Sure, let me explain it in a simpler way. What seems confusing is the reasoning behind this logic.
Sure, let me explain it in a simpler way. What seems confusing is the reasoning behind this logic.
Discussing with a few Rocket League fans who use 144Hz displays about issues in the 150s range.
It's because higher settings mean better performance. Buying a 4K monitor usually comes with lower latency, shifting from 1ms to 5ms response times. This isn't just theory—you can actually notice more 60fps on a 60Hz screen or 150fps on a 144Hz one. If you see dips, it might be due to inconsistent frame timing.
His reasoning is that the display can choose a newer image when it runs at 400 frames per second versus 200 fps. Imagine a 60Hz screen and 60 frames per second—those images aren't captured precisely when the monitor refreshes. With 120 fps, the likelihood increases that your monitor updates to a more recent frame than at 60 fps.
It's also possible you're experiencing similar issues with distorted images caused by factors such as tearing.
Playing at 400 FPS on a 144Hz display results in roughly 2.78 frames per refresh. The main issue is that only the lower portion of the screen displays the freshest image, which keeps changing. Unless you prefer constantly checking the top and bottom and have a lot of screen space available, this setup doesn't seem beneficial.
They dismiss the 8ms figure as just a refresh rate, suggesting it's unrelated to response time. It seems they're confused about the topic.
It seems you're questioning the meaning behind a statement about displaying incomplete frames. The suggestion implies that viewing issues arise from showing partial images before the screen refreshes fully.