For PC gaming news and discussion.
PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
- 1 user online
- 96 users / day
- 400 users / week
- 960 users / month
- 2.88K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 6.56K Posts
- 48.5K Comments
- Modlog
I switched from a
144Hz165Hz monitor that I used for years to a 240Hz monitor, and yes of course there are somewhat diminishing returns, but if I can run a game at 240 fps then I can absolutely tell the difference between the two. Not only is motion noticeably smoother but games just feel so much better to control (especially shooters) when you have faster visual feedback on your inputs, even outside of multiplayer games.The game I’m playing most right now is Deadlock which I get between 140-170 fps on average in, and even just in that range it starts to feel comparatively sluggish when the framerate starts to dip.
Edit: I actually just remembered my last monitor was overclocked to 165Hz and it was still a significant leap.
I swear, games running at 240fps on a 240hz monitor have actual motion blur, no need for post processing