Image Quality VS Frame Rate [And Refresh Rate]

Sami 1999

Reserve Team
Just like the title says, what do you prefer?

I'm not much of a competitive gamer, so to me, 60Fps is fine enough. I try to keep a graphics setting that's able to maintain constant 60Fps with few drops. I can get 90+ easily, but the sacrifice image quality isn't worth to me.

Another reason for playing at 60fps+60Hz+Vsync on is for avoiding the screen tears but most importantly, avoiding microstutters. I kinda find it absurd that how smooth a 90fps game looks on 144hz with stupid screen tears and horrible microstutters (And it is true, else there wouldn't any need for Gsync/FreeSync monitors to exist at all). But I do prefer 120Hz over 144Hz, because 120Hz is exactly twice of 60Hz and with 60Hz Vsync, there ain't to microstutters unlike 144Hz. Only way to have 144hz monitor is Gsync/Free sync. Or its much safe to stay with 60/120/240Hz.

I use Vsync, always, despite to small inout lag.

So what are your preference?
 

Sami 1999

Reserve Team
Yeah, 30 FPS is very playable. But sucks, period.

CRT monitors were best because I could just lower my resolution and have 60Fps. With LCD monitors, the GPU or monitor uses bilinear filter when upscaling, makibg the image look blurry mess. This upscaling blur doesn't happen when using borderless window.

If you got a 4k monitor, try playing 1080p and fullscreen. And then run the game in 1080p in window mode, use "Borderless Gaming" tool or something like that to make the game borderless window filling the whole screen. Make sure the game's real resolution is still 1080p (Games like Fifa 13-17 can't do it and changes the resolution).

You'll see how nice 1080p looks qith the later method. Same for borderless window 720p on 1440p.
 

Alex

sKIp_E
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
For any fast paced game high FPS is a must. You need it running smooth.
 

Sami 1999

Reserve Team
Alex;3972973 said:
For any fast paced game high FPS is a must. You need it running smooth.

You mean FPS games? I'm not much into Fps games though. Certain games actually suck badly at 60fps. CSGO is one of the worst example. And with Vsync, I get like 1 sec delay. But then again, I played other FPS games like Commandos Strike force and UrT (mod for quake 3) where Vsync 60 fps doesn't cause such horrible lags. Is there any particular reason for Different lag time when using Vsync.

Fyi, I tried locking CSGO to 60fps+Vsync and lags reduced a bit. But its still more than other games
 

Pogba4Now

Team Captain
I need a new monitor. Loved the previous one but it's damaged. It's 1080p, 2 ms and 60 Hz. 23 inch.

I play mostly Fifa, sometimes other games like Tomb Raider or GTA (finished both).

I have a mid range video card - gtx 760 which is still adequate for the games I play at 1080p.

Any recommendations on what I should look for? I'm not sure if I can see the difference between 1 ms and 5ms to be honest. Same for 60 Hz vs 120 Hz. My card may not be good enough for 4k gaming I assume?
 

Pogba4Now

Team Captain
Likely will go with similar specs as the one I had. 4K may actually be useful for multitasking while I am working, so I may consider 4K. Not too sure if I really need faster response rate or refresh rate than what I previously had.
 

Sepak

Cocaine
Staff member
Moderator
Only a titan x Pascal will run games at 4k at 60 fps, it costs 1200 dollars, the gtx 1080 will run some games at 60 fps at 4k but mostly it will do 30fps. Don't know about monitors enough to make a suggestion.
 

Pogba4Now

Team Captain
Thanks. will probably just go with a regular 1080p 60 Hz one, unless I can get a larger 4k at a reasonable price.
 

Sami 1999

Reserve Team
Pogba4Now;3973987 said:
Thanks. will probably just go with a regular 1080p 60 Hz one, unless I can get a larger 4k at a reasonable price.

Not to mention how awful 1080p looks on 4k monitors due to bilinear filtering when Upscaling.

See this thread : https://forums.geforce.com/default/...equest-nonblurry-upscaling-at-integer-ratios/


This request has been there for 2 years. Ngreedia and Amdiot doesn't give a damn though. Because if 1080p looks clear and crisp on a 4k monitor (Like native 1080p monitors), then people dont need to buy Titan Pascal as they can just stay with 760 and play at 1080p.

Which means less profit. That's why I stayed with 900p and use DSR incase I need high resolution.

So stay with 1080p. And 2ms is useful if you use Vsync. Because a 15ms TV+Vsync lag makes it horrible.

Sepak;3973984 said:
Only a titan x Pascal will run games at 4k at 60 fps, it costs 1200 dollars, the gtx 1080 will run some games at 60 fps at 4k but mostly it will do 30fps. Don't know about monitors enough to make a suggestion.

This. And Titan X pascal is not even worth the price. 1200 dollars and it can't maintain Stable 60fps with Ultra (Or almost max settings with some tweaks). That means you need Gsync 4k monitor which are priced like diamonds.

Maybe 1080Ti will have better price/performance ratio. But I heard this time 1080Ti will cost something like 750 $ instead of 600 $ of previous Ti cards. Not sure though.
 

Sami 1999

Reserve Team
Also I've figured out that G-Sync monitors only helps preventing Microstutters and Stutters caused by frame rate drops.

But it doesn't solve the microstuttering caused by frame pacing issues (Aka Microstutters that happens even when you have Constant 60fps+Vsync+60Hz or so on).

So Gsync is kinda useless in those case.
 

Pogba4Now

Team Captain
Pogba4Now;3974224 said:
Bought this:

https://www.asus.com/Commercial-Monitors/VP278H/

Basically quite similar to my previous one but 27 inch instead of 23 inch, and 1 ms instead of 2 ms response time. 60 Hz.

I may consider a second one if I like it. 2 1080p monitors cost the same as a 4k monitor. 4k is not worth it at all.

I received it. It's pretty bad. 1080p looks pixelated for such a big monitor. It is basically 81 ppi. I am returning it and I am in the market for another one. I will either get 2k or 4k 27 inch or a 1080p or 2k smaller 24 inch.

The main selling point for this monitor was the response time of 1 ms but I don't really need that. Less than 5 ms would do. It is also TN so not ideal for graphics design / photography. Pictures look pretty washed out.
 

Sami 1999

Reserve Team
Pogba4Now;3974872 said:
I received it. It's pretty bad. 1080p looks pixelated for such a big monitor. It is basically 81 ppi. I am returning it and I am in the market for another one. I will either get 2k or 4k 27 inch or a 1080p or 2k smaller 24 inch.

The main selling point for this monitor was the response time of 1 ms but I don't really need that. Less than 5 ms would do. It is also TN so not ideal for graphics design / photography. Pictures look pretty washed out.

If you sit 36" away from your monitor, then at that distance you might try something like 24" 1440p screen..

I sit 36" away from my monitor which is 19" 1440x900p.

But, I at 2880x1800 (2304x1440 if I cant manage 60fps) using DSR. That takes care of the jaggies.


I won't lie about Refresh rates. 120fps at 120hz +Vsync and making sure its stutter/microstutter/frame pacing issues free is really amazing. But its simply too demanding and not possible to maintain constant 120hz.

And 60fps looks smooth enough to not strain my eyes .


Incase you buy a 4k monitor, you might wanna play games at borderless fullscreen at 1080p (if you can manage 4k) to have clear non blurry upscaling.
 


Top