Best way to make 60fps look good on a high refresh screen

[SenMithrarin85]

I recently bought a 165hz 1440p gsync compatible monitor (gigabyte m27q) and it's honestly been a double edged sword ...

Games that support unlocked framerates are great to play at that high FPS. Sadly games that don't (hard coded to 60 like fighters/japanese ports etc) are the problem.

I tried to do my research as best I could and bought a monitor that was supposed to handle 60hz as well as it's peak refresh so that both ends of the spectrum were good. Sadly that's not what I'm seeing. "Seeing" perhaps being the operative word.

I've read a few forum threads and some people are saying that since 165 doesn't divide evenly by 60, then it will look choppy. It would also explain why anything below 80 looks bad to my eyes.

But equally, I thought gsync was supposed to prevent that issue by matching the refresh to the FPS at the time?

[_I_]

it was the goal for the longest time
when most crt monitors were 60-72hz

now most decent monitors are 120-240hz

[C1REX]

Different monitors may display 60fps differently. Some super fast monitors may have more choppy look at lower fps. OLED flicker is a real challenge for example.

It’s a balance between super fast, short frame that can cause flicker and choppines and longer frame for smoother look but at a risk of ghosting.

Frame gen can help with smoothing the choppiness but extra input lag may be unplayable for fighting games.

[BurakZG]

Publicado originalmente por _I_:

now most decent monitors are 120-240hz

Why good quality office monitors are mostly 60Hz (sometimes 75Hz, rarely 100Hz)? They are usually 2x more expensive than "fast gaming screens".
I'm using one of such and I would not change to any "fast screen" before checking real screen quality.

[SlowClick]

I'm very happy with my 60Hz 4K monitor - it's my only screen and the PC is used for everything, including 3-4 hours a day playing Snowrunner at ultra settings. Apart from games it it great for photo viewing/editing - which was the main criteria for buying it. It's driven by a 3070, which loafs along at about 75% usage.

[D. Flame]

Turn on GSync or FreeSync and set your refresh rate to 120hz.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Publicado originalmente por D. Flame:

Turn on GSync or FreeSync and set your refresh rate to 120hz.

You can still enjoy it properly that way while leaving the Panel set to 144, 165, 240Hz; etc.
Just enforce a proper FPS Cap of half refresh rate while GSync/FreeSync is enabled. And enable that for both Full Screen and Windowed Modes in NVIDIA CP.

So if the Panel is actively set to 144Hz; set a global FPS Cap of 72
If 165Hz; set a global FPS Cap of 84
Set NVIDIA VSync to Fast
Set NVIDIA Low Latency to Ultra
Enable VSync + Triple Buffering + NVIDIA Reflex in-game if available.

[r.linder]

Publicado originalmente por wesnef:

Publicado originalmente por _I_:

60fps is not buttery smooth

It was for the decades that all the FPS Snobs cried about "60fps or nothing!"

People didn't have access to higher refresh rates at the time, it's a completely different story now because higher refresh rate monitors actually display above 60 FPS with full frames and not partial frames (anything above the set refresh rate will render as a partial frame).

This combined with lower frametimes that naturally come with higher framerates produces smoother results as there's less time in between each rendered frame. 120 FPS has half the frametime average that 60 FPS offers so it's a lot smoother, above that it's not as noticeable but every time you double the framerate, you halve the frametimes, and this is why professional and/or competitive gamers tend to aim for 240Hz, 360Hz, 420Hz, 480Hz, etc. 1080p displays. There is a tangible benefit for them because they're playing games that can run at really high framerates so they can reap the benefits.

For that reason, 60 FPS doesn't look as good as it used to, because there's actually something to compare it to now, and people like to argue about it and say that 60 FPS is still fine, but that's entirely subjective and also a waste of modern displays that are capable of much better results, it just requires better hardware, so the correlating factor with those people that seem to be so against it is the common factor that their hardware is either dated or too weak to consistently handle high refresh rate gaming, other than that it comes down to people fooling themselves to believing that it's a sham.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

What? I was on 22 inch 1600x1200 @ 85Hz Trinitron CRT
LONG before 720p and 1080p flat panels.

Was a great screen for games like Half-Life, Quake 2 and 3

[r.linder]

Publicado originalmente por Bad 💀 Motha:

What? I was on 22 inch 1600x1200 @ 85Hz Trinitron CRT
LONG before 720p and 1080p flat panels.

The issue is that a lot of people don't even remember that CRTs went well beyond 60Hz if you spent the money.

A lot of the people arguing about 60 FPS these days either didn't have one of those, or they aren't old enough to remember that CRTs were actually incredible in their time. And it's usually either one because most people didn't have those, I certainly didn't. We didn't have the hardware nor the money for it.

We kept older OS for a long time too, I barely had any time on Windows 7 and it was on a really ♥♥♥♥♥♥ laptop we bought used, I almost went from XP straight to 8 and skipped Vista entirely on my own machines, only ever touched it when I worked on someone else's machine that had it.

[_I_]

not many crt monitors could be overclocked beyond 72-75hz

most could select 59-60 to help prevent image shaking due to the outlet frequency

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Yea some CRTs could do maybe 100Hz but not at the max supported screen res.

[D. Flame]

The best part of CRTs is they could look completely smooth and have better color accuracy.

[Justeego]

Everyone here is missing the point, the truth is that 60 fps will never look good on a high Hz gaming monitor because of low response time. Gaming monitors have low response time because at high fps it reduces the ghosting and you get a clearer picture in motion, the other side of the coin is that it leads to choppy motion and stutter at 60 fps (and below) content, hence why it looks bad.
From rtings.com :"Like most things related to technology, there are trade-offs when something is too good. A fast response time can lead to stutter as the image stays on the screen for longer than expected, but this isn't so much a concern with monitors, but rather with TVs when you're watching movies..
The issue is particularly bad on panning camera scenes in anime like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_dFjtOVUvc
Test it on different displays and the difference will be obvious.

Overdrive, which lowers response time further to reduce ghosting, makes the problem even worse, test it, stutter will increase in the video posted.
Using the Cinema or Movie setting on your monitor may be beneficial, and I'm not sure if this problem is in all gaming monitors or just bad ones.The frame time discrepancy is just a stupid argument since 24 fps movies never looked bad on 60 Hz because it isn't divisible by 24.

[Rod]

Every monitor i tried 120hz 240hz 280hz handled locked 60fps like garbage it doesnt work you need a 60hz portable oled to overcome this bs.


Though i have heard framegen works? I have 3 locked titles i need a solution for nier automata bayonetta and elden ring. Solutions are buy portable oled. Lossless scaling framegen or nvidia framegen through the nvidia app override mode.

[Pocahawtness]

Publicado originalmente por SenMithrarin85:

I recently bought a 165hz 1440p gsync compatible monitor (gigabyte m27q) and it's honestly been a double edged sword ...

Games that support unlocked framerates are great to play at that high FPS. Sadly games that don't (hard coded to 60 like fighters/japanese ports etc) are the problem.

I tried to do my research as best I could and bought a monitor that was supposed to handle 60hz as well as it's peak refresh so that both ends of the spectrum were good. Sadly that's not what I'm seeing. "Seeing" perhaps being the operative word.

I've read a few forum threads and some people are saying that since 165 doesn't divide evenly by 60, then it will look choppy. It would also explain why anything below 80 looks bad to my eyes.

But equally, I thought gsync was supposed to prevent that issue by matching the refresh to the FPS at the time?

It does prevent the issue, those people are wrong.

I frequently run mine at less than the maximum refresh rate, and there are no consequences.

I remember though, years ago, that some games did not run well with adaptive sync. But this was just a few games, the majority were fine.

There is an application you can get that can switch your refresh rate according to the game you are playing. Maybe that would sort your problem?