Why I'm done with 240hz

[Notty_PT]

Yes I do! On monitors that don´t add input lag when VRR is enabled. Asus models, for example, almost all of them add input lag when VRR is on, same with AlienWare AW2518HF.

VRR is is VERY important for competitive shooters imo because it increases the motion clarity. Example: An IPS/VA monitor with Gsync + 141fps cap 144hz and a decent response time (for IPS/VA) has better motion clarity than a TN 144hz with uncapped framerate (100fps to 200fps). You notice it a lot on quick mouse flicks.

I only dismiss VRR when the added input lag is too big. Every monitor has different input lag values depending on wether FreeSync/Gsync is activated or not. You can check Rtings reviews, they are pretty much the only website that shows numbers for both VRR on and OFF.

[theangryregulator]

Thanks Notty_PT. I gave VRR a try after I read your post on Overwatch and Quake Champions - which I usually just leave uncapped with the lowest settings.

Capping both to 138 fps with freesync enabled let me up the graphically settings by a lot and you know what I think my aim is actually tighter . I did better in instagib than usual and my mccree was on fire .



9700k @ stock now
2060 RTX
XG2402
g305 w/ battery mod

[Chief Blur Buster]

In my experience, there appears to be approximately up to half a refresh cycle premium/bonus for VRR.

Meaning, people can still aim better with +0.5ms to +1.0ms extra input lag with VRR enabled, because VRR smooths things so much that a tiny bit of extra lag doesn't matter. Also, capped VRR improves muscle memory because the latency is so consistent unlike fluctuating-framerate, and it looks exactly like VSYNC ON except without the lag of VSYNC ON.

It takes at least half a refresh cycle of extra input latency before VRR is no longer worth keeping enabled. This situation mainly happens with CS:GO and older Quake Live games where framerates run far excess of refresh rate. Or with monitors that has a much-more-laggy-than-average VRR mode.

So if VRR=ON, it's okay to have slightly "extra lag" as long as the "extra lag" is an average of less than half a refresh cycle (for middle-screen measurement), your aiming will be better because of lack of stutters & lack of latency-fluctuation (to screw around with your aim training effect -- aka "muscle memory").

Overkill-framerate VSYNC OFF (e.g. older Quake 3 Arena or CS:GO etc) will lower latency significantly enough below VRR latency, but at 100fps, it's worth keeping VRR enabled and then capping to just below Hz.

As I've already written, I've noticed some PUBG players noticed this and aimfeel can be better with VRR than without.

Even NVIDIA convinced many eSports players to turn GSYNC back on, and their aiming did not degrade. You just have to follow VRR best-practices, in order to have VRR work to your competitive advantage, rather than VRR working against you.

Just remember to cap somewhere below Hz to prevent extremely wide latency fluctuations (where latency surges when framerate maxes out at Hz, and latency dramatically falls when framerate slows down just below Hz), and you're golden with VRR.

[Notty_PT]

Thanks Notty_PT. I gave VRR a try after I read your post on Overwatch and Quake Champions - which I usually just leave uncapped with the lowest settings.

Capping both to 138 fps with freesync enabled let me up the graphically settings by a lot and you know what I think my aim is actually tighter . I did better in instagib than usual and my mccree was on fire .



9700k @ stock now
2060 RTX
XG2402
g305 w/ battery mod

Exactly my point! I´m happy it worked for you. I also have a better aim at 138fps cap + Gsync compared to unstable no VRR 240hz framerate like I mentioned on the first post. And I wish more people knew about this, because there is a lot of misinformation around the internet about this subject. Is usual to see even famous streamers/players not using a framerate cap or using a odd one (like 150fps cap on 144hz) and dismissing VRR too.

I aim way better with steady fps and VRR because has Chief mentioned it smooths out your aim, even if the input lag is higher.

For example, on 144hz monitor 200fps has less input lag than 138fps, but motion clarity is ruined -> judder, stutter, inconsistency on the mouse, bad motion

200-240fps interval on 240hz have way less input lag than 138fps @ 144hz, but the 144hz stability will overcome. Also as a plus, regarding your situation, your GPU could handle way better graphics at 138fps, wich means you increase your visibility. While this is not as important on older games like Quake or CS, because visibility is good even at 720p, it is extremely important on modern titles like Apex Legends, Black Ops 4 or Battlefield.

So in the end:

VRR motion clarity + steady 138fps cap + consistent mouse input lag = Good aim, even with higher input lag (0,5ms to 3ms depending on the monitor models)

[theangryregulator]

You saved me a bunch of time and energy so thanks again! I've been spending a lot of time overclocking/stress testing cpu and gpu for more fps and even looking at the 2080ti lol. I'm pretty satisfied with the gaming performance now that I know better.

[Notty_PT]

You saved me a bunch of time and energy so thanks again! I've been spending a lot of time overclocking/stress testing cpu and gpu for more fps and even looking at the 2080ti lol. I'm pretty satisfied with the gaming performance now that I know better.

PC hardware companies don´t want you to do these tweaks, because the "more fps, more hz, more everything" market is a strong selling point! This is why most people are not informed about how correctly tweak their setups.

Truth is, no one needs more than 144hz and 138fps, and even better with VRR. And for 1080p 138fps you can grab a mid range card, a mid range CPU and call it a day.

But do you think they want this to be the general rule? Hell no! That´s why Intel markted their i9 9900k 600€ CPU as "the best gaming CPU" with the highest framerates. That´s why they sell you 100€ CPU coolers so you can push those 5ghz for 200+fps. That´s why they try to tell you that RTX 2080 or 2080ti are a must for ultra graphics and very high framerates. The whole market goes around this. The big streamers usually have 240hz monitors, the best CPU , the best GPUs, while you see aimers like Relaa, Serious or Xfizz still with their 144hz setups and 130fps-140fps and owning everyone with their god tier aim.

Now you may ask "but Notty, you also got tons of 240hz monitors and have the best hardware possible". Yes true, because I was a fool. I like to test everything (I love mice and monitors since a kid, this is a passion), and I spent like 2 years trying to make 240hz my daily driver option and in the end I just found by mysel, that it is completly useless. My aim isn´t better and this only made me spend money. Now how to convince everyone else about this? Impossible... everyone has to try it to know what I´m talking about. And as there is no "VRR + 138fps 144hz perfect for Aiming" marketing, people will not know about it being the sweet spot for amazing aim.

Truth is, my LG on Quake is 55%, I´m called an aimbotter regularly, and I´m at 144hz 138fps cap. 240hz did 0 for my LG, even made it slightly worse due to unstable framerates.

A lot of years ago, when I was a teen, I was also fooled by the SLI/Crossfire thing. Again, "MORE IS BETTER", so yeah let´s do SLI of an high end card and have a lot of frames. Except that... no... the micro stutter and compability issues from SLI/Crossfire solutions was AWFUL and I had to learn by myself that it was bad. Then finally some websites started to mention that dual GPU solutions add stutters and other problems and today we can finally say that Dual GPU solutions are basically dead and useless because almost no modern game supports it.

This society we live in, is all about money! We have to be careful with the marketing that is throwed at us. I still like to find stuff by myself, but it costs money. It costs time too, but I like to do tests, almost as much as gaming!

[theangryregulator]

Yep totally agreed with the above. By the way do you cap the frame rate for QC with RTSS? It seems more stable that the in-game limiter.

The only games I'm not content with the performance is Apex Legends and Fortnite where specific areas of the map will drop the fps hard but I guess that can't be helped.

[Notty_PT]

In Quake Champions I cap framerate to 141 on their internal limiter, wich makes the game capped at 138/139 instead, as their limiter is not that accurate. But I prefer it to RTSS because it adds noticeable lag!

Black Ops 4 has the worst internal limiter. If I cap to 138/139 my framerate will jump around 130 to 139 all the time. If I cap to 140/141/142 the framerate will go up to 160 from 140, so I use RTSS on Black Ops 4 and deal with the added input lag!

On APEX legends I´m not having any dips below 144hz, but I play low settings and low resolution. Fortnite I can´t really comment because I barely played that game, only tested 240hz situation on it.

[Chief Blur Buster]

Yep totally agreed with the above. By the way do you cap the frame rate for QC with RTSS? It seems more stable that the in-game limiter.

In-game framerate limiters are less microsecond-precise than RTSS but can still be lower average lag.

Capping precision doesn't necessarily lower latency. Sometimes it's a slight tradeoff effect.

[Death_Lotus]

What do you guys think about response times vs VRR?
Obviously this question takes only FreeSync monitors into consideration, since G-Sync has adaptive overdrive.

Let's say you've got one of those Acer monitors (XF270HUA, VG270UP etc. or even the new Gigabyte AD27QD*) and you are playing at 130-144 FPS.
You now have two options.
Either you play with FreeSync on and OD gets disabled (XF270HUA)/locked to normal (VG270UP),
or you play with FreeSync off and and you can set OD to extreme.

When looking for ghosting/blur using the UFO test one can clearly see, that for high refreshrates (>= 120-130 Hz) you need to set the OD to extreme in order to eliminate blur (without or just a little tiny bit of overshoot).
Otherwise you will notice ghosting and in games you will lose a little bit of the 144 Hz feeling.

*Bad response times (new Innolux Panel) not suitable for 144 Hz.