Higher refresh rate not always the best..?

So here is my story, I had purchased last year a 165hz 1440p IPS Gsync monitor for myself, as my previous 1440p 60hz finally gave up after many years of service. Now logically, my thought process was clearly the response time and the clearer looking image would be a great improvement over my previous 60hz panel in every way. But from my experience, it seems a dedicated 60hz panel with a consistent 60fps a second was a much more pleasurable experience in comparison to my current 165hz panel with only at about 100fps and any dips below that felt even worse.

Many new current games, I cant keep nowhere near a steady 100fps at 1440p with my current setup. For example, even a game as old as BF4; anything lower than 120fps is simply unsmooth on my 165hz, as these games like to fluctuate like crazy online with lots of explosions at once. I tried playing with Gsync on and off, it felt a little more smoother with it on but not by much. It is no where near a buttery smooth experience at 90fps use to feel on my old 60hz panel.

I also have tried lowering the refresh rate from my native 165hz to 100hz and than 60hz as an experiment. But all I succeeded in lowering my refresh rate was a far more choppier experience. 60hz with a consistent 60fps+ in reality felt like 30fps. Unbearable.

My general thoughts seem to be, those that currently do not own a high end GPU should avoid a high refresh rate panels if you cant render consistent frames that match the native refresh rate of the panel. Far better to go with a more compatible oriented refresh rate monitor which aligns with your GPU performance. Most reviews for high refresh rate monitors seems to gloss over this very important fact in their reviews.

That's my two cents, any thoughts are appreciated!

 

Thanks for your feedback, i've been on 1440p 60hz for a hot minute now and looking for new monitor soon, what you mentioned was one of my fears of getting high-refresh.
I think your post makes a lot of sense.
75hz 1440p looks like sweet spot for me and the games i play. (at least until rtx 40 - 50 series : ))

 

I couldn't understand for the first couple months how it was possible games such as BF4 was not smooth at 100fps. 75hz is a good sweet spot, as it is far less demanding reaching 75fps than say 144fps/144hz.
Iv'e been contemplating even selling my 165hz and picking up a cheaper 75hz panel.. Its simply far too costly in performance. So i may follow in your footsteps )))

 

I think 75 is problematic for some games and just use 60 instead through CRU by removing the 75 hz option. I love how people never even mention that some games dont work right above 60 as in they may stutter a little or maybe the phyics dont work right. An example is Fallout 4 where if you run 75 hz the game will just knock you down to 37 fps as it does not work properly at 75 hz. The Evil Within 2 is quite stuttery at 75 locked just panning around and will hitch when trying to run fast where as 60 hz locked is smooth. Quantum Break looks and feels much smoother at 60 hz locked than 75 hz locked too. And there are some others and no you cant always just select a lower refresh in games as most of them dont have that option and will choose the highest refresh rate your monitor supports even if you set it to 60 hz for your desktop. And then also some games are just flat capped at 60 fps anyway and can hitch with vsync on at 75 hz. Yes its very few games overall with various issues like that but it does happen and is annoying but its pretty clear that most people are just flat out oblivious.

 

unless you have card that can keep those framerates it pointless imo and like above said some games dont work right above 60fps in first place if you have the money to burn to get monitor and gpu/cpu that can keep those framerates it can be nice providing said game dont have issue running above 60 fps, 60HZ experience on CRT is night and day difference from 60hz flatpanel and frankly I still think is smoother and clear then 120hz flat but sure people will tell me i wrong about that.

I miss CRT for the how they handle motion and how 60hz there way better then 60hz flat. I dont miss there size and weight, which would be much reduced if it wasnt abandoned. most people compare flat panel to flat panel tech I still compare flat panel tech to CRT cause imo stuff in motion look horrible on all flat panel tech so what good all that accuracy and color is just trashed by how motion is handed? and oLED is only thing that come close to it and price on that tech is still expensive and your unlikely to find it in monitor sizes below 32" and even above that it rare to find and rather expensive




this explains why I still hate flatpanel and why I miss CRT

 

So you're on the the a modern highway but complaining that you're driving a Lada from 70's USSR and complaining that it feels slow ?

Good luck buying that 3070+ or 6800+ !
/t

 

I have bought a 165hz 1440p monitor 2 months ago in the beginning I had some issues like stuttering or even hardware crashes with BSOD. With updates and fiddling around I got everything smooth now on my RTX 2070. I guess for me it was a trial and error thing I tried so many things and at the end I stopped down sampling to 1080 (because my eyes are bad) and start using 1440p with 125% magnifing and all went smooth from there. I stll need to get used to some programs using smaller letters but my games are sharp and running like a boss. I also do still cap all my games to 60 fps except for leauge of legends just because I don't want to stress my card to that point it's getting louder for cooling.(I'm a musician and very sensitive for noices) overall I'm glad I made the step up from 1080p 144hz to 1440p 165hz

 

Hey now, Lada is well known brand and are gaining in value. Look it up ))

Im keeping my eyes on the 3080!

 

I agree. CRT's are a long lost tech that still has not been duplicated in terms of the performance by modern panels and most folks happily traded in for the modern "cool" skinny lcd's back in the day. I owned a beautiful black 19inch Viewsonic flatscreen back in the day that did 1920x1200 at 85hz with 0.3M. input response. All this in 2003! Until I sold it for an lcd. haha. How I wish I would of kept it.

 

Quite recently I switched from plane 60Hz IPS 1080p monitor to G-Sync compatible 144Hz IPS 1080p one, and my GTX1070 maintained smooth gameplay even on Metro Exodus with 50~70 FPS. After I switched to RTX2070S smoothness is still here.

Maybe you should follow considered (for G-Sync) combination of settings in NVCP. (Which is not clear - maybe you already did that.)

 

OLED is the new CRT. Due to the way it works it has no noticeable ghosting, just like with CRTs, because of the pixel response time while providing the same black levels as CRT as it's not backlit like with LCDs. The only point up for discussion is input lag, largely because the first OLEDs were of course mainstream TVs with a ton of video processing layered on top. Today's OLEDs provide the option to bypass that with a 'gaming mode', and so they should be the same as top-level LCDs with respect to a given refresh rate.

 

In gaming mode there is no processing, my LG OLED 55" beats any LCD gaming monitor I've played on by far.
It literally makes the perfect image and perfect experience.

The only downside is that is -may- eventually experience burn-in, but I'm guessing by the time that happens on my particular TV there will be other, even better options.

 

Use Gsync and a FPS cap to lock your frame rate to 60fps or somewhere close to it. That is the big benefit to Gsync as you can arbitrarily lock your framerate to any target you wish.

I have a 144Hz Gsync panel but for example with Red Dead Redemption 2 there was no chance I was getting anywhere close to 100+ fps so I used RTSS to lock my fps to 60fps. It was a perfectly smooth great experience after I did that!

 

The good thing it's you can always set the refresh rate below the max your monitor allows.

For me 85 / 100 Hz seems to be a sweet spot, even if my monitor will go to 120.

 

Unless you have the hardware that can push it, there is no reason to have such a high refresh rate monitor. My Pixio 275H does 95hz but I still keep pretty much every game at 60fps. G-Sync helps though, you don't get any screen tearing.

 

I have a 144hz freesync monitor and in esports and older titles i let it go as much as it can but in more demanding games where fps fluctuates i use RTSS to limit to around 60fps minimum

 

To the OP

There is no way 100-120fps on a 165hz panel feels worse than 90fps on a 60hz panel. For obvious reasons.

 

Correct me if i wrong but both Gysnc and freesysnc amd equivalent? is supposed to make framerates lower the max hz smoother so long is it in it range yes? I would like to get gysnc in my next monitor but I Still think there tad expensive and less my monitor bites the dust i not replacing it

 

Agreed. OLED are similar in response time to CRT of yester year, but are still far too pricey and there is no Oled monitor alternative unfortunately currently on the market. CRT's pixel structure are arguably alot smoother visually in than how modern lcd pixel grid structure are presented to the eyes. This digital foundary video explains it in far greater detail that was posted eariler by tsunami.

 

I wouldn't believe it either if i haven't experienced it myself first hand. That's where all my confusion and the reason for this thread.
I vividly remember my 60hz ips experience for many years on the same game im currently playing now on my 165hz panel. its simply not smooth, once it drops below 100fps. It becomes choppy