The "60fps" standard may be outdated depending on the context.
The "60fps" standard may be outdated depending on the context.
I relocated to 144hz about a year and a half ago. Now I think 60 fps isn't enough anymore. It feels slow for me, especially since 144hz screens are more affordable and 1080p is also cheap. Both options are within reach of a 1440p 60hz setup. Why settle for lower resolution when smoother gameplay is possible? This is just a conversation I'm hoping you can help with.
It varies. My setup has a 165Hz monitor and I still value the visual quality at 60Hz in certain games over higher frame rates. Still, I prioritize more FPS, especially in titles like Witcher 3 where appearance matters most. If it runs at full settings at 100FPS, I accept it—60FPS isn’t that important here. In games such as Rocket League, Overwatch, or Battlefield 1, I wouldn’t consider 60FPS outdated. We’ll reach a point soon where this is more common.
Games are becoming more challenging now due to high refresh panels and frequent drawing calls. Review the sig. (480 test).
The price of 144Hz displays has dropped significantly, though in Canada the most affordable options still sit around $200. I could opt for a 60-75Hz Freesync model and redirect the savings toward a new AMD GPU. Yes, I've experimented with 144Hz—its quality is great, but I miss sticking to it. Still, spending $200 on a monitor that my GPU can't handle feels like a waste of money. Short summary: budget matters a lot.
It also makes a big difference having G-Sync enabled, which means I can enjoy smoother gameplay at reduced frame rates in tough SP titles.
But wouldn't it be wiser to have coverage right away? I've owned several monitors over the years—three 16-inch and two 21-inch, plus a 144Hz 24-inch. For the long term, I tend to replace them every couple of years, buying a new one each time. I prefer investing in something durable rather than dealing with issues like low refresh rates or stuttering.