This video is sponsored by Nvidia and PC Specialist. PC Specialist is one of Europe’s leading
system integrators, specialising in high-performance, custom-built Gaming PCs & Laptops for enthusiasts,
gamers and creators. Check out the link in this video’s description to configure your
own high-framerate machine, which and they'll build, test and deliver to your door.
Watch this video at 720p setting or above, otherwise the human eye won’t be able to
see more than 30 FPS. Most people know the importance of having
a fast PC with a good processor and graphics card, but even if you have all of that, a
lot its potential is wasted if you have a substandard monitor. These days, there are
many ways in which a new monitor can make your experience on the computer better; you
can have a bigger screen, or a higher resolution- but one of the most tangible differences I
feel is to have a higher refresh rate. That being- one that refreshes more than the usual
60 times a second. High refresh rates aren’t the mysterious
technology that they used to be. These days, it’s not just the pros and hardcore enthusiasts
who use and benefit from high refresh-rate monitors- it’s gradually creeping into the
mainstream, it’s being added to phones, laptops, and even some titles on the next
generation of consoles might be designed to run beyond 60 fps. On the PC front, 144 hz
has been the gaming standard for a while and it’s getting to the point where using a
standard 60 hz monitor will put you at a significant disadvantage against other players in competitive
games like CS:GO. And even if you’re not planning to play competitively, a high refresh
rate monitor makes even general gaming and desktop use feel more responsive and… NICER.
A standard monitor displays 60 pictures a second. High refresh rate monitors can display
significantly more- 144 hz is the most popular but now, 240 and even 360 hz monitors are
beginning to come out. Provided your PC is powerful enough, the more often your monitor
refreshes, the smoother motion will appear, the more responsive your controls will be
and hence, the better you’ll play. In this video’s description is a link to
Nvidia’s site where, among other things, they conducted a study showing this correlation
between framerates and K/D ratio. This isn’t specifically monitor refresh rates, but framerates
are a close cousin- you effectively need both to be high to make the most of it. And guess
what- it seems like the more frames a second people have, the better they play.
For example, somebody gaming at 180 frames per second gets almost double the KD ratio
of somebody playing at 60. I first assumed that maybe people with higher frames per second
would play the game more, and thus were more likely to be better at the game. Which is
why THIS graph is so intriguing- because it shows that if two people are playing the same
amount per week, the one with the faster graphics card is likely to be better.
The trend shown here suggests that the best players are the ones who play the game the
most and who also have the faster hardware. Correllation does not equal causation. But
regardless, the correlation is intriguing, and I think there’s a strong case to be
made for higher FPS allowing you to play better- or at least, hindering you less than a lower
framerate would. If you’re a bad player, a high refresh rate
monitor isn’t going to make you a good one- it’s merely one less thing that can stop
you from playing well. It’ll improve your reflexes in games, it’ll make your flick-shots
more precise and so on. And from this graph, it seems like the difference it makes can
be quite substantial- (potentially almost doubling your score!) …though the benefit
begins to level off at around 144 fps… which is where the refresh rates of gaming monitors
begins! Of course, it’s one thing to hear that high
refresh rate monitors are better. But it can be difficult to justify the investment without
knowing roughly what to expect from it. But the problem is, you can’t know what high
refresh rates feel like until you’ve tried them. Which makes my job difficult: how can
I possibly explain what it’s like when Youtube is limited to 60 FPS?
I might not do a perfect job of it in this video, but I think I can do better than stuff
like THIS, which is what I often see shown to demonstrate how high refresh rates are
apparently better. I think the easiest way to imagine a high
refresh rate would instead be for you to suffer a low one. In CS:GO, you can use the console
command fps_max 30. Just… don’t do it in a competitive game. Please. You can see
30 fps gameplay here, which you’ll probably notice as looking a bit choppier than normal.
Cinematic, even!- but the effect is amplified when you’re controlling it for yourself.
Compared with 60 fps, 30 makes your actions feel delayed and approximate. It gets to the
point where even my mind begins to run at 30 fps, stuttering and lagging. Returning
to 60 fps again, it’s immediately noticeable how much more responsive it feels. What a
relief it is! And compared with 60, high refresh rate monitors are like another step up again.
Just be sure to enable it here once you get one!
Unfortunately, Youtube being limited to 60 fps, I can either show comparisons at 1/3
the speed, or I can simulate full-speed by showing 1 picture per frame on the 60 hz side
of the screen, and 3 pictures per frame for the 180 hz side- which has the unfortunate
side-effect of making 180 hz have more ghosting than the 60 hz one does, when in practice
it doesn’t. The opposite, even. You obviously don’t see all 3 pictures at the same time
on a 180 hz display, since it has enough individual frames to show one at a time. But you’ll
just have to get a 180 hz monitor to see that for yourself.
There are gameplay benefits to using these monitors. Nvidia conducted a study and concluded
that low latency determined how fast your reflexes were, but that higher framerates
helped your tracking. That is, to keep your crosshair over a moving target.
Ideally, you’ll want both- which you’ll get a with a good quality high refresh-rate
monitor. So how do high framerates help with your mouse
tracking? I certainly can’t consciously appreciate every individual frame that’s
displayed on a monitor every second. I think that while you aren’t aware of making small
adjustments to your aim mid-mouse-movement, the extra frames provide your subconscious
with more information, which helps guide your aim whether you’re aware of it or not. Kind
of the opposite to how gaming at 30 frames a second would hinder those same actions.
So that’s why I think high frame rates help your tracking in games.
The other factor- latency- is the delay before the action is displayed on your monitor. If
latency is low then the time it takes to press the fire button after seeing an enemy is lower,
as is the time taken before you initiate a flick-shot towards a target at the edge of
your screen. A high refresh rate monitor itself will help lower the latency because more images
are displayed every second, meaning the time between them is shortened. Hence, lower latency
before present information is displayed, which means you’ll see enemies around corners
sooner than you would on a lower refresh rate monitor.
It’s worth discussing the limitations of high refresh-rate monitors, too. To fully
appreciate them, your PC needs to be able to run the games AT those framerates. The
ideal situation is if you have a 240 hz monitor, that your PC is fast enough to also produce
240 frames a second, all perfectly spaced out. But more fps is always better. If your
PC is running at much higher framerates than your monitor can display, then there’s wasted
potential and buying a higher refresh rate monitor would make it look smoother.
And conversely, if your PC is running at lower framerates than your monitor can show, you
won’t be getting the full benefit of your monitor’s refresh rate. But if you get one
with a variable refresh rate technology such as freesync or gsync then this will synchronise
your monitor to your PC, making it feel really smooth, even at lower framerates. In casual
games you might favour higher graphics settings or resolutions over ultra-high framerates,
which is where a variable refresh rate would come in handy to keep latency as low as possible.
For competitive games though, you’d prioritise getting the highest framerates you can, as
it would be a shame to have a 240 hz monitor if your PC is only running these kinds of
games at 60 fps. If you’re in that situation, identify whether it’s a processor or graphics
card bottleneck and upgrade accordingly. If you check out the link in the description,
you’ll see this graph, which is useful in showing how each card in Nvidia’s current
graphics card line-up can run popular competitive games.
It’s useful to know that if you’re playing Overwatch, a 1650 Super would manage 144 FPS
average, ideal if you opt for a 144 hz monitor. But if you have a 240 hz monitor then you’ll
need a faster 2060 Super to reach that kind of framerate. Likewise, a 2060 Super is also
needed simply to break the 144 hz average in PUBG. So the hardware you need depends
on the game you’re playing. I don’t see CS:GO here, but I suspect it would be even
easier to run than Overwatch so even a 1650 Super would sit comfortably above 144 hz at
most times. And last, we’ve got to consider the diminishing
returns. Jumping from 30 to 60 hz drops the time between frames from 33 ms down to 17.
To achieve ANOTHER 17 ms drop you’d need infinite frames a second! So it’s obvious
that there’s a hard limit to how much more responsive the screen can get. But the important
question is: when does it stop making a noticeable difference? And have we reached it yet? According
to this graph from earlier, K/D improvements are seen going all the way up to 180 fps.
So while the improvements are seen levelling off after 140, beyond that does still make
a difference. It is an interesting thing to consider when for so many years, 60 FPS has
been a popular target framerate for gaming. To think, beyond that there’s still plenty
of room for improvement, which I guess competitive games have highlighted sooner than other genres
have. If you want to know why I got a high refresh
rate screen, it was because I was quite fond of the old CRT monitors, which themselves
came with incredibly high refresh rates. There was a period where all you could buy were
standard 60 hz flatscreens, which I used for several years… but in 2012, just before
CS:GO came out, I found a 120 hz screen and justified buying it because I was also fascinated
by the concept of using it for 3D- which worked back then by syncing up special shutter glasses
with the high refresh rate monitor and then by alternating the view displayed on it very
quickly between the left and right eyepieces. These days, that kind of 3D technology has
been superseded by VR, but I used the monitor’s high refresh rate in all kinds of applications
and games, and I suspect gave me a dirty, cruel advantage over other people in CS:GO
during the game’s earliest days when few people had that kind of monitor! Over the
years, it has become more common and these days, I think very few pro players would be
happy to play competitively on a 60 hz monitor ever again.
In conclusion, high refresh rate monitors are an essential upgrade for anybody interested
in playing games competitively, but their benefits extend beyond that and I find it
makes my time on the desktop feel more responsive and enjoyable as well. Videos are one thing
where I don’t find more than 60 fps makes much of a difference, but anything where you’re
controlling it can be felt well beyond that number. How many you need for the perfect
experience is anyone’s guess. But we’re on our way to finding out.