fps is 30fps on a 120hz screen

[connorgeorgeem]

so basically if i have 120fps in a low graphic game with a 120hz screen and then got to a high graphic game and get 25fps, what would happen on the 120hz monitor?

 

[Solandri]

If your fps is slower than the monitor's refresh rate, it just takes multiple refreshes for the image on the screen to be completely replaced with a new image. At 25 fps, it takes 40 milliseconds to draw a new image. A 120 Hz monitor has a 8.3 ms refresh rate. So it'll take 4.8 refreshes to draw a new image. Or put another way, every screen refresh an additional 1/4.8 = 20.8% of the image is updated with the next rendered frame. So

Refresh 0 shows 100% of image 0
Refresh 1 shows 20.8% of image 1, the remaining 79.2% is still frame 0, with a tear line in between
Refresh 2 shows 41.7% of image 1
Refresh 3 shows 62.5% of image 1
Refresh 4 shows 83.3% of image 1
Refresh 5 shows 4.2% of image 2, 95.8% of image 1 (the first time image 0 is completely gone)
etc.

Or if you have vsync on, the same image is shown for either 4 or 5 refreshes, with an average of 4.8 refreshes between each image update. Every time the image updates, it's a completely new image - no tear lines.

 

[connorgeorgeem]

If your fps is slower than the monitor's refresh rate, it just takes multiple refreshes for the image on the screen to be completely replaced with a new image. At 25 fps, it takes 40 milliseconds to draw a new image. A 120 Hz monitor has a 8.3 ms refresh rate. So it'll take 4.8 refreshes to draw a new image. Or put another way, every screen refresh an additional 1/4.8 = 20.8% of the image is updated with the next rendered frame. So

Refresh 0 shows 100% of image 0
Refresh 1 shows 20.8% of image 1, the remaining 79.2% is still frame 0, with a tear line in between
Refresh 2 shows 41.7% of image 1
Refresh 3 shows 62.5% of image 1
Refresh 4 shows 83.3% of image 1
Refresh 5 shows 4.2% of image 2, 95.8% of image 1 (the first time image 0 is completely gone)
etc.

Or if you have vsync on, the same image is shown for either 4 or 5 refreshes, with an average of 4.8 refreshes between each image update. Every time the image updates, it's a completely new image - no tear lines.

So is it worth getting a 144hz monitor if it will tear on games like pubg where I will get 40fps, will it be too much tearing and i should just get a 60hz

 

[Solandri]

If the games you like to play do not exceed 60 fps, there is little reason to get a 120 Hz or 144 Hz monitor.

The tearing will actually be slightly less noticeable at 120/144 Hz. Since the tear line moves with each frame, it will be shown in each location for less time. The total amount of tearing will be the same, but since it's moving around more it will be less noticeable. However, each individual sees things differently so what may be less noticeable to some is glaringly obvious to others (e.g. I can see flicker well past 300 Hz). So your personal experience may vary. Tearing really bugs some people, while others can't even see it. If tearing bugs you, you should consider a gsync/freesync solution.

 

[connorgeorgeem]

If the games you like to play do not exceed 60 fps, there is little reason to get a 120 Hz or 144 Hz monitor.

The tearing will actually be slightly less noticeable at 120/144 Hz. Since the tear line moves with each frame, it will be shown in each location for less time. The total amount of tearing will be the same, but since it's moving around more it will be less noticeable. However, each individual sees things differently so what may be less noticeable to some is glaringly obvious to others (e.g. I can see flicker well past 300 Hz). So your personal experience may vary. Tearing really bugs some people, while others can't even see it. If tearing bugs you, you should consider a gsync/freesync solution.

I think ill get a freesync they seem to be cheaper than gsync, are they good XD thanks