60fps with 120hz

[rory wilson]

If I buy a monitor with 120hz but only get 60 fps, graphically will it be better than having a monitor with 60 hz and getting 60 fps?
as I am confused

 

[Leonell12]

If I buy a monitor with 120hz but only get 60 fps, graphically will it be better than having a monitor with 60 hz and getting 60 fps?
as I am confused

nope....you have that completely wrong.....60Hz on a 60Hz display would look better (smoother) than 60Hz on a 120Hz display.....because you see you gpu will be pumping out 60 frames every second while your monitor displays 120 frames every second, what happens?.....your monitor displays some frames for too long.....your monitor is ready but your gpu isnt so the same frame gets displayed until the gpu is ready....this causes stuttering...sometimes tiny other times quite severe

 

[rory wilson]

I use xbox one by the way. so having a 120 hrz monitor at 60 fps is not good and would not run smoother than a 60hrz monitor with 60 fps. so the 60 hrz monitor is the best solution?

 

[Leonell12]

I use xbox one by the way. so having a 120 hrz monitor at 60 fps is not good and would not run smoother than a 60hrz monitor with 60 fps. so the 60 hrz monitor is the best solution?

yep....if the Xbox pumps out 60 frames every second, gameplay will be smoother on a 60Hz display rather than a 120Hz...the same analogy applies

 

[rory wilson]

thank you

 

[swifty_morgan]

this sounds nuts to me.

 

[forestman11]

I use xbox one by the way. so having a 120 hrz monitor at 60 fps is not good and would not run smoother than a 60hrz monitor with 60 fps. so the 60 hrz monitor is the best solution?

yep....if the Xbox pumps out 60 frames every second, gameplay will be smoother on a 60Hz display rather than a 120Hz...the same analogy applies

However, the Xbox One only plays games at 24 or 30 FPS as all consoles so it's going to look even worse.

 

[Leonell12]

this sounds nuts to me.

How does this exactly sound nuts?...If i'm giving the wrong advice to the OP then please say so and why...

 

[swifty_morgan]

sounds nuts. what is there to explain? I don't see where a 120hz monitor would hamper anything.

 

[Leonell12]

sounds nuts. what is there to explain? I don't see where a 120hz monitor would hamper anything.

i just explained the analogy behind it.....your gpu pushes out 60 frames ever second but a 120hz displays 120 frames every second....that means to sync with the 60 fps from the video card, the monitor would have to do 0.5 fps every second which unfortunately is not possible, so it'll display one frame and then wait for the video card to push out another one so it can display that....creates stutter...this is exactly the problem G-sync solves...when fps goes below 60 on a 60hz screen or it goes below 120 on a 120hz screen....now you could say that 120hz monitor with 60 fps video card, wouldnt the monitor be as smooth as a native 60hz one?....the answer is no, not really, there will be times when the monitor would function perfectly as a native 60hz one, but other times when the fps from the gpu fluctuates even the tiniest bit, the whole 'display one frame and then wait for the video card to push out another' thing falls apart...the screen stutters...plus, y on earth would you need a 120hz anyways?...apart from watching 3D on the Xbox (to my current knowledge) does not support 3D right now anyways, they may patch it

 

[bystander]

I'm with swifty here. You guys are nuts. There is no stutter if you are maintaining 60 FPS on a 120hz monitor with v-sync on. With v-sync off, there is absolutely no question, the 120hz monitor will do better, so I have to assume we are assuming v-sync, since you mentioned stuttering.

So, if you are locked at 60 FPS on a 120hz monitor, the result is every frame will occupy the length of 2 refreshes, resulting in the same result as a 60hz monitor. If your FPS are below 60 FPS, then there could be stuttering, but it would be less on the 120hz monitor, because each refresh missed does not add 16.7ms to the frame, and instead adds 8.3ms to the delay, reducing the stuttering. The only time you may gain a little stuttering is if you have v-sync on and above 60 FPS and below 120 FPS, but you also gain FPS for more response, this has a little bonus and a little disadvantage too.

In short:
With v-sync and 60 FPS, they are the same
With v-sync and less than 60 FPS, 120hz is better.
With v-sync and over 60 FPS, 120hz can be better, but can be worse in ways. The higher the FPS, the more it is better.
Without v-sync, 120hz is always better.

 

[forestman11]

I'm with swifty here. You guys are nuts. There is no stutter if you are maintaining 60 FPS on a 120hz monitor with v-sync on. With v-sync off, there is absolutely no question, the 120hz monitor will do better, so I have to assume we are assuming v-sync, since you mentioned stuttering.

So, if you are locked at 60 FPS on a 120hz monitor, the result is every frame will occupy the length of 2 refreshes, resulting in the same result as a 60hz monitor. If your FPS are below 60 FPS, then there could be stuttering, but it would be less on the 120hz monitor, because each refresh missed does not add 16.7ms to the frame, and instead adds 8.3ms to the delay, reducing the stuttering. The only time you may gain a little stuttering is if you have v-sync on and above 60 FPS and below 120 FPS, but you also gain FPS for more response, this has a little bonus and a little disadvantage too.

In short:
With v-sync and 60 FPS, they are the same
With v-sync and less than 60 FPS, 120hz is better.
With v-sync and over 60 FPS, 120hz can be better, but can be worse in ways. The higher the FPS, the more it is better.
Without v-sync, 120hz is always better.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that. If the monitor is refreshing faster than the GPU can put out frames on a game, the monitor is going to have duplicate frames to fill those spaces in. So effectively, I would think you would only be getting 30 FPS effectively because 120/60=2 and 60/2=30 although it probably is not as cut and dry as this this is just a guess. If he was on PC this wouldn't be an issue because he could just turn the refresh rate down. Since he's on an Xbox One that can only run 30 FPS anyway, it's probably gonna look even worse. One of the vast reasons I don't console game and only play PC.

 

[bystander]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that. If the monitor is refreshing faster than the GPU can put out frames on a game, the monitor is going to have duplicate frames to fill those spaces in. So effectively, I would think you would only be getting 30 FPS effectively because 120/60=2 and 60/2=30 although it probably is not as cut and dry as this this is just a guess. If he was on PC this wouldn't be an issue because he could just turn the refresh rate down. Since he's on an Xbox One that can only run 30 FPS anyway, it's probably gonna look even worse. One of the vast reasons I don't console game and only play PC.

Yes, every frame will be duplicated, but since LCD/LED's do not flicker, there is no effective difference between 60 FPS on 60hz or 120hz.

On the 60hz screen, every refresh puts out a new frame.
On the 120hz screen, every other refresh puts out a new frame.
On both systems, a new frame is seen every 16.7ms. Since LCD's are solid state, there is no visible difference.

 

[Leonell12]

I apologize for maybe using the wrong terms, what i had meant by 'stuttering' was not the 'breaking' in fps as you may say that vsync prevents. What i had meant by stuttering was frame latency. Anything above 60 fps on a 60hz display (and anything above 120 fps on 120hz display) will cause uneven frame latency, sometimes being 16.7 ms (as bystander mentioned) and sometimes as high as 30 or so ms, this will cause a 'hesitation' feeling where gameplay wont feel as smooth as it should. This is the problem G-sync (and adaptive v-sync and lately amd's free-sync idea) also solves, by syncing the gpu and display, no such random frame latencies occur. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2013/12/23/nvidia-g-sync-review/2 ...V-sync is for a similar purpose however since it caps frames to the monitors refresh rate, what happens when the gpu cant deliver 60 or 120fps?......

 

[bystander]

I apologize for maybe using the wrong terms, what i had meant by 'stuttering' was not the 'breaking' in fps as you may say that vsync prevents. What i had meant by stuttering was frame latency. Anything above 60 fps on a 60hz display (and anything above 120 fps on 120hz display) will cause uneven frame latency, sometimes being 16.7 ms (as bystander mentioned) and sometimes as high as 30 or so ms, this will cause a 'hesitation' feeling where gameplay wont feel as smooth as it should. This is the problem G-sync (and adaptive v-sync and lately amd's free-sync idea) also solves, by syncing the gpu and display, no such random frame latencies occur. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2013/12/23/nvidia-g-sync-review/2 ...V-sync is for a similar purpose however since it caps frames to the monitors refresh rate, what happens when the gpu cant deliver 60 or 120fps?......

You seem to be confusing 2 different phenomena, or just describing it poorly.

There are two different things you are talking about here, and the way you described it, would suggest that the 60hz monitor would be far worse.

Let's break this down.

60 FPS on a 60hz monitor with v-sync will not cause uneven frame delivery. However it will cause additional latency due to how DirectX forces every frame to be displayed. You'll end up with 16.7ms of latency that should not be there, because it ends up treating rendered frames as a look ahead system.

60 FPS on a 120hz monitor with v-sync will not have that look ahead frame buffer, if achieved with a FPS limiter. If you just let the FPS land randomly, so you are not at a solid 60 FPS, then this is the only time there may be some frame time delivery issues, which may stutter a bit. This can be controlled with adaptive v-sync (half refresh) or a FPS limiter.

Without v-sync, the 120hz monitor will be superior in every way. There is no latency added to the frames in either case. I do not know where you got that idea.

With a 60hz monitor, every frame will have a tear. Part of the frame will show instantly, and part of it will wait until the next refresh. It will likely move a bit, up and down the screen, where that break is, as they never sync up. Perhaps that is the part you are confused about. There is no syncing of frames and refreshes, even if the FPS and hz match, unless you use v-sync or g-sync.

With a 120hz monitor, every frame will have a tear, with part of it showing up instantly, and the 2nd half waiting for the next refresh, but instead of waiting 16.7ms to show the 2nd part, it waits only 8.3ms. Then another refresh happens, that does not happen with the 60hz monitor, which will show both parts of the image at the same time, without a tear, followed by another frame with a tear. The result is the tear lasts half as long, and the time it takes the whole image to show up takes half as long. Most people claim to not see tearing as a result of the speed, but I do, just not as easily.

 

[Leonell12]

I apologize for maybe using the wrong terms, what i had meant by 'stuttering' was not the 'breaking' in fps as you may say that vsync prevents. What i had meant by stuttering was frame latency. Anything above 60 fps on a 60hz display (and anything above 120 fps on 120hz display) will cause uneven frame latency, sometimes being 16.7 ms (as bystander mentioned) and sometimes as high as 30 or so ms, this will cause a 'hesitation' feeling where gameplay wont feel as smooth as it should. This is the problem G-sync (and adaptive v-sync and lately amd's free-sync idea) also solves, by syncing the gpu and display, no such random frame latencies occur. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2013/12/23/nvidia-g-sync-review/2 ...V-sync is for a similar purpose however since it caps frames to the monitors refresh rate, what happens when the gpu cant deliver 60 or 120fps?......

You seem to be confusing 2 different phenomena, or just describing it poorly.

There are two different things you are talking about here, and the way you described it, would suggest that the 60hz monitor would be far worse.

Let's break this down.

60 FPS on a 60hz monitor with v-sync will not cause uneven frame delivery. However it will cause additional latency due to how DirectX forces every frame to be displayed. You'll end up with 16.7ms of latency that should not be there, because it ends up treating rendered frames as a look ahead system.

60 FPS on a 120hz monitor with v-sync will not have that look ahead frame buffer, if achieved with a FPS limiter. If you just let the FPS land randomly, so you are not at a solid 60 FPS, then this is the only time there may be some frame time delivery issues, which may stutter a bit. This can be controlled with adaptive v-sync (half refresh) or a FPS limiter.

Without v-sync, the 120hz monitor will be superior in every way. There is no latency added to the frames in either case. I do not know where you got that idea.

With a 60hz monitor, every frame will have a tear. Part of the frame will show instantly, and part of it will wait until the next refresh. It will likely move a bit, up and down the screen, where that break is, as they never sync up. Perhaps that is the part you are confused about. There is no syncing of frames and refreshes, even if the FPS and hz match, unless you use v-sync or g-sync.

With a 120hz monitor, every frame will have a tear, with part of it showing up instantly, and the 2nd half waiting for the next refresh, but instead of waiting 16.7ms to show the 2nd part, it waits only 8.3ms. Then another refresh happens, that does not happen with the 60hz monitor, which will show both parts of the image at the same time, without a tear, followed by another frame with a tear. The result is the tear lasts half as long, and the time it takes the whole image to show up takes half as long. Most people claim to not see tearing as a result of the speed, but I do, just not as easily.

everything i've talked about until now, most of it has come from this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdSQl64J0I8 ...i might've misunderstood it. does stutter then only occur if v-sync is turned on?...as frames dip below the monitor's refresh rate?....

 

[swifty_morgan]

i knew this was a gsync thing........... funny how new problems that weren't readily apparent show up when a new piece of hardware shows up. how lame it is that the software developers can't "fix" their company's graphics cards faults........... sounds like Microsoft.......... they suck at fixing anything but boy they sure can crank out those new operating systems................ yeah-boyyyyyyyyyyy.

 

[bystander]

everything i've talked about until now, most of it has come from this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdSQl64J0I8 ...i might've misunderstood it. does stutter then only occur if v-sync is turned on?...as frames dip below the monitor's refresh rate?....

You are talking about different technology. His explanations about the "stutter" applies to all monitors without g-sync that are not using v-sync. That includes 60 FPS on a 60hz monitor. In these cases, both the 60hz and 120hz monitor suffer from it, but the 120hz suffers less, as it is twice as fast as rectifying the anomaly.

I explained it in my last post with this:

With a 60hz monitor, every frame will have a tear. Part of the frame will show instantly, and part of it will wait until the next refresh. It will likely move a bit, up and down the screen, where that break is, as they never sync up. Perhaps that is the part you are confused about. There is no syncing of frames and refreshes, even if the FPS and hz match, unless you use v-sync or g-sync.

With a 120hz monitor, every frame will have a tear, with part of it showing up instantly, and the 2nd half waiting for the next refresh, but instead of waiting 16.7ms to show the 2nd part, it waits only 8.3ms. Then another refresh happens, that does not happen with the 60hz monitor, which will show both parts of the image at the same time, without a tear, followed by another frame with a tear. The result is the tear lasts half as long, and the time it takes the whole image to show up takes half as long. Most people claim to not see tearing as a result of the speed, but I do, just not as easily.

Both get this problem, but is not as bad on a 120hz monitor as it is on a 60hz monitor. G-sync is obviously better, but this thread was not about G-sync.

 

[swifty_morgan]

but did you ever really notice it until gsync came along?............ or does this have anything to do with frame pacing or frame latency........... can't remember what it was anymore. for a while reviewers were adding in the performance charts how slow the frames were being rendered.... blah, blah..............??? getting senile here. ( graphics cards )

 

[bystander]

but did you ever really notice it until gsync came along?............ or does this have anything to do with frame pacing or frame latency........... can't remember what it was anymore. for a while reviewers were adding in the performance charts how slow the frames were being rendered.... blah, blah..............??? getting senile here. ( graphics cards )

Of course. We all noticed it in one way or another. That is why v-sync was created, to get rid of that god forsaken tear. When the tearing is randomly showing up, we all noticed hickups, but we just never described it as "latency". We were more concerned with the tear than the latency aspect of it.

The "latency" thing he brings up, is more of a marketing thing, though is quite real, because he knows that the pro gamer only cares about "latency" and getting an edge, so he correctly mentioned that when a tear occurs, the part of the screen that is showing an older image, is showing one rendered 16.7ms before (on a 60hz monitor) and going to G-sync will deliver a complete frame with no more than 3ms of latency. This is to make sure the "pro gamer" doesn't focus on that 3ms, and recognizes they are actually losing 16.7ms of latency on part of the screen.