120 hz lightboost 10% at 120 fps cap vs 240 fps cap?

[alexander1986]

today I use the original asus vg248qe without gsync module, 120 hz 10% lightboost and 120 fps cap ingame, VERY happy with it in terms of sharpness/clarity and input lag compared to 144 hz with lightboost off on the same monitor, extremely small difference in input lag between these two options from my testing atleast,


what I wonder now is , im about to make a significant upgrade to cpu ram and gpu , from i5-3470 2x4gb ddr3 1333mhz gtx 1060 6gb to i7-9700k 2x8gb ddr4 3200mhz cl16 and rtx 2060 or 2070, and my real question is how is 120 hz 10% lightboost 240 fps framecap compared to 120 fps framecap?

at such a high framerate at 240 fps, even if its dropping to say 200 or even 150 at rare situations, but mostly stays at 200-240, will there be a big difference in input lag compared to 120/120 ? will tearing be affected aswell in a good or bad way in this comparison?


thanks for any input here, cheers!

[RealNC]

I assume you're using vsync OFF currently. There's not going to be a big latency difference. It's only about 4ms average improvement when going from 120FPS to 240FPS.

EDIT: It's a 4ms improvement, not 2ms. Oopsie. Still not much, but better than 2ms.

[alexander1986]

I assume you're using vsync OFF currently. There's not going to be a big latency difference. It's only about 4ms average improvement when going from 120FPS to 240FPS.

EDIT: It's a 4ms improvement, not 2ms. Oopsie. Still not much, but better than 2ms.

Vsync off yes!

yes I assume its the 8.33 ms vs 4.16 ms we get from 1000/120 vs 1000/240 difference you mean, you think this could perhaps be percieved as a large difference ingame however? as its twice as fast when looking at the numbers, I guess its not as big difference as say 16 ms vs 8 ms but still wondering

there should also be other benefits like less tearing with vsync off at 240 fps? also, would you btw rather have 120 solid fps/120 hz in 99% of situations or 200-240 varying fps at 120 hz? in a fast paced FPS scenario that is, thanks so far

[RealNC]

yes I assume its the 8.33 ms vs 4.16 ms we get from 1000/120 vs 1000/240 difference you mean, you think this could perhaps be percieved as a large difference ingame however? as its twice as fast when looking at the numbers, I guess its not as big difference as say 16 ms vs 8 ms but still wondering

Personally I cannot tell a difference of 4ms at these frame rates. I can if I go from 60FPS to 80FPS for example. That's 4ms too, but I can actually feel some difference. But going from 120FPS to 240, I can't tell, even though that's also a 4ms improvement.

However, a 4ms difference could have some impact in high level CS:GO or something like that. I don't know. It probably does.

there should also be other benefits like less tearing with vsync off at 240 fps?

Yes, tearing is less annoying at higher FPS. You can try that right now too, you don't need to wait for the new PC. Just fire up a very old game that can run at 240FPS and test yourself.

also, would you btw rather have 120 solid fps/120 hz in 99% of situations or 200-240 varying fps at 120 hz? in a fast paced FPS scenario that is, thanks so far

I prefer being near the FPS the game runs at 90% of the time. If the game runs at 150FPS most of the time, then I cap my FPS to that. I find big FPS changes annoying. I like when the game looks and feels consistent.

[alexander1986]

cool, thanks for the help @RealNC