Does High FPS make you a better gamer? Ft. Shroud - FINAL ANSWER

> I can buy that humans can see at least 120hz at a minimum. 60Hz is the generally accepted threshold, but I’ve long suspected that 120Hz has mostly imperceptible effects that are still noticeable, if rarely. There are videos on youtube showing people perceive differences at much higher framerates. e.g. ▶ this video (long video, so you can skip to the end - they found that even casual players were performing measurably more consistently at 240Hz than even 144Hz.) Anecdotally, I recently switched to playing racing games at 165FPS and the difference is massive!

Ltt has done some videos, probably there are other channels but I haven't looked. The results I remember are that 240hz was significantly better than 144hz, ▶ this video but past that fps is sort of meaningless as the response time is slower than the refresh rate and you get artifacts. link

According to LTT, that's somewhere between 240hz and 500hz. Does High FPS make you a better gamer? Ft. Shroud (60hz vs 144hz vs 240hz): ▶ this video You don't deserve this monitor - does 360hz gaming make a difference?: link I THOUGHT I Wanted This - AW2524H 500Hz Review: link

>Worst case we're talking about an additional input latency due to vsync of maybe 1/60s? 16ms? its generally closer to 2 frames with V-Sync [1][2] > I don't believe 16ms is significant for non pro level eSports players and even skeptical it's a big factor at that level. It actually is fairly significant. LTT did a series of tests with pro players in CS:GO focused on monitor refresh rate, but one test they did was 60hz/60fps vs 60hz/300fps and found that reducing the render latency drastically improved performance despite the display still being locked to 60hz. ▶ this video [1] link [2] link

LTT also tested this for FPS games and both professionals and casual gamers improved significantly going from 60HZ to 144+. ▶ this video

> you're moving around too fast to really appreciate (or even notice) the difference RT gives you over fake reflections. You're also at a disadvantage running the graphics on High. In any game that I want to play at a "competitive" level, I always put the settings to the absolute lowest settings so the computer always gets 100+ FPS. No reason to even try to optimize. The point is winning, not it looking good. In fact, in some games, the developers have had to go back and make it more fair for higher settings because of low settings hiding tall grass. ▶ this video

Well the benefit is most obvious for a competitive video gamer. Lets say they're having a sniper battle in a video game, the first to click will kill the other player. Somebody with a 60hz monitor might have to wait 17ms for the enemies image to render on screen so they can react. Somebody with a 240hz monitor might only have to wait 4ms. When reaction times in a competitive game are around 150 to 200ms that's a pretty large swing. See this: ▶ this video This article is also interesting: link . Beyond that, I think latency has a significant performance impact on many human tasks, I know that humans in videoconferencing can detect extremely small differences in latency. Higher refresh rate I think outside of latency benefits does allow some things to be more easily perceived like text in motion which normally blurs.

This could work for casual FPS games, but for competitive FPS gaming like Counter-Strike or Valorant, 20ms is a deal breaker for players who want to perform at a high level. Pro FPS players consistently choose monitors with the highest refresh rates available. This informal experiment is quite convincing Does High FPS make you a better gamer?: ▶ this video A 60hz refresh rate corresponds to 16.67 milliseconds frame time, and a 240hz rate corresponds to 4.2 milliseconds. The issue here is not reaction time, but "feel". Even a moderately skilled player can test this for themselves by switching between refresh rates. Specifically the "feel" is the relationship between moving the mouse and the shift of perspective on the screen. Low refresh rates cause players to over correct their aim as the gaps between frames are larger, and the motion on the screen is less smooth.

While they are more entertainment than science, I believe LTT performed a few tests like on this topic: - link - ▶ this video

> Most professional CS is played at 4:3 stretched so the PC is pulling in hundreds of FPS That's unlikely to be true anymore. Even a modestly modern GPU can produce 100's of FPS in CS:GO at 1920x1080 or higher resolutions. Benchmarks for the 3080 were showing 400-500 FPS in CS:GO at 1440p resolutions. After maybe double your screen refresh rate, all excess FPS don't matter and are effectively wasted. Pro's mostly use 144Hz monitors because 240Hz is indistinguishable[1] - making anything above 288FPS basically a waste (and it's debatable if anything above 144FPS with FreeSync enabled is a waste too). [1] ▶ this video