60 Hz vertical Refresh vs FPS

60 Hz vertical refresh rate means you are limited to see 60 frames per second on your monitor. You need a 120hz or 144hz monitor to push past 60 frames. For the benefits, more frames means smoother game play and less screen tearing but it depends on your graphics card and monitor if you can push past 60 frames. Also it's a matter of perspective, I've met people say that they notice the higher frame rates and others have not. Personally I'm all for higher frame rates since I do notice the difference between 60 frames and 80~100 frames, which is the average frame rate I can get on my 970 SLI, 1080p 144hz machine.
 
Thanks everyone. That pretty much verifies what I assumed. The next question I suppose is, then why do so many gamers (w/60 Hz displays) swear they need higher frame rates than 60 fps? I hear folks whining on this forum that they can't get 100 fps and faster. It would seem anything over a consistent 60 fps is wasted... and may in fact cause dropped or lost frames in between screen refreshes. Am I thinking wrong?
 


Because FPS is not constant. I average around 90-100 fps in BF4, but throughout multiplayer matches I see dips into the low 60's. Having higher average and minimum fps means you're guaranteed not to dip below that 60hz refresh rate. Previously, with my FX-6300 OC'd, I would average ~70fps, but dip into the 40's and 50's often in the same game under similar conditions. Those dips were frequent, noticeable, and frustrating.