[SOLVED] FramesPerSeccond vs RefreshRate [ FPS vs HZ ]

[TechQuestion1]

My old display was "4k" 3840x2160 resolution, with 60 Hz.
Games with vsync had a stable 60 FPS, i wanted more.
I dissabled vsnyc and had up to 300 FPS.

What i have been reading and hearing everywhere is, a display with 60 refresh rate cannot show more than 60 framesperseccond.
This might be true, or not.

The 300 FPS compared to the 60 FPS was an insane noticable diffrence for me.
The game was smooth to play in a way thats not possible with 60 Hz.


How can i notice the diffrence from 60 to 300 FPS, if my display was only 60hz?
Fact is 300 fps feels WAY smoother to play than 60, i dont understand tho why is that? cause my display cant show more than 60 pictures.


My new monitor is 165 Hz with 2k resolution. 2560x1440.
Im using it with 165 FPS max option in the nvidia control panel.
Most games wont go over 165 FPS anyways because gsync is on,
but some games could go to 300 FPS.

2560x1440 with 165 Hz 165 Fps
VS
2560x1440 with 165 Hz 300 Fps

Humans can notice the diffrence?

 

[DSzymborski]

My old display was "4k" 3840x2160 resolution, with 60 Hz.
Games with vsync had a stable 60 FPS, i wanted more.
I dissabled vsnyc and had up to 300 FPS.

What i have been reading and hearing everywhere is, a display with 60 refresh rate cannot show more than 60 framesperseccond.
This might be true, or not.

The 300 FPS compared to the 60 FPS was an insane noticable diffrence for me.
The game was smooth to play in a way thats not possible with 60 Hz.


How can i notice the diffrence from 60 to 300 FPS, if my display was only 60hz?
Fact is 300 fps feels WAY smoother to play than 60, i dont understand tho why is that? cause my display cant show more than 60 pictures.


My new monitor is 165 Hz with 2k resolution. 2560x1440.
Im using it with 165 FPS max option in the nvidia control panel.
Most games wont go over 165 FPS anyways because gsync is on,
but some games could go to 300 FPS.

2560x1440 with 165 Hz 165 Fps
VS
2560x1440 with 165 Hz 300 Fps

Humans can notice the diffrence?

It doesn't mean anything unless this was a blind test.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect

 

[TechQuestion1]

Are more images being prerendered, if you change 60 to 300 fps? Why else could it feel smootherto play.

 

[TechQuestion1]

It doesn't mean anything unless this was a blind test.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect

Dont think you understand anything.

I said, 300 fps feels smoother to play as 60 fps while i was using a 60 hz refresh display.
How can that be?
You are talking about a blind test, everything is okay?

 

[DSzymborski]

Dont think you understand anything.

I said, 300 fps feels smoother to play as 60 fps while i was using a 60 hz refresh display.
How can that be?
You are talking about a blind test, everything is okay?

There's a possible decrease in latency, but otherwise, the differences should be minimal.

The true test would be someone setting up multiple tests for you at different FPS on your 60 Hz refresh without you knowing which test was which beforehand. Because again, placebo effect.

 

[TechQuestion1]

There's a possible decrease in latency, but otherwise, the differences should be minimal.

The true test would be someone setting up multiple tests for you at different FPS on your 60 Hz refresh without you knowing which test was which beforehand. Because again, placebo effect.

I did the test by myself. 60hz with 60 fps vs 300 fps.
300 fps was clearly way smoother.
It wasnt just a tiny diffrence, it was a great diffrence otherwise i would not have noticed.
While i know 60 to 300 fps is deffinitly a diffrence with 4k+TN panel, i am not sure if 165 vs 300 fps would make a diffrence with a 165hz 2k display IPS panel +gsync.

 

[TerryLaze]

What i have been reading and hearing everywhere is, a display with 60 refresh rate cannot show more than 60 framesperseccond.
This might be true, or not.

A display with 60 refresh rate can only show (receive) 60 FULL frames per second from the source,that doesn't mean that it can't store the last frame and the new frame and put as many in-between frames as their CPU allows for.
https://www.consumerreports.org/tvs/turn-off-these-3-features-in-every-tv/
Also a display can show you as many partial frames as you can send it if you disable the vsync feature that limits you to 60, but it creates tearing

 

[TechQuestion1]

A display with 60 refresh rate can only show (receive) 60 FULL frames per second from the source,that doesn't mean that it can't store the last frame and the new frame and put as many in-between frames as their CPU allows for.
https://www.consumerreports.org/tvs/turn-off-these-3-features-in-every-tv/
Also a display can show you as many partial frames as you can send it if you disable the vsync feature that limits you to 60, but it creates tearing

Thanks for the usefull info.

So my current display is 2560x1440 with 165Hz.
GPU = 1080 Ti 11GB.
I have vsync off because i use gsync.

Would you set your FPS cap to 165 same as refreshrate or 300 ?
I think it does make a noticable diffrence.
Not that i have 300 fps in any new game.... but the old games (outlast, csgo, etc...) constantly 300 FPS.

 

[TerryLaze]

Would you set your FPS cap to 165 same as refreshrate or 300 ?
I think it does make a noticable diffrence.

If you think that it does make a noticeable difference why are you even wasting your time with what we think,use whatever looks better to you,who cares what everybody else thinks about it.

 

[DSzymborski]

I did the test by myself. 60hz with 60 fps vs 300 fps.

You are free to believe whatever you want, but this was not a blind test, and blind tests are absolutely required for anything that involves perception such as this.

 

[TechQuestion1]

You are free to believe whatever you want, but this was not a blind test, and blind tests are absolutely required for anything that involves perception such as this.

I dont beleve it. I know it.
I really dont care of people telling me that i dont notice the diffrence between 60 and 300 FPS, clearly they dont know what they are talking about.
You are free to believe whatever you want too.

Im woondering how it is possible that you can notice the diffrence from 60 and 300 fps. Theoretically it doesnt make any sense how could a 60 Hz monitor show a diffrence to 300 fps if it cant even show more then 60.
Im repeating myself. There is a huge diffrence.

The Question is how is this possible. I want to understand.

 

[sizzling]

I wonder if the perceived smoothness is actually from lower latency. My understanding is professional gamers use the very high FPS to reduce latency and not a smoother image. If getting over 60fps the number of frames, frequency and timing of frames is exactly the same at 60fps or 300fps. The only thing that can be reduced is latency, this being the time between the last frame being drawn and it appearing on screen. At 60fps the maximum delay is 16.33ms, at 300fps it’s maximum delay is 3.33ms.

 

[DSzymborski]

I dont beleve it. I know it.

😑

 

[TerryLaze]

If getting over 60fps the number of frames, frequency and timing of frames is exactly the same at 60fps or 300fps.

At 60fps the maximum delay is 16.33ms, at 300fps it’s maximum delay is 3.33ms.

Both of these things can't happen at the same time,either frequency and timing of frames is exactly the same (vsync) OR the delay for each frame is reduced from 16 to 3 (no sync).

 

[sizzling]

Both of these things can't happen at the same time,either frequency and timing of frames is exactly the same (vsync) OR the delay for each frame is reduced from 16 to 3 (no sync).

Yes they can. At 60Hz and 60fps or greater a different frame is displayed every 16.33ms. That’s a physical limitation. At less than 60fps a frame can repeated twice or more.

However at 60fps the there is 16.33ms between each frame. The time between the last frame being drawn and being the frame displayed can be up to 16.33ms as the monitor cycles to the next frame. At 300fps the time between the last frame being drawn and being the frame used by the monitor is 3.33ms. Or another way of saying it is at 300fps on 60Hz 4 out of 5 frames are thrown away, only the last #5 frame is used. At 60fps on 60Hz no frame is thrown away. The frame used at 300fps can be up to 3.33ms old, the frame used at at 60fps can be up to 16.33ms old, therefore a maximum increased latency of 13.0ms.

 

[TerryLaze]

Yes they can. At 60Hz and 60fps or greater a different frame is displayed every 16.33ms. That’s a physical limitation. At less than 60fps a frame can repeated twice or more.

There is no "or greater" ,with vsync you get limited to 60 or whatever your display is set to.
So you either have vsync or you have a higher amount of FPS.

 

[sizzling]

There is no "or greater" ,with vsync you get limited to 60 or whatever your display is set to.
So you either have vsync or you have a higher amount of FPS.

I did not mention V-Sync, my statement has nothing to do with V-Sync

 

[siaan312]

I'll just put it here:
the reason 300fps feels smoother than 60fps on a 60hz display, is because the gpu frames are not synced up with the monitor frames.
so, if you have 300fps, there are less times the monitor is waiting for a frame by the gpu or the gpu waiting for the display to refresh.

 

[TerryLaze]

I did not mention V-Sync, my statement has nothing to do with V-Sync

Without vsync frames will be displayed at a 3.3 interval even if the display is not ready for it causing tearing,a 60Hz display can display 60 full frames per second at 16ms, partial frames are a different matter.

 

[sizzling]

Without vsync frames will be displayed at a 3.3 interval even if the display is not ready for it causing tearing,a 60Hz display can display 60 full frames per second at 16ms, partial frames are a different matter.

V-Sync is a separate topic, anyone playing reaction based games should not using V-Sync due to the additional latency/lag it introduces. Agree when FPS is 300 they will be sent at 3.3ms intervals, they won’t be displayed at 3.3ms intervals as the monitor ignores 4 out of 5 frames that don’t get displayed. However this is the point, the maximum latency between a frame being sent and received by the monitor is 3.3 when running 300fps. If 60fps the maximum latency would be 16.3. This is why esports gamers run frame rates much higher than their monitors refresh rate. Sorry I’m struggling to explain the point better. The main point is there can be a benefit of reduced latency by running an FPS higher than the monitors Hz, esports gamers do just this.

 

[TechQuestion1]

I wonder if the perceived smoothness is actually from lower latency. My understanding is professional gamers use the very high FPS to reduce latency and not a smoother image. If getting over 60fps the number of frames, frequency and timing of frames is exactly the same at 60fps or 300fps. The only thing that can be reduced is latency, this being the time between the last frame being drawn and it appearing on screen. At 60fps the maximum delay is 16.33ms, at 300fps it’s maximum delay is 3.33ms.

How can my latency be lower if i play games with 300 fps, my GPU is busy with calculating all those frames, but still 300 FPS feel smoother than 60. On a 60 Hz monitor. How ?

 

[TechQuestion1]

I wonder if the perceived smoothness is actually from lower latency. My understanding is professional gamers use the very high FPS to reduce latency and not a smoother image. If getting over 60fps the number of frames, frequency and timing of frames is exactly the same at 60fps or 300fps. The only thing that can be reduced is latency, this being the time between the last frame being drawn and it appearing on screen. At 60fps the maximum delay is 16.33ms, at 300fps it’s maximum delay is 3.33ms.

That sounds like it makes sense.
How do you know this:
60fps the maximum delay is 16.33ms (unknown resolution)
300fps it’s maximum delay is 3.33ms (unknown resolution)

The delay is lower with more frames?
Why is that?

 

[TechQuestion1]

Yes they can. At 60Hz and 60fps or greater a different frame is displayed every 16.33ms. That’s a physical limitation. At less than 60fps a frame can repeated twice or more.

However at 60fps the there is 16.33ms between each frame. The time between the last frame being drawn and being the frame displayed can be up to 16.33ms as the monitor cycles to the next frame. At 300fps the time between the last frame being drawn and being the frame used by the monitor is 3.33ms. Or another way of saying it is at 300fps on 60Hz 4 out of 5 frames are thrown away, only the last #5 frame is used. At 60fps on 60Hz no frame is thrown away. The frame used at 300fps can be up to 3.33ms old, the frame used at at 60fps can be up to 16.33ms old, therefore a maximum increased latency of 13.0ms.

Means, with 300 fps 60 hz i can see frames which are younger as if i used 60 fps 60 hz, those frames can be older, but they are not being thrown away.

While 300 fps 60hz does throw frames away.

But do i care about that? why is it important if a frame is being thrown?
The frames are visible in a shorter time with 300 fps as with 60 fps?

I tought i understand the diffrence from FPS and HZ.
Now again im not sure anymore.

FPS = frames per seccond.
a frame is a single picture that is being shown on the monitor.

HZ = refresh rate of the monitor.
60 hz means the monitor is being updated 60 times in one seccond.
165 hz means the monitor is being updated 165 times in one seccond.

The Frames my monitor recives are being updated faster with 300 fps as with 60, So i cant really see more FPS but the game is closer to realtime with 300 frames ?

The nvidi controlpanel option allows to enable the low latency mode.
Do i enable or dissable or set it on ultra with my current monitor 2560x1440 165hz max 300 FPS ?

 

[TechQuestion1]

V-Sync is a separate topic, anyone playing reaction based games should not using V-Sync due to the additional latency/lag it introduces. Agree when FPS is 300 they will be sent at 3.3ms intervals, they won’t be displayed at 3.3ms intervals as the monitor ignores 4 out of 5 frames that don’t get displayed. However this is the point, the maximum latency between a frame being sent and received by the monitor is 3.3 when running 300fps. If 60fps the maximum latency would be 16.3. This is why esports gamers run frame rates much higher than their monitors refresh rate. Sorry I’m struggling to explain the point better. The main point is there can be a benefit of reduced latency by running an FPS higher than the monitors Hz, esports gamers do just this.

Basically my monitor wont show more than 165 frames if my refreshrate is 165 BUT the delay between frames being sent to the monitor is shorter, did i finally understand?

 

[TechQuestion1]

I have a final question.

Monitor: 2560x1440 @165Hz Gsync

If i set the max framerate (fps) to 165 what will be the delay between the frames, and what will be the delay if i set max fps to 300 ?

If you need hardware information to calculate this..
Full PC specs: (you need only GPU and monitor?)
OS : Windows 10 64Bit
CPU : INTEL Core i7 8086k 4GHz
GPU : NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti OC
Ram/Memory: : Kingston 32 GB DDR4 4000MHz
Display/Monitor : ASUS PB287Q 3840x2160 70Hz
Storage/Harddrive : SAMSUNG SSD 970 Pro NVMe M.2 1TB
MotherBoard : MSI Z370 A Pro E7B48IMS.2B0 (9.1.2020)
Power Supply : Seasonic FOCUS GX-850 80PLUS Gold 850 Watt
Case : BeQuiet Pure Base 600 Window Orange BGW20
Cooler : BeQuiet Dark Rock Pro 4 250 w tdp