Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
If anything 60hz monitors benefit far more.
Variable refreshes becomes a nonissue if your refresh rate is high enough that just waiting for the next frame isn’t too long. The case that benefits the most is when a game is running just below 60 fps on a 60hz screen and missing frames regularly, causing lots of stutter where it has to wait for 16ms. It’s a much smaller issue at 144hz since a delay of 7ms is relatively subtle.
Not really. Monitors do poorly at lower refresh rates (anything under 50Hz, hence HDMI2.1 for example only doing 48-60 on 60Hz but on a 120Hz it can use LFC to multiply lower framerates). If you drop to 47FPS on a 60Hz VRR display you lose VRR or get other issues (flickering, persistence, etc). If you drop to 47FPS on a 120Hz VRR display it doubles it to 94 and you’re still smooth.
That seems dumb, a lot of games can still benefit from freesync at 60hz if the framerate fluxuates between 20 and 60fps or similar…
If anything 60hz monitors benefit far more. Variable refreshes becomes a nonissue if your refresh rate is high enough that just waiting for the next frame isn’t too long. The case that benefits the most is when a game is running just below 60 fps on a 60hz screen and missing frames regularly, causing lots of stutter where it has to wait for 16ms. It’s a much smaller issue at 144hz since a delay of 7ms is relatively subtle.
fluctuates*
Not really. Monitors do poorly at lower refresh rates (anything under 50Hz, hence HDMI2.1 for example only doing 48-60 on 60Hz but on a 120Hz it can use LFC to multiply lower framerates). If you drop to 47FPS on a 60Hz VRR display you lose VRR or get other issues (flickering, persistence, etc). If you drop to 47FPS on a 120Hz VRR display it doubles it to 94 and you’re still smooth.