Yahoo Poland Wyszukiwanie w Internecie

Search results

  1. The main thing about having higher than 60FPS, for me at least, is that it means less likely to drop UNDER 60FPS at heavy load and lead to more noticeable losses. If I lose 20 frames at 60FPS, I go down to 40 and it’s really noticeable.

  2. 144 hz is 1 frame every 6.9 ms. 60 fps is 1 frame every 16.7 ms. Because of this, you may have a situation where a frame displayed, then you have nothing until the 3rd refresh afterwards. So there's a total 20.7 ms of no frame updates. If every update was that slow, you'd have a 48 hz monitor.

  3. Personally, I play on a 60Hz display and I run all my games with Vsync on capped at 60fps - but I mostly play single-player RPGs and open world games, so to me getting a perfectly even frame pacing and no tearing is more important than having the lowest possible input latency.

  4. 60 fps feels good, especially to a switch player like you. This is a popular opinion. But PC players don't settle for "good enough", they want even smoother fps. Plus, the impact 100+ fps has on gaming performance is the biggest reason why people say 60fps is bad.

  5. A generation or two old midrange GPU and CPU should be able to deliver 60fps with reasonable settings. What's stopping them from going to 144hz or 240hz? More expensive hardware is required, and there's not a significant benefit for those who aren't playing competitively.

  6. 60fps is easier on the eyes and more immersive. 60+fps with 144hz refresh rate is amazing. FunQueue69. • 2 yr. ago. I’m surprised you can’t tell a difference between 30 and 60. It’s extremely noticeable to me.

  7. I find 60fps quite smooth. I have tried higher refresh raters but didn't find the different to be enough compared to the increased sharpness and detail of 4K. I know there is 4K 120fps monitors, but it's hard to get a high framerate at 4K of course.

  1. Ludzie szukają również