240hz gaming

Discussion in 'Video Cards' started by mrybczynski, Aug 25, 2019.

  1. mrybczynski

    mrybczynski n00b

    Messages:
    9
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2019
    So. I picked up the sweet new Samsung CRG5 240hz VA panel 1080p monitor, since i like high frame rate gaming.

    But... My system is maxing out around 130fps in the game i play most (world of warships) with 'high' graphics settings, which i wouldn't want to drop. Still looks great. But I want more greater.

    So, graphics experts of H.F., how do i plan for to optimally double my frame rate?

    Currently I'm gaming on:
    Ryzen 1700 - o/c to 3.7ghz
    Asus GTX 1070 - o/c to max
    32gb pc2800 ram
    Adata pcie SSD

    Cheers,
    Mitch
     
  2. Brian_B

    Brian_B 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,125
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2012
    Step 1: Upgrade to Intel, because everyone knows it's the fastest at gaming
    Step 2: Upgrade your video card to the best you can afford
    Step 3: Step your resolution down until you finally hit 240Hz.
     
    Pirx, spine and Dayaks like this.
  3. legcramp

    legcramp [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,817
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Upgrade your CPU to a 3600 and buy 2070S or equivalent?
     
    silentsod likes this.
  4. Archaea

    Archaea [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,354
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Step 1. Turn on Gsync on your Nvidia card and Freesync in your monitor then stop worrying about it because you cannot tell the difference with the variable refresh rate controls engaged.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2019
    alxlwson and Napoleon like this.
  5. ChadD

    ChadD [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,130
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2016
    Grab a 3600(x) or 3700/3800x.

    Fastest game game chips around and they are drop ins on your board. For a $200 upgrade nothing is going to be a better bang for the buck. A 2070 on the same cpu will perhaps gain you 20fps and cost you $500+... a Zen2 should give you a pretty healthy 20% average bump in FPS. Hard to find world of warship numbers on the net but I would guess if your at 130 now you should be looking at 160-170fps.

    Only way you are really going to hit 240fps average, would shelling out for a 2080ti or something. I would go with the drop in zen2 first for bang for the buck. Your 1070 is probably not worth changing out until another generation hits imo. Hold out for a 3070 or a 5800 or something down the road. To bump from zen2 160ish fps to 200+.
     
  6. ChadD

    ChadD [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,130
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2016
    Yes he should dump his current investment in board for a 1% at most gain switching to intel in games and a 10%+ downgrade in anything else. When he can get a 20-30% bump for 200 bucks dropping Zen2 in. :rolleyes:
     
    MacLeod and cybereality like this.
  7. Brian_B

    Brian_B 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,125
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2012
    The sarcasm there must not have been nearly obvious enough
     
  8. ChadD

    ChadD [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,130
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2016
    Sorry grand kids have had me up to long. lol

    Here is a reverse :rolleyes:. :oops:
     
    AceGoober and Brian_B like this.
  9. Stoly

    Stoly [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,327
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    while I normally recommend always upgrading gpu first, the Ryzen 1700 is not the best gpu for high fps, specially at 1080p

    I'd recommend the Ryzen 3700 or 3600
     
  10. cybereality

    cybereality [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,592
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Yeah, I would look at the Ryzen 3600 (or better) and see what your motherboard supports. Could be an easy, low-cost upgrade.

    You can try the sharpening with Reshade and running at a lower resolution like 900p. I got good results with 900p and AMD RIS, Reshade is similar and works with Nvidia.
     
  11. Mode13

    Mode13 Gawd

    Messages:
    640
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2018
    A budget would make this easier. I would shoot for a 3600/3600x/3700x (since already on AM4) and a used 1080Ti or new RTX 2080 (if that game is GPU bound at all, I'm not sure. don't play it). Also potential for higher frame rates if you go with faster ram, though in those specific titles we would have to check some benchmarks to see if there's any improvement from say 2800 to 3600C14/16 for example.

    Obviously a 5.1+ghz 9900k + 2080Ti would be the answer if you had infinite money and only wanted to game at highest possible frames..
     
    IdiotInCharge and nEo717 like this.
  12. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,843
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Poe's Law.
     
    AceGoober and Brian_B like this.
  13. Dayaks

    Dayaks [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,113
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    We have a WoWs thread here. It’s how i discovered the game. That’s actually the last game I’d expect someone to run at high Hz lol.

    Anyways what the first post said. Get an Intel 9700kf or 9900kf. If your FPS isn’t good enough get a better video card. A 1070 may be enough at 1080p. I run the game at 6880x2880 maxed on a 2080ti, so it’s not graphically demanding. Check your afterburner GPU usage and see what you are at, if it’s 100% buy a card twice as fast.

    Beyond me why anyone would ever suggest AMD for 240Hz, that’s assinine. AMD begins to lag around 100Hz, especially the minimums. Guess it depends on your budget. You could get half way to a 9700k with a drop in processor like the 3700k (update bios first).

    Just to give an idea:

    0F5A44B6-A2B4-4CD1-9B23-24DA886BA6DB.jpeg
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2019
  14. Mode13

    Mode13 Gawd

    Messages:
    640
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2018
    Op is already on AM4. That's why everyone is suggesting AMD. If he wants to go all out and buy a new board for an EOL platform to get 3-20 more FPS, then so be it lol.
     
  15. Dayaks

    Dayaks [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,113
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    I did. A decent board is only $150-$200, but that’s why I posted the graph. He can choose for himself.

    Basically $330 for +40Hz (3700x) or $550 for +60Hz (9700kf + mobo) It’s almost a linear value curve, assuming GTA V relates to WoWs decently. A lot of games show similar deltas between processors though.

    Still wondering why anyone would need 240Hz for wows lol.

    Here’s a WoWs compilation from Business6 who frequents [H] and is pretty popular in the game.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2019
  16. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,843
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011

    The difference stock to stock is smaller than 10 FPS between the 3700X and the 9700KF, neither of which hit over 200Hz. Also you need a cooler with the 9700, and if you want to see the big numbers, you need to OC, which means you need a GOOD cooler because the 9700 is a 95wpart which will output more than 150w of heat if you simply enable XMP.

    so that '$550' is looking a bit incorrect.
     
    ChadD, cybereality and Dayaks like this.
  17. Dayaks

    Dayaks [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,113
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    The cooler is a good point. He should also make sure his mobo actually supports the 3xxx series Ryzen. Didn’t some have some issues fitting the AGESA code?

    Anywho - if this guy ever returns I could test a 2700x and a 9700kf in a few days.
     
    KazeoHin likes this.
  18. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,843
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    The older Ryzens did have an issue beyond 144hz on most games, but seeing as how that's a wall that requires some serious money to overcome (GPU+monitor) then Intel is fine, as money doesn't seem to be a problem. But 3000 series Ryzen are pretty damn close while usually being cheaper once you consider the wraith cooler bundled is good enough to run them at 99% of their OC potential. Ram is more important for Ryzen 3000 FPS than cooling.
     
    ChadD and Dayaks like this.
  19. Emerald Consignment

    Emerald Consignment n00b

    Messages:
    10
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2019
    Throw stones at police will land more fps
     
  20. mrybczynski

    mrybczynski n00b

    Messages:
    9
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2019
    Thanks for the suggestions guys. It seems CPU will be next up, I'm thinking ryzen 3800x or 3700x or 3600x. I think my mobo has support, will confirm.

    So in the next 6 months are there likely to be major GPU releases that really move the needle, or should I be eying something like a 2080s?
     
  21. ChadD

    ChadD [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,130
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2016
    I went 3600x recently (got a good deal on a x or I would have saved the money). 1700->3600 is still a sizable upgrade. ya its 2 cores less... but AMD really did cook some magic into zen 2. And no matter what anyone says 6 cores is fine for gaming today and for the next few years. I'm gaming at 2560x1080 and my 3600x isn't even breaking 50% usage. (EDIT OK I know dota is not a good indicator... but just had to add this just finished a round and left my cpu meter running never broke 8% in 20 min, I know dota still these new zen cores are sick)

    I would take a 3600x 6/12 over a Intel 8/8 core anyday. As others have pointed out the Intel chip seems well positioned on price until you take into account that all the "good" Intel winning benchmarks are with the Intel chips well overclocked with decent cooling. IME AMDs stock coolers are more then capable of turning out good game FPS. There doesn't seem to be as big a requirement to go buy top end cooler. And of course it sounds like it should be a drop in upgrade.

    On the video card... I would wait to see what Nvidia is doing at 7nm with Ampere.... and I would also wait to see what AMD has with 5800/5900. A 5700xt would be a slight upgrade for you I can't imagine it would be a major bump from a 1070 though in reality. Wait for the next batch to get released and see if price drops... or hopefully performance increases and price drops. 1070 should be more then capable of pushing a solid 160 or so FPS with a zen2 upgrade even a 3600 (which with gsync/freesync should be perfect). Over the next year 7nm NV is coming, AMD "big navi / navi2" and Intel is getting in the game. Wait.
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2019
    otg likes this.
  22. cybereality

    cybereality [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,592
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    I think an upgrade might help, but it could be a good idea to run Afterburner and enable OSD for CPU and GPU and see where the bottleneck is for that game before you buy anything.

    It could be the GPU, it could be the CPU, it could be a poorly optimized game that is being limited to 1 or 2 cores (in which case, upgrading won't help). I don't know the game, so you will have to test yourself.
     
  23. KazeoHin

    KazeoHin [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,843
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Go the 3700 and use your existing maxx cooler. All the reviews show the two are practically identical.
     
  24. Stoly

    Stoly [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,327
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    If you are willing to wait. 2020 will bring a lot of new stuff from AMD, Intel and Nvidia.

    By that time, all of them should have support for DXR.
     
  25. Soulwrath

    Soulwrath n00b

    Messages:
    56
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    theres really no big release, you will have to wait for 2020 - would do the CPu upgrade and report back what your usage is like then move from there.
     
  26. nEo717

    nEo717 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    317
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2017
    -------

    RTX 2080Ti (or simply want most frames, Titan RTX is excellent 240Hz card) - On Ryzen platform I use 3200MHz 14-14-14-31 ram (8gb x 4), also use add-in NIC (X550-T1) and add-in sound card (SB AE5) - Little things matter when trying to squeeze out all the frames you, the goal with 240Hz as you learning first hand isn't as much about max frames as it is about keeping the minimum frames high followed then by frame times - A good 240Hz system will bring a world of improvement in reducing screen blur and making your shots more true/timely/accurate (in FPS games).

    That VA panel though, its not helping your frame times with GTG rise and fall - There are IPS panels out there, however some of the best 240Hz panels, when have the rest of your system balanced well, it will have a solid picture quality (even though its TN panel).

    FYI... I have 1800X system, 9900K, 2950X, and 7900X - (2) 2080 Ti's and (2) Titan RTX - On 240Hz system the Titan based systems, its noticeable better (I've had many friends call bs until I sat them down to each, titan RTX has better min. frame rates and frame times, but it cost a hell of a lot of cash).

    Turn OFF all gsync and free sync - upgrade video card first (your cpu is fine for now), then ram. When games support it, inside the game set max frames to 235 (about 5 under refresh rate). Doing 240Hz well means loosing some of the ideas and thoughts many use on lower end systems to play at 120Hz.

    You can find some 2080's out there now $620ish and even rare high $500's if not looking to break the bank, but also like to pump up those min. frame rates.

    Couple of nVidia control panel tweaks (for 240Hz) - under Manage 3D settings, Global:

    Power Management Mode - prefer max performance
    Monitor technology - Fixed Refresh
    Low Latency Mode - Ultra

    May want to mess with your OC (cpu) - yes it may be giving you higher max frames, but check frame times and min. frames - may times an OC will loosen up timings and actually provide a negative effect when trying to manage 240 frames (or near as possible) as a min. frame(s).
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2019
    MacLeod likes this.
  27. mrybczynski

    mrybczynski n00b

    Messages:
    9
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2019
    Thanks I'll tweak the driver.

    I picked up a 3600x today, seems to up the framerate about 30 fps stock. Going to OC it next.

    I can't justify the cost of the 2080ti - so waiting for the next gpu generation. Maybe with increased competition I'll get something comparable for 400-500 bucks?
     
    nEo717 likes this.
  28. ChadD

    ChadD [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,130
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2016
    Nice to hear the 3600 got you another 30fps. Not bad for a relatively inexpensive drop in upgrade. As long as your able to turn Gsync on I doubt you'll notice much difference between 160 and 200+ hrz. Frame lag reduction has major diminishing returns. 60-100 is noticeable to pretty much anyone. 120-140 honestly dim returns starts ramping up and unless you have a A B setup most people can't tell the difference. Over 150 or so you really are getting to a point where the human eye is just not going to see a difference. Of course there are those that insist they can... just like their are audiophiles that claim they can hear a dog whistle. ;) Yes 240 is better but its not the noticeable difference 60->144 is. The only case I can imagine 240 really is worthwhile is if you are into hyper competitive shooters and have a GPU that can actually handle 150+fps 1% lows.

    Anyway I guess at this point you can mess with drivers... perhaps try the lower resolution + sharpening ect and see if you can actually tell the difference. In the end what ever looks best to you is best. :)
     
  29. nEo717

    nEo717 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    317
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2017
    -------

    Says someone taking a guess... a lot of people used to you can't tell the difference between 60Hz and 100Hz or 120Hz - Even in non-FPS games there's a noticeable difference in blur, smoothness, sharpness, and quality of images as a result - in FPS your talking about 100 frames more it too makes a difference.

    One example (not to mention in anything where you're aiming, many times more chances to hit your target with 240Hz):



    even better example (Does 240 Hz actually give you an advantage?) - Human eye with ease see's the difference (as will see in the video):

     
  30. ChadD

    ChadD [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,130
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2016
    Mouse cursors and super slow mo side by sides don't count. Unless your buying a monitor so you can shake your mouse around or something. I can slow a video of a humming bird down and watch its wings beat as well... but I still can't see them real time.

    The bottom line is in scientific testing. 75-90% of the population can not tell the difference between 144 and 240 depending on the test. Those that can tell the difference are doing things like the above and specifically looking for tell tale signs like focusing on a single texture and twitching their camera looking for the difference.

    I am not saying 240 isn't better for hyper competitive shooters where you want the absolute best flick shot response time. Yes 240 is a small bit better... but its a small bit better over 144. Of course if you do something stupid like GPU marketing dept tests or the one Linus did a while back with the slow mo guy comparing 60hz to 240 yes of course 240 is stupidly better. The difference between 60 and 144 is huge and yes you drop you input lag by an order of 10. From 144 to 240 the numbers are far less dramatic... the input lag reduction is low. From 60 to 144 you will drop from 30-40ms input lag down to 3-5ms. From 144 to 240 you will shave another 0.5ms or so off your input lag. Ya that might matter if your super serious about your twitch shooter. If your playing something like world of ships/tanks/planes I highly doubt it will make much difference myself.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2019
    Furious_Styles likes this.
  31. Furious_Styles

    Furious_Styles [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,351
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2013
    You should have done some more research I think. If you want 240hz but don't want to drop the in-game settings to achieve 200+ fps or don't have the hardware to drive it, it's not really worth it at all. Ideally you want a 1080ti+ and a top-end CPU to drive what you have.
     
    AceGoober and nEo717 like this.
  32. nEo717

    nEo717 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    317
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2017
    ------

    Funny you disagree with everyone that actually (owns or) has/uses a 240Hz Monitor right in front of them, has tested it, gamed on it, even puts it out there on youtube, lol...

    Screen being updated every 4ms or 240 times per second, that's why in any game you see whats happening ahead of those at 120 times (or whatever) per second... now of course reflex or reaction time (to who is playing) plays its role, however it does give back a bit to the slower player - Not to mention the visual improvements and fluid movements, sharpness - I took the work out of it for you and posted at the time mark where bitwit covers just that - about 06:45 he shares his personal experience when trying to come back to slower refresh rates monitors are... of course as almost all reviews note, it's expensive to do 240Hz right, and if you don't, then ya, you won't get all the benefits without spinning all those frame rates.



    Here's what's coming 1440p 240Hz - I believe there's IPS 240Hz making its way out too...

    https://www8.hp.com/us/en/displays-accessories/gaming/omen-x-27.html

    Edit:

    Here's the Acer XV273X - 240Hz IPS Panel:
    https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/blog/acer-nitro-xv273x-with-worlds-first-240hz-ips-panel/

    It's fair to say 240Hz is here to stay and much like more ram on graphic cards, it will become the new go to standard/
     
    Shadowed and cybereality like this.
  33. nEo717

    nEo717 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    317
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2017
    -------

    I was looking for this for you... and almost gave up - I got into my 240Hz much the same as you (only some time ago) - check out the nVidia control panel settings and in-game settings, and RTSS settings. Also covers Mouse settings (which start to matter more on 240Hz Monitor - Mouse Microstutters). There is another review (same site) on gsync at 240hz, I'm trying to find the link for that and will share it with you - the only change was in nVidia control, keep gsync off (though you may want it on until or unless you're in a game that can turn 180+ frames).

    This review covers many comments you will hear some make, and goes into detail if they are true or false, and shares why...

    https://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag-tests-and-settings/14/
     
  34. Dayaks

    Dayaks [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,113
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Did you try running a GPU monitoring program to see your GPU usage? If it’s below 100% a faster GPU may not help much for that game.

    If it’s really low like 60% (doubtful) you can enable DSR (basically SSAA) and have your game rendered at a higher resolution and downscaled. It’s a great way to burn free GPU usage.
     
  35. RPGWiZaRD

    RPGWiZaRD [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,035
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    I'm suprised how cheap the new Acer IPS is, 27" 1080p is definitely looking garbage PPI wise but yea, it's cheaper than the TN 240Hz panels used to be so wonder what kind of expectations one should have for these new IPS models as far as build quality/panel lottery variation goes or if simply AU Optronics has optimized its panel production so much that IPS panels aren't simply expensier anymore to produce or doesn't need to carry a price premium anylonger due to how cheap it's gotten by now. $430 sounds promissing for a 240Hz IPS 1080p 240Hz, TN 240Hz ones used to be $500+ or maybe some of them still are, I mean at that kind of pricing I don't even see any point of the TN alternatives to exist as fast IPS panels are only marginally slower these days than TN to the point I don't think even the top tier CSGO competitive players will make out any difference. I mean if it's really going to be $430 (I think $450 for the Acer model personally) the TN panel version needs to be like 370~$400 at most and I don't see them suddenly dropping prices like that, I rather see it likely that they go EOL.

    I will either go for the 24.5" 1080p or 31.5" 1440p myself, I never liked 27" 1440p, slightly too smallish for my tastes, at work I use 20% zoom.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2019
    cybereality and nEo717 like this.
  36. Skillz

    Skillz [H]ard DCOTY 2017

    Messages:
    21,820
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Pretty sure World of Tanks is very similar to World of Warships. They both run on BigWorld game engine.

    NzcwL29yaWdpbmFsL1dvcmxkLW9mLVRhbmtzLUVuY29yZS1GUFMtMTkyMHgxMDgwLURYMTEtVWx0cmEtRGV0YWlsLS5wbmc=.jpg

    GPU used during testing was a 2080Ti.

    Not sure why someone cherry picked GTA to compare to World of Warships.
     
    Shadowed, nEo717 and IdiotInCharge like this.
  37. LigTasm

    LigTasm [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,944
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    World of Tanks doesn't use bigworld any more, it uses encore engine.
     
    Shadowed, nEo717 and Dayaks like this.
  38. Hakaba

    Hakaba Gawd

    Messages:
    640
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2013


    https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3489-amd-ryzen-5-3600-cpu-review-benchmarks-vs-intel

    TLDW, Intel 9700K/9900K + 2080ti provide the highest FPS in almost every scenario. However, when looking at the 3600 vs. the competition you have to ask yourself is it worth the extra money for that 30 FPS (sometimes 10FPS...). Additionally, Intel is constantly pushing new chipsets/motherboard every CPU release, even when it is not needed. On the other hand, AMD has pretty much stuck with AM4 socket for the last few years (supposed to change in 2020 or after 2020). If budget is no option, 9900K+2080Ti.

    BTW, I swapped from a 7700 at 5GHz to 2700X on release, while I lost some top end FPS I felt better system stability. Also, I recently updated my 3770K + 1070 Gaming X to a 3600 + same GPU, and feel like I may have lost a frame or two but overal system response time was better. Later on down the line (when more partner 5700 XT are available) I might swap that 1070 out, but it really depend on VR performance.
     
    ChadD and nEo717 like this.
  39. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,346
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Either that's what you're looking for- and you need to be looking at 1% and 0.1% for your workloads, not just 'FPS'- or you get AMD and get more cores.

    And AMD users have paid hand over fist for it. At least Intels board upgrades guaranteed plug-and-play usage. Seen the thread on Ryzen memory speeds? Lol.

    This is on you- there should be no stability difference.

    This would depend on your system configuration and testing scenario. If loading down the CPU, yes, the AMD system should feel 'more responsive' just due to having more cores. But that would be the same if you'd upgraded to an Intel system with more cores too.

    For reasons I haven't bothered to dig in to, AMD has not provided great support for VR. If that's your goal, an Nvidia GPU is highly recommended (otherwise, yeah, get the 5700XT).
     
    nEo717 and Dayaks like this.
  40. Snowdog

    Snowdog [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,216
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    I have seen Golden Eared audiophiles make similar claims for decades, and they are pretty much completely empty when there is some kind of rigorous blind testing.

    If you have any kind of rigorous blind testing for 144hz vs 240Hz, I would love to see it.