Does higher FPS then capped make the game more responsive?

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by ezid, Aug 25, 2020.

  1. ezid

    ezid New Member

    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 1060 6gb
    I was wondering if higher fps is always better. Here is an example. if i play a competitive game and i have a 240hz monitor. i put all my settings to low and i cap my fps at 240fps. ok so lets say i have two of these PCs i have capped at 240 fps. one does have a GPU and CPU strong enough to produce 300 average fps (still capped at 240) and the other have a high end GPU and CPU where i get 500 fps average throughout the game ( but still capping at 240 fps). So both these PC are capped at 240 fps while playing this game and one have barely average higher fps then my monitor hz and the other have the double amount of fps over my hz (still capped at 240). So wich one of these setups is going to have least amount of inputlag, tearing, smoothness, stutters and responsivness? Does it matter to upgrade to a 500+ fps PC if money is no issue because the 500+ fps will play better at 240fps with the least input lag, frame delay, tearing etc?
     
  2. rm082e

    rm082e Master Guru

    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    232
    GPU:
    3080 - QHD@165hz
    Short Answer: No.

    Long Answer:

    You're only worry would be hitting points where the frame rate drops below the cap for some reason. So long as you're not dropping frames, _n_ frame rate is going to "feel" the same, no matter how much extra horsepower you have in reserve. If you're playing with a hard cap on your frame rate, you're just wasting money buying overkill hardware.

    I have a QHD 60hz monitor. I could have bought a 2080 Ti when I upgraded recently, but there was no compelling reason to do that. The 2070 Super runs every game I have tried at 60fps. I had to dial back a couple of settings in Red Dead 2 to maintain 60, but didn't notice a significant difference in the look of the game. It didn't make sense to me to spend an additional $800 dollars to have the feeling of "future proofing", when I can sell my old card and buy a new one anytime I want.

    Same thing with the CPU - I caught the 3800x on a crazy sale. I could have bought the 3950x or 9900k, but why? I have a 60hz monitor and I don't to anything with this PC other than game, so there was no reason to spend the extra money. I'd rather buy enough to max out my monitor and replace the hardware more often than buy top end hardware I won't get value out of, only to see it fall behind as it's replaced by newer hardware over time.

    The value of that top end hardware is when you have a high refresh monitor and you're maxing out your system running below it's cap. Even the best CPU/GPU can't push modern AAA games at Ultra settings and hit the cap in these situations. You buy the top end hardware because you want to push it as far as you can. If you have a 240hz monitor that you're maxing out, it's going to be with games that are easier to run (competitive FPS and fighters) that don't need top end hardware to hit the 240hz cap.​
     
    CPC_RedDawn, 386SX and CalculuS like this.
  3. AATT

    AATT Master Guru

    Messages:
    202
    Likes Received:
    18
    GPU:
    GTX1080
    In this case: No

    With a higher FPS cap, yes.
    The question then is: At how many FPS do you start getting diminishing returns? Both physically and economically.
     
  4. It won't matter in a WAN environment.
     

  5. CPC_RedDawn

    CPC_RedDawn Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,967
    Likes Received:
    1,224
    GPU:
    6800XT Nitro+ SE
    its down to the individual player, some find 60fps more than enough some want 120 some want 200 some want 600. It just depends on the player, the only time a game can feel unresponsive or sluggish especially with a mouse is when a hard cap is in place like vsync. Even vsync at 120Hz or 144Hz can have this feeling. And especially if its locked at that frame rate and the game doesn't suffer from dropped frames, you have this feeling of being locked in place with your movements. Whereas, if you have the right hardware to achieve high fps, then turning off vsync will make a game more responsive as you are removing that feature from the game. Even turning off vsync but using an fps cap can feel completely different and the fps cap without vsync will feel smoother but at certain frame rates you will incur tearing. This is where freesync and gsync come into play, they are there to make locked frame rates feel smoother and not cause tearing whereby the monitor copies the games frame rate and applies it to the refresh rate. Keeping the screen from tearing and trying to smooth out that horrendous feeling of using vsync and getting dropped frames. This is also why many people using freesync or gsync tend to use an fps cap just below their refresh rates so for 144Hz you would use an fps cap of around 142fps in order to keep the game from hitting that refresh rate where vsync is then applied and that "locked in place sluggish" feeling comes back.

    But again this could also depend on the player, some might like vsync, some might like an fps cap and put up with tearing......
     
  6. AATT

    AATT Master Guru

    Messages:
    202
    Likes Received:
    18
    GPU:
    GTX1080
    usually for response and consistency, it is best to cap above refresh rate, no use of any sync method, the higher the better, but keep the fps stable, highly depending on CPU and game optimization
     
  7. CPC_RedDawn

    CPC_RedDawn Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,967
    Likes Received:
    1,224
    GPU:
    6800XT Nitro+ SE
    well yes if you dont want to use any form of syncing and can put up with tearing.

    the reason for using an fps cap just below the refresh rate when using gsync or vsync is because if you hit that refresh rate or exceed it gsync and freesync are disabled and vsync is applied which can lead to unresponsive controls, and even stutter as you may not be near the refresh rate the whole time during gameplay with a fluctuating frame rate. So the game will go between gsync/freesync to using vsync, this is how variable refresh rates work. So by capping the fps just below the refresh rate you keep the game within the spec of gsync or freesync and keep the game from tearing leading to a smoother tear free experience.

    no sync at all will always be more responsive but like I said its all based on the player and which they personally prefer. I don't mind tearing my self but for single player games I tend to apply an fps cap just below 144Hz to around 142fps and enable gsync for smoother tear free gameplay then for competitive games I optimise the in game settings for best performance and let my PC render as many frames as it can.
     
  8. MaCk0y

    MaCk0y Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,057
    Likes Received:
    410
    GPU:
    GB 5700XT Gaming OC
    This might be of interest for you if you haven't watched it.

     
  9. Size_Mick

    Size_Mick Master Guru

    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    412
    GPU:
    Asus GTX 1070 8GB
    I don't own a high-refresh monitor, but I always imagined the advantage in gaming would be graphics, in situations like in turning or side motion, where at a low framerate everything looks jittery or blurry, but at a high frame rate you'd be able to track things better with your eyes (examples: turning quickly in an fps, or firing out of the side of a truck at targets zooming by). Assuming your hardware is up for it, of course.
     

Share This Page