One in every of those questions that several users ask themselves, but the fact is that in terms of FPS and Hz, although they're related, they are doing not go hand in hand within the overwhelming majority of occasions. We are accustomed talking about adaptive synchronization, what if G-SYNC and Free Sync and an extended etc, but the overwhelming majority of low budget players who are competitive use FPS rates almost 5 times on top of the refresh rate of their computer monitor, is it useful or a fake?
From past times and particularly since before the launch of G-SYNC and even the V-SYNC with triple buffering, many people were already wiggling with what there was, that is, V-SYNC OFF and graphic settings to a minimum.Refresh rate vs response time,graphics card.
The target was to realize the very best frame per second fps rate above or well above the refresh rate of the monitor, although for this we suffered some problems like Tearing, then again why is that this practice still in force?
Hz vs FPS reddit:
There are only 3 reasons why the FPS rate will exceed the Hz rate of a gaming monitor, in any case we are talking about different figures between the 2 concepts. For this we start from the bottom that altogether hypothetical configurations we are going to use V-SYNC OFF within the control panels of NVIDIA and AMD, in addition as in any available game.
It's not a secret that a better FPS rate achieves a lower input lag. Not surprisingly, the industry struggles to market the implementation of ever faster panels in terms of Hz.
Having an FPS rate of 300 assumes a render time of 3.33 ms , while 144 FPS ends up in 6.94 ms and within the case of 60 FPS 16.67 ms . These times mean that it'll take less time for the graphics card to supply a full frame as more of those achieve completion per unit of your time.
It should not seem to be much if we compare 16.67 ms against 6.94 or maybe 3.33 ms, but reality shows that in trained eyes it's an abysmal difference on the screen, even in 60 Hz.
Do frame rate above Hz visible?
Many don't understand that exceeding a monitor’s Hz rate for FPS features a partially positive result. it's true that with V-SYNC OFF we are going to have tearing, but this can curiously palliate the greater the difference between the so-called Refresh Rate and therefore the Frame Rate.
The important thing here is to grasp that an FPS rate above a Hz rate will always affect the whole or partial display of the many of these FPS that are “above” their corresponding Hz.
that's to mention, during a refresh cycle of the monitor several different frames will be represented, which to the human eye will mean greater smoothness. At higher FPS rate more frames in each refresh cycle and although many will end in tearing because they're going to coincide between refresh rate and next refresh cycle, this tearing will become more and more priceless because the performance of the GPU increases for obvious reasons.
It's another of the curious points of those settings, but the fact is that if we've 300 FPS on a 60 Hz monitor with V-SYNC Off, what we are going to see on the screen are very small tearing lines from what was previously commented and a stuttering that it'll be negligible if not null.
And this is often possible because there are fewer harmonic frequency effects between the frame rate and therefore the refresh rate. Therefore, the difference between the 2 will imply a gradual improvement the more distance is put between them, as within the previous example of 300 FPS vs 60 Hz or similar.
Obviously this is often not ideal. the perfect is to possess 300 FPS at 300 Hz with VRR on a gaming monitor, but it's rough to realize, neither economically nor in terms of hardware in many cases, therefore, this V-SYNC Off technique remains employed by the smallest amount wealthy.