Jump to content Jump to content

144 hz monitor Vs 60 hz monitor better laptimes?


Recommended Posts

While my monitor would do 144 Hz max, with the WQHD resolution of 3440*1440 my GPU (only) manages to render between 90 and 120 fps depending on the settings. Either is smooth driving for me, but below 90 fps I have a hard time to be consistent and driving becomes more difficult. Many simracers lower their game setting to get as close to 200 Hz as they can. Thats not necessary for my "casual" driving, but I would bet 120 Hz would already make a huge difference vs 60 Hz if you are currently used to the latter.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Schneehase said:

Thats not necessary for my "casual" driving, but I would bet 120 Hz would already make a huge difference vs 60 Hz if you are currently used to the latter.

That's interesting to hear with 120 Hz options looking like they'll be coming for the latest consoles in F1 2021.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little OT here, I hope the OP will forgive me for that: I would be very eager to try out a more powerful GPU running close to 144 Hz in full resolution.

But given the current worldwide shortages and price increase, I should be happy about my RTX 2070 super which I bought like 1.5 years ago for a price where at the moment you cannot buy nearly as much FPS per Euro. Unfortunately I bought that card for its blower fan design only, because by that time, it had to fit into a super tiny case which would not support a larger (wider) cooler and fan combination. A few months later I decided to build a new AMD system for simracing / flying purposes only, but quite on a budget, so I had to stick with this very graphics card. On paper, the latest GPUs are immensly powerful for their "recommended" manufaturer prices, however I am not willing to pay more than double that only to get one right now.

I have 2 options, upgrading my GPU cooler and overclocking my 2070 super, or grab another (used) 2070 super somewhere and run them in SLI mode - I have one of the rare AMD motherboards that would allow NVidia SLI for this very reason, and F1 2020 does scale pretty well with SLI, as I have read before making the decisions for my simracing PC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Schneehase said:

A little OT here, I hope the OP will forgive me for that: I would be very eager to try out a more powerful GPU running close to 144 Hz in full resolution.

But given the current worldwide shortages and price increase, I should be happy about my RTX 2070 super which I bought like 1.5 years ago for a price where at the moment you cannot buy nearly as much FPS per Euro. Unfortunately I bought that card for its blower fan design only, because by that time, it had to fit into a super tiny case which would not support a larger (wider) cooler and fan combination. A few months later I decided to build a new AMD system for simracing / flying purposes only, but quite on a budget, so I had to stick with this very graphics card. On paper, the latest GPUs are immensly powerful for their "recommended" manufaturer prices, however I am not willing to pay more than double that only to get one right now.

I have 2 options, upgrading my GPU cooler and overclocking my 2070 super, or grab another (used) 2070 super somewhere and run them in SLI mode - I have one of the rare AMD motherboards that would allow NVidia SLI for this very reason, and F1 2020 does scale pretty well with SLI, as I have read before making the decisions for my simracing PC.

Are you convinced the better frames per second will really make you faster ??? 
I had a system with an Rtx 3080 and did at that time same lap times vs my old system . 
after a week I returned the system due to a cooler fan failure- overheating - and back on my 8 years old core I 7 3770k with a RTX 2080 running on 4K at constant 60Fps. 
The biggest improvement in lap times was the TsXw wheel vs the t300rs  in combination with the open wheel - here I gained about more than half a second ....

I‘m running on a 43 inch 4K with 60 hz and do Not believe the a 120 / 144 mhz will give me any advantage / if so I would throw f 1 2020 finally into the garbage 🗑 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A higher refresh rate has benifits in a racing title, as it makes things smoother with less bluring. But baring that, it doesnt make you faster at all. If you are a good and consistent driver, especially if you are one able to compete at the higher levels. You will find you lap timess are all within margin of error, no matter what display you use.

I have actually tested this back to back a lot myself, I used Dirt Rally 2.0 as the benchmark last time; as at the time it was the game I was most consistent and fast in. I used a 60hz gaming monitor with a 1ms response time, a 144hz gaming monitor with Gsync compatible freesync at 1ms response time, an LG 4k 60hz tv with an 11ms response time with game mode active, and an Oculus Rift CV1 at 90hz.

The laptimes where all within 100ms of eachother, give or take.

A higher refresh rate screen is good to own though, but you will see the biggest gains in first person shooters and games of that ilk. In racing games, it literally just comes down to added smoothness.

What can benfit more in sim racing however, is been able to run an ultrawide or super ultrawide display, triple screens, or VR. Or a combination. The added realestate on a wider display area really helps give you better perception of whats going on around you. VR takes that aspect even further. So its nice to have a combination of options depending on what you are playing.

Edited by Ialyrn
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt a higher refreshrate will make anyone faster, at least not by much. I didn't notice any difference whatsoever going from 60 to 144Hz. I have the game locked to 143 FPS, without that it will go between 150-200 FPS.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shark2Racing said:

Are you convinced the better frames per second will really make you faster ??? 

No not at all, but I know that I have difficulties to drive consistently once FPS drop below a certain level. It is not easy to describe, like some slight stuttering or slow motion and when this happens under braking, turning or in toe-2-toe situations this slows me down or leads to mistakes. I tend to drive without any driving aids, if that should make a difference.

Otherwise, lap time wise, i should drive the same times regardsless of 90 FPS or 190 FPS on the display. It is more about consistency, about getting into some kind of flow, about avoiding a lower FPS drop, than anything else. But I would not be able to drive at 60 FPS, at least not as fast: I just have to look at my youtube videos to know how much of my driving experience / feel is lost with showing only half the frames.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Resuming this specific subject what i noticed was an higher monitor With more refresh rate % lets you beeing able to be a little more faster ( depending of some factors) but what s more important and what really makes the difference is that you are able to be much more consistent and makes you don t loosing too much time in qualy laps or in the races.. you are able to correct and Control the car much easier when you do some kind of error or mistake or when you simply miss the ideal braking point.. but keep in mind that you won t make your Williams Car in a Mercedes One 😂😂

But you Will have much more smoothness and a different feeling and kind of a perception that Will make and Will improve your consistency

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2021 at 9:47 AM, CarlosSantos87 said:

Resuming this specific subject what i noticed was an higher monitor With more refresh rate % lets you beeing able to be a little more faster ( depending of some factors) but what s more important and what really makes the difference is that you are able to be much more consistent and makes you don t loosing too much time in qualy laps or in the races.. you are able to correct and Control the car much easier when you do some kind of error or mistake or when you simply miss the ideal braking point.. but keep in mind that you won t make your Williams Car in a Mercedes One 😂😂

But you Will have much more smoothness and a different feeling and kind of a perception that Will make and Will improve your consistency

 

I tested is now with various settings / mainly 4K vs hd on constant 60 FPS . 
There is no difference in lap times ! 
However as my momentum is not going above 60hz I would appreciate any driver here testing 60 hz vs higher refresh rate ??

I kno that this obviously was an issue discussed in f1 2019 and it was said it was solved ??

Is it solved ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i´m changed my old 60hz monitor to 144hz and run the game with 144fps and freesync on, i´m improved my times but because lower input lag, now i can move my wheel and have better response, i can fix the position when losing traction for example

Link to post
Share on other sites

I changed from 60Hz to 144Hz last year, and I don't see many differences in lap times (yes, my times are better, but I think it's because I'm better than before, and because I'm on a League, so I trained much more)... The difference between 60 and 144Hz, at 320km/h, is less than 1 meter, and that means you will see the brake reference in 7 milliseconds less time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Adrián Cepeda said:

The difference between 60 and 144Hz, at 320km/h, is less than 1 meter, and that means you will see the brake reference in 7 milliseconds less time

If that was true in a sense that this was the real difference, hence there would be no 200 Hz gaming devices in this world.

The human eye can not even distinguish 200 pictures per second, so this is not at all the factor that counts here. Why should it make a decisive difference in e-sports during running, strafing and shooting, where "you" (your PC alter ego, that is) move with only a few meters per second, and with 300+ kilometers per hour it should not? No one sane will claim more Hz will make you "drive faster", but the difference in input lag and possible inputs that you can set within a second, is simply huge.

Hertz are iterations per second, no? So the difference between 60 and 144 Hz is, that you get 84 iterations more that very second. Each second, that is. Even someone very bad at math can conclude, that this is roughly 2.5 times as much iterations as the alternative. Even without using math at all, this tells you that if you could (theoratically) give 2.5 times as many input orders each second, every input you do actually give will be a lot more precise, no matter if your input lasted a tenth, a hundreth or even less of a second. And *that* is why all pro gamers use as many FPS per second, and way over 100 Hz, and not because they might possibly "see" something within 7 milliseconds time earlier. Their eyes wont allow them anyway.

Edit: 2.5 times as much ofc 😄 To put it very simple, imagine you drive along the track and you are allowed to give 1 order a second with your steering wheel to drive around. Then I ask you, if you would be able to drive smoother if we allowed 2.5 orders with the steering wheel a second. What would you choose? See...

Edited by Schneehase
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Schneehase said:

If that was true in a sense that this was the real difference, hence there would be no 200 Hz gaming devices in this world.

The human eye can not even distinguish 200 pictures per second, so this is not at all the factor that counts here. Why should it make a decisive difference in e-sports during running, strafing and shooting, where "you" (your PC alter ego, that is) move with only a few meters per second, and with 300+ kilometers per hour it should not? No one sane will claim more Hz will make you "drive faster", but the difference in input lag and possible inputs that you can set within a second, is simply huge.

Hertz are iterations per second, no? So the difference between 60 and 144 Hz is, that you get 84 iterations more that very second. Each second, that is. Even someone very bad at math can conclude, that this is roughly 2.5 times as much iterations as the alternative. Even without using math at all, this tells you that if you could (theoratically) give 2.5 times as many input orders each second, every input you do actually give will be a lot more precise, no matter if your input lasted a tenth, a hundreth or even less of a second. And *that* is why all pro gamers use as many FPS per second, and way over 100 Hz, and not because they might possibly "see" something within 7 milliseconds time earlier. Their eyes wont allow them anyway.

Edit: 2.5 times as much ofc 😄 To put it very simple, imagine you drive along the track and you are allowed to give 1 order a second with your steering wheel to drive around. Then I ask you, if you would be able to drive smoother if we allowed 2.5 orders with the steering wheel a second. What would you choose? See...

Even if what you say is true it still wont make a very huge difference. Human reaction time isn't all that fast, what you see on the screen that gives you a reason to react might come a few milliseconds before with a higher refreshrate, that means that your response will be a few milliseconds earlier than it would have been. On top of the milliseconds it takes to react normally. So, on average for a lap you might be a few hundreds of a second faster, at best a tenth or two, from that under ideal conditions. That's well within the margin of error for other things you do that can cause the time to be quicker or slower, and conditions are never ideal.

There's just no chance that you can make up seconds by a quicker refreshrate if anyone should believe that.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lakrits said:

So, on average for a lap you might be a few hundreds of a second faster, at best a tenth or two, from that under ideal conditions.

Actually I do completely agree on this. The difference in laptime you may find is little. It may be significant though, for people who know that they are doing and / or have very good reflexes and hand (foot) to eye coordination.

In the end I would always prefer to drive with the roughly 100 FPS my system can render now, that with the 60 FPS of my old setup, the lack of input lag alone is worth it, it is just so more comfortable - even if I drove identical times with either setups. That is all i say, and like every driver around the world, you should drive faster once you feel more comfortable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...