Nvidia: High frame rates could lead to significantly better K/D ratios in competitive...

MMWWMM

TS Rookie
FPS mean nothing if your frame times are poop. Quad cores struggle hard in newer titles at 1080p with low settings. GPU helps, but then you aren't getting the most out of your hardware, or your forced to play at higher resolutions making your CPU the bottleneck. Faster GPU only gets you so far.
Input lag is the other major factor in games. The difference is very noticeable when you compare medium settings with locked 60 fps against ultra settings with unlocked 55-60 fps. Basically if you max out GPU utilization the input lag will increase dramatically, and that's why iGPUs feel so laggy
 

ET3D

TechSpot Paladin
Since lag is a major factor here, how much does anti-lag in current drivers help? Even NVIDIA has that now, but I didn't see if Linus use it.
 

jgraham11

TS Enthusiast
I agree with nVidia on this one, more is always the better, BUT on the condition You see some returns on Your hefty investement, like You are a competitive gamer, living out of killing other blokes in a multiplayer video game.
Any other day I don't see the point to spend thousands of dollars on a "casual" gaming like most folks do..
Also, It's obvious to me that pros, who are more devoted to playing a title, will also spend more on their equipment that will give them this little edge (at least in their minds?). So maybe they would be great at gaming without 240Hz monitor? Who knows?
Science of statistics is a tricky b*tch! How big was their test group? How many control groups? Did They check pros who moved from 240Hz to 60Hz?
Just sayin' - it may be a marketing bullsh*t.
I think these are very good questions, not to mention the fact that this relationship is probably backwards: People who are very good and competitive, put more resources into their machines giving them higher FPS, they have a higher K/D ratio because of their "goodness" and their competitiveness, not the FPS...
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion

Adi6293

TS Guru
I agree with nVidia on this one, more is always the better, BUT on the condition You see some returns on Your hefty investement, like You are a competitive gamer, living out of killing other blokes in a multiplayer video game.
Any other day I don't see the point to spend thousands of dollars on a "casual" gaming like most folks do..
Also, It's obvious to me that pros, who are more devoted to playing a title, will also spend more on their equipment that will give them this little edge (at least in their minds?). So maybe they would be great at gaming without 240Hz monitor? Who knows?
Science of statistics is a tricky b*tch! How big was their test group? How many control groups? Did They check pros who moved from 240Hz to 60Hz?
Just sayin' - it may be a marketing bullsh*t.
I agree with this as well, for the pro players this makes sense but personally I mostly play single player games so I chose graphics over fps :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion

Lew Zealand

TS Evangelist
Input lag is the other major factor in games. The difference is very noticeable when you compare medium settings with locked 60 fps against ultra settings with unlocked 55-60 fps. Basically if you max out GPU utilization the input lag will increase dramatically, and that's why iGPUs feel so laggy
That's what I experience with my iGPU NUC. 60fps looks smooth but damn it's laggy.
 

Ravalo

TS Addict
It mostly depends on the game

I play Rainbow Six Siege at 1080p high settings and I get 30-40 fps when recording
But I somehow play a bit better when playing at 30-40 fps than playing at 60-72 fps (I have some videos where I play at that framerate but that would be considered spam)

In csgo however, my heashot percentage went from 40(ish) percent to over 60% in most matches (except when im memeing in hostage game modes or on faceit) when I switched from 60 hz to 72 hz, maybe because I’m better at the game but im still in silver 2 soooo....
In TF2 I couldn’t notice a major difference (or difference at all)

Idk if it makes a difference when speedrunning, but I might try speedrunning dusk at 60 hz and then at 72 hz

so yeah, it might make a difference but it mostly depends on the game (and you dont need a 1k$ pc in order to get high framerates)
 

JimboJoneson

TS Addict
All this expensive marketing by NVidia just might work out in AMDs favour if Navi2 just happens to steal the performance crown back ... I'm not confident it will, but I would laugh hard and then expect AMD to use all these NVidia advertisements in their presentations, lol. Lisa would be all like "Thanks Jensen! Saved us a lot of marketing dollars!"

Lag input is reduced by GPU technology so that you don't have to spend $1200 on a GPU then turn all the visuals to low, wasting what the GPU was for -- I mean geez, you paid extra to have RTX and be able to play at 4k ... but no ... you drank the cool-aid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion

krizby

TS Addict
Found my next monitor thanks to Tim :)


Even though its a TN with fast response and almost no input delay, the color accuracy out of the box is also chart topping, noice....
 
Last edited:

alchemist83

TS Rookie
LTT just checked that. Link Here:

But in short terms: FPS matter more than refresh rate
FPS is linked to refresh rate. You cant go beyond the refresh rate, so that would limit your FPS..

144Hz makes a massive difference in FPS gaming and a lot in all other gaming, just a fact.
 

alchemist83

TS Rookie
There should be standard FPS for Esport games and now 60 fps is the standard in my opinion. surely more frame will give better results but would it be fair that some one have alot of money and invested in powerful Rig versus normal Rig
A powerful rig being what I would class as standard? Been running 144Hz for 3+ years and there's no going back. I'm not rich. Never owned the top top end G-Cards. On a GTX1080 right now. It kicks high FPS in CODMW. Been semi pro competitive gaming for a very long time now. Anyone that has any know or involvement is in the same boat as me. 144Hz (120Hz min) has been the esport standard for 4+ years easily and its rising to more Hz.. You cannot input helpfully on this topic if you are on a 60Hz monitor still. Its a ridiculous notion. I don't go round chiming off about the latest iphone etc. I don't own one, nor ever have I owned an iphone.
 

loki1944

TS Maniac
FPS mean nothing if your frame times are poop. Quad cores struggle hard in newer titles at 1080p with low settings. GPU helps, but then you aren't getting the most out of your hardware, or your forced to play at higher resolutions making your CPU the bottleneck. Faster GPU only gets you so far.
As a current owner of everthing from Q9650, i7 920, 960, 980X, 4770K, 6700K, 6850K, 7800X I can say that an i7 920 is still a great 1080p gaming rig paired with an R9 290X, R9 Nano, R9 Fury, RX470, GTX 1060, 980Ti, 1070Ti for 99.9% of AAA demanding games with no truly tangible frame drops of consistent nature. Sure, the last 2 AC games due to unsupported instructions run at more of console experience, but playing Division 1/2, GRW, FC5, R6 Siege, EA lame Battlefront II, Shadow of War, Hitman 2 etc. no complaints, and there definitely wouldn't be from a budget gamer's perspective because they're fine with bacon instead of caviar.
I use X58 systems regularly for lan parties for games such as Division 1/2, GRW, Vermintide 2, Payday 2, in addition to gems like ETQW. No complaints all around. How many X58 systems are you using on a recurring basis?
 

hahahanoobs

TS Evangelist
As a current owner of everthing from Q9650, i7 920, 960, 980X, 4770K, 6700K, 6850K, 7800X I can say that an i7 920 is still a great 1080p gaming rig paired with an R9 290X, R9 Nano, R9 Fury, RX470, GTX 1060, 980Ti, 1070Ti for 99.9% of AAA demanding games with no truly tangible frame drops of consistent nature. Sure, the last 2 AC games due to unsupported instructions run at more of console experience, but playing Division 1/2, GRW, FC5, R6 Siege, EA lame Battlefront II, Shadow of War, Hitman 2 etc. no complaints, and there definitely wouldn't be from a budget gamer's perspective because they're fine with bacon instead of caviar.
I use X58 systems regularly for lan parties for games such as Division 1/2, GRW, Vermintide 2, Payday 2, in addition to gems like ETQW. No complaints all around. How many X58 systems are you using on a recurring basis?
You missed the direct point I made in my comment. Please read it again.
 

Danny101

TS Evangelist
What you want is the fastest interactions between all of your components and I believe you can achieve that with a correct setup at whatever resolution you're driving. It can be done at 60HZ. This is all sale gimmicks IMO and a whole lot of placebo results. But that's just me. I like the discussion because I mine many take-aways from what everyone say they experience. Just like tweaking an engine, horse-power, transmission, gear-ratio, rear-end, weight, and power-to-weight ratio numbers can be manipulated to a configuration in order to get the best performance on a car, you can tweak the CPU, GPU, memory, storage drive, monitor, input devices, and OS to the best performance. It seems to be the easy way just to purchase the best hardware and power through instead of taking the time to calibrate the components you have. There are ways. I personally enjoy that challenge more than just buying more powerful hardware. Sure, you'll sacrifice some of the visuals and even the sound, but It can be done. The Tweak Guides has all the answers, or explains the process by way of achieving it. Much praise and appreciation to that fella for doing the research. It's all about syncing and timings. Even the most powerful hardware will lag and hiccup if all of your components are not in sync and timed like a symphony. A less powerful system that's perfectly in sync can win.

UPDATE!

Well, Linus proved that higher HZ rates does help your game. But also, you don't necessarily need the fastest CPU or GPU. So add the best monitor you can buy and my previous comments, you should improve your game.

 
Last edited:

Danny101

TS Evangelist
I wonder if CRT monitors would be the better route. I always thought by comparison they were better than even todays flatscreens.

Maybe eSports should have a FPS/HZ cap to keep the price of admission lower. Much like NASCAR having restricted plates. Hell, just have an approved hardware list. Maybe institute a price cap and see what a gamer can do for the money. So the best setups and skills win. Then gamers' skills can be accurately judged and it's won't be hardware dependent. You can even have different conferences with different hardware tier requirements.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TempleOrion

Porkous

TS Member
If does not make a difference to you at first, well... it does for other players. First off, the twitch is much faster, and sometimes, if friendly fire is off, you can simply aim at anything in sight (just to get that twitch), even if teammates would think you're easily spooked. I noticed that the pre-recorded cam does show a different reaction to what the player actually sees, and sometimes this can be confused as having delay, but is actually the twitch player playing on 144hz and low input lags. On the other side, the nemesis of a 144hz monitor, is kinda the 240hz one.
Personally I noticed the difference, not at first (since some games do not provide fastest response) but during those moments, where you are like... woah! how I did that?! The response time is so fast, as described in nvidia video, you can simply see the opponent before he can see you.
People who say it does not make a difference, are simply under cognitive bias and dissonance; of course they don't want to encourage others to have the awesome tool of ultimate destruction. What is the excuse though? These monitors are pretty awesome, there are TN, and Qled ones, later one being with 90+ P3 color space, which is awesome for pictures, 500px etc.
 
Last edited: