• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

30-60 Vs 60 Vs 60+ FPS, What is the true?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ICDP

Senior member
Nov 15, 2012
707
0
0
I briefly addressed the feeling of increased fluidity in my post. In slightly more detail, Your PC is working at higher FPS, even the monitor is "attempting" to work at higher FPS and will display a portion of the next frame. This has the effect of reducing input lag and will possibly increase player response times. This is why even running vsync off is better for competitive gamers than vsync on. Both are running at 60 FPS on a 60 Hz monitor, but with vsync off the monitor will display a portion of the next frame giving a slight advantage.

If possible try 120 FPS on a 60Hz monitor compared to a 120Hz monitor. The difference is quite noticable because the 120Hz monitor is actually displaying each frame individually rather than a fraction of it.
 
Last edited:

lehtv

Elite Member
Dec 8, 2010
11,900
74
91
I find 60hz @ 60fps with vsync adequate. Anything less is distracting to the point that I'd call it unplayable, and enough to make me either lower settings or upgrade my hardware.

The difference between 60hz @ 60 fps and 120hz @ 100+ fps can be easily discerned. That a human eye can't see more than 60 fps is complete and utter nonsense. Even if it was true that our visual neurons fired at such limited frequency, there would be the problem of lack of synchronization between the refresh rate of our eyes/brain, and the refresh rate of the monitor. Synchronization between them can only be approached by developing monitors with higher and higher refresh rates, provided the game's framerate can keep up. I would expect to see a difference even between 240hz @ 240 fps and 120hz @ 120 fps but it's going to take a while before we get the chance to try...

I briefly addressed the feeling of increased fluidity in my post. In slightly more detail, Your PC is working at higher FPS, even the monitor is "attempting" to work at higher FPS and will display a portion of the next frame. This has the effect of reducing input lag and will possibly increase player response times. This is why even running vsync off is better for competitive gamers than vsync on. Both are running at 60 FPS on a 60 Hz monitor, but with vsync off the monitor will display a portion of the next frame giving a slight advantage.
If you're actually competitive about reaction times, you won't be gaming on a 60hz monitor to begin with. So that point is moot. In addition I'd argue that a competitive gamer would rather have minor lag from Vsync than the distraction that ensues from image tearing when gaming on 60hz without Vsync.

If gaming on a 120hz monitor, it's best to use a framerate cap to around 120fps - image will be as smooth as with vsync but with none of the lag.
 
Last edited:

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
framerates higher than 60fps are not only perceivable with superior motion clairty, higher framerates also reduce input response times, for instance 120fps is 8ms faster than 60fps

(this is all assuming the monitor can keep up, ie isn't just 60Hz)
 

ICDP

Senior member
Nov 15, 2012
707
0
0
If you're actually competitive about reaction times, you won't be gaming on a 60hz monitor to begin with. So that point is moot. In addition I'd argue that a competitive gamer would rather have minor lag from Vsync than the distraction that ensues from image tearing when gaming on 60hz without Vsync.
The above is subjective of course and is going OT slightly. Overall we both agree that the human eye and brain can perceive way more than 60 FPS. 120Hz monitors are not just marketing gimmicks, they actually make a big difference.
 

bergami

Member
Apr 15, 2012
110
0
76
It's hard for us to play at 120Hz since on our country those things are more expensive, so we are kind of fated to play at 60Hz.

But does it worth, for us, casual players, throw away ultra/high settings to medium/low just to have hundred frames per second?

and

Can we say as well that keeping the V-Sync off would make the VGA and the display works harder than it needs to work, which may decrease its lifetime?
 

BrightCandle

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
4,762
0
76
When the time comes >120Hz will be better and perceivable compared to just 120Hz. Your friend is actually right on all counts, higher FPS is beneficial for gaming and it does give you the advantages he is talking about.

Ignoring quirks in Quake 3 running at 120 fps on a 60hz monitor brings some of the benefits of gaming on a 120Hz monitor. It reduces the age of frame by 8ms, and that reduction in input latency can make quite a bit of difference. Once you set the render ahead down and have a low latency monitor you could be talking about 30ms or so normally. Dropping 8ms on these sorts of numbers is a massive difference.

Now obviously you don't get to see 120fps, infact every other one is thrown away, but its impact on latency is its value and in some very fast games that makes a noticeable difference especially when you get competitively good.

More Hz, more pixel density, less latency, we need it all and its all currently "good enough to play" but well within the perception zone of the average human being.
 

lehtv

Elite Member
Dec 8, 2010
11,900
74
91
But does it worth, for us, casual players, throw away ultra/high settings to medium/low just to have hundred frames per second?
Definitely not. For casual players, high settings at 60hz @ 60fps with vsync on is the way to go. It gives you both a smoother and better looking gaming experience. You can ignore the competitive aspect of turning vsync off.

Can we say as well that keeping the V-Sync off would make the VGA and the display works harder than it needs to work, which may decrease its lifetime?
The display won't be working any harder. No matter what the framerate, it will still be 60hz.

Turning Vsync off allows the GPU to work at its full potential provided it is not CPU bottlenecked. Theoretically the increased temperatures from higher GPU utilization could affect lifetime but it's nothing to be concerned about, you should still be far below the maximum recommended temperatures.
 
Last edited:

bergami

Member
Apr 15, 2012
110
0
76
Definitely not. For casual players, high settings at 60hz @ 60fps with vsync on is the way to go. It gives you both a smoother and better looking gaming experience. You can ignore the competitive aspect of turning vsync off.



The display won't be working any harder. No matter what the framerate, it will still be 60hz.

Turning Vsync off allows the GPU to work at its full potential provided it is not CPU bottlenecked. Theoretically the increased temperatures from higher GPU utilization could affect lifetime but it's nothing to be concerned about, you should still be far below the maximum recommended temperatures.
Thank you.
 

Cadarin

Member
Jan 14, 2013
30
0
16
Definitely not. For casual players, high settings at 60hz @ 60fps with vsync on is the way to go. It gives you both a smoother and better looking gaming experience. You can ignore the competitive aspect of turning vsync off.
I disagree. Vsync introduces significant input lag, and I'll take screen tearing (which I barely notice) over it any day.

Maybe it comes from playing on CRTs for years before LCDs took over, but I can easily detect input lag and it drives me nuts. I'd love to get a 120hz monitor, but they come out so infrequently that models 1-2 years old still haven't dropped in price. All the decent ones are $400+ and its hard to justify spending that much for a higher refresh rate when I know the panel tech is old and the image quality will be worse than much cheaper 60hz monitors.

I doubt there would be any new 120hz monitors at all if it weren't for 3d, which I'm completely ambivalent towards, except that maybe it'll push 120hz into the mainstream.
 

UaVaj

Golden Member
Nov 16, 2012
1,546
0
76
some of u got some serious issue blaming fps for your visual downfalls.

clearly the culprit is something else. rather that be microstutter, input lag, response time, ping, or just your head.

just becuase higher fps tends to mask those visual downfalls. does not make fps the culprit. fps is merely the bandage.

anyone who claims to tell the difference between 60fps and 120fps. whatever you are on, we all could use a little of it from time to time. carry on.
 

ICDP

Senior member
Nov 15, 2012
707
0
0
some of u got some serious issue blaming fps for your visual downfalls.

clearly the culprit is something else. rather that be microstutter, input lag, response time, ping, or just your head.

just becuase higher fps tends to mask those visual downfalls. does not make fps the culprit. fps is merely the bandage.

anyone who claims to tell the difference between 60fps and 120fps. whatever you are on, we all could use a little of it from time to time. carry on.
The guy in this video is doing a blind test between 60Hz and 120Hz. He does 5 tests to remove the "lucky guess" effect.
Is it possible that most of the perception of 120 being better than 60 is due to the much reduced input lag? Vsync at 60Hz is giving a much higher lag than input at 120Hz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_169323&feature=iv&src_vid=yWEpIwNDeCA&v=a2IF9ZPwgDM
 

AkumaX

Lifer
Apr 20, 2000
12,642
3
81
I disagree. Vsync introduces significant input lag, and I'll take screen tearing (which I barely notice) over it any day.

Maybe it comes from playing on CRTs for years before LCDs took over, but I can easily detect input lag and it drives me nuts. I'd love to get a 120hz monitor, but they come out so infrequently that models 1-2 years old still haven't dropped in price. All the decent ones are $400+ and its hard to justify spending that much for a higher refresh rate when I know the panel tech is old and the image quality will be worse than much cheaper 60hz monitors.

I doubt there would be any new 120hz monitors at all if it weren't for 3d, which I'm completely ambivalent towards, except that maybe it'll push 120hz into the mainstream.
I've seen 24" 120hz for $200?
 

lehtv

Elite Member
Dec 8, 2010
11,900
74
91
I disagree. Vsync introduces significant input lag, and I'll take screen tearing (which I barely notice) over it any day.
Personally I don't notice much difference in responsiveness between Vsync on and off. I can tell them apart if I'm really trying to, but it serves no purpose since games are easily responsive enough with Vsync on. On the other hand, screen tearing would drive me mad.

Maybe it has to do with your mouse or mouse settings? Some games I remember being picky about whether vsync and in-game mouse smoothing were simultaneously enabled.

I've seen 24" 120hz for $200?
I'm going to guess no.
 

Cadarin

Member
Jan 14, 2013
30
0
16
some of u got some serious issue blaming fps for your visual downfalls.

clearly the culprit is something else. rather that be microstutter, input lag, response time, ping, or just your head.

just becuase higher fps tends to mask those visual downfalls. does not make fps the culprit. fps is merely the bandage.

anyone who claims to tell the difference between 60fps and 120fps. whatever you are on, we all could use a little of it from time to time. carry on.
Actually 120hz monitors do alleviate input lag and response time, all while outputting up to double the frames of a 60hz monitor. This is noticeable to most people on the Windows desktop, let alone in a game. Everything looks and feels smoother, especially when turning the camera quickly or tracking moving objects. The sweet spot for most is around 90-100fps, so you don't have to be achieving exactly 120fps for it to make a difference.

Anyone who says its unnoticeable has either never actually used a 120hz monitor (or a CRT), or their response times are so slow that they've got no chance in a competitive game anyway.

edit: Don't mean to come off like an elitist prick, but it really is a big difference to me at least.
 
Last edited:

bergami

Member
Apr 15, 2012
110
0
76
Actually 120hz monitors do alleviate input lag and response time, all while outputting up to double the frames of a 60hz monitor. This is noticeable to most people on the Windows desktop, let alone in a game. Everything looks and feels smoother, especially when turning the camera quickly or tracking moving objects. The sweet spot for most is around 90-100fps, so you don't have to be achieving exactly 120fps for it to make a difference.

Anyone who says its unnoticeable has either never actually used a 120hz monitor (or a CRT), or their response times are so slow that they've got no chance in a competitive game anyway.

edit: Don't mean to come off like an elitist prick, but it really is a big difference to me at least.
We here, on our "poor" country have never experienced 120Hz, so this feels just weird to me. I really see no problems at 60.
 

lehtv

Elite Member
Dec 8, 2010
11,900
74
91
No one sees problems at 60hz until they play at 120hz. And some who try 120hz are happy to play at 60hz as well (like me). That doesn't mean 120hz isn't considerably smoother than 60hz.
 

bergami

Member
Apr 15, 2012
110
0
76
So, to finish this topic...

-> Playing below 30 FPS everyone agrees be being not recommended.

-> Playing around 40-60 would feel not much diference, only if it drops sudently below 30.

-> Playing at 60 FPS is completly fine.

-> Playing at 60> FPS at 60Hz won't make you move "faster", jump "faster/higher" unless it's an exploit or a bug from a bad engine. But overall the answer is no.

-> Letting V-Sync on/off isn't really clean, I don't get if it's good or bad.

-> Lower Ms from a display may help, same as a gaming mice, keyboard...

-> 120Hz is something we won't being seeing here lately.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,845
280
126
All I know is, vsync gives me input lag and that is just terrible to me. Even if I had 120hz, I would turn vsync off because of input lag.
 

lehtv

Elite Member
Dec 8, 2010
11,900
74
91
-> Playing below 30 FPS everyone agrees be being not recommended.

-> Playing around 40-60 would feel not much diference, only if it drops sudently below 30.

-> Playing at 60 FPS is completly fine.

-> Playing at 60> FPS at 60Hz won't make you move "faster", jump "faster/higher" unless it's an exploit or a bug from a bad engine. But overall the answer is no.

-> Letting V-Sync on/off isn't really clean, I don't get if it's good or bad.

-> Lower Ms from a display may help, same as a gaming mice, keyboard...

-> 120Hz is something we won't being seeing here lately.
1. agree
2. disagree - 40fps is unacceptable to me, the difference to 60fps w/ vsync is huge.
3. agree
4. on = good for 60hz @ 60 fps, off = bad for 60hz unless you can't sustain 60fps most of the time; good for 120hz
5. agree
6. sad :(
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
26,845
280
126
I have to enable vsync, the screen tearing is freaking annoying.
Its up to you. I would rather have my aim work properly. If I can keep from rates above 70 I don't seem to notice tearing as much. Either way it is not distracting enough for me to outweigh the input lag factor.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
641
126
I find 30FPS to be perfectly playable, but I should mention I almost never play first person shooters. 60FPS certainly has a smoothness to it that 30FPS does not.
Yea, I find 30fps sufficient for me as well. However, I dont really play online, and am not that great at fast twitch games anyway, so anyting over 30 I have a hard time telling the differenc
 

UaVaj

Golden Member
Nov 16, 2012
1,546
0
76
The guy in this video is doing a blind test between 60Hz and 120Hz. He does 5 tests to remove the "lucky guess" effect.

Is it possible that most of the perception of 120 being better than 60 is due to the much reduced input lag? Vsync at 60Hz is giving a much higher lag than input at 120Hz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_169323&feature=iv&src_vid=yWEpIwNDeCA&v=a2IF9ZPwgDM
for the last time. fps it NOT the culprit. never has. at 30fps a typical human will see fluid motion. that is a proven fact ever since human figure out the flip book playback. no need to reinvent the wheel.

-----

to give credit where credit it is due.

rendering is far from perfection, compare to a video playback.

a video playback is fluid at 30fps becuase each frame is played back perfectly at 33.33ms. that is why nobody ever complains about video output being flawed at 30fps.

rendering is a different animal. there is input device lag, there is software lag, there internet lag, there is processing hardware lag, and especially monitor lag all working against video ouptput being fluid. to allievate all those down falls. higher frame rate is needed so that there are more frames to pick from. although the eye can only pick out about ~30fps. at 120fps (8.3ms) - there is 75% chance the eye will not catch the flaws, hence better fluid motion. at 60fps (16.67ms) - there is 50% chance the eye will not catch the flaws. at 30fps (33.33ms) - there is no extra frame to deviate such flaws, the eye will catch all flaws any flaws.

if you trained yourself to "highly" recognize those rendered video ouput flaws. you simply set yourself to need a monitor that deilver 120fps. you simply set yourself to need multi gpu that deliver 120fps. aka the perfectionist.

this is why one can enjoy the same quality gaming at 120fps all the while other can can enjoy the same quality gaming at 40fps.

rendering is simply not perfect.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY