anon, do you prefer HiRes or HiFrameRatei thought i would see more of a difference going from 60 to 144
hi res.jaggies make me puke. give me 4k 60FPS before 1080p 240 FPS every time
>>729746067there is some serious diminishing returns after 100 fps. going from 100 to 150 is somewhat noticeable but anything beyond is a waste of processing power. so if i can get at least 100 fps at max settings i'm happy.
>>729746067framerate>resolutionAnyone else who says other wise is a console nigger who thinks 30fps looks "smooth"
>>729746067Resolution is more noticeable for me so that
>>729746424anon, we are taking about the difference in hundreds of FPS not 30
Crazy how it's 2025 and we still can't walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. Why is it so impossible to achieve 240fps @ 4k without having to resort to bullshit AI upscaling dlss or frame gen bullshit.
>>729746067high frame rate easily.
>>729746682>Why is it so impossible to achieve 240fps @ 4k without having to resort to bullshit AI upscaling dlss or frame gen bullshit.jeets who can't optimize
>>729746067both, but for res 1440p minimum these days.1080p is shit (ruined by taa) and 60fps is quite choppy when you're used to more.
1440p at 120+ FPS is so fucking ideal.
>>729747508>1440panon just lower the settings and play in 4k
>>7297478044k is legitimately a meme I prefer higher frames while maintaining good graphics. Not willing to go lower than 1080p so 1440p is the sweet spot.
I generally prefer framerates of at least 60 but preferably 120. Jagged edges on models never bothered me until devs started making shit like hair and trees fucking ugly at base with the intention of smoothing filters and shit fixing it afterwards. Give me back the old hair models/textures, I don't really give a shit if I can see individual strands of hair when zoomed in at the cost of everything looking like it's stuck in a state of perpetual motion blur.Anyway, what is the point of a high fidelity model if it's animated like shit? In most games the whole screen is constantly in motion but I'm rarely investigating individual models. Give me the frames so the motion looks good.
>>729747930I'll take 4k over some frames that i'll never see
>>729746682Because the goal of games is to sell hardware. Just stop playing big graphic games if you don't like that idea.
>>729746067I game at 4k 144hz, if your pc is beefy enough you don't have to necessarily choose.But I will say that when I was using a weaker PC I chose high framerates over high resolution.
75 to 90 fps feels great.
>>729748410I remember playing at that frame rate on a CRT back in 2009the 22'' FHD 'upgrade' looked better by comparison but felt so sluggish at only 60fps
>>7297480164k on a tv with a controller where 80-100~ FPS is enough1440p on a monitor with mouse where you might want higher framerates
>>729746067I have 1440p 165hz and over 120hz, I didn't really notice a difference. Higher res is overrated as well though.
>>729746067the difference is more painful on oled panels, because the pixel response times are so much faster on them, 60hz there feels like a stutter fest. which isn't a problem on led panels. their naturally slower response times give you a slight a blur, which perceptionally smoothes motion, so you it doesn't look stuttery and 90-140hz just feels a bit smoother.
why not both?
>>729749280Because very old games don't benefit from high framerates due to engine limitations.
>>729749435uh-huh
>>729749280>>729749616These just look like shit. The ultra high resolution makes everything so blocky.
>>729746067I refuse to be bound by your arbitrary limitations. There's a reason why I play on PC.
>>729746067I do both
>>729749776That’s when you use CRTroyale to reintroduce blur
>>729749776but it would look fine at 1080p amirite?
>>729746067I bought a 180hz monitor and a 9070xt and I really can't tell the difference after around 70-80 fps.
>>729752194Still too high. Try 240p.
>>729752308anon forgot to set the higher refresh rate in windows
>>729752308same. it stops around pretty fast after 60
>>729752427not on any flat panel lol
