Gaming above 60 Hz

[WikiFM]

Nowadays almost any CPU is enough to play at 60 FPS as long as you have a powerful GPU, so people with monitors or TVs at 60 Hz there is not point in upgrading your CPU. I hope I included the most popular resolutions.

 

[Dinnercore]

Yes, above 60 Hz. Just upgraded a few months ago. 1440p @ 144 Hz (my ocd likes those numbers). And even my non-gaming oriented TR 1950x delivers 144+ fps in most titles, you really don´t need a 5 GHz CPU to get a smooth experience.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

4k only upto 75hz ,I am thinking next time ill go high Hz.

 

[qubit]

1080p 144Hz. Rocks.

 

[king of swag187]

1080p 144hz *3 in a surround setup, its beautiful

 

[WikiFM]

And even my non-gaming oriented TR 1950x delivers 144+ fps in most titles, you really don´t need a 5 GHz CPU to get a smooth experience.

That is why most people that play at 60 Hz stick to their Intel Core 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation CPU, but have upgraded 2 or 3 times GPU instead.

 

[AlienIsGOD]

1440p @ 60hz, for the price I paid for the asus VA32AQ ($240 CAD) I'm happy with 60hz. Next will be a freesync /fs2 144hz 27"- 32" screen with an appropriate gpu to handle it I'm hopefully looking to score a Vega 56 second hand in the next 6-8 months

 

[newtekie1]

Depending on the game and what I can manage framerate wise, I game at 1440p 75Hz or 100Hz or 120Hz(120Hz is my monitor's max). I tend to find myself playing at 100Hz most of the time though, because to me going beyond that doesn't make a noticeable difference in the games I play.

 

[silentbogo]

4K OCed to 70Hz. It's enough for most games, except for a few online shooters which I enjoy.
Maybe next year I'll get some cash together for a separate 2K@144Hz or maybe even 4K@144Hz dedicated gaming monitor along with a full system upgrade.

 

[the54thvoid]

I'm probably going to get rid of my Gsync 4k monitor and get a high Hz 1440p display.

 

[Guitar]

I have a 144hz 1440p monitor as my main and then a (native) 60hz 1440p monitor as my secondary.

The secondary was my main one for a while, but it only OC'ed to ~110hz and has to use dual link DVI-D which doesn't work with my 1080ti. I bought an active displayport adapter to still use it but barely even turn it on anymore really.

 

[Xaser04]

1440p 120-144Hz* with G-sync for me.

I made the mistake of having my test bench hooked up via HDMI to the same monitor (limited to 60hz no G-sync). Completely moved my desk around so I can quickly move the DP cables between systems.

 

[StrayKAT]

I'd be happy to game above 60hz, but since I rely on a 4K TV a lot.. that's the limit. And probably will be the limit for some time. I sometimes down to 1080p or something and get more, but I prefer 4k when possible.

 

[theFOoL]

I have a 23" and 21" monitors. The 23" is my main @1080P and the 21" @720P is my Gaming

 

[John Naylor]

To my eyes, the best gaming experience available (without a divorce) is at 1440p, on a 165 Hz, IPS G-Sync Monitor using AuOptronics Panel w/ G-Sync turned off and running w/ ULMB. The newer 144 Hz 4k HDR AUOptronics panels sound interesting but poor yields are keeping prices high ($2,500), and no ULMB so far. The other thing.... game scaling in games that support it is only 55-56% (43% average including all games) . There's undoubtedly a myriad of reasons why that is so ... a) CPU bottlenecking b). diminished support, c) lack of competition from AMD means improved SLI performance ony hurts sales of nVidia's upper tier cards but inless that gets closer to 70% average SLI won't be a goal for most folks. Without ULMB even SLI can't help so won't be on my wish list till those things change

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_swift_pg27uq.htm

 

[WikiFM]

The other thing.... game scaling in games that support it is only 55-56% (43% average including all games) . There's undoubtedly a myriad of reasons why that is so ... a) CPU bottlenecking b). diminished support, c) lack of competition from AMD means improved SLI performance ony hurts sales of nVidia's upper tier cards but inless that gets closer to 70% average SLI won't be a goal for most folks. Without ULMB even SLI can't help so won't be on my wish list till those things change

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_swift_pg27uq.htm

The first thing before buying SLI should be verifying that your CPU wont bottleneck the 2nd card, if it is already then buy a faster CPU first.

 

[kk_mergical]

Nah, I'm pretty broke so I don't play anything at 60 Hz. My laptop isn't really too good since it has an i3 5th gen processor

 

[WikiFM]

I'm surprised by the fact that most people that voted plays above 60 Hz, even if they are just 37 votes so far, I completely believed that it was otherwise. Maybe just enthusiasts voted hehe

 

[WhiteNoise]

4K 60Hz and love it. Not saying I'm apposed to 60+Hz but I use TV's as a gaming monitor and have been for many years. My Samsung has a beautiful picture and I love it.

 

[Papahyooie]

1080p 144hz for shooters... I'd play at 720p all low settings if I had to in order to get 144hz. Unfortunately I play overwatch religiously, and my i5 4690 is not up to the task of feeding a stable 144hz on my 980Ti... lowering resolution and detail does nothing, so it's definitely a CPU bottleneck. In every other game I have, I can manage 144hz stable, but I have to drop to 120hz for Overwatch to avoid stuttering and jumping between 144 and ~125fps.... stupid frame drops...

I have to say though, 120hz is still really good.

 

[John Naylor]

The first thing before buying SLI should be verifying that your CPU wont bottleneck the 2nd card, if it is already then buy a faster CPU first.

Very True .... a GFX card bottleneck will often be replaced by a CPU or RAM speed bottlenect when looking at min fps or SLI / CF

 

[Mighty-Lu-Bu]

Nowadays almost any CPU is enough to play at 60 FPS as long as you have a powerful GPU, so people with monitors or TVs at 60 Hz there is not point in upgrading your CPU. I hope I included the most popular resolutions.

Even though I think there is nothing wrong with gaming at 1080p, I think the best resolution to game at is 1400p @144hz- 4K is a complete waste.

 

[WikiFM]

Even though I think there is nothing wrong with gaming at 1080p, I think the best resolution to game at is 1400p @144hz- 4K is a complete waste.

Why is 4K a waste?

 

[cucker tarlson]

Why is 4K a waste?

it's not a waste, but the performance hit compared to 1440p is huge while quality improvement isn't. I can't see myself going away from 1440p 165hz any time in the foreseeable future, even if 4K 120 becomes standard. You can have a very pleasant experience with a high refresh 1440p panel on 1070Ti or vega 56, surely it's not gonna be 140 fps, but close to 100 fps fore sure,which is a lot better than 60. To get a good experience at 4K you need a 1070Ti at least too, but that's gonna be running into 50s a lot if not most of the time. Compare 4K at 50 fp vs 1440p at +90 fps, it's clear the the visuals/fluidity winner is. One drawback is for 60Hz 4K you can basically make do with a $100 CPU by todays standars, even an i3 can deliver 60. You need at least an i5 or Ryzen 5 for high refresh gaming, but they're affordable these days (at least Ryzen is cause Intel's prices are just stupid high ATM). I've been using 144hz 1440p since 2015 with 980Ti,then 1080 and now 1080Ti, and been on z97 all the time. when 4790K started showing its age I just got a used 5775c with little additional costs and it was a great match for 1080, it drives 1080Ti fine as well though I'm starting to see CPU usage in 70-80s on a regular basis and GPU is not always at locked 99%, though always above 95% at least.

 

[Mighty-Lu-Bu]

Why is 4K a waste?

Because there are very few GPUs out there that can actually handle 4k at a steady 60fps and even when there are, they are expensive. You then have to get a 4K monitor which are currently some of the most expensive monitors out there- want a G-Sync 4K monitor? Then at the minimum you are going to be spending about $550 for a cheap monitor and over $1000 for a high-end monitor. Basically, it just gets expensive- that's why I say 1440p is more ideal because you get better frame rates and you don't need to spend as much money on hardware.

If you are a millionaire and money is no object then go for it, but for most gamers the cost just isn't justified. 1400p is that sweet spot- it's better than 1080p, but no where near as expensive as 4k. For new hardware, at the bare minimum you will be paying over $1000 (the cost of an entire system) to game at 4k which is pretty ridiculous.