Question 60 Hz display=limit 60 fps,right or wrong?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Basically, that with a monitor with a fixed refresh, such as yours with 60Hz, and setting VSync on, a higher performing card will be able to maintain that 60fps more easily. There will still be the occasional times when it dips below, and when that happens, you'll see brief hiccups or slowdowns until the video card is back at/above 60fps.

Let's say for example, the card is outputting a steady 60 frames/second without skipping a beat. Perfect, that matches the monitor, all is good.

Now, for whatever reason, the demand is much heavier, and the fps momentarily drops below 60. Well, the monitor is going to try and display a frame before the video card has put one out, so the already existing frame is displayed again, until the next round when the video card and monitor can sync up. So, briefly, you'll see what appears to be movement at 30fps. You may not even catch it, or it may appear as a slight stutter/jitter.

If you have a faster card that can always and easily maintain 60fps or more on everything, then on a 60Hz monitor, it will constantly run 60fps and seem smooth, without jittering/stuttering.

That's the good thing about FreeSync (GSync to a lesser extent, since it's more expensive, and Nvidia now allows their newer cards to use FreeSync). With those technologies, if the video card can't keep up, the monitor's refresh rate will be dynamically adjusted to match - it may slow down, but no skipped frames.

It's what has made things stay smooth for my son's PC. He's got an RX 580 video card, which is good for averaging 60fps in most games at 1920x1080. However, my son's monitor is 2560x1080, which puts a little more burden on it. His monitor has FreeSync + Low Framerate Compensation, and AMD's drivers let you set a minimum and maximum on a per-game basis. We generally set it to min 30, max 60, because even though his monitor can go way faster, his video card can't, in most of the games he plays.

So, when the frame rate dips lower, the monitor adjusts to match, and everything still stays smooth.


EDIT: I, uh, hope I made that clearer rather than just more confusing...
 
Reactions: TJ Hooker
Jun 30, 2018
81
1
35
0
Yeah but why should I give 400 euros just to get 10-15 fps more in games?
It's not worth it at all,it's like driving a BMW M6 on a highway with 40 miles an hour.
Yeah sure those cards have almost double the clock of r9 390,but isn't it awkward to buy a card for 400 euros just to get 10-15 fps increase?
 
Yeah but why should I give 400 euros just to get 10-15 fps more in games?
It's not worth it at all,it's like driving a BMW M6 on a highway with 40 miles an hour.
Yeah sure those cards have almost double the clock of r9 390,but isn't it awkward to buy a card for 400 euros just to get 10-15 fps increase?
I understand what you're saying, but FPS isn't the only factor that justifies the upgrade. That increase may be only 10-15fps, but that FPS will fluctuate less, there are higher 1% lows and game-play will feel significantly smoother/snappier assuming all your other hardware meets recommended system requirements for said game.
 
Now, for whatever reason, the demand is much heavier, and the fps momentarily drops below 60. Well, the monitor is going to try and display a frame before the video card has put one out, so the already existing frame is displayed again, until the next round when the video card and monitor can sync up. So, briefly, you'll see what appears to be movement at 30fps. You may not even catch it, or it may appear as a slight stutter/jitter.
Alternatively, if you enable adaptive sync rather than normal vsync, then vsync will be automatically disable whenever you drop below refresh rate. So you'd basically trade the occasional stutter for the occasional screen tear.
 
Jun 30, 2018
81
1
35
0
I understand what you're saying, but FPS isn't the only factor that justifies the upgrade. That increase may be only 10-15fps, but that FPS will fluctuate less, there are higher 1% lows and game-play will feel significantly smoother/snappier assuming all your other hardware meets recommended system requirements for said game.
Do other members of the forum agree with this?
Basically by waiting to buy a new 144Hz monitor, 1660 Ti will probably be less expensive and overcome by new models maybe 3000 series don't know,and then I'm back to same crap like with R9 390,more demanding games will come,and that card won't be enough for those needs.
That is only assumption ofc,but looking in the future I don't think either rtx 2060 and 1660 ti are good choice for 2560x1440 gaming,well I know that is my choice since I'm low on budget but just wanted to share that opinion.
But correct me if I am wrong, 45-50 fps I'm not satisfied at all,but when I think that I must drive BMW on highway at 40 miles per hour makes it engine unusable,right?
I can lower settings in current games I switch to High settings and get around 60 fps,I have installed them and can play for 2-3-4 months since I just installed them.
And in 4 months who knows what would happen,maybe for 400 eur I can get rtx 2070,so basically I want to say is to wait and see how this will go with Nvidia.
Ofc buying first a monitor with 144Hz would be a good choice,but as I mentioned to you here in Eastern Europe all components are 30 % more expensive then in USA and our monthly salary is very low,so like 2-3 % of people can afford rtx 2070 2080 here.
 
If your plans are to upgrade your monitor to 2560x1440 in the near future and that's 144hz, you'll need at least a GTX 1080 TI/RTX 2080 to push frames to match that high refresh rate panel via triple A titles on ultra. Keep your R9 390 until you're ready for that, then do a graphics card monitor combo upgrade. This will ensure optimal performance as they will be specced out around the same time and matched accordingly.
 
There are games where my 1080 Ti is well below 144fps at 1440p, some even below 60fps at times, while others are above it. My point is that every game is different. I think you are worrying too much with this upgrade; therefore, you shouldn't do it now since you might be dissappointed. Wait until you feel you are getting your money's worth with a reasonably priced GPU.
 
Jun 30, 2018
81
1
35
0
If your plans are to upgrade your monitor to 2560x1440 in the near future and that's 144hz, you'll need at least a GTX 1080 TI/RTX 2080 to push frames to match that high refresh rate panel via triple A titles on ultra. Keep your R9 390 until you're ready for that, then do a graphics card monitor combo upgrade. This will ensure optimal performance as they will be specced out around the same time and matched accordingly.
I really don't need 144 fps,I'm happy with above 60,around 80-90 would be great,but that is performance of current rtx 2060 in most current games at that resolution.
I don't know what are my plans,I never played on that resolution,so if there is much of a difference between QHD and FHD I'd go for QHD monitor.
Thanks.
 
I was playing PUBG when I switched from 1080p to 1440p and I really enjoy the difference. I don't get 144fps in hardly any demanding AAA game though, but like you said it doesn't really matter that much to me.
Yeah I agree and alot of that has to do with how well optimized the game is. You could still have a high end system and experience dips in FPS but it has nothing to do with your system.
 
Jun 30, 2018
81
1
35
0
Which is most demanding game for graphics card today?
Assasins Creed Odyssey?Metro Exodus?
So,your answer for now,is not to buy a graphics card without 144 Hz monitor?
 
You have to start somewhere. I couldn't afford my monitor and graphics card at the same time.
When deciding which to buy first, keep in mind that unless some new technology appears, a good monitor will last you 10-15 years. A good GPU will be obsolete in 3-5 years. So even if the monitor and GPU are the same price, the price per year of the monitor will be a lot lower.

In other words, if you buy a good GPU first, if it takes you a few years to save up enough money for a good monitor, you'll be tempted to spend that money on a newer GPU instead. Meaning you'll be stuck with your current monitor until it breaks (or until you salary increases). OTOH if you buy a good monitor first, your GPU will only be behind the curve for a few years. The next time you upgrade GPU, you'll have the new(er) monitor and a new GPU.
 
Jun 30, 2018
81
1
35
0
Lets make it like this and correct me if I am wrong.
I tend to leave my monitor and don't want to buy 144Hz one.
Why?
I googled and found out that 60 fps in enough for smooth gameplay even in FPS,right or wrong?
So why would I need 144 Hz monitor if I can't afford one,I would buy then GTX 1660 Ti which is great at keeping 60 fps.I would game at 2560x1080.
So what you think about that guys?
 
dd
Lets make it like this and correct me if I am wrong.
I tend to leave my monitor and don't want to buy 144Hz one.
Why?
I googled and found out that 60 fps in enough for smooth gameplay even in FPS,right or wrong?
So why would I need 144 Hz monitor if I can't afford one,I would buy then GTX 1660 Ti which is great at keeping 60 fps.I would game at 2560x1080.
So what you think about that guys?
This is subjective and can only be decided by the individual. I'm never going back to anything lower than 100hz. But if you aren't enthusiast and you don't want to spend a lot, keeping your system geared towards a 60hz 1080p panel wouldn't be a bad idea.
 
Reactions: King_V
Jun 30, 2018
81
1
35
0
yeah but I'm just concerning about this:
How good choice would this card be,in the next few years keeping me at 60 fps in future games at 2560x1080?
Do I need at least RTX 2060,but those would cost me much more expensive?
 
Jun 30, 2018
81
1
35
0
dd

This is subjective and can only be decided by the individual. I'm never going back to anything lower than 100hz. But if you aren't enthusiast and you don't want to spend a lot, keeping your system geared towards a 60hz 1080p panel wouldn't be a bad idea.
There is no such human who can notice more then 30 fps,there is no such perfect "eye".
I think 144Hz monitors is made for fools who want to spend more money.
So anyone who tells me that he can notice difference between 60 fps and hell above that is liar I think.
Just tell me one good reason why someone needs 100fps in game,there is no such perfect "eye".We humans make perception on 30 fps.I googled and found out that.
 
There is no such human who can notice more then 30 fps,there is no such perfect "eye".
I think 144Hz monitors is made for fools who want to spend more money.
So anyone who tells me that he can notice difference between 60 fps and hell above that is liar I think.
Just tell me one good reason why someone needs 100fps in game,there is no such perfect "eye".We humans make perception on 30 fps.I googled and found out that.
It's already been discussed in this thread how input latency is affected by refresh rate and frame rate. You can't see it, you can feel it.
 
There is no such human who can notice more then 30 fps,there is no such perfect "eye".
I think 144Hz monitors is made for fools who want to spend more money.
So anyone who tells me that he can notice difference between 60 fps and hell above that is liar I think.
Just tell me one good reason why someone needs 100fps in game,there is no such perfect "eye".We humans make perception on 30 fps.I googled and found out that.
I feel the difference, but only when I did a significant jump going from 60hz to 144hz. Then when I made the jump from a 144hz 1080p panel to a 100hz 3440x1440p gsync ultrawide I felt the differnce then. Not in refresh rate but with gsync and the additional 21x9 ultra-wide screen real estate. Hopefully you can try out a higher end, high refresh rate system one day and let us know what you think.
 
Last edited:
yeah but I'm just concerning about this:
How good choice would this card be,in the next few years keeping me at 60 fps in future games at 2560x1080?
Do I need at least RTX 2060,but those would cost me much more expensive?
For a 60hz 1080p panel, you'd get some good longevity out of a gtx 1660ti. You'd probably get higher than 60fps now, id say roughtly between 80-100fps on ultra via triple A titles now. Then around roughly 1-3 years you'd probably start to have to dial back the graphical details to medium/high. The only reason I say that is because I have an equivalent graphics card being the gtx 1070. Though there are some slight differences in the gpu and total vram, i'd say this would be a reasonable card for that display panel with room for growth. You don't want to go crazy over kill anyways and if you're that concerned, there are also deals to be had purchasing used on ebay (For example a used gtx 1080 reference would be a good healthy amount of overkill for 1080p 60hz panel). Not only can you get a more powerful card for the money, you can also opt to dial back and purchase a slightly dated higher end card the will provide the longevity you desire for significantly less.
 
Last edited:
Jun 30, 2018
81
1
35
0
Well I have 2 choices either to buy a card or a monitor cuz I can afford both now.
Lets say I want to buy first a decent 2560x1440 144Hz monitor.
And I am playing few months older games at 2560x1080 with average fps of 50 on high/ultra
Buying a new monitor and playing with same old R9 390 how much fps would I loose if I switch it to 2560x1440 instead of current 2560x1080?
Games I play are Far Cry 5,Batman Arkham Knight,Dishonored 2,Dyling LIght,Far Cry Primal,Rise of the Tomb Raider,The Witcher 3,Rage 2...I downloaded newer titles as well,but waiting to finish these games.

I mean that is not much of a higher resolution,right except this 1080-->1440p.
Buying a card would ofc mean to enable V-sync.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS