Is going above 60 fps worth it for singleplayer games?

[Trondheim]

I am planning to buy a 1440p PC for the first time. I only play singleplayer RPGs, many of which are old too. Think like 10+ years old games.

Is going above 60 fps still worth it? Or will it be overkill?

I'm partially afraid of going past 60 fps because I will never be able to go back

[Sikobae]

Out Of Bubblegum님이 먼저 게시:

Traditional film movies were only 24 hz for decades and they were not considered jittery.

Because you don't interact with movies. Go actually play a game locked at 24 FPS and get back to us.

[オナニー]

Imagine trying to go pro with flick shots headshots at 144hz in Cyberpunk. Nice to have but not needed. Why would you, the AI is about as slow as granny

[A&A]

Yes. I often lock the fps to 75-90FPS.

[_I_]

Out Of Bubblegum님이 먼저 게시:

r.linder님이 먼저 게시:

Then either your system isn't configured correctly, you're using a slow mouse, or you've chosen to take the path of blissful ignorance and pretend like nothing changed when it did. Everyone says it makes a difference because it does, period.

Film production can also make 24 FPS look good, it's completely different from running a game at 24 FPS in real-time without any fancy movie magic or visual trickery. They are simply not comparable.

Muck your insults. No! They SAY it makes a difference because of peer pressure. They "have" to see what they are told they are supposed to see. Otherwise they must be "lame". There will be an improvement in mouse reactions. People say that faster reaction is a visual improvement. "smoother". It is not. It is just faster reaction. Two different things. There is no such thing as a "slow" mouse.

Your film trickery statement is pure nonsense. Just cope. Displaying a new image for the eye to see at 24 hz is the same for a film or a monitor.

whats the polling rate on your mouse?
if its lower than your refresh rate, then the pc is not going to change the view from the previous one, making moving not as smooth or some elements seem jerky

[Andrius227]

Yes, everything is better at higher refresh rate, not just games. Even navigating windows or browsing the internet, particularly scrolling pages.

Even the way the mouse cursor moves is much better.

Although the difference becomes less noticeable at higher framerates. I think going above 144hz is not worth it.

[_I_]

it also depends on the panel used in the display
some have higher g-g times and just smear anything above 60-90hz anyway
others are good panels that can change pixel colors accurately within 1-2ms

[The 3 Whites]

Out Of Bubblegum님이 먼저 게시:

It also depends on the game engine. Can it really produce 100+ Hz frames or is it repeating frames and faking it.

this. it absolute brings you nothing when the game engine runs at 30hz or 60hz.
Or when the network updates of your multiplayer game run at 30hz or 60hz.

many console games run at 30 or 60hz and so do their pc ports.

then you have a high fps on your monitor but the whole game logic still runs at 30 or 60hz.

[Guydodge]

bottom line 60 vrs 144 huge improvement mouse movement is super smooth and makes headshots a breeze.and your backgrounds will be far !! less blurry when moving making for a superior gaming experience.if you dont see it you have no idea what your looking for.once you go there you can never go back to 60fps EVER !!! youve been warned.

even if you can hold 90fps its a far superior experience over 60fps.personally when i cant hold at least 90fps at high/ultra settings for the most part i do a new build.

and if you'd like to test the difference set your res to 60hz and move a window around on your desktop then set to a higher res 90/120/144 and move again its as plain as the nose on your face the difference.(note the blur and the stutterss)of course dont try this on a 60hz monitor as it will not reach a higher res than 60.

[AbedsBrother]

No, going above 60fps is generally not worth it in single-player games - especially if you play a lot of RPGs where there's a lot of time spent talking to NPCs. The extra fps is just a waste, requiring more expensive hardware (cpu & gpu) to achieve, drawing more power, and in newer games providing less graphical fidelity (since upscalers are frequently needed to hit high refresh rates in games).

[r.linder]

Out Of Bubblegum님이 먼저 게시:

r.linder님이 먼저 게시:

Then either your system isn't configured correctly, you're using a slow mouse, or you've chosen to take the path of blissful ignorance and pretend like nothing changed when it did. Everyone says it makes a difference because it does, period.

Film production can also make 24 FPS look good, it's completely different from running a game at 24 FPS in real-time without any fancy movie magic or visual trickery. They are simply not comparable.

Muck your insults. No! They SAY it makes a difference because of peer pressure. They "have" to see what they are told they are supposed to see. Otherwise they must be "lame". There will be an improvement in mouse reactions. People say that faster reaction is a visual improvement. "smoother". It is not. It is just faster reaction. Two different things. There is no such thing as a "slow" mouse.

Your film trickery statement is pure nonsense. Just cope. Displaying a new image for the eye to see at 24 hz is the same for a film or a monitor.

Thank you for confirming that you have absolutely zero clue what you're talking about and only seek to waste our time.

[smokerob79]

I read about the first 5 replies and stopped there, so lets get real on somethings.....first off depending on game some of the older games will NOT be able to run over 60 frames and if you are going with older games a few maybe even capped at 30 frames......the original version of deadspace is a great example as its physics were tied to frame rates and increasing it could cause issues...

with that said given the age of the games you want to play this will be on a per-game bases......even "newer" games like fallout 4 can have issues with frame uncaps that do weird things like making loading times take 5 times longer........


to me i just dont need it even having a 165hz monitor.....i cap every game i can to 60 frames as it saves a ton on the power bill......never mind heat generated in the room you game in......

online games every frame matters.....single player its not even a concern

[Electric Cupcake]

Maybe. IMO, any more than 90 isn't worth it.

[Bing Chilling]

it's worth it imo.
especially if you have gsync or freesync

60hz is fine but 144hz-165hz is the sweet spot
anything above that and you start to see very diminishing returns.

[Electric Cupcake]

Bing Chilling님이 먼저 게시:

it's worth it imo.
especially if you have gsync or freesync

60hz is fine but 144hz-165hz is the sweet spot
anything above that and you start to see very diminishing returns.

OP said frame rate, not refresh rate. Totally different metric.

[r.linder]

Bing Chilling님이 먼저 게시:

it's worth it imo.
especially if you have gsync or freesync

60hz is fine but 144hz-165hz is the sweet spot
anything above that and you start to see very diminishing returns.

There is no sweet spot, 120 FPS has half the frametimes as 60 FPS, 240 FPS has half the frametimes of 120 FPS, the higher you go the smoother it is, though at very high refresh rates it's about as noticeable of a difference between 1k Hz mice and 8k Hz mice, but it's there

Electric Cupcake님이 먼저 게시:

Bing Chilling님이 먼저 게시:

it's worth it imo.
especially if you have gsync or freesync

60hz is fine but 144hz-165hz is the sweet spot
anything above that and you start to see very diminishing returns.

OP said frame rate, not refresh rate. Totally different metric.

It's still relevant because any frames above native refresh is not a full frame, only a partial frame

240 FPS on a 60Hz display is different from 240 FPS on a 240Hz+ display since every frame is complete.