I presume you mean vulkan
That will be down to higher FPS as well as the better frame times/latency that these low level APIs provide.
I know it is very subjective and all but personally I think people over exaggerate the 60HZ experience. No doubt 100+HZ is way better especially where motion clarity is concerned (more so if you can actually achieve a constant 100+HZ to get the true benefit...) but imo 60HZ is not anywhere as bad as what some make out.
The problem largely comes down to the games and people not experimenting with different configs, on 120/144HZ monitors, you have more leeway with regards to more intermediate steps for synchronisation:
60Hz: 16.7ms, 33.3ms, 50ms (60, 30, 20 fps)
120Hz: 8.3ms, 16.7ms, 25ms, 33.3ms, 41.7ms, 50ms (120, 60, 40, 30, 24, 20 fps)
144Hz : 6.9ms, 13.9ms, 20.8ms, 27.8ms, 34.7ms, 41.7ms, 48.6ms (144, 72, 48, 36, 28.8, 24, 20.5 fps)
On top of that, people generally don't take the time to experiment with different configs i.e.
1. most don't like vsync so run without it, which introduces stutter and screen tearing, this adds to the perception of more stutter
2. those who do use vsync don't take the time to properly set it up to get the smoothest and best experience i.e.
- ensuring you get as close to a constant 60FPS as you can, personally I can't can't stick anything less than 50FPS with a frame latency of more than 20ms (prefer to be stuck at a constant <15ms frame latency)
- using frame limiters, either capping FPS with rivatuner at 61/62, 60 or 58/59 can help a lot, not only can it help with making the game smoother but it can vastly reduce the input lag usually associated with vsync
- testing out in game vsync with fullscreen mode or sometimes borderless mode with vsync off in game (the game will use windows vsync method, which is pretty good) or using nvidia's adaptive vsync
- messing about with GPU buffered frames in the config files or GPU control panel (I think only nvidia have this in their control panel)