F5F Stay Refreshed Software PC Gaming A 60Hz screen has a maximum frame rate of 60 frames per second – is this accurate?

A 60Hz screen has a maximum frame rate of 60 frames per second – is this accurate?

A 60Hz screen has a maximum frame rate of 60 frames per second – is this accurate?

Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3 Next
P
privy223
Member
115
08-25-2019, 11:23 AM
#11
Therefore, purchasing a 144Hz monitor and graphics card simultaneously seems like the most logical action. Investing in a graphics card at this time wouldn’t be beneficial, as my finances are currently prioritized for a monitor. I could still play more recent games at 60 frames per second, but my gaming library includes older titles, so this isn’t a significant factor. Furthermore, adding an additional card wouldn’t provide a substantial boost beyond 60 fps – a gain of only 10-15 frames that wouldn’t be realized without a higher refresh rate display. Both of those cards, however, would deliver significantly more than 60 fps, something I wouldn’t be able to achieve with a card alone.
P
privy223
08-25-2019, 11:23 AM #11

Therefore, purchasing a 144Hz monitor and graphics card simultaneously seems like the most logical action. Investing in a graphics card at this time wouldn’t be beneficial, as my finances are currently prioritized for a monitor. I could still play more recent games at 60 frames per second, but my gaming library includes older titles, so this isn’t a significant factor. Furthermore, adding an additional card wouldn’t provide a substantial boost beyond 60 fps – a gain of only 10-15 frames that wouldn’t be realized without a higher refresh rate display. Both of those cards, however, would deliver significantly more than 60 fps, something I wouldn’t be able to achieve with a card alone.

G
Goku_Jerome
Senior Member
428
08-25-2019, 05:24 PM
#12
Should you run graphically demanding games such as Metro Exodus on an R9 390, you’d likely struggle to maintain framerates between 45 and 50 frames per second. To achieve consistently smooth gameplay at a 144Hz monitor with high-end titles like Metro Exodus, set to ultra settings, a RTX 2070 and Intel’s high instruction-per-clock efficiency would be necessary to synchronize frames with that refresh rate.
G
Goku_Jerome
08-25-2019, 05:24 PM #12

Should you run graphically demanding games such as Metro Exodus on an R9 390, you’d likely struggle to maintain framerates between 45 and 50 frames per second. To achieve consistently smooth gameplay at a 144Hz monitor with high-end titles like Metro Exodus, set to ultra settings, a RTX 2070 and Intel’s high instruction-per-clock efficiency would be necessary to synchronize frames with that refresh rate.

V
VeroPlayz
Member
235
08-28-2019, 07:52 PM
#13
This video wasn’t exactly what I was looking for, but it does provide some assistance.

Watch: https://youtu.be/xgr9GW3jUuQ?t=275

This could be the reason it appears more fluid at a higher frame rate.
V
VeroPlayz
08-28-2019, 07:52 PM #13

This video wasn’t exactly what I was looking for, but it does provide some assistance.

Watch: https://youtu.be/xgr9GW3jUuQ?t=275

This could be the reason it appears more fluid at a higher frame rate.

B
bengalwatcher
Posting Freak
801
08-30-2019, 01:14 AM
#14
Hey, does anyone know why I'm not seeing minimum/average/maximum FPS in the on-screen display within Afterburner? I've updated to the newest version.
B
bengalwatcher
08-30-2019, 01:14 AM #14

Hey, does anyone know why I'm not seeing minimum/average/maximum FPS in the on-screen display within Afterburner? I've updated to the newest version.

I
ianislebg17
Junior Member
28
08-30-2019, 04:01 AM
#15
I’ve experienced the same issue with that functionality.
I
ianislebg17
08-30-2019, 04:01 AM #15

I’ve experienced the same issue with that functionality.

J
jackymai
Member
65
08-31-2019, 01:45 PM
#16
The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is typically capable of delivering a frame rate of 60 frames per second in the majority of games at a resolution of 2560 by 1080. However, with a more powerful graphics card and VSync disabled, you might experience “tearing,” which manifests as small divisions appearing on the screen when the display is in the process of rendering a frame, while simultaneously the video card advances to the subsequent frame, resulting in a visual overlap of partially completed frames.
J
jackymai
08-31-2019, 01:45 PM #16

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti is typically capable of delivering a frame rate of 60 frames per second in the majority of games at a resolution of 2560 by 1080. However, with a more powerful graphics card and VSync disabled, you might experience “tearing,” which manifests as small divisions appearing on the screen when the display is in the process of rendering a frame, while simultaneously the video card advances to the subsequent frame, resulting in a visual overlap of partially completed frames.

M
Moonberry011
Junior Member
20
09-22-2019, 05:52 AM
#17
I wouldn’t claim it's useless without a quicker display. As I mentioned, a superior graphics card will guarantee you’re now experiencing and will continue to experience 60 frames per second. I initially purchased a 280 when it was released and am now considering an upgrade after several years. It previously allowed me to accomplish my goals, but it’s beginning to demonstrate its limitations recently. I could have chosen a less expensive card, however that would have resulted in significantly slower performance and necessitated an earlier upgrade.

Therefore, it isn't a regrettable expenditure to invest in the improved graphics card even if you don’t have a superior monitor; it will currently be more than sufficient but will prove adequate in a couple of years, saving money on an earlier upgrade. Furthermore, should you encounter an exceptional deal on a 144Hz monitor later on, you can acquire it knowing your graphics card will comfortably handle its demands.
M
Moonberry011
09-22-2019, 05:52 AM #17

I wouldn’t claim it's useless without a quicker display. As I mentioned, a superior graphics card will guarantee you’re now experiencing and will continue to experience 60 frames per second. I initially purchased a 280 when it was released and am now considering an upgrade after several years. It previously allowed me to accomplish my goals, but it’s beginning to demonstrate its limitations recently. I could have chosen a less expensive card, however that would have resulted in significantly slower performance and necessitated an earlier upgrade.

Therefore, it isn't a regrettable expenditure to invest in the improved graphics card even if you don’t have a superior monitor; it will currently be more than sufficient but will prove adequate in a couple of years, saving money on an earlier upgrade. Furthermore, should you encounter an exceptional deal on a 144Hz monitor later on, you can acquire it knowing your graphics card will comfortably handle its demands.

J
jimmoylis
Junior Member
1
09-24-2019, 04:01 AM
#18
I'm currently uncertain about whether to purchase a monitor alongside a graphics card. Perhaps I should postpone the GPU upgrade until I have access to more graphically intensive games, when my R9 390 struggles to maintain at least 40 frames per second. It seems illogical to acquire a graphics card without a compatible monitor, considering my current financial limitations and the fact that I intend to purchase a 144Hz monitor in the future, potentially leading to lower prices. I’m not particularly concerned about how my R9 390 performs with Metro Exodus, as I possess a collection of older games already installed. However, a 144Hz monitor is quite expensive, costing around €500 for a 2560x1440 model. Alternatively, a 1660 Ti would not be an ideal solution at that resolution with maximum or high settings. Purchasing a 1920x1080 144Hz monitor would be more affordable, but it would return me to a lower resolution. What is the discernible difference in visual quality between gaming at 1920x1080 and 2560x1440?
J
jimmoylis
09-24-2019, 04:01 AM #18

I'm currently uncertain about whether to purchase a monitor alongside a graphics card. Perhaps I should postpone the GPU upgrade until I have access to more graphically intensive games, when my R9 390 struggles to maintain at least 40 frames per second. It seems illogical to acquire a graphics card without a compatible monitor, considering my current financial limitations and the fact that I intend to purchase a 144Hz monitor in the future, potentially leading to lower prices. I’m not particularly concerned about how my R9 390 performs with Metro Exodus, as I possess a collection of older games already installed. However, a 144Hz monitor is quite expensive, costing around €500 for a 2560x1440 model. Alternatively, a 1660 Ti would not be an ideal solution at that resolution with maximum or high settings. Purchasing a 1920x1080 144Hz monitor would be more affordable, but it would return me to a lower resolution. What is the discernible difference in visual quality between gaming at 1920x1080 and 2560x1440?

M
Mrender3
Senior Member
412
09-24-2019, 04:21 AM
#19
Consider experimenting with the 390 and examining whether operational functionality can be achieved through modified visual configurations, subsequently reaching a well-reasoned conclusion based on your observations.
M
Mrender3
09-24-2019, 04:21 AM #19

Consider experimenting with the 390 and examining whether operational functionality can be achieved through modified visual configurations, subsequently reaching a well-reasoned conclusion based on your observations.

E
eD_MaS
Junior Member
12
09-24-2019, 09:42 AM
#20
A person has previously attempted this and many others have, and it’s not particularly challenging for an older graphics card (around 3.5 years old). What current game title is currently the most strenuous to run, so I can test my card’s performance?
E
eD_MaS
09-24-2019, 09:42 AM #20

A person has previously attempted this and many others have, and it’s not particularly challenging for an older graphics card (around 3.5 years old). What current game title is currently the most strenuous to run, so I can test my card’s performance?

Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3 Next