Should you CAP your fps to your monitor's REFRESH RATE?

[dev]

So I have a monitor that originally runs at 60 Hertz, but however I overclocked it and is now running at 75 Hertz now using Nvidia Control Panel and Custom Resolution Utility (CRU), which you can get it here[www.monitortests.com] if you are interested.

So anyways I have been wondering if you should cap your fps to your monitor's refresh rate, let's the take the example from my monitor, It runs on 75 Hertz, I can't really decide if I should cap my fps to my monitor's refresh rate, however there are other discussions that says you should double the fps you have to what your monitor's refresh rate has, so by that example, if I have a 75 Hertz, then i should cap my fps around to 150, because it is said to believe that when you double the fps from the rate of your monitor's Hertz, it kinda gives your monitor's refresh rate the best performance possible.

But however, if you get your fps higher than your monitor's refresh rate, you get a what do you call a "screen tearing" which is basically a horizontal line that goes from up to down of your whole screen, which is kinda annoying as a gamer, so my question is that. what is the best possible solution to this, should I cap my games to 75 to 80 fps to my 75 Hertz monitor? or double the fps amount according to your monitor's refresh rate? Thank you for actually reading this and if you KNOW you can answer this question PROPERLY then you are obliged to comment and help me and the others that might ask the same question.

[ReBoot]

Unless you synchronize your GPU & monitor (G-Sync/FreeSync), moar FPS is better for latency reasons. Double the FPS is a decent rule of thumb.

[Muppet among Puppets]

There is nothing wrong with capping fps. Especially not to refreshrate

[crunchyfrog]

As Reboot says, it's a bit like sampling in music. Let me explain this.

In audio, you need to get AT LEAST twice the maximum range of hearing as the base sample rate. We largely hear up to 20,000Hz, so this is why CDs sample at 44,100Hz.

With framerate, the theory is that matching the framerate directyl to your monitor will alleviate things like screen tearing. However, PCs don't run perfectly uniform. There are cycles where things will take priority, and real world ♥♥♥♥ like power fluctuations, or tempertature changes or a whole host of other things can introduce lag, which will throw this matching off.

So, basically, you try to go for TWICE the amount, as this will mitigate things far better. If you get my meaning.

[Jaunitta 🌸]

2 questions is not necessary
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/11/5544461758370481006/

[dev]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Jaunitta 🌸:

2 questions is not necessary
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/11/5544461758370481006/

sure, my bad.

[Muppet among Puppets]

Ursprungligen skrivet av crunchyfrog:

As Reboot says, it's a bit like sampling in music. Let me explain this.

In audio, you need to get AT LEAST twice the maximum range of hearing as the base sample rate. We largely hear up to 20,000Hz, so this is why CDs sample at 44,100Hz.

With framerate, the theory is that matching the framerate directyl to your monitor will alleviate things like screen tearing. However, PCs don't run perfectly uniform. There are cycles where things will take priority, and real world ♥♥♥♥ like power fluctuations, or tempertature changes or a whole host of other things can introduce lag, which will throw this matching off.

So, basically, you try to go for TWICE the amount, as this will mitigate things far better. If you get my meaning.

If that was true, and you should have a pc for 120hz for a monitor with 60, why not buying a 120hz monitor?
Or would i need a pc that can run 240hz then? :D .... There is a missing link here.

Anyway, i dont see problems when i reduce my fps. Sometimes i even reduce them to 60 even though my monitor can handle more than that.

If you increase the fps above the monitor the effects you describe happen mostly in a void(?).
Whereas in speakers everything is physically happening.

[Start_Running]

There's really no point in having a higher refresh rate than your monitor. Those extra frames are literally just discarded at best, or result in annoying screen tear.

[ReBoot]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Start_Running:

There's really no point in having a higher refresh rate than your monitor. Those extra frames are literally just discarded at best, or result in annoying screen tear.

You would be right if the monitor would display frames not only at the same rate, but also at the same moment as the GPU outputs them. But unless you're using G-Sync/FreeSync (and V-sync, but who the hell uses that), that's not the case. In reality, there will always be a slight lag between the GPU outputting a frame and the monitor displaying it. The higher the frame rate, the lower the lag.
Now depending on the type of gamer you are, you may not notice. If you don't play anything reaction-sensitive (or if you are, but aren't THAT good in a game to notice), you won't notice.

But that delay is there and noticeable if you are fast enough yourself.

[cinedine]

Ursprungligen skrivet av crunchyfrog:

As Reboot says, it's a bit like sampling in music.

Not at all. Computer graphics are not sampled. They are not continous. The graphics unit renderes each picture in itself and sends this stand-alone information to the output processor which displays each image as it is and not as a transition from the former or anything. It's a series of pictures. Not a signal wave.
That's why movies work at ~25 FPS which is just a bit over what most people perceive as fluent in their focus area.

More frames will just be dropped and result in a less stable frame pacing which can actually cause the impression of input lag.

The only reason to ever have a different frame rate than your refresh rate is if the game loop is build around frames. For example in fighting games. Or in such great indie games like NfS: Rivals. I am sure I posted the 60 FPS video already here.

Ursprungligen skrivet av ReBoot:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Start_Running:

There's really no point in having a higher refresh rate than your monitor. Those extra frames are literally just discarded at best, or result in annoying screen tear.

You would be right if the monitor would display frames not only at the same rate, but also at the same moment as the GPU outputs them. But unless you're using G-Sync/FreeSync (and V-sync, but who the hell uses that), that's not the case. In reality, there will always be a slight lag between the GPU outputting a frame and the monitor displaying it. The higher the frame rate, the lower the lag.

FreeSync doesn't magically allow you to display twice as much frames though. I helps if the graphics unit is providing less images than the refresh rate, not more.

[ReBoot]

Ursprungligen skrivet av cinedine:

FreeSync doesn't magically allow you to display twice as much frames though. I helps if the graphics unit is providing less images than the refresh rate, not more.

That's not what I said at all. What I said is that with FreeSync (and G-sync), none of that matters because the GPU & display get synchronized (without slowing the GPU down for the lulz, the way V-sync usually does), so the latency topic isn't relevant at all.

[Carlsberg]

Is it not more relevant to cap the monitor to suit the gpu? If the gpu cannot output 60fps then whats the point of capping the monitor at 120?

Screen tearing occurs when the gpu puts out the next frame before the last frame is fully displayed. That would indicate that you need a faster monitor not a higher cap.

[crunchyfrog]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Muppet among Puppets:

Ursprungligen skrivet av crunchyfrog:

As Reboot says, it's a bit like sampling in music. Let me explain this.

In audio, you need to get AT LEAST twice the maximum range of hearing as the base sample rate. We largely hear up to 20,000Hz, so this is why CDs sample at 44,100Hz.

With framerate, the theory is that matching the framerate directyl to your monitor will alleviate things like screen tearing. However, PCs don't run perfectly uniform. There are cycles where things will take priority, and real world ♥♥♥♥ like power fluctuations, or tempertature changes or a whole host of other things can introduce lag, which will throw this matching off.

So, basically, you try to go for TWICE the amount, as this will mitigate things far better. If you get my meaning.

If that was true, and you should have a pc for 120hz for a monitor with 60, why not buying a 120hz monitor?
Or would i need a pc that can run 240hz then? :D .... There is a missing link here.

Anyway, i dont see problems when i reduce my fps. Sometimes i even reduce them to 60 even though my monitor can handle more than that.

If you increase the fps above the monitor the effects you describe happen mostly in a void(?).
Whereas in speakers everything is physically happening.

Simple - you're making an error there.

I said it's IDEAL to do that. I never said it was possible or you should in your circumstances. Just that that's the thing to aim for.

I have a fairly decent stereo system. It doesn't change the simple fact that the higher the sampling rate of the audio signal IS better, even if I'll never get to hear the benefit of some of them.

[ReBoot]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Carlsberg:

Is it not more relevant to cap the monitor to suit the gpu? If the gpu cannot output 60fps then whats the point of capping the monitor at 120?

Screen tearing occurs when the gpu puts out the next frame before the last frame is fully displayed. That would indicate that you need a faster monitor not a higher cap.

As I said previously, unless you're running G-sync/FreeSync, your monitor & GPU aren't synchronized, meaning the potential delay is lower with a higher framerate. Same goes with the refresh rate, the bigger the numbers, the better.
Now if your monitor & GPU ARE synchronized, then having the same refresh rate/frame rate is generally a helpful idea.

[crunchyfrog]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Carlsberg:

Is it not more relevant to cap the monitor to suit the gpu? If the gpu cannot output 60fps then whats the point of capping the monitor at 120?

Screen tearing occurs when the gpu puts out the next frame before the last frame is fully displayed. That would indicate that you need a faster monitor not a higher cap.

As I pointed out, if you have the capability to draw more frames, then that's why you should. Because the PC is the CREATOR of said frames, in the same way a CD is the SOURCE of the samples in my aduio analogy.

If you have MORE from the source, it means you always have room for problems and variance, and the player/screen will manage.

[rezo]

More frames = lower input delay/more up to date frame