u are the best
nice word 3>
dont misrepresent my post. i was replying to post above me where he said that 90fps is too fast. first person shooters are best played on 100+fps and for that you need high refresh rate monitor (thus e.g. 144hz). 100fps (or 200fps) doesnt mean anything if you have 60hz monitor.
no it doesnt make game unplayable, but we could argue about not making you less competitive. there is smoothness that high fps and high refresh rate monitor gives you compared to 75fps and 60hz or 75hz monitor. and consistent framerates are always better (even if average fps is lower), compared to inconsistent framerate with shitty 1% low.
personally i dont have experience with 75hz monitors, but i have experience with 100+hz monitors and 100+fps and difference is big between gaming on 60hz and on gaming with 100+hz.
Ah ok, sorry.
I certainly notice a difference between 60 fps & 75 fps, but as you said itâs more important to have consistent framerate as the drops in fps are where you get problems.
On a side-note, I see quite a significant difference in framerates on different maps. Tunisia seems to be the easiest on framerates, while Pacific is really demanding. This unfortunately means that certain graphics settings need to be turned down to get a good framerate on more demanding maps. I can turn up datails for Tunisia, but then need to reduce textures to lowest settings for Pacific. Itâs a pain in the ass to constantly need to change graphics settings, so I tend to just leave them on low - which is a shame since Tunisia can look really nice.