When using Vsync - Better to run a game in 120hz or 144hz?

Discussion in 'Displays' started by Cyber Akuma, Jun 24, 2014.

  1. Cyber Akuma

    Cyber Akuma Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    398
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Obviously 144hz would be the better choice if there was no Vsync to deal with, but what would be the better option if it was?

    Main issue I see is since (If I understand everything right) Vsync can only display a framerate that is a number divisible by the "refresh" rate of the monitor, correct?

    So at 120hz, I would be able to get 120FPS, then 60FPS, but then the next level down is 40FPS, then 30 FPS.

    But at 144hz I would get 144, then 72, 48, and 36.

    Sounds like 144hz would only be beneficial if I am able to run the game at 144 or 72FPS, otherwise, if I can't get it to at least 72FPs it would drop down to 48 while at 120hz it would drop down to 60 (assuming the game runs on at least 60FPS on my system).

    Am I getting this right? So then would 120hz be more beneficial if you use Vsync and can maintain 60FPS? Also, wouldn't that make 144HZ more beneficial than 120 if you can't since then the next step down would be 48 instead of 40? Would you even notice a difference between 40 and 40FPS? Or 60 and 72FPS? Or even from 60 to 120 and 144?

    (Too bad 240hz screens are several hundred dollars at least, as they would have the benefit of both refresh rates and then some)
     
  2. Bluesun311

    Bluesun311 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,523
    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Most games support dynamic vsync. If your fps dips below your refresh rate it will just turn vsync off. When the framerate improves vsync flips back on. Nvidia drivers can also usually force this effect.

    Some games have full motion videos that won't look right (tearing and weird synchronization problems) at refresh rates and fps that aren't divisible by 15, like Tomb Taider. It doesn't like 144 but 120 is great.
     
  3. sharknice

    sharknice [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,825
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    Pretty much this. It is called Adaptive VSYNC. I would go with that at the highest refresh rate you can.

    And the 240hz monitors aren't actually 240hz, they're just 120hz with some marketing BS.

    There are also new monitors coming out in the next few months with GSYNC that completely eliminates tearing at any framerate.
     
  4. Cyber Akuma

    Cyber Akuma Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    398
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Yeah, I was having issues with getting that to work a few months ago.

    Namely, that I need to manually enable it in the Nvidia Control Panel, but if I did that, then I need to manually choose all sorts of other graphics options too and can't leave them at "
    application controlled" anymore.

    Yeah I know, my monitor supports that as an upgrade.... but I'm not about to pay $200 for it, and I don't like the fact that I will lose my DVI and HDMI ports. Seems kinda rushed to not include anything other than displayport.
     
  5. sharknice

    sharknice [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,825
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    You should be able to set all the other settings to application controlled and only force vertical sync to adaptive.

    I'm actually using the gsync kit and it was totally worth it for me. I will never go back to gaming on a non-gsync monitor. But at that price it probably isn't worth it for most people. Especially if you use your monitor with other devices and want the other inputs.
     
  6. Cyber Akuma

    Cyber Akuma Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    398
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    I'll try again and let you know, but i know I had trouble with it before. Hmm... I should probably try to find my old forum posts about it to see what I was doing wrong back then.
     
  7. Pastuch

    Pastuch Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    403
    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Holy shit! It's $200 and you loose ports?!? Crazy.

    Note: I'm no fanboy, I had a GTX 670 before I got a R9 290 but I do think $200 for less connections is a marketing disaster.