decent hz display.
I wonder how all you 144hz users whose eyes bleed at anything less would have managed in the 486 days
I'm a 60hz/60fps guy. I can see that higher would be better but I care more about AA
reminds me of the days when I was playing Doom on a 286 machine, on a little window in the middle of a huge screen and could see the bullets fired going all the way to the target, in slow motion.
Hopefully it works a bit quicker than that for you
LOL. the one that i remember was playing X-Men: Children of the atom on a 486. Slow motion fighting games... not the way it was meant to be played, but was great fun nonetheless.
Soldato
Yea, I played it low fps also, around low 30s I think and was happy with it, even though it was not optimal. I remember having my 295x2 at the time but there were no crossfire drivers so I had to play it with only one gpu which was hard to do at 2160p. Had to turn off all the gameworks crap, god rays, dof, motion blur to get it playable, but the rest of the settings were at the highest
I am happy that I can go back to playing games low fps after playing high fps. Some can't do this and they end up having to play at low resolutions or settings.
Yeah, I think it's almost an advantage, at least it means I don't have to compromise other settings so much, or spend less money!
I went from 60hz 1200p to a 144hz 1440p screen around eight months ago, and I really couldn't imagine dropping back to down to 60 again. I don't necessarily require very high fps when gaming all the time, so long as it generally feeds back a feels crisp and smooth experience. For desktop / work based tasks, though, I really do appreciate the higher refresh rate.
Caporegime
Indeed, it has enabled me to enjoy the higher image quality of 2160p for over two years now without having to spend Titan X money's
We just did a hearing test with my partner too, I can hear up to 18,000 Hz, she can only hear up to 16,000 Hz and we are both the same age.
Everyone is different, in the past I would think people going on about high fps or monitor hz were being spoilt (maybe some are), but that is not necessarily the case.