Question Discussion: Anything above 60 fps for PC gaming is unnecessary

[devilfox]

I believe that most monitors used for PC gaming should be 60hz. Anything above 60 fps is an unnecessary premium. Why? Because the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X both have a maximum capability of 60 fps. Buying a 60hz monitor would allow you to take full advantage of those machines capabilities as well as PC rigs.

 

[DSzymborski]

These things have nothing to do with each other, thus, your conclusion doesn't make any sense.

 

[devilfox]

These things have nothing to do with each other, thus, your conclusion doesn't make any sense.

My point was if most console players are playing at 60fps then why should PC gamers be playing on anything more? PC Gamers could play at 120fps but is 120fps really needed?

 

[dudeman509]

My point was if most console players are playing at 60fps then why should PC gamers be playing on anything more? PC Gamers could play at 120fps but is 120fps really needed?

Yes. Everything's smoother.

The market exists for a reason. People wouldn't buy em if there wasn't a noticeable difference.

 

[DSzymborski]

My point was if most console players are playing at 60fps then why should PC gamers be playing on anything more? PC Gamers could play at 120fps but is 120fps really needed?

Why should our experiences be limited by the necessary bounds of a console that doesn't have upgradable hardware?

Why should a Ferrari or a Lamborghini exist if most people use Toyotas or Hondas? Why should steak exists if most people are happy with hamburgers?

 

[MadsModsat]

That is one of the most perculiar theories I have ever come across.

I'm pretty sure a lot of console players would also enjoy higher refresh rates if the console hardware and flat screen TVs were able to support it.

Why would you conclude that a 60Hz refresh rate is the superior option, only based on the fact that consoles are limited to 60 (sometimes 30) FPS and that consolepayers don't care?

Since consoles are limited to 60 FPS, you have to make do with what the hardware is capable of, and a lot of people find that acceptable

But how do you conclude from this, that most console players wouldn't prefer a higher refresh rate, if the option was available?

What data shows that console players are completely uninsterested in higher options than 60 FPS, even if they were available?

I'm interested since it seems that you base your theory on the premis that not a single consoleplayer would be interested in higher refresh rates, even if available

If you believe console players are the benchmark for what technology is superior, you would need to find out first, how many would actually prefer 60Hz over higher refresh rate options, if they were available on console

EDIT
Personally, I can't remember the last time I used my PlayStation, and didn't notice the choppines of 60Hz compared to my 120+ FPS on my PC capable of 144Hz.

For slow paced games, it doesn't matter much, but high paced FPS games, for example, high refresh rates changes the experience completely

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Consoles run games at lower settings, thus PC gamers should never turn settings to max.

That's the logic I see.

Sure, high refresh is not necessary, but that doesn't mean we all should be stuck to 60hz.
Sure, high settings are not necessary, but that doesn't mean we all should use low detail.

That's what's great about PC gaming, we have more choice over settings and such.
There is a reason many popular games just put separate matchmaking for console and PC players.

 

[Iquestionalotontech]

I believe that most monitors used for PC gaming should be 60hz. Anything above 60 fps is an unnecessary premium. Why? Because the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X both have a maximum capability of 60 fps. Buying a 60hz monitor would allow you to take full advantage of those machines capabilities as well as PC rigs.

It is not unnecessarily premium because, Gamers use the extra frames such as 240hz to win in tournaments and, just because a PS4 Pro or an Xbox One X has a maximum refresh rate support of 60hz doesn't mean it should for PC. Usually consoles like PS4 And Xbox One are compact and it barely has any space to fit any parts that are worth upgrading its performance. A monitor such as a 144hz kind would be easily fully utilized based on the game demands and the PC system. Serious PC gamers work seriously for money so why you want PC players to also get 60hz. The extra Hz makes you get better performance that's why so, In conclusion, PC players shouldn't get 60hz its not unnecessary assuming You Devilfox never experienced a monitor that's higher than 60hz if you're posting a thread like this...

 

[punkncat]

There has been a long time discussion on a supposed limitation that humans can't actually see faster than 60FPS. I am not sure where the science stands on that, but can say that whether I can actually SEE past that frame rate, what I can detect is a smoothing of action, particularly pan shots and such, as you raise the FPS. This type thing is easily seen by reducing movie or video content to 30FPS and see the hitching as the camera pans.

In my own opinion on the subject...I play single player campaigns on my PC. I am not quick enough or good enough at games to play these giant multiplayers. In a single player mode I see very little reason to upgrade beyond it. It is my understanding, and I parrott, that having higher frames in multi player type games offers (in addition to those frames) more reaction opportunity.

 

[bignastyid]

Because the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X both have a maximum capability of 60 fps.

https://www.windowscentral.com/xbox-one-120hz
Also the upcoming Playstation and Xbox consoles will also support 120Hz displays.

 

[Clueless1200]

You are talking complete nonsense. Your point makes no sense.

There's a stark difference between playing a game like Doom Eternal (or most shooters in general) at 60Hz vs 144Hz.