Discussion: Anything above 60 fps for PC gaming is unnecessary
Discussion: Anything above 60 fps for PC gaming is unnecessary
I believe that most monitors used for PC gaming should be 60hz. Anything above 60 fps is an unnecessary premium. Why? Because the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X both have a maximum capability of 60 fps. Buying a 60hz monitor would allow you to take full advantage of those machines capabilities as well as PC rigs.
Here is a rewritten version of the provided text, aiming for clarity and conciseness:
“The following analysis contains contradictory statements and conclusions due to an illogical approach. The evidence presented does not support the stated conclusion because it’s based on conflicting information.”
My point was if most console players are playing at 60fps then why should PC gamers be playing on anything more? PC Gamers could play at 120fps but is 120fps really needed?
Why should our experiences be limited by the necessary bounds of a console that doesn't have upgradable hardware?
Why should a Ferrari or a Lamborghini exist if most people use Toyotas or Hondas? Why should steak exists if most people are happy with hamburgers?
Here’s a rewritten version of the text, focusing on conveying the core ideas and arguments:
The discussion centers around whether a 60Hz refresh rate is truly optimal, given that many consoles are limited to this frame rate. The argument against higher refresh rates – like 120Hz – relies heavily on the assumption that console players don’t care about smoother visuals, despite the potential benefits. However, this premise appears questionable.
The key issue is that limitations in hardware – specifically consoles and older TVs – dictate what’s achievable. While it's true that many console users find 60Hz acceptable, this doesn't automatically translate to a lack of desire for higher refresh rates if they were available. The experience can feel choppy, particularly in fast-paced games where smoother motion would significantly improve gameplay.
The argument that console players are uninterested in higher options is based on assumption rather than evidence. It’s possible many would prefer a 120Hz or similar display if the console hardware and TVs could support it. Personal experience highlights this point: even with slower-paced games, the difference between 60Hz and a higher refresh rate becomes noticeable in fast-action titles.
Ultimately, determining whether a higher refresh rate is “superior” requires understanding player preference – specifically, how many would actually *want* it despite existing limitations.
Consoles run games at lower settings, thus PC gamers should never turn settings to max.
That's the logic I see.
Sure, high refresh is not necessary, but that doesn't mean we all should be stuck to 60hz.
Sure, high settings are not necessary, but that doesn't mean we all should use low detail.
That's what's great about PC gaming, we have more choice over settings and such.
There is a reason many popular games just put separate matchmaking for console and PC players.
Here’s the rewritten text:
The debate around refresh rates in gaming is complex. While some PC gamers desire higher refresh rates – like 144Hz monitors – to achieve optimal performance, it’s often unnecessary for consoles like PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. These systems are inherently limited by their compact design, leaving little room for significant upgrades that would support higher refresh rates.
Furthermore, prioritizing 60Hz for console gamers could unfairly disadvantage PC players who already utilize high-refresh rate monitors to gain a competitive edge in gaming tournaments. The value of increased refresh rates – such as 240Hz – lies in its ability to deliver smoother visuals and potentially better performance, particularly in fast-paced games.
Ultimately, PC gamers shouldn't be forced to adopt lower refresh rates simply because consoles don’t support them. The benefits of higher refresh rates are substantial for PC gaming, and limiting their potential would be detrimental to the overall gaming experience.
There has been a long time discussion on a supposed limitation that humans can't actually see faster than 60FPS. I am not sure where the science stands on that, but can say that whether I can actually SEE past that frame rate, what I can detect is a smoothing of action, particularly pan shots and such, as you raise the FPS. This type thing is easily seen by reducing movie or video content to 30FPS and see the hitching as the camera pans.
In my own opinion on the subject...I play single player campaigns on my PC. I am not quick enough or good enough at games to play these giant multiplayers. In a single player mode I see very little reason to upgrade beyond it. It is my understanding, and I parrott, that having higher frames in multi player type games offers (in addition to those frames) more reaction opportunity.
https://www.windowscentral.com/xbox-one-120hz
Also the upcoming Playstation and Xbox consoles will also support 120Hz displays.