• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

high refresh question

L

Loaded Glove

Weaksauce
Joined
May 15, 2016
Messages
65
What do games with locked fps/refresh rates do on a high refresh monitor? Like if I tried a game designed for 60hz/fps on a higher refresh display, would it work, what would it do or take to get it to run properly?

The reason for my question is that I'm shopping for a new display and am deciding between 4k/60 or 2k/100+ at a size of 30-32".

Some examples of models I've considered so you know my price range.

4k/60: LG 32UD59-B
2k/100+: AOC AG322QCX
 
Last edited:
Depends on the display. Non-adaptive sync displays will just refresh at their refresh rate. G-sync/Freesync displays will display the frames when they are available, it will just be capped at 60fps. There are no downsides to a high refresh rate display.
 
"Non-adaptive sync displays will just refresh at their refresh rate"

Ok, but what about a game that is hard coded to only do 60fps at 60hz? That's exactly the scenario I'm asking about basically. A game designed to run at 60 on a 144hz monitor for example, what would it do, how would it behave and will there be games that simply will not work correctly on a display higher than 60?
 
If you do not own AMD card then these displays will act as non-VBR (Variable Refresh Rate) screen.

Game which is locked to 60fps might be:
a) Not really hitting 60fps all that much - in this case it is best to leave refresh rate at 100Hz for reduced input lag and less perceivable stutter (the higher refresh rate the better temporal 'gradation' so to speak)
b) Hits it at least most of the time - in this case 60Hz make more sense (and ofc. using V-Sync) because at 100Hz you will always have stuttering and at 60Hz not

In this case best to get:
1. VBR monitor matching your GPU (or future GPU upgrade path) - then you won't have to worry about frame rate at all
2. Monitor that support at least 120Hz - it won't have stuttering on 60Hz games and eventual frame drops (eg. due to GPU/CPU not keeping up) will be half as noticeable

From two monitors you mentioned I would rather get non-curved one
And imho best to get some IPS instead of VA
 
I have an Acer XB321HK you should buy from me. 32" 4K and Gsync all in one is pretty swell I just want to try an ultrawide at home like I have at work.
 
I never buy used, sorry. I did just buy a new 1 on sale though and it's great so far, but how do you get gsync to kick on? I enabled it in the control panel, but I checked a frame counter in game and it was over 60 into the 70's so I'm pretty sure gsync was not on. I checked global settings in the nvidia control panel and I see no gsync setting like I saw in a video on youtube trying to figure this out.
 
~update~

Wasn't impressed with the monitor or gsync, like at all. Taking it back and gonna get the LG 32UD59-B instead. Over 400 less and still a beautiful 60hz 4k monitor. Thanks again for the replies!
 
If this kind of posting is discouraged here, please let me know as I haven't posted here long enough or looked at enough threads to really notice. I mean consecutive posting instead of editing even though I clearly have edited certain posts. I've posted at umpteen forums over a decade and a half and they're all different. Sometimes consecutive posts seems more appropriate for some reason and sometimes not. Anyway, let me know and I'll adjust accordingly.

I wanted to clarify about gsync not impressing me. Since the XB321HK only does 60hz and that's what I have and all I've ever tried of gsync, it seems safe to assume the impact of a higher refresh rate transcends and underpins the functionality of gsync rather than vice versa. On that basis and my lifetime experience with only 60hz displays, I reasonably assume that 60hz and subsequently, 60 synced frames per second, is always gonna be a mixed bag in terms of consistency and feel. When it's flawless, it looks and feels fantastic, but stutter of synced frames is much more severe than un and fluctuations between 30-60 can potentially be game breaking. A few dropped frames here and there and a subsequent hitch or short stutter isn't the worst thing in the world, but when it's really bad, it ruins my interest in playing, completely. I briefly tried the 32" 2k version of this screen in the store with it's 165hz refresh and gsync and it was pretty unreal because I wasn't anticipating being able to perceive any difference just moving the mouse around the desktop, but I was wrong. The thing I'm thinking now is that a high refresh rate monitor, even without gsync or free sync, would be a better and smoother overall experience than this 4k 60hz Acer with gsync. Since 60 is all I've ever known and since this was also my first 4k, I came to the conclusion that high refresh is wasted on me. The impact in the store of just moving that mouse at 165 told me all I needed to know, that's it's insanely smoother and would be beastly for gaming in terms of performance, but for someone like me, ironically, kind of superficial.
 
I would be able to live with 60hz, but it's borderline too slow for me personally. 4K requires a high end card for modern titles, which I cannot afford currently, and hard capping the framerate at 58-59fps to always stay in the adaptive sync range (globally with Control Panel or RTSS) is still not ideal, although better than plain old V-Sync. 60hz un-synced tears like a bitch.

A high refresh rate 32" 1440p Freesync monitor seems like the best compromise in my opinion. Decently sharp, and most mid/high end cards will be able to provide consistent framerates notably higher than 60fps with conservative game settings. Even without compatible adaptive sync tech, a high refresh rate by itself already skirts around the issues adaptive sync adresses nicely, and playing a 60fps locked game is more enjoyable with a monitor set to 120hz, especially with a VA panel considering the slightly tightened response times at higher refresh.
That said, in addition to Freesync, AMD has the "Chill" feature which is superior to hard capping through the Control Panel or RTSS. My ideal setup would be a Vega card, 32" 1440p 144hz monitor, and a Chill range set around the average framerate of each game to keep the feel consistent.

I am very satisfied with the specs of the Q3279VWF I'm using now. Its dirt cheap, and does 75hz which feels worlds better than 60hz to me on this VA panel. It does still tear noticably at this refresh rate, but when I am able to upgrade my GTX 970 to an AMD card, Freesync and a 70-75fps Chill range should do nicely for most games
 
Last edited:
The AG322QCX is a 2560x1440 resolution panel, not 2K (1920x1080 or 2048x1080).
 
Not really correct. 2k and 4k are both bs marketing monikers that aren't indicative or respective of actual tech spec data. That being said, displays which are most commonly referred to as 2k, are 1440 (2560x1440). Nobody, not resellers or the makers, refer to 1080 displays as anything other than 1080, never as 2k. The other size you mentioned 2048x1080 is a relatively obscure size that I have never heard anyone refer to as 2k.
 
Loaded Glove said:
Not really correct. 2k and 4k are both bs marketing monikers that aren't indicative or respective of actual tech spec data. That being said, displays which are most commonly referred to as 2k, are 1440 (2560x1440). Nobody, not resellers or the makers, refer to 1080 displays as anything other than 1080, never as 2k. The other size you mentioned 2048x1080 is a relatively obscure size that I have never heard anyone refer to as 2k.
Click to expand...
2560x1440 being referred to as 2K is an internet phenomenon, much like the NVIDIA Titan X being called the Titan XP.

https://www3.lenovo.com/us/en/faqs/pc-life-faqs/what-is-2k-resolution/
 
That's 4 characters, I said 2k which is correct by current branding conventions and is only 2 characters. I win.
 
You don't win because 2K is 1080p and you were actually referring to 1440p which is 2.5K which is also 4 characters.
 
Loaded Glove said:
2k and 4k are both bs marketing monikers
Click to expand...

2k is 1080p (1920 horizontal is ~2,000), 2.5k is 2560x1440, and 4k is 4096x2160 (DCI 4k) or 3820x2160 (UHD 4k). 2k and 2.5k aren't really 'standardized', but 4k most definitely is.

Loaded Glove said:
Since the XB321HK only does 60hz and that's what I have and all I've ever tried of gsync, it seems safe to assume the impact of a higher refresh rate transcends and underpins the functionality of gsync rather than vice versa.
Click to expand...

This assumption is backward. What variable V-Sync technologies bring is the ability to sync frames as V-Sync does without imparting the input lag and stuttering that come with static V-Sync. This means that it is more effective at lower refreshrates and lower framerates. Variable V-Sync technologies are least effective at a combination of high framerate and high refreshrate, but still help (and do not hurt).

Of course, the assumption that you are sensitive to V-Sync input lag and stutter or tearing without V-Sync goes with it. If you're not, then variable V-Sync doesn't have much value for you :).
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Of course, the assumption that you are sensitive to V-Sync input lag and stutter or tearing without V-Sync goes with it. If you're not, then variable V-Sync doesn't have much value for you :).
Click to expand...
What does it mean to be 'sensitive'?
Everyone is affected by high input lag and stuttering whether they realize it or not. It is like when you are affected by dehydration and do not know you are thirsty... which actually happen more often for a lot of people than you might realize.

I watched movies and videos on 60Hz screen by players which couldn't sync properly even 30fps video. Now I can still watch movies on 60Hz mode just fine and are not really bothered by how motion looks (except some panning scenes) but switching to proper refresh rate and syncing videos correctly make motion look much better, subtle things gets revealed whareas with stuttering brain just ignored all the intricate details of motion completely.

Lower resolution higher refresh rate monitor instead of 4K 60Hz is fine but compromising on motion fluidity is just being cheap and torturing your own visual cortex and burdening it with task to ignore what is being processed. Not very charismatic if you ask me...
 
IdiotInCharge said:
My point is that these things may not have value to the OP, even if (I'm agreeing!) they most certainly have value objectively.
Click to expand...
OP tries hard to save the money with the kind of thinking "I won't need it... maybe...". This always ends with regret. Bigger, smaller, aware of it or not, doesn't matter, regret is there each time there will be stuttering... which will be a lot :dead:
And is he gonna need this saved $300 buck? Probably not
Won't he be able to sell G-Sync monitor for more? Definitely yes

Of course OP happened to be total idiot and maybe I am not mental health expert but regret is already steaming out from him...
Conclusion: do not buy monitors with stuttering :ROFLMAO:
 
I play a fair bit of the Dark Souls series and they are all locked 60 fps. However, running my ASUS PG278Q (1440p, 144 Hz, G-Sync) at 120 or 144 Hz does make input seem more responsive somehow and the game seems to look smoother. Maybe someone can explain what is happening here but that's what I experience and my display has a button that allows changing the refresh rate on the fly between 60, 120 and 144 Hz.
 
Loaded Glove said:
If this kind of posting is discouraged here, please let me know as I haven't posted here long enough or looked at enough threads to really notice. I mean consecutive posting instead of editing even though I clearly have edited certain posts. I've posted at umpteen forums over a decade and a half and they're all different. Sometimes consecutive posts seems more appropriate for some reason and sometimes not. Anyway, let me know and I'll adjust accordingly.

I wanted to clarify about gsync not impressing me. Since the XB321HK only does 60hz and that's what I have and all I've ever tried of gsync, it seems safe to assume the impact of a higher refresh rate transcends and underpins the functionality of gsync rather than vice versa. On that basis and my lifetime experience with only 60hz displays, I reasonably assume that 60hz and subsequently, 60 synced frames per second, is always gonna be a mixed bag in terms of consistency and feel. When it's flawless, it looks and feels fantastic, but stutter of synced frames is much more severe than un and fluctuations between 30-60 can potentially be game breaking. A few dropped frames here and there and a subsequent hitch or short stutter isn't the worst thing in the world, but when it's really bad, it ruins my interest in playing, completely. I briefly tried the 32" 2k version of this screen in the store with it's 165hz refresh and gsync and it was pretty unreal because I wasn't anticipating being able to perceive any difference just moving the mouse around the desktop, but I was wrong. The thing I'm thinking now is that a high refresh rate monitor, even without gsync or free sync, would be a better and smoother overall experience than this 4k 60hz Acer with gsync. Since 60 is all I've ever known and since this was also my first 4k, I came to the conclusion that high refresh is wasted on me. The impact in the store of just moving that mouse at 165 told me all I needed to know, that's it's insanely smoother and would be beastly for gaming in terms of performance, but for someone like me, ironically, kind of superficial.
Click to expand...

Well where Gsync shines is if you can't maintain your maximum refresh rate. Thus it becomes important with high refresh displays because let's be real: Few games are going to let you crank the settings and maintain 144+Hz. Though tearing and such are less noticeable at higher refreshes, you can still see them, hence Gsync is really useful because it lets you maintain the highest refresh possible in a given game. It is useful for 60Hz displays though because the stuttering you noted. If you have a 60Hz gsync display and the game dips a bit below 60, you aren't likely to notice whereas with a fixed frame rate display you'll get a hitch.

In general though I like and recommend high refresh over high rez and yes, as you saw, it is very noticeable on the desktop. Perhaps even more noticeable. The more sharp the transition in an image, the more you can see it. In games though not only is the visual fluidity nice, but it feels smoother too because of the quicker reaction to your input.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top