Your preferred refresh rate for gaming?

What's your prefered refresh rate for gaming?

  • Above 144hz

    Votes: 7 25.0%

  • 144hz

    Votes: 10 35.7%

  • 120hz

    Votes: 12 42.9%

  • 75hz

    Votes: 2 7.1%

  • 60hz

    Votes: 12 42.9%

  • Less than 60hz

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • Total voters
    28
D

davis.anthony

Veteran
Hi guys,

I'm just curious what refresh everyone games at?

I have a 144hz monitor but as someone who only plays single player games (And is a self confessed graphics whore) I game at 60fps with all the bells and whistles turned on.

Another reason is noise, the lower frame rate target is easier on my RTX4070ti so it runs cooler and thus quieter (It also reduces coil whine massively in certain games too)

If I'm playing an old game and 144hz is super easy for my GPU then I'll use it but for newer stuff typically 60Hz.

What are you all using?
 
Last edited:
Max stable FPS accordingly to refresh rate i can get is enough for me. I finished Far Cry 6 at 85Hz, currently am playing APT Innocence at 100Hz, while beat Spider-Man series at 144Hz. I just don't like FPS going wild like from 140FPS to 80 FPS, VRR can help only up to a point.
 
I voted for 120 and 144Hz. My new VRR 144Hz monitor is a game changer. Dunno if I'd be able to tell the difference going to 240+Hz, but this changes my definition of "good performance". Going below 60fps is particularly painful. Back in the day I swore by 30fps as the acceptable target. I played a ton of Halo 3 (30fps) on the XB360. Then I got into TF2 on PC which was always 60fps. When I started playing Halo again I thought something was wrong with my Xbox. Once you get used to the higher refresh rate it's hard to go back.
 
I've always been fine at 60 or even below, but I am not playing competitive COD, Halo or the like either.
 
60 FPS as a minimum acceptable frame rate.

But 120 Hz as long as the game supports it. I'll reduce quality settings in order to get a much nicer looking 120 Hz versus a less pleasing 60 Hz.

The motion clarity of 60 Hz just isn't really good enough for me anymore and certainly isn't pleasant to play a game at. I recently bought a Radeon 6800 (best graphics card you can get new for 500 USD or less) because I couldn't stand gaming at 60 Hz on my Geforce 1070 anymore. It's not perfect, but it's good enough for now.

Regards,
SB
 
165fps whenever I can. The difference is huge even compared to an acceptable 60fps. Maybe someday we will play at 1000fps on a 1000fps monitor, for now the fastest monitor I've ever had was a 240Hz 1080p Samsung VA monitor which I sorely miss but had 2 or 3 dead pixels and had to return it.

60fps is acceptable, but with VRR, without it it doesn't feel good.
 
Depends on the game and which device I’m using. 144hz on the main PC, 120hz in the living room. 60 is fine for most games though.
 
davis.anthony said:
Another reason is noise, the lower frame rate target is easier on my RTX4070ti so it runs cooler and thus quieter (It also reduces coil whine massively in certain games too)
Click to expand...
After reading this I decided to try lowering the fps cap in Bordlerands 3 to 120Hz (it was at unlimited but I have 144Hz monitor) and my 6700XT runs much quieter. I can't tell the difference between 120Hz and 144Hz but I can certainly tell the noise difference.
 
homerdog said:
After reading this I decided to try lowering the fps cap in Bordlerands 3 to 120Hz (it was at unlimited but I have 144Hz monitor) and my 6700XT runs much quieter. I can't tell the difference between 120Hz and 144Hz but I can certainly tell the noise difference.
Click to expand...

I'm at that stage in my life now where I like quiet and I will happily sacrifice a few FPS in the name of silence.
 
As close as I can get to 240 Hz. Games look smoother and feel much more responsive at high frame rates. In 99% of games I get over the graphics after a couple of hours, and on most games still look good on medium or low settings. Even on a turn based game I'd probably still do it to get smooth movement of the camera.
 
homerdog said:
After reading this I decided to try lowering the fps cap in Bordlerands 3 to 120Hz (it was at unlimited but I have 144Hz monitor) and my 6700XT runs much quieter. I can't tell the difference between 120Hz and 144Hz but I can certainly tell the noise difference.
Click to expand...

Performance limiting can work but how well it does is kind of circumstantial depending on if it happens to hit certain trigger points (can't think of a better term nowadays).

A better general approach would be to manually power limit and/or undervolt as usually you can get a very significant power usage drop vs perfomrance drop as GPUs (and CPUs) these days are basically OCed well beyond the efficiency point out of the box.
 
arandomguy said:
Performance limiting can work but how well it does is kind of circumstantial depending on if it happens to hit certain trigger points (can't think of a better term nowadays).

A better general approach would be to manually power limit and/or undervolt as usually you can get a very significant power usage drop vs perfomrance drop as GPUs (and CPUs) these days are basically OCed well beyond the efficiency point out of the box.
Click to expand...
I did the auto undervolt thing in the Radeon software. It says it took voltage down to 1175mV. I don't know what it normally is.
 
Undervolting is great. I actually wish gpus were sold with settings that were a little more conservative out of the box, but I understand why they try to push them to the limits by default because of gpu reviews etc.
 
Depends on game. In GT Legends I use 165Hz and in Mashinky anything over 60Hz is complete waste of energy.

GT Legends being old ISI gmotor 2 game, uses refresh rate and/or fps (if no vsync) to read controller and so frame rate greatly effects how exact the steering input is.

Mashinky is basically 3D version of Transport Tycoon and sure you can get 165 fps out of it with good hardware, but the trains will still move on same speed, so only gain will be extra heat on your case and eventually in your apartment.
 
120hz if I've the power to spare, but 60hz is fine if not. And if I struggle with 60 I'm happy enough to lock it below. The main thing is to get a mostly flat frame time line.

Currently playing Valhalla locked at 80fps.
 
For a while, I had to move back to a 60Hz monitor that could be 'overclocked' to 75Hz after gaming at 120 and above for years.

I found that while 75Hz was certainly not as good as 120Hz, gaming was still a whole lot better than 60Hz, and it was very easily noticeable even on desktop. This was helped by the fact I limited the fps to 3 less than the max refresh rate, 57Hz and 72Hz, for freesync use. The frametimes then work out to 17.54ms and 13.89ms, so almost a 4ms difference which is almost half of the 60Hz -> 120Hz jump.

So while the higher fps are great, 80-90fps is something I'm quite comfortable with especially if the input latency is low.
 
Yeah I that was something else I noticed, the Windows desktop is just so much nicer to use at 120 Hz as well. So much that it's a bit jarring when I move to my 2nd monitor (HDMI 2.0 so only 60 Hz) to do anything. When I get a chance I need to upgrade that display to 120 Hz as well even though it's never used for games. 120 Hz is just so much more responsive and feels so much nicer when doing anything involving the mouse.

So to experiment I went into a couple RTS games and 120 Hz is a very very noticeable improvement over 60 Hz WRT controls and fluidness of camera movement.

When I get time I'll limit framerate in a game to 90 Hz and see if it's noticeably worse than 120 Hz or not ... for me.

Now I'm wishing there are videos with a 120 Hz output, those must look just incredibly good albeit with likely massive file sizes.

Regards,
SB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top