144 is the new 60?

CAD4466HK

CAD4466HK

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
3,308
I'd like to see more thorough testing on this.

BUT, I can confirm when I play Black Ops II or Overwatch with a cap of 120, my K/D does go up and I feel "closer" to the game.

- Just when I think everything's settled down, 1440p/120+Hz becomes the new carrot..
 
horrorshow said:
I'd like to see more thorough testing on this.

BUT, I can confirm when I play Black Ops II or Overwatch with a cap of 120, my K/D does go up and I feel "closer" to the game.

- Just when you think everything settled down, 4K/120+hz is the new carrot..
Click to expand...

Nvidia is basically telling you not to have RT enabled on their RTX cards if you want a high K/D.
Whenever they decide to start adding it to games that is...
 
This is what I always assumed, running high refresh monitors for a long time. It's nice to see some data to back that up.

I have bookmaked the page, and will be sharing it every time I hear someone say 144Hz is placebo or that the human eye can't see past 60fps, or other such nonsense.
 
cybereality said:
This is what I always assumed, running high refresh monitors for a long time. It's nice to see some data to back that up.

I have bookmaked the page, and will be sharing it every time I hear someone say 144Hz is placebo or that the human eye can't see past 60fps, or other such nonsense.
Click to expand...

I have no dissolutions that 144Hz is better than 60Hz when it comes to image quality and smoothness, but according to this chart, I will never be as good as the guy with a 1070Ti etc. with my current gear in BR's. And I say that is utter bullshit.
Marketing at it's finest.


battle-royale-fortnite-pubg-increase-in-kd-hours.png
 
My KDR increased between 10% and 20% from a 1200P 60Hz fixed refresh rate monitor to a 1440P 165Hz G-sync monitor while using the same 1060 6GB GPU so high refresh definitely makes a difference.
 
CAD4466HK said:
I have no dissolutions that 144Hz is better than 60Hz when it comes to image quality and smoothness, but according to this chart, I will never be as good as the guy with a 1070Ti etc. with my current gear in BR's. And I say that is utter bullshit.
Marketing at it's finest.


View attachment 146773
Click to expand...


Agreed. Come on guys we're too smart to be fooled by this bullshit. This is coming from a guy who loves high refresh rates and prioritizes famerates over visual quality. Which is why I know this is manipulated to look good. How do we know all of these players are playing on very low/low settings to optimize their FPS? I bet I could drop my refresh rate to 60hz in Apex and my K:D would be only slightly lower. I also wish they did not combine the data from the two games but instead kept them separate.
 
Moving from 60Hz 1080p to 144Hz 1440p ultrawide did up my KDR noticeably in BF5.

Hard to say if it is due to the ultra wide being able to see more or the higher refresh rate.
 
cybereality said:
But it's not just a claim, they are showing real data to back it up.
Click to expand...

There are several points that are conveniently left unaddressed in their 'real data'. Such as, those who play more, likely become better at a game and higher framerates likely lead to a better reaction time. This is not a phenomena exclusive to Nvidia cards nor is it news. AMD and Nvidia always have the most deceptive slides when it comes to their marketing.

Also of note, they bundle it as 1080/Ti, does this mean 1080 and 1080Ti? Because the difference between a 1080 and 1080Ti in the games they list is roughly 30-40 fps depending on resolution.
 
cybereality said:
But it's not just a claim, they are showing real data to back it up.
Click to expand...
I can make a chart, too. I mean, I can't, but somebody out there can! Does that make it real data?

What we're looking for is called the scientific method, and it's not present. They don't even attempt to mention anything about their testing methodology. While I don't feel that every single piece of data should go through peer review before it can even be considered remotely possible, people should always be HIGHLY skeptical of testing when performed by a group that isn't neutral, 100000000000000000x moreso when it's performed by people trying to sell you the very product they're saying is great! Come on!

I hope you aren't getting all your diet advice from natural-healthy-proven-supplements-for-wellness.zl/notascam too
 
But is it really that hard to believe?

That people with better performing hardware can perform better in a competition played on that hardware.

Seems like a pretty straight forward proposition.
 
cybereality said:
But is it really that hard to believe?

That people with better performing hardware can perform better in a competition played on that hardware.

Seems like a pretty straight forward proposition.
Click to expand...

I definitely had an "Ohhhhh" moment when I enabled Fast-Sync and capped the fps at 120 in several games.
 
cybereality said:
But is it really that hard to believe?

That people with better performing hardware can perform better in a competition played on that hardware.

Seems like a pretty straight forward proposition.
Click to expand...
Now you're just shifting goalposts. Their "data" shows KDR going up 44% by switching to 144fp and 2x kdr by going to a 2080ti+144fps

in otherwords

LOL
 
I call bullshit. it will help a bit but its the hours put in that really raises a k/d
 
Not sure if I buy what they're saying, but I look forward to the day when mainstream TV's can do above 60Hz.
 
Here's a thought.
Maybe the 1080P 60 hz players are casuals and therefore have "decent" k/d ratios
Those who are more serious about gaming spend more money to play on the best (1440P 100 hz+). Their K/D ratio is likely better bc they play more often and are serious gamers.
Those who play on 240hz+ are HARDCORE and spend top dollar. These are the 1 percenters in competitive gaming. They don't have the best k/d bc of their gear. But their awesome gear is a reflection of their investment in gaming (time, experience, money spent)
 
Yeah, 120+ does make a difference but even more so with Gsync and 144. and i just hit a comp score of 2500 in ow. so it helps.
1080 w/original rog swift @ 1440p 144hz
 
sleepybp said:
Here's a thought.
Maybe the 1080P 60 hz players are casuals and therefore have "decent" k/d ratios
Those who are more serious about gaming spend more money to play on the best (1440P 100 hz+). Their K/D ratio is likely better bc they play more often and are serious gamers.
Those who play on 240hz+ are HARDCORE and spend top dollar. These are the 1 percenters in competitive gaming. They don't have the best k/d bc of their gear. But their awesome gear is a reflection of their investment in gaming (time, experience, money spent)
Click to expand...

This is called third variable, and is exactly why Correlation and Causation aren't necessarily related. And I agree entirely with the assertion that those more serious about their games, likely spend more money on better gear.
 
Coming from a 60hz monitor to 144hz I would agree. Its a whole new world.

My recent "Oh shit" moment was playing UT99 & UT 2004 at 144Hz with Gsync. It was like a new game.
 
Krenum said:
My recent "Oh shit" moment was playing UT99 & UT 2004 at 144Hz with Gsync. It was like a new game.
Click to expand...
Yeah, when I got my first 120Hz screen, I was still playing UT2004 and it was incredible. Somehow the graphics on those old games still hold up.

If you want to play an older game, I would recommend the F.E.A.R. series. The graphics are still nice on full max settings high refresh.
 
cybereality said:
Yeah, when I got my first 120Hz screen, I was still playing UT2004 and it was incredible. Somehow the graphics on those old games still hold up.

If you want to play an older game, I would recommend the F.E.A.R. series. The graphics are still nice on full max settings high refresh.
Click to expand...

Been thinking of playing the first one again. Never finished it. Good call!
 
M76 said:
correlation is not to be confused with causation
Click to expand...


This.

Don't get me wrong. I'll take higher frame rates if I can get them, but the difference is - IMHO - much more subtle than instantly better performance in game.

Because of this I haven't bothered with frame rates above 60 fps since back when I was very much into Counter-Strike and vsynced my GeForce 3 Ti 500 and my 22" Iiyama Visionmaster Pro 510 at 1600x1200 and 100hz.

There are many alternate explanations to the correlation than causation. For instance, on average people who spend more on better hardware tend to be those who care more about games, and thus play more and get more practice. That's just one, but there are many.
 
Last edited:
If we did this "study," we would be laughed out of the business, and I cannot even imagine what our detractors would say. This data is so flawed... That said, the marketing department gets major kudos. Great angle.
 
I play all FPS on a 240hz display.

60 thru 144 feel like im dragging sledgehammers through swamp mud after using 240hz.

I think nVidia is off their rockers but I agree as a user that that higher = better, then there is the raw skill factor. Some people are just not good at fast games.
 
I already knew this when I was a CRT gamer. In addition to the flicker, I could easily see the smoothness difference between 60Hz ad 85 Hz.

That's why I stayed on CRT for so many years. There is a difference!

I can't really see a difference between 85 Hz and 120hz (let-alone 240 hz), even on fast modern panels, but I figure it's just marketing to the 0.1 percenters at that point.
 
I feel 120Hz is the new 60Hz, where as 144Hz is the new 75Hz, and 155/165Hz OC monitors are like the old (A-) korean panels that can OC to 95 Hz but can't quite hit 120Hz.

And of course 240hz is the new 120Hz lol

This is just me rambling about nothing :D
 
This is why I need to save articles.

There is an incredibly in depth, technically detailed, page somewhere (oh I'll find you again and post you!) that explains exactly why this works. While it is just a marketing scheme/angle that nVidia pulled, the technical data behind high fps giving you an edge is there to back it up (unless the game has a hard cap, or breaks because of it).

That said, 60hz feels awful when you've played everything at 100 and above for a while.
 
60 Hz is really bad for anything which requires reaction. Heck, even in wow the difference when I went high-refresh was HUGE to me.

Now to be fair, I don’t really perceive any useful difference above about 90 fps. But that’s me, and I’m old. I’m sure young people with good vision could see 120 easily. High refresh really is amazing IMO.
 
So what other meaningless things would also show this bump in k/d...RGB case lighting, cost of pc, number of games owned, amount of snacks consumed, beverages drank, total farts released, anything indicating an increase in time played right?
 
Last edited:
bluesynk said:
So what other meaningless things would also show this bump in k/d...RGB case lighting, cost of pc, number of games owned, amount of snacks consumed, beverages drank, total farts released, anything indicating an increase in time played right?
Click to expand...

So - you're saying getting an updated view into the game state more frequently is... on the same field as the lighting you choose for your case?

Are you being serious?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top