[SOLVED] 50-75 Hz vs 48- 144 Hz (both with FreeSync) 1080p with GTX 1650 super

[Agera One]

R3 3300X with GTX 1650 Super

Which would be better choice? The games I play are FPS and TPS, Racing games and games like GTA, Watch Dogs, etc. No online/multiplayer gaming ever.

So, if I buy the 144 Hz panel and stuck at rendering only 70-80 fps in many games, will it look horrible? Is the 60-75Hz better for such situation?
(If at anytime I upgrade my GPU, the newer one will also fall in same sub 200$ category, so assume my monitor will always face that 80-90 fps range in it's lifetime)

 

[RARRAF]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnKGTZIAup0

 

[King_V]

R3 3300X with GTX 1650 Super

Which would be better choice? The games I play are FPS and TPS, Racing games and games like GTA, Watch Dogs, etc. No online/multiplayer gaming ever.

So, if I buy the 144 Hz panel and stuck at rendering only 70-80 fps in many games, will it look horrible? Is the 60-75Hz better for such situation?
(If at anytime I upgrade my GPU, the newer one will also fall in same sub 200$ category, so assume my monitor will always face that 80-90 fps range in it's lifetime)

I would go for the 48-144 monitor. You aren't forced to try to run at the max rate - that's what FreeSync is all about. In fact, if you're comfortable with 75fps, I would even consider capping it at that.

The 50-75Hz FreeSync monitor will allow automatic adjustment downward from 75 to as low as 50 fps, with the monitor's refresh rate being automatically adjusted on the fly to match, when the video card cannot keep up with the full speed.

The 48-144 has the same thing, but can go down as low as 48fps, and as high as 144fps. Also, because the maximum refresh is more than 2.5x the minimum (or because it's more than 2.0x, I'm not clear, but it matches either way), then LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) can occur, allowing the monitor to fake it to go even as low as 1/2 the minimum refresh, in case a particularly demanding part of a game brings your GPU that low.

The way it works is that, say the frame rate drops down to 40fps. That's below the monitor's minimum of 48Hz, so what is done instead is that the drivers take the frame rate, and multiply it by 2, then displays each frame twice. So, the monitor is actually then set at 80Hz, but each of the frames when it's running at 40fps gets displayed for two refresh cycles.

For all intents and purposes, it looks exactly as if the monitor was at 40Hz.


Therefore, I strongly recommend the 144hz monitor.


Also, given that the 1650 Super is a lower-end card, I wouldn't actually try to run the monitor at the highest refresh rate. I'd probably set a cap at, I dunno, 60, 70, 75, or 80 fps maybe, depending on your system, and the game in question, so that the GPU isn't forced to constantly run full out at 100% all the time.

 

[Agera One]

I would go for the 48-144 monitor. You aren't forced to try to run at the max rate - that's what FreeSync is all about. In fact, if you're comfortable with 75fps, I would even consider capping it at that.

The 50-75Hz FreeSync monitor will allow automatic adjustment downward from 75 to as low as 50 fps, with the monitor's refresh rate being automatically adjusted on the fly to match, when the video card cannot keep up with the full speed.

The 48-144 has the same thing, but can go down as low as 48fps, and as high as 144fps. Also, because the maximum refresh is more than 2.5x the minimum (or because it's more than 2.0x, I'm not clear, but it matches either way), then LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) can occur, allowing the monitor to fake it to go even as low as 1/2 the minimum refresh, in case a particularly demanding part of a game brings your GPU that low.

The way it works is that, say the frame rate drops down to 40fps. That's below the monitor's minimum of 48Hz, so what is done instead is that the drivers take the frame rate, and multiply it by 2, then displays each frame twice. So, the monitor is actually then set at 80Hz, but each of the frames when it's running at 40fps gets displayed for two refresh cycles.

For all intents and purposes, it looks exactly as if the monitor was at 40Hz.


Therefore, I strongly recommend the 144hz monitor.


Also, given that the 1650 Super is a lower-end card, I wouldn't actually try to run the monitor at the highest refresh rate. I'd probably set a cap at, I dunno, 60, 70, 75, or 80 fps maybe, depending on your system, and the game in question, so that the GPU isn't forced to constantly run full out at 100% all the time.

Thanks for a detailed answer! But "then displays each frame twice". Doesn't this mean that exact frame stays on the screen for twice the time and stutter occurs?

P.S. I'm planning to save money and get 1660 Super.

 

[King_V]

No, it won't. Well, not any more than you would normally notice with a fluctuating frame rate due to the game itself. At 40 fps, the same frame would be displaying twice at 80Hz on the monitor. The PC is putting out one frame, but at half the monitor's speed, so the monitor shows it twice.

Net result: your eye, if it notices at all, sees frames as if it was 40fps/40Hz.

The 1660 Super is pretty good. However, it's worth considering getting the RX 5600 XT, which is slightly more (today about $15-35 more, depending on which model of 1660 Super and 5600XT you're looking at), but performs a little ahead of the RTX 2060.

OCCASIONALLY, an RX 5700 (non-XT) will go on sale for about the price of an RX 5600 XT. I was looking at the RX 5600 XT for my son's PC, but when an RX 5700 popped up for around the same price (after rebates) as an RX 5600 XT, I snapped it up.

BUT... prices change frequently. Once you've got the money saved, scan through the prices for cards in that range. You never know what sales, rebates, and promotions will be available then.

 

[Agera One]

No, it won't. Well, not any more than you would normally notice with a fluctuating frame rate due to the game itself. At 40 fps, the same frame would be displaying twice at 80Hz on the monitor. The PC is putting out one frame, but at half the monitor's speed, so the monitor shows it twice.

Net result: your eye, if it notices at all, sees frames as if it was 40fps/40Hz.

The 1660 Super is pretty good. However, it's worth considering getting the RX 5600 XT, which is slightly more (today about $15-35 more, depending on which model of 1660 Super and 5600XT you're looking at), but performs a little ahead of the RTX 2060.

OCCASIONALLY, an RX 5700 (non-XT) will go on sale for about the price of an RX 5600 XT. I was looking at the RX 5600 XT for my son's PC, but when an RX 5700 popped up for around the same price (after rebates) as an RX 5600 XT, I snapped it up.

BUT... prices change frequently. Once you've got the money saved, scan through the prices for cards in that range. You never know what sales, rebates, and promotions will be available then.

Thank you again. The Cheapest GTX 1660 Super sells around 253$ (price converted to USD) and the cheapest RX 5600XT is around 340$. Don;t know why, all new AMD card are overpriced here. So, picking up the 1660 Super.

 

[King_V]

Dang, that is crazy! What country are you located in, out of curiosity?

 

[Agera One]

Dang, that is crazy! What country are you located in, out of curiosity?

I'm from India. The reason for huge prices is, all the stores stock huge amount of products when released. Say, they buy product X for 300$ (per product cost) in huge qty right after launch. Then as months passes, manufacturer slashes prices (say cut down to $250) which reflects right away in US markets but here in India, if they sell the initially imported stock at $250 per product they will face $50 loss for each product, unless they import new stock at reduced prices. By the time we wait for further price reduction in our country, there will be next gen products released. (the R5 3600 is still at 225$). So, budget builders usually buy one generation older components. The "used components" marked is pretty bad too.

On the AMD graphics cards side, we don't know why it is way overpriced 🤷‍♂️