• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Does 60Hz Mean You Can't See Above 60FPS?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Twisted4000

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Location
Colorado Springs, CO, USA, Earth
Because I have a 60Hz monitor and I swear I can tell the difference between 80-90fps and 60fps. Things look laggy and slow when they reach that point to me. But how can this be of 60Hz in fact means your monitor is capped at that? Am I literally just seeing things and it in fact doesn't go above that frame rate? Thanks in advance.
 

mokrunka

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
You can see (probably) beyond 60fps, or at least distinguish a difference. There have been studies conducted (google it) that show that roughly half of the population should be able to see/distinguish beyond 45fps (some can distinguish up to a couple hundred fps!, and some can't see less than 24 fps). So, like most things, everyone is different. If you're noticing a difference b/w 60 and 90 fps, it's probably not just your imagination.

And yes, the card is actually rendering and displaying to the screen at those numbers (assuming those figures are correct). Unless you have V-sync or similar on, your monitor isn't tied to the framerate. Since it's only refreshing every 1/60th of a second though, you will miss certain frames, but the playing experience will still 'feel' more smooth.
 

Janus67

Benching Team Leader
Joined
May 29, 2005
As others said, if you have v-sync off and go beyond the 60hz rate of your monitor in FPS then you may indeed see a difference (smoother movement, etc), but it will be joined with some screen tearing as the monitor tries to keep up with what it is being fed.
 

habbajabba

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Location
Oregon
I saw an article recently that stated the eyes can see individual photons. But they were designed to do that so it is very logical.
 

mokrunka

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Haha, yes it does seem to be entirely unrelated, although it is a cool piece of knowledge :)
 
OP
T

Twisted4000

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Location
Colorado Springs, CO, USA, Earth
So basically the answer is, even though the monitor only displays 60 images per second, an FPS higher than that DOES in fact make a difference somehow? It's funny to me because so many threads and posts over the internet have said otherwise...
 

mackerel

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
As a result of a video I saw recently on pcper, there was a claim that high refresh rate monitors (100+) do offer a visible difference over "only" 60fps. They suggested it can be one of those things where once you have experienced it, you can't go back. Well, I actually bought a monitor to try that out. Just a budget 144Hz 1080p panel. I loaded the original Portal so as not to be too demanding and able to easily achieve high framerates. Yup, you can see and feel the difference. It wasn't massive, but it was there. Note this was almost a side by side comparison. If you were to try one, then at a totally different time the other, it might not be so obvious. Since I'm not a twitch gamer, this level of speed doesn't matter to me so I'll stick to 60Hz monitors (although I am tempted to go G-sync next time). I'd also add, TN monitors aren't as bad as I remember them being. Maybe I can be less of an IPS snob.

Separately to that, can >60 fps on a 60Hz monitor feel better? Yes, as it can reduce latency between when the frame (or part thereof) was drawn and actually hitting the screen. Nvidia even put a new feature into the 10xx series cards to do this with vsync on. In cases where the GPU can do more than a couple frames per refresh, it will do so and display the last one thus reducing the latency between what's shown and what's happening. With traditional vsync it just draws a frame then waits around to show it, adding latency between what you do and see.
 

mackerel

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
There are high refresh rate IPS panels, but they all seem to have reports of questionable quality control. I don't fancy doing a monitor lottery at that price. What I have now is adequate and doesn't need replacing anyway. The high refresh TN will eventually go on a 2nd desktop system on my main setup as soon as I make room for a 2nd desktop system...
 

habbajabba

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Location
Oregon
60Hz is like the default for a lot of devices (my tablet and esp. those without proper graphics cards). It's hard on the eyes if you stare at it a lot though. Or rather, the more the Hz, the easier on the eyes. My Asus 24" is 120Hz. In relation to the article, hmm... If the screen's photons are rapidly flickering to the point your eyes notice, it can be bothersome to the point of being painful to watch, similar to a strobe at night. This is the exact reason everyone who games or otherwise uses a pc a lot wants higher refresh rates so that the eyes barely, if at all notice, reducing eye strain. Photons relate but I thought it kinda cool to note also. As to the original question, FPS is relative to the user and his ability to gather light and remember it, or should I say perceive. It rather would depend on your focus and attention span.
 
Last edited:

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
There are high refresh rate IPS panels, but they all seem to have reports of questionable quality control. I don't fancy doing a monitor lottery at that price. What I have now is adequate and doesn't need replacing anyway. The high refresh TN will eventually go on a 2nd desktop system on my main setup as soon as I make room for a 2nd desktop system...
That is what warranty is for... :)

You seem to believe most will be bad or something when in reality, the odds are 'forever in your favor' with likely no more than a 10% failure rate, probably less, (like nearly every other part we talk about here) within warranty.

Unless you know something we don't... links to said QC problems by chance?
 

mackerel

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
I'm not talking about obvious fault cases, but more subjective areas. For IPS panels, excessive backlight bleed is a common complaint. I don't have time to mess around with RMA-ing things, especially for physically big things, and in a grey area where there can be push back on what counts as a fault or not. I just want one that's good enough from the start. I suspect those who had multiple RMAs before they got a "good one" might be fussier than average.
 

Jeff G

Member
Joined
May 22, 2016
I know a lot of the 'budget-friendly' 120hz IPS panels have a larger tolerance for dead/stuck pixels (like 3-4) before they're considered 'bad'.
I took that gamble myself, and haven't had a dead or stuck pixel after about 3 years of use. You can pay higher premiums for panels that allow no stuck/dead pixels, but in the end it just seems like the chance of getting one is pretty low.
 

wingman99

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
I have a 60Hz monitor when I run adaptive vsync my games are buttery smooth at 60FPS, it's like watching TV, Video or a movie for me. With running over 90 FPS the games are not buttery smooth.

I don't play poorly coded games, they need a lot more FPS to be smooth, they run clunky.
 
Last edited: