• 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.

Can someone explain to me about FPS and monitors

To answer the OP's question about matching FPS and refresh rates in a nutshell; monitors can't refresh part way through a cycle. If you have a 60Hz screen then it can only refresh on the dot of each 1/60th of a second.

If you have a graphics card putting out 40 fps, then that doesn't slot into the 1/60th timing of the monitor. Sometimes there won't be a new frame ready, so for 2/60ths of a second, you get the same image. Then there is a new frame - but that's already been in the buffer for a while, and this frame only gets displayed for 1/60th because the GPU was already part way through the next frame while this one was waiting to be put on screen.

The result is that you get a 2-1-2-1-2-1 pattern, which is effectively bouncing from 30 to 60 fps and feels worse than a steady 40.

That said, 144 is a good number because a) it is high, and b) it divides by a lot. If it does get forced into a 2-1-2-1 pattern by, say a GPU giving you 100, then the lower band is 72fps, which is much more tolerable. You can also look at framerate capping to 72, or even 48, which should be very sustainable with your system :)


(Disclaimer; post above is 'the best of my knowledge'. I don't mind being corrected if inaccurate! :))
 
eddiew said:
To answer the OP's question about matching FPS and refresh rates in a nutshell; monitors can't refresh part way through a cycle. If you have a 60Hz screen then it can only refresh on the dot of each 1/60th of a second.
Click to expand...

Your post is correct but only with vsync on. Otherwise tearing wouldn't happen.

The pixels don't all refresh at the same instant, there's usually a pattern to it. Tearing happens when the front buffer changes part way through a monitor refresh.
 
joeyjojo said:
Your post is correct but only with vsync on. Otherwise tearing wouldn't happen.
Click to expand...

You're quite right and I should have thought to add that ^^; Tbh I tend to assume that everyone and their mum turn vsync on because I utterly despise screen tearing.
 
pandem0nium said:
On a 60 hz monitor, anything over 60fps is a waste since you won't be able to see it.
Click to expand...

Not true at all :p

Sure the Monitor will only display 60fps but they is a difference between what you feel and what you see.

Frame rate are refresh rate are too very different things. A higher Frame rate = smoother and faster response time.

All these competitive gamers don't lock frame rates for a reason.
 
Hey guys. Thanks for the replies. Ok, so I get a slid 70-100 FPS in Overwatch maxed out. Should I try lowering settings to make my FPS the same has my monitor refresh rate, 144hz? I'm not sure.
 
pandem0nium, shankly1985, you're both partly right, but we covered all that just last month:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18730426

Samhfx said:
Hey guys. Thanks for the replies. Ok, so I get a slid 70-100 FPS in Overwatch maxed out. Should I try lowering settings to make my FPS the same has my monitor refresh rate, 144hz? I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

It's up to you, there are no rules about what FPS is best. Higher FPS = looks smoother, that's all there is to it. If you prefer higher FPS then turn some of the graphics options down.

If it looks fine to you then stop worrying. ;)
 
I'm playing Battlefield and I get 90-130 FPS maxed out. Should I be lowering settings until I get a solid 144 FPS to match my 144hz monitor?
 
I wouldn't worry about trying to get up to 144 Hz. I also have a 144 Hz monitor but anything above 40 FPS usually seems ok to me (sometimes lower depending on the game). Unless the frame rate gets so slow that it makes it difficult to play the game then you're ok.

It might be an idea to turn off any frame rate monitoring that you're using and just see how the game feels to you, or only look at the FPS afterwards so you're not thinking about it while gaming. The bigger issue to me would be v-sync / g-sync because I really hate screen tearing.

With such a good graphics card I would prefer everything maxed out at 40-60 FPS, rather than lower settings at 100+ FPS (but a professional gamer would prefer a much higher FPS).
 
Samhfx said:
I'm playing Battlefield and I get 90-130 FPS maxed out. Should I be lowering settings until I get a solid 144 FPS to match my 144hz monitor?
Click to expand...

No, no you do not need a solid 144fps in Battlefield, GTA 5, Battlefield 1 or any other game for that matter. If you want a solid 144fps then go ahead and lower settings, but anything over 60fps is fine for you mate.
 
wunkley said:
As someone who has gamed from everything over the years from sub 30fps to 144fps, the real sweet spot for me is about 80fps+. Of course more is always better, but this is where the noticeable difference of 'higher Hz' gaming kicks in for me.

I should also add that this should be combined with gsync, which for me has been a total revelation and revolution.
Click to expand...

This is why VR is 90 fps right?
 
Phil87 said:
It might be an idea to turn off any frame rate monitoring that you're using and just see how the game feels to you, or only look at the FPS afterwards so you're not thinking about it while gaming. The bigger issue to me would be v-sync / g-sync because I really hate screen tearing.
Click to expand...

GTA V: No screen tearing on my setup (and plenty of others whose feedback I've seen) with Windowed Mode. Only happens with Fullscreen. This appears to be the case with a few other games so always worth a try.

My graphics settings give me 60-90 fps on a 70Hz 1080p monitor, with fps generally at 70-75. Smooth as butter and less input lag than with Vsync or Adaptive sync on. Even when it drops to 60 fps.

The main thing is not necessarily how high the fps is*, but allowing the card to run maxed. Because if you limit fps in some way (manually, Vsync, Adaptive sync) you are also slowing down other functions of the card that deal with processing and displaying player input, and this becomes very noticeable in some games, not so much in others. It's why Nvidia have developed Fastsync, which allows the card to run maxed out but only sends the frames the monitor can use. They say this can help with screen tearing while adding considerably less input lag than Vsync. No clue how good it actually is but that's how they are "selling" it. They do admit that there is still more input lag with it on than off, regardless. Just not as bad.

* For example, you could have a game where you can get 400 fps maxed out, so you might think "oh I don't need all those frames, let's limit fps to 200". And now, even though you are getting 200 fps, you are slowing down other functions of the card related to input, etc.
 
Phil87 said:
I wouldn't worry about trying to get up to 144 Hz. I also have a 144 Hz monitor but anything above 40 FPS usually seems ok to me (sometimes lower depending on the game). Unless the frame rate gets so slow that it makes it difficult to play the game then you're ok.

It might be an idea to turn off any frame rate monitoring that you're using and just see how the game feels to you, or only look at the FPS afterwards so you're not thinking about it while gaming. The bigger issue to me would be v-sync / g-sync because I really hate screen tearing.

With such a good graphics card I would prefer everything maxed out at 40-60 FPS, rather than lower settings at 100+ FPS (but a professional gamer would prefer a much higher FPS).
Click to expand...

What would be the difference from 60-80 FPS on ULtra graphics on 144hz monitor vs 140+ FPS on lower graphics on 144hz?

This is the reason to why I actually bought 1080p and not 1440p to begin with. I thought with a 1080p I would get more FPS to reach the 144hz.

What FPS is considered normal and playable for gaming then?
 
Samhfx said:
What would be the difference from 60-80 FPS on ULtra graphics on 144hz monitor vs 140+ FPS on lower graphics on 144hz?

This is the reason to why I actually bought 1080p and not 1440p to begin with. I thought with a 1080p I would get more FPS to reach the 144hz.

What FPS is considered normal and playable for gaming then?
Click to expand...

>45 usually
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom