Locked at 60 FPS

stevie_vee

stevie_vee

stevie_vee

Associate
Joined
17 Dec 2010
Posts
443
Location
Northampton UK
Hi all....

I've seen various forums and threads with people saying they have 60+ fps some with even 75 or more.

With any game I play mine never go above 60. I know our eyes dont see much past 30 fps so whats all the hype about and will my games run better with more fps over 60.

Thanks.

Steve.
 
stevie_vee said:
Hi all....

I've seen various forums and threads with people saying they have 60+ fps some with even 75 or more.

With any game I play mine never go above 60.
Click to expand...

Theres no point in trying to exceed that, unless you're running a 120hz screen, or benchmarking, or playing certain games where the physics code is fps dependent and affects gameplay (like q3 back in the day). If you're running a 60hz monitor theres no visible performance gain.
 
Last edited:
franco_22 said:
Really? I just spent 260 quid on an IPS monitor and sometimes I wonder if i should have gotten a 3D one instead.
Click to expand...

I think most people are quite happy with 60 fps although many competitive gamers feel they require more - a mate of mine reckoned he couldn't frag **** all @ 60hz on twitch games like Quake, but is happier now on his new 120hz screen.
 
Last edited:
If your monitor has a refresh rate of 60hz and you can always hit >60fps then you should enable vsync. Even if your PC can render 100fps, your 60hz monitor will only be showing you 60 torn frames of those 100. If your monitor refreshes 60 times a second, it refreshes 60 times a second.
 
vsync can also make the mouse lag on some certain games.

I would never have it on unless you are stuck on a 60hz TFT and even then would probably have it turned off and just lock the FPS ingame.

As for the difference between 60hz and 120hz it is massive in FPS and quick reflex games.

I am still using an old 21" CRT just because the older TFTs refresh rates were stuck at 60 and I could notice ghosting on whatever ones I tried compared to CRT. Drawback of this is the colour vibrancy on some games seems worse than TFT (although the actual colours are more realistic it doesnt seem to "jump out at you" like it does with TFTs)

With the new 120HZ 3D TFTs im going to at last probably ditch my CRT when a new 27" one come out with hdmi1.4 which will hopefully also let me have PS3 and sky linked to it.
 
SmokeKingGun said:
I am still using an old 21" CRT just because the older TFTs refresh rates were stuck at 60 and I could notice ghosting on whatever ones I tried compared to CRT.
Click to expand...

I think that was down to response times rather than refresh rate. Many early TFTs had terrible response times of 25,30,50 ms etc. That's long gone out of the window now, even on cheap models.
 
Agreed newer TFT are a lot better now for ghosting but I still think it is still there to a small degree. Ive tried a 5ms Dell widescreen TFT 60Hz which although wasnt bang up to date still had fairly good specs.

There was a little ghosting on it (not really noticable mainly) and a overall "jerkyness" to the games due to being stuck at 60.

Ive seen a review somewhere where it showed ghosting even on the newer 3D TFTs (all i can remember was that it showed a small race car whizzing across screen and there was a ghost trial on the car)

Ive found the response rates cant always be trusted.

Response time
Response time is measured in milliseconds. There are two parameters quantifying the response time: gray to gray and black to white. Unlike CRT, the TFT pixels stays put until they are asked to change. The gray to gray measures how fast one pixel turns from one color shade to another of the same color. The black to white measures how fast one pixel can turn to another color. Lower response time is better. This is very important when using the screen to watch video and play games, and has been one of the factors the hard core gamers consider when going from CRT to TFT. Be very careful when reading manufacturer specs on response time. Many will not indicate whether they are measuring gray to gray, or black to white. Also, there is no consistent way to measure response time, so one manufacturers 8ms will not necessarily be the same as another. Your best bet is to see the panel in question

http://www.gamertechtv.com/2010/how-to-pick-the-best-gaming-display-monitor-guide/
 
The biggest problem with LCDs is that they're mostly TN panels with poor viewing angles and 6 bit colour. I've got a Samsung TN panel monitor and the colours are much more saturated than my IPS monitor, but that's because they're completely wrong! Reds seem to be almost flourescent compared to the naturalistic colours of the IPS panel. Macroblocking on DVDs and video is very apparent on the TN panel, but much less noticable on the IPS screen. I'm very reluctant to go 120hz until an IPS version is available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom