Competitive players will swear that the higher frames, even at that level, help with input lag. Meh.Even at 250fps, who cares? That's still more than high enough to play.
Competitive players will swear that the higher frames, even at that level, help with input lag. Meh.Even at 250fps, who cares? That's still more than high enough to play.
You don't see any of the frames over 60, or 144 or whatever your monitor is doing. You are more likely to see the closest to your last mouse movement but that's all.Higher frame rates draw fast moving images better without blurring/ghosting.
You don't see any of the frames over 60, or 144 or whatever your monitor is doing. You are more likely to see the closest to your last mouse movement but that's all.
I think currently the high end monitors go up to 240hz? That being said, even when capped with V-Sync or hopefully adaptive sync (Freesync and Gsync), when the CPU is capable of producing an overhead of around 10 fps more than the refresh rate, the dips below the 240hz can be more common than say a CPU capable of producing 100fps more than the refresh rate. At least that's the idea.You don't see any of the frames over 60, or 144 or whatever your monitor is doing. You are more likely to see the closest to your last mouse movement but that's all.
Sure, if your monitor does 240, I can see wanting some amount in excess of that. All I was saying is that if you are running 600000fps all you have is a lot of frames getting drawn and overwritten without ever having them displayed so other than potentially having a newer frame in the buffer to send to the monitor there is little point to running that high.I think currently the high end monitors go up to 240hz? That being said, even when capped with V-Sync or hopefully adaptive sync (Freesync and Gsync), when the CPU is capable of producing an overhead of around 10 fps more than the refresh rate, the dips below the 240hz can be more common than say a CPU capable of producing 100fps more than the refresh rate. At least that's the idea.
Those who swear by letting the fps go unlimited and not capped to the refresh rate of the monitor are not well informed.
Don't worry, I know how refresh works. My point is if the monitor isn't drawing the frame, you will never see it.
He has a 144 or 165 hz, but more importantly look up Frame Times. You can have 60 FPS but still be laggy on a 60hz display.Sure, if your monitor does 240, I can see wanting some amount in excess of that. All I was saying is that if you are running 600000fps all you have is a lot of frames getting drawn and overwritten without ever having them displayed so other than potentially having a newer frame in the buffer to send to the monitor there is little point to running that high.
Don't worry, I know how refresh works. My point is if the monitor isn't drawing the frame, you will never see it.
He has a 144 or 165 hz, but more importantly look up Frame Times. You can have 60 FPS but still be laggy on a 60hz display.
I have not heard one actually good CS player say anything below 300 FPS is acceptable, afaik it's something with the engine.
I can personally attest that 90 FPS feels like 30 in CSGO, on a 60hz display.
On my main PC I've played with everything at 60hz from 1024x768 to 2560x1440, highest and lowest settings, never with V-Sync though. Always 250-450 FPS and I've never had an issue. I'm turbocasual though.Have you messed with the buffering settings? Triple buffering and reduced buffering?
It's worked wonders for me in CS GO and Overwatch playing at 60Hz. My buddy plays CS GO at 144hz without a problem.
Frametime consistency is the same in every game, as in every title should have the same frametimes at every frame, low or high.
If you're having consistency issues something is amiss and I doubt it's the game engine, but I could be wrong.
I don't disagree at all, but I'm basing this mostly on information from my 3000+ hrs CSGO friend, who's also a server admin for an ISP and avid Gentoo enthusiast.You can't rationalize technology with CSGO players in relation to their framerate. I've tried. Don't waste your breath.
That's not a stab at @Jiniix btw, just speaking generally.
i7-720QM with an HD5650M
everything on the lowest possible settings, even though it reports 90 FPS
like WoW would run just dandy at 45+ FPS
As far as I know, which may not be much, frame time consistency will differ from game to game, depending on the engine and other variations.
A 10 year old mobile processor and 10 year old integrated graphics. It's not surprising you're having issues during gameplay.
Yes, this is likely an optimization issue because the hardware is so old. Turning down graphical settings isn't going to fix frametime inconsistency. Driver optimization will affect consistency, and I doubt NVIDIA is optimizing the 720QM for current games.
WoW is probably a far more optimized title. They have the resources to cater to older platforms.
Frametime consistency will differ depending on optimization, hardware, hardware design, age of hardware, processor frequency, etc., etc., etc.
Ideally, you want as consistent frametimes delivered as possible in every game depending on the FPS:
16.7 ms for 60 FPS, 8.3 ms for 120 FPS, 6.9 for 144, 4.2 for 240hz.
You can have higher or lower frametimes consistently, but constant jumps up or down 8ms and above/ below is generally perceivable even at super high framerates.
i7-720QM: Q3'09
HD5650M: Q3'10
The WoW I'm playing: 2005 and 2007.
CSGO: August 21, 2012
I doubt CSGO not being 'optimized' for a 2.8GHz Intel CPU and AMD dGPU that's two years older, to the point where 30 FPS above the screen Hz is unenjoyable. Not sure where NVIDIA comes in to the picture either.
And exactly on the topic of frame times, which I mentioned earlier, having a high frequency stronger CPU usually produces more stable frame times and coincidentally higher FPS. So in regards of why 300+ FPS is recommended for CSGO
Except for one graph, with a heavily overclocked i5, Intel is winning all those frame time graphs.
They can easily detect which CPU/GPU you have and apply the correct optimizations for that processor/GPU
So I just got a reply back from my friend, a former low-tier pro, and the simple response is input lag from your mouse. It's related to frame times, more FPS = more up-to-date frames. We're talking milliseconds, which is why a casual won't notice (like myself) but also why it matters for professionals.
In a perfect world with perfectly synced frames, 60 FPS on a 60Hz display would have no input lag. But that's not the world we live in. More frames, more dense frame array and a more updated frame will be chosen for each Hz. That's pretty objective, however minimal it may seem.
And indeed Intel_man, let's talk about the AMD CPUs