Gone to 165 HZ what's the difference.

[kapone32]

I was using (and still do) an 49" 4K 60 hz screen for everything and in Gaming I would get 60 to 70 FPS running the Division 2 @ 1440P. I now have a 32" 1440P 165hz screen and my average FPS is now 144.4 according to AMD's precision software. I was using a RX5700 in both cases.

 

[vega22]

it should seem smoother to the eye. set it back to 60hz and then try 144/165hz and see if you can tell the difference.

personally i can not tell the difference past 120hz

 

[Vayra86]

Comparing between different panels is comparing different panels.

If you want a comparison of the actual difference between normal and high refresh rates you need to test it on the same panel. TV's can use interpolation to make images seem smoother, but it adds latency. In general, TV latency is also a bit higher, and this can attribute to smoothness as frametimes are longer, making steady FPS much easier, and we perceive that as smoothness.

Monitors otoh have lower latencies so any hit in frame times can be 'felt' much more easily. GPUs can do a form of smoothing on the FPS variance, but even so, due to lower latency, the whole experience should be more 'direct' than a TV, response should feel more like an instant than delayed response, however little.

The difference between 144hz and 165hz though... even if you can perceive it, its negligible and not something to sacrifice other things for, if you ask me. If you can hit 120ish hz and set the panel for that fixed refresh, you're probably better off as you gain consistency and still have high refresh. 165 is also a little bit problematic as it halves to 87.5 which relates only to 24fps video and nothing else. Desync is likely when half-rate (adaptive) Vsync gets utilized, for example, causing a very visible tear.

144 has somewhat less, but still similar problems. The logical step from 120 would be either 150 or 180hz capable panels, for PC use. If you are out of frame sync (even by ratio) you will experience it as choppy, at least, that is what I've seen. 100hz on my 120hz native panel 'feels' a bit like 50 with twice the frame count, if you catch my drift. But if I run 60, it usually feels more natural than 100.

 

[kapone32]

it should seem smoother to the eye. set it back to 60hz and then try 144/165hz and see if you can tell the difference.

personally i can not tell the difference past 120hz

Well the Division 2 does feel "faster" and I did set it to 60 (noticeably slower) what I notice are things like zooming through a scope, seeing enemies clearly and the character not seeming to plod along. What really intrigues me though is how this could effect review benchmarks as I just ran one and this is what I got.

 

[jesdals]

Wish that I could that on my setup

Could you try to run your setup with the monitors in a Eyefinity setup with the 2 times 1440p would be interesting to se if Eyefinity scales or there is a price for more than one monitor.

 

[vega22]

Well the Division 2 does feel "faster" and I did set it to 60 (noticeably slower) what I notice are things like zooming through a scope, seeing enemies clearly and the character not seeming to plod along. What really intrigues me though is how this could effect review benchmarks as I just ran one and this is what I got.View attachment 165791

unless you had v sync on the hz of the screen has 0 impact.

good to hear you can tell the difference

 

[mtcn77]

I was using (and still do) an 49" 4K 60 hz screen for everything and in Gaming I would get 60 to 70 FPS running the Division 2 @ 1440P. I now have a 32" 1440P 165hz screen and my average FPS is now 144.4 according to AMD's precision software. I was using a RX5700 in both cases.

This is the first instance of interface latency impact that I can recollect.

 

[phanbuey]

it's probably a power setting on the AMD drivers, that if you have a 60Hz screen and have it enabled it basically doesnt run the card as hard once you're above 60. Now that you have a 144hz screen it's doing the same for 144 and basically gets you to 149 and stops trying (the 79% gpu usage). If you set your card to full bore then you should be getting an odd number of fps at 95-100% GPU load (or close to that if you're not bottle-necked by cpu/ram) -- you probably have whatever power setting enabled to keep the card from sucking extra juice once it's above the capability of your monitor.

Actually impressive driver trick -- keeps the noise and power bills down, I imagine, while still providing top gaming experience.

What really intrigues me though is how this could effect review benchmarks as I just ran one and this is what I got.

Reviewers turn all the power/FPS cap features off so it wouldn't affect the raw performance results. Definitely could impact the subjective review of the cooling though, since they probably think the card is much louder/hotter than it actually is, esp during normal gaming.

 

[EarthDog]

I was using (and still do) an 49" 4K 60 hz screen for everything and in Gaming I would get 60 to 70 FPS running the Division 2 @ 1440P. I now have a 32" 1440P 165hz screen and my average FPS is now 144.4 according to AMD's precision software. I was using a RX5700 in both cases.

What are you asking?

What really intrigues me though is how this could effect review benchmarks as I just ran one and this is what I got.

It shouldn't... at least any reviewer who's at least semi-conscious would catch such a difference.

That said, that game for me, when you adjust settings... sometimes it takes, sometimes not. Sometimes it randomly caps fps to 30 or 60. What settings are you running it at? By default vsync is on and will reenae when you switch presets.

 

[vega22]

This is the first instance of interface latency impact that I can recollect.

4k vs 1440p dude.

 

[mtcn77]

4k vs 1440p dude.

in Gaming I would get 60 to 70 FPS running the Division 2 @ 1440P. I now have a 32" 1440P 165hz screen

Please post your own thoughts & content with posts like these please. Thanks! - TPU Moderation

 

[Vario]

I've found 165Hz is really good for fast paced reaction based games such as Mordhau.

 

[P4-630]

Don't know if you play GTA V but it really looks bad at 60fps, it looks like a slideshow imo, it looks so much better at 120+ fps, I'll never go back to 60Hz monitors for gaming.

 

[EarthDog]

I'll never go back to 60Hz monitors for gaming.

This. But I'm still not 100% sure what the OP is asking/wants to know.

 

[hurakura]

@kapone32

Why the fps increase when switched to monitor with higher refresh rate? That's what you are asking?

 

[skizzo]

since I was mostly a console gamer my whole life, born in 1985 here, me seeing anything over 30FPS was like a "wow factor". that's just me personally. only in the last couple years have I preferred to play games on a computer and I started learning more about hardware. Along those lines was learning about refresh rate and how that impacts the gaming experience. I still game on a 49" 60hz screen too on my PC and the difference between 30hz and 60hz is very noticeable. hell I can tell when FPS dip down to like 50FPS now. it is something you can "train" your eye to be more aware/sensitive to. So my point is I could really tell the difference between 60hz and 120hz just as much. So you really should notice an improvement in how smooth motion looks. It should reducing "smearing" (taking too long to transition from one color to another aka the response time) and other related artifacts

 

[HD64G]

Working/gaming on a 120/144Hz monitor for less than 2 months now me thinks that only for very high speed movement a higher refresh rate monitor would be able to offer a bit more. Imho a good picture quality monitor of 100+Hz is smooth enough for >90% of PC owners.

 

[kapone32]

@kapone32

Why the fps increase when switched to monitor with higher refresh rate? That's what you are asking?

The thing for me is that even in official benchmarks the averages don't seem that high with the Game itself. Is it the engine, a DX12 implementation or the card that is doing it? I haven't tried a ton of Games but Titanfall 2 also seems to be faster. Other games like Total War and Jedi Fallen Order do not show a difference either but since the Freesync range is 45 45 40 165hz every single game has been butter smooth. I played the Beta for Marvel Avengers this weekend (what do you guys think) and got 67.7 FPS averages according to Precision Boost. I'll probably load up Everspace 2 beta after work (don't have to pick up the daughter from Daycare) and see if there is a difference there.

What are you asking?

It shouldn't... at least any reviewer who's at least semi-conscious would catch such a difference.

That said, that game for me, when you adjust settings... sometimes it takes, sometimes not. Sometimes it randomly caps fps to 30 or 60. What settings are you running it at? By default vsync is on and will reenae when you switch presets.

Sorry I did not see your post. I have everything at Ultra and my FPS cap to 144 on the slider and I never run Vsync in any game.

 

[EarthDog]

and I never run Vsync in any game.

Me either, however, every time you switch canned settings, it enables. Be careful.

But yes, if a reviewer sees this, any one that is at least semi-conscious would catch such a difference. As I said though, the only problem I have with this game is it's enabling some vsync (matches my the refresh rate) and I need to reboot it. I've never seen it run 'too fast'.

Maybe your multi-GPU setup is causing what you are seeing? No idea.

 

[kapone32]

Me either, however, every time you switch canned settings, it enables. Be careful.

But yes, if a reviewer sees this, any one that is at least semi-conscious would catch such a difference. As I said though, the only problem I have with this game is it's enabling some vsync (matches my the refresh rate) and I need to reboot it. I've never seen it run 'too fast'.

Maybe your multi-GPU setup is causing what you are seeing? No idea.

Yes the game can be finicky. The thing is I was using a 5700 based machine to do the testing. It doesn't (yet) have another 5700 .

 

[Space Lynx]

90hz is the sweet spot, after that everything is diminishing returns. BUT i can never go back to 60hz. and i do want 240hz. so im just a madman

play a card game like magic the gathering arena at 60hz, the cards are so blurry when you draw them and play them. but at 165hz... its all so smooth. its very pleasant to look at imo. even a card game benefits from high refresh. i know most will disagree with me, but to me gaming is an art form, so if i can have less blur on my cards as i play and draw, then hey more cool for me. im not forcing anyone else to enjoy the smoothness.

Yes the game can be finicky. The thing is I was using a 5700 based machine to do the testing. It doesn't (yet) have another 5700 .

don't get a second card, dual gpu setups never work well

 

[skizzo]

Yes the game can be finicky. The thing is I was using a 5700 based machine to do the testing. It doesn't (yet) have another 5700 .

seeing how a RX 5700 doesn't even support crossfire, nor does any Navi based card, you're idea of putting another one in is pointless

 

[EarthDog]

90hz is the sweet spot, after that everything is diminishing returns.

lol, bologna. All of that. Your next paragraph even covers why... lol... you are a madman, indeed.

 

[kapone32]

seeing how a RX 5700 doesn't even support crossfire, nor does any Navi based card, you're idea of putting another one in is pointless

Umm it does support DX12 Multi GPU and my favourite Game supports it. Remember that the first word in PC is personal.

 

[Vayra86]

90hz is the sweet spot, after that everything is diminishing returns. BUT i can never go back to 60hz. and i do want 240hz. so im just a madman

play a card game like magic the gathering arena at 60hz, the cards are so blurry when you draw them and play them. but at 165hz... its all so smooth. its very pleasant to look at imo. even a card game benefits from high refresh. i know most will disagree with me, but to me gaming is an art form, so if i can have less blur on my cards as i play and draw, then hey more cool for me. im not forcing anyone else to enjoy the smoothness.



don't get a second card, dual gpu setups never work well

Yeah I second that. MTGA at 120 is buttery smooth, its a joy to watch. At 60... nope.

But that goes for all isometric games too. Dota... Diablo... etc etc Anything with static elements moving across the screen gets a major boost in clarity. Text as well. But then... it also works for any 3D game really. High refresh is just awesome, simple.

lol, bologna. All of that. Your next paragraph even covers why... lol... you are a madman, indeed.

If you maxed stable at 90hz, that is what you'll get used to and perceive as the optimal smoothness.

It IS true that post 90~100 you suffer from diminishing returns. But a big factor is what your native refresh is. If its 60, that will be perceived as smooth, too. Just need to look at it for long enough.

The real trick to enjoying high refresh rates is to not set the bar too high. If you get used to 165hz... good luck holding that in all your games. The end result is your net gain is zero, or negative. Better settle for something much lower and get that entirely stable.

This is the whole reason I'm still on this pitiful 24 inch 1080p 120hz panel. The gain from going bigger is going to be very hard to get.