What framerate for you is the tipping point of diminishing return?
Akuji
Member
How many people have seen the new 360hz oled panels?
Framerate is not everything, its just one part of a larger complex system.
Some 120hz panels feel sluggish, some feel great. Same for 144hz panels.
Probably same for 240hz as well but all my 240hz panels were atleast fine.
Right now i wait for the 360hz OLED panels to get to a price where i can afford them.
These seem to be very close to being perfect for motion for our human eyes atleast.
But we will see ...
Framerate is not everything, its just one part of a larger complex system.
Some 120hz panels feel sluggish, some feel great. Same for 144hz panels.
Probably same for 240hz as well but all my 240hz panels were atleast fine.
Right now i wait for the 360hz OLED panels to get to a price where i can afford them.
These seem to be very close to being perfect for motion for our human eyes atleast.
But we will see ...
Reizo Ryuu
Member
I don't have a screen that goes higher than 120, so I dunno.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
I answered 60, but I guess I do still see some slight judder at that frame rate, so maybe I answered wrong. But 60 is smooth enough to not be distracting.
You and I are in exactly the same boat. For my next build, I can't do anything less than 4K/240hz after 3 years of 2K/165hz, and yes I also want a 5090
Phase
Member
About 144hz, though I do notice a decent smoothness difference when going from my 240hz monitor to my 144hz. I'm a frame snob so I will try out even better ones some day, but if you get used to high framerate you certainly will notice when you drop down again.
Saying all of this, I can still get used to 30-60fps when I play old games. It doesn't take long.
Saying all of this, I can still get used to 30-60fps when I play old games. It doesn't take long.
Solidus_T
Banned
Generally speaking, the higher the fps, the better you will do in competitive games, especially shooters and racing games. I believe it was Nvidia who did the survey, but you can find it on LTT videos where gamers reported a very noticeable difference up to 144hz, and still did better with even more fps despite it being harder to tell. The drop off begins at 144fps supposedly. I've seen 280hz and it is crispy, but my screens are 120 and 144
Akuji
Member
but probably more beacuse the oled ist just so much better in all the stats not just framerate.
Oleds really are becoming the supreme gaming panel tech. Everyone saying it for close to a decade but the tech never got there. Now its finally time
alucard0712_rus
Banned
As a guy with 90hz monitor I would say 90hz is sweet spot. Difference between 60 and 90 is amazing despite numbers are close (was a big surprise for me). Same goes for VR - 120hz is better but it's barely noticeable compared to 90hz. However 60fps content on 90hz monitor is NOT optimal (30fps is perfectly fine) - that's why 120hz is much more practical and have it's reserve.
Last edited:
manfestival
Member
been watching different reviewers and what not and it convinced me to go from 144hz to 240hz. Now I can definitely tell a difference between the two screens. its not huge like 60 to 120 was. However, I just cannot tell at what point the difference in smoothness occurs but it is definitely there. The real sweet spot is that 120-144hz range. Definitely do believe those that say that the higher refresh rates definitely are something you can see. Though it is interesting when they say a 360hz OLED panel has the same smoothness of a 540hz IPS/TN.
cinnamonandgravy
Member
everything keeps getting significantly better up to 90 or so.
keeps getting better after that, just not as much.
ps my display only goes up to 120.
keeps getting better after that, just not as much.
ps my display only goes up to 120.
twilo99
Member
You and I are in exactly the same boat. For my next build, I can't do anything less than 4K/240hz after 3 years of 2K/165hz, and yes I also want a 5090
5090 should be enough .. at least for most FPS multiplayer titles, but not sure if it will be able to pull that across the board for all games
What games to you mainly play?
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
I have to say 60, because I don't think I've seen better.
I play almost anything except FPS multiplayer titles haha, though mostly RPGs and fighting games.
The Lunch Legend
GAF's Nicest Lunch Thief and Nosiest Dildo Archeologist
60-120
Depends on platform. For example, for me 90Hz feels somewhat smooth on regular display but feels like an absolute slideshow in VR.
On desktop I have display capable of 165Hz but I'm running majority of games at 120Hz. I can feel the difference but it's not that significant for me.
In VR though, the higher the better. I'm running my Index at 144Hz and would run it higher if it was capable of it.
On desktop I have display capable of 165Hz but I'm running majority of games at 120Hz. I can feel the difference but it's not that significant for me.
In VR though, the higher the better. I'm running my Index at 144Hz and would run it higher if it was capable of it.
dcx4610
Member
30 to 60 is a massive difference. 60 to 120 is a big difference. 120 to 144hz is noticeable.
144+ for me but as long as I'm getting 120, I'm very happy with that. It really comes down to the game itself. Something like DOOM, the faster the frame rate the better. Something like Last of Us, 60fps is perfectly fine since it's slower paced.
144+ for me but as long as I'm getting 120, I'm very happy with that. It really comes down to the game itself. Something like DOOM, the faster the frame rate the better. Something like Last of Us, 60fps is perfectly fine since it's slower paced.
General Lee
Member
90 FPS for visuals, beyond that it's mostly just better input response mainly for mouse use. 90 Hz was chosen for a reason for many VR headsets. It's the optimal balance if you're performance limited. There's of course some improvement in movement clarity all the way up to 1000hz if you had such a screen, but you can get similar results with BFI.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
Anything above 60fps is no longer obvious to me. So I voted 120fps.
MALpractice311
Member
Once I go past 90, I really can't tell any difference in visuals or responsiveness.
Last edited:
Dorago
Member
Anything lower than 60 and I can see the black frames and I get eye strain until my brain adjusts again.
120 is very nice for desktop navigation but I find it irrelevant for games.
Beyond 60 you just seem to get repeated frames and a sped up look.
Maybe an AA budget game will come out that runs the entire simulation at 300 fps or something, but until then higher frame rates don't add much.
120 is very nice for desktop navigation but I find it irrelevant for games.
Beyond 60 you just seem to get repeated frames and a sped up look.
Maybe an AA budget game will come out that runs the entire simulation at 300 fps or something, but until then higher frame rates don't add much.
Mr Wonderstuff
Banned
I always thought my limit would be 60. 60 seemed so smooth...then I got a 4090 and 120hz TV - 80-120 is now my target. When I go back to 60 it seems so juddery - more than I recall it was. Frametiming may be a thing.
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
120Hz is optimal for me. I can't really tell much of a difference jumping up to 165Hz. Haven't been able to try 240Hz.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
I do see a slight difference slightly above 120(maybe 144) and 240 isn't to noticeable except when spinning the camera.
I voted 60 but the real point of significantly diminishing returns is more like 40. For me 40 is way better than 30, whereas 60 is definitely much better than 40 but not as transformative.
I can appreciate higher but it's fairly marginal. I'd have thought anything beyond 80 or 90 would basically be imperceptible.
I can appreciate higher but it's fairly marginal. I'd have thought anything beyond 80 or 90 would basically be imperceptible.
64gigabyteram
Reverse groomer.
once it gets to 240hz it starts getting ridiculous
JimboJones
Member
Hopefully as frame gen gets better and more games use it framegening from 120 to 240 would be a nice compromise to make use of those hi refresh monitors
ByWatterson
Member
I see no difference between 120 and 60.
Sneakysnake
Banned
On controller, once it's at 120, serious diminishing returns and once I'm at 180, I don't feel any increase in smoothness by going any higher
On mouse, it's diminishing returns once I'm over 180. Highest I have ever played at is 230ish but I don't think I would even be able to tell the difference if I went any higher
On mouse, it's diminishing returns once I'm over 180. Highest I have ever played at is 230ish but I don't think I would even be able to tell the difference if I went any higher
Sneakysnake
Banned
Side note. Grew up playing consoles and not even knowing about frame rate but I remember when Battlefield 3 came out and whichever COD came out around the same time. I LOVED BF but I had to admit that "for some reason" it was so hard for me to track mining targets and I tried describing to my friends at the time but I couldn't explain. Came to find out later that BF was 30fps and cod was 60.
Fast forward to today, when I'm using a controller, 60 feels to me today how i remember 30 feeling back then and 120 feels how I remember 60 feeling. I'm not saying it to be a snob and I'm dead serious when I say that playing an FPS at 60 today feels physically uncomfortable and playing at 30 doesn't even feel like actual video but rather like snapping photographs very quickly. I can WATCH 30fps or when 24fps and kind of forget and believe the motion I'm seeing but when I'm in control it's entirely different and immersion/believe in the illusion of true motion is nearly impossible
Fast forward to today, when I'm using a controller, 60 feels to me today how i remember 30 feeling back then and 120 feels how I remember 60 feeling. I'm not saying it to be a snob and I'm dead serious when I say that playing an FPS at 60 today feels physically uncomfortable and playing at 30 doesn't even feel like actual video but rather like snapping photographs very quickly. I can WATCH 30fps or when 24fps and kind of forget and believe the motion I'm seeing but when I'm in control it's entirely different and immersion/believe in the illusion of true motion is nearly impossible
PianistaMacabro
Member
For modern single player story focused games 45 is the sweet spot for me, its the cinema 24fps for games. 60 to 120 have a good difference but only worth It for specific genres
OoT at 20 is totally awsome by the way
OoT at 20 is totally awsome by the way
yet_another_alt
Member
I have a 240hz monitor but I tend to cap at 120fps cause I honestly barely notice the difference past it. I'm perfectly fine with capping it at 60 or 80 if it makes for a prettier game.
Kataploom
Gold Member
At 90 I'm good, hell, now my standard is 70 to 80, if it's 90 better yet, that way falling into 60 or even high 50 in specific moments will still be ok, anything around 60 is already input lag loss territory, but nothing terrible, I'll just noticed it, not that it will bother me or so, it's just that around 80 input lag and game fluidity is perfect, everything higher doesn't look or feel any much better so that's my sweet spot and now I'll plan builds around that performance goal at High settings (hell, even medium since those don't change too much from tier to tier these days)