So looking at monitors and the range is shit in nz, I'm looking for something to make do until I'm able to afford something better.
Looking like I'll be grabbing a 60hz monitor and either a rx480 or a gtx 1060,both should easily push 60fps in most games.
What happens ay this point? Can I limit fps to 60 and be fine?
The only real downside of having a GPU that has a higher FPS than a monitor's refresh rate is the potential for screen tearing. If VSync is used to limit it to 60 FPS it will introduce input lag however.
Really a personal preference, would you rather have screen tearing when the scene is moving, but a quick response to your input, or would you rather have a smooth picture, but slower response to your input?
120Hz IPS non-gsync panels are affordable these days. I would look into one of those over a standard IPS 60hz panel. I can tell you from experience that switching from 60hz to 100+ is night and day, let alone with gsync.
I think that games at 60fps on a 60Hz monitor will look good enough and since you will be able to keep the old one and use two montiors, after you've bought a new one I don't see a reason why you shouldn't.
OP is in New Zealand, and although I don't know the exact pricings over there, I know they are horrendous for most things.
Although looking at PCPartpicker in the USA it looks like 100+ Hz and IPS is actually kinda pricey?
http://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#H=100,240&p=1&sort=a8&page=1&qq=1
I know 100+ Hz TN panels are pretty cheap nowadays though.
The PC Part Picker link is all high end gaming monitors, however I have to retract my statement about IPS. I honestly thought we were there now in 2016 where 144Hz IPS non-gsync were affordable, but I was wrong.
Here is what I was thinking of, but these are TN panels. Still good monitors though.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009642
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236313
Not to bash anyone, but anyone recommending and or saying "60hz is enough for gaming" is someone who has not experienced 100hz+ gaming. Watch any review on YouTube about 100+Hz gaming with or without gsync, they all say "I would never go back...... to 60hz".
I went from a 27" LG IPS 60Hz (overclocked to 75hz and I noticed the difference) to a 27" IPS 1440p 144hz GSync (OC to 165) and I cannot express in words how amazing high refresh rates are. Then add GSync, it is truly game changing.
To expand:
What you should think about when using vsync, is that it limits the framerate to multiples of the monitor refresh rate. This means that if you dip below 60 fps, the GPU would discard frames down to 30 fps, to match the refresh rate on the monitor. This is experienced as lag and unresponsiveness, which is why Gsync and Freesync are such godsends.
Another thing to keep in mind when using vsync, is that if you can render above 60 fps, DirectX and OpenGL work differently with buffering. This is why using 120 Hz+ monitors can sometimes feel like you're playing in slow motion (information overflow).
I'm not read up on Vulcan, but here goes for DX and OpenGL (a few years old knowledge, so may have changed)...
The basic difference, is what the libraries tell the GPU to do once they've filled the buffer:
For DirectX, the GPU is instructed to wait until the frame has been pushed to the display, before it starts rendering again. With double buffering, this may mean you get a delay of a few frames from the previously buffered frame (which has been pushed to the front buffer), and the new buffered frame. With triple buffering and badly optimised games, this can cause a jumpy experience, where the game is "ahead" due to computational overhead, but still behind because the buffered frames aren't "up-to-date" anymore. The upside here, is that the GPU isn't stressed to the same extent.
OpenGL is a bit more smart about it, where the GPU is instructed to discard buffered frames if it can render a new frame before fronting the buffer. For double buffered frames, this means that you may still see some artifacts with double buffering, but are rarely lagging behind if the GPU has alot of overhead. With triple buffering you are almost never more than three frames behind. The downside here, is that the GPU is still rendering frames, even when the buffer has been filled, since it'll update the last buffer indefinitely, until it is displayed.
The alternative to this is using fps limiters. This doesn't prevent screen tearing, but locks the GPU from drawing more than X frames per seconds, decreasing the load while still rendering more than enough frames per seconds (if capable).
So tl;dr
For cinematic games, where short dips in fps are less immersion breaking than tearing, enable vsync.
For fast-paced games, where moment-to-moment updates are very important and you always want the most updated information available, disable vsync.
Edit: clarification and emphasis.
I think the old monitor would look better on a fire, it's terrible lol.
Or just isn't that particularly fussed about FPS. people coming from consoles will likely find 60 to be really amazing, and outside of procompleetMLG'ers and games that attract them, as long as it's 60, that's a fairly good standard imo. do i try and go for more? sometimes, but i'm not retentive about it.
i wouldn't advise getting a gsync monitor unless you found one for a good deal. it superfluously adds to the price.
There is one on sale. I'm fairly certain I'll jump to 1440p soon enough so I'll just spend the extra on that.
I personally have not experienced input lag (I do not really play fps games), however I find tearing annoying and totally imersion breaking, which is why I always turn it on.
@Ginga_NZ: I don't get it, sry :D
There is massive patches where the colour is all messed up, there is huge backlight bleed, it's some weird resolution.
I won't be using it as a second monitor (don't even think new build will have vga.) it'll look better on a fire.
GSync is overpriced but if you understand that going into the purchase, it's still worth it in my opinion. I guess I could compare GSync to sex, you cannot understand it until you experience it and once you do you just want it.
Especially those going to 4K, you almost need GSync as maintaining 60fps with all the eye candy is very demanding. You can get away with one 1080 with GSync at 4k. Now our conversation was not about GSync, it was about refresh rates. If you are buying a monitor for gaming you should be looking at 100Hz+ panels, most commonly 144hz GSync or not.
Nvidia does have Fast-Sync which reduces input lag for adaptive-sync setting. Doesn't work with dual/sli setup atm from what I can tell (real shame).
I just got a 24" 60htz 1080p me monitor that was on sale, very happy so far, compared to what I had is like stepping out of 2006.
Will see if I have any problems once I get the new system. But for now thanks for the help.
Im with you on Hz. Im after a TV size display around 42" myself at 4K. 60Hz seems to be where is at. There are smaller gaming monitors that are 144Hz some up to 200Hz that are not true 4k more often ultra wide screen.
Im going with freesync so I got a RX 480. That the other sucky part that Nvidia and AMD cant stick to the same spec so you have to pick.
Im using a non freesync display atm and I can say it is fine capped at 60Hz. Its a waiting game atm.
I don't know if a rx480 will even push games at 60fps at 4k
Demanding ones no but I would run them at 1080p with perfect scaling. Crossfire doesn't need the same card as does DX12. So down the road I could most likely use the next model card or another RX 480 as well.
I play a lot of Turn based games and RTS games that would be fine at 4k but.
Id like a good 4K display with freesync for productivity as well...A 4k desktop would be awesome