Got a 4k ...question for you folks

[knott]

What would be the point? It will be very hard to get to 120 fps at 4k on a 1070

The point is moot now and has been since he's bottlenecked at 60 Hz

Bottlenecked ? What bottleneck are you talking about when it comes to a standard , resonable, 60Hz ? You don't practically need more than 60Hz. If you have solid, fixed 30Hz it would be enough for playing. A game played on a monitor with higher refresh it doesn't look better and it doesn't manouver better. It's the same, it's just an illusion that it handles better. It's not a opinion, it's a scientific fact.
Monitors support a higher refresh if they are constructed to support it. You cannot force it like overclocking videocard or CPU thing. Very high refresh vertical frequencies are considered a lux for whomever afford to pay that price. I for one, I consider it a waiste of money.

The scientific fact is actually that the human eye can detect way more then 30 frames per second. Have you actually any experience with 120 hz monitors. If you have a slow lcd with bad response times which is very common then I could see part of where you got that idea from. If the panel is so slow it can´t update the image fast enough you won´t get that much benefit. I have a acer predator z35 VA panel that supports 200hz but it transition so slow from black primarily that over 120 hz there is hardly any difference. Other faster lcds using tn panels I can benefit from 144 hz and see a big difference actually. There is also the old crts that where even faster.

I just recently got a lg 48oledc1 which support 120 hz and there is a big difference here. In some fast moving games I am not getting nausea now due to the sharpness of fast moving images at 120 fps versus 60 fps.

The hunter classic is of course not the best example as it´s a very slow moving game though if you are trying to take shots at fast running lynx you will find some benefits or taking out herds of wild boar or ibex. But for this title I am perfectly fine with 60 fps and image quality takes precedence if I have to choose. I don´t have now with my 48" 120hz oled though. Still it would be cool if it supported higher refresh rates with oleds instantenous response times. It is actually almost to fast makes movies 24p playback kind of stuttery without processing because it´s so sharp.

Also besides the visual and sharpness of moving images you get with higher refresh rates combined with really fast response times also controls get affected and feel more precise. Input lag tend to get lower also with less frames to wait upon.

But yes wouldn´t stress the need for higher framerates for this game. But 30 fps is just bonkers. Very very few would settle for that in the long run if they had an option. For console titles 30 was long the standard. But it´s kind of moving to 60 fps now even for the performance modes

Next generation will probably be all about 120 hz. Of course there is more people playing fast paced shoooters then slow paced hunting games

[Vanatorul_Roman]

The scientific fact is actually that the human eye can detect way more then 30 frames per second. Have you actually any experience with 120 hz monitors. If you have a slow lcd with bad response times which is very common then I could see part of where you got that idea from. If the panel is so slow it can´t update the image fast enough you won´t get that much benefit. I have a acer predator z35 VA panel that supports 200hz but it transition so slow from black primarily that over 120 hz there is hardly any difference. Other faster lcds using tn panels I can benefit from 144 hz and see a big difference actually. There is also the old crts that where even faster.

I just recently got a lg 48oledc1 which support 120 hz and there is a big difference here. In some fast moving games I am not getting nausea now due to the sharpness of fast moving images at 120 fps versus 60 fps.

The hunter classic is of course not the best example as it´s a very slow moving game though if you are trying to take shots at fast running lynx you will find some benefits or taking out herds of wild boar or ibex. But for this title I am perfectly fine with 60 fps and image quality takes precedence if I have to choose. I don´t have now with my 48" 120hz oled though. Still it would be cool if it supported higher refresh rates with oleds instantenous response times. It is actually almost to fast makes movies 24p playback kind of stuttery without processing because it´s so sharp.

Also besides the visual and sharpness of moving images you get with higher refresh rates combined with really fast response times also controls get affected and feel more precise. Input lag tend to get lower also with less frames to wait upon.

But yes wouldn´t stress the need for higher framerates for this game. But 30 fps is just bonkers. Very very few would settle for that in the long run if they had an option. For console titles 30 was long the standard. But it´s kind of moving to 60 fps now even for the performance modes

Next generation will probably be all about 120 hz. Of course there is more people playing fast paced shoooters then slow paced hunting games

I agree with the scientific fact that human can detect between 30 and 60Hz, but not all human can, so what I said is not false, for some it's just 30Hz, the rest is illusion for them. BUT I agree with your theoretical approach , except I don't believe that human eye can actually detect more than 60Hz, so I strongly think that saying you can detect more than a 60hz image is not possible (except you are an alien or something). I also agree that response time plays a major role but not in the way you suggest. The "construct" higher monitor frame rate + rapid monitor image time response makes things look smooth without tearing the image. Behind the 60Hz vertical refresh rate is the videocard , the frame buffer to be more precise. So between you and me, seeing beyond 60Hz is just not human possible. If you choose to think that YOU can, well...that is your opinion, not mine.

[FullDiesel]

I don't want to interfere too much in your little chit-chat, but for the truth's sake fps (the frames per second your video card can render in let's say a video game) does not equal, neither is related to Hz (the refresh rate of your monitor).

When it comes to refresh rates all in Hz, it really depends on what kind of monitor you are using. The old CRT monitors had monstrous refresh rates compared to today flat monitors. In those cases 60 Hz was nothing, it was actually bad for your eyes to keep them so low. So it all depends on what kind of monitor you are using, I'm guessing today is either LED or LCD. Even in these last 2 cases refresh rates although are both measured in Hz, the way the image is handled by these monitor is not the same, just because they are different technologies. Therefore what could be OK for a LED monitor, 60 Hz for example could mean a value too low for an LCD.

[knott]

I don't want to interfere too much in your little chit-chat, but for the truth's sake fps (the frames per second your video card can render in let's say a video game) does not equal, neither is related to Hz (the refresh rate of your monitor).

When it comes to refresh rates all in Hz, it really depends on what kind of monitor you are using. The old CRT monitors had monstrous refresh rates compared to today flat monitors. In those cases 60 Hz was nothing, it was actually bad for your eyes to keep them so low. So it all depends on what kind of monitor you are using, I'm guessing today is either LED or LCD. Even in these last 2 cases refresh rates although are both measured in Hz, the way the image is handled by these monitor is not the same, just because they are different technologies. Therefore what could be OK for a LED monitor, 60 Hz for example could mean a value too low for an LCD.

LED and LCD is the same thing. I guess you mean OLED or LCD? CRT give noticable flicker where lcd and oled is on or off so you won´t notice the flicker between the updates but yes obvious proof we can detect more then 60 frames per second with ease.

LCD panels update times is lower then the OLEDS. Which does kind of make it more forgiving I would say on lower frame rates. The instantenous response time of oleds make ev stutter pretty awkward whereas the lcd create kind of a motion blur which is easier on the eye but give you less detail as your eye can perceive so many more images per second then 60

[FullDiesel]

LED and LCD are not the same, they just have something in common, liquid crystals. Otherwise a LED monitor is more expensive than a LCD from the same generation, having identical configurations. If you don't believe me check the market. And yeah there are several types of LEDs as there are LCDs.

A high end monitor will always be better when it comes to image quality, but again its refresh rate has nothing to do with fps. And in all its honesty your eyes can barely, if any, perceive more fps than 60. Some games have a fps limiter at 60 for a reason, because what's beyond this value mostly consumes hardware resources for nothing. Bare in mind once more that fps does not equals Hz, they are meant to express completely different things. Sure on a better monitor the image clarity will certainly be more appealing even at low refresh rates.

Sure it's not a genial idea to always put a frame cap at 60, even if for some games works fine, but in others fps can fluctuate pretty much so a reasonable frame cap could be around 100 fps but rarely you need more than that.

[OldMtnMan]

There's more involved than what you see with fps. If a controller is used like a high end joystick and throttle or FF steering wheel and pedals a higher fps will make the controller smoother.

Of course this doesn't affect Classic. Which is a sore spot with me. I'd like to use a joystick in hunting games so i'd have a trigger instead of a mouse to fire the weapon.