Is 144 Hz refresh rate useless if I can't reach 144 fps in the game?

Is 144 Hz refresh rate useless if I can't reach 144 fps in the game?

You can probably still run windows at 144fps
and you'll notice it if you hit 120 hz or etc

but for gaymen hitting 144hz would be the gold standard yes

It is useless, as you will get insane frame stuttering.

What? are you using a 1gb card or something? I switch between 144hz and 60hz all the time I notice no difference in stuttering

What if I ran a game at "only" 100 fps? Would I notice any difference between a 60 Hz refresh rate screen and a 144 Hz rate screen?

That's a pretty gray area. It honestly depends on the game. Frame time would be more relevant for this comparison

>144Hz
No
>60Hz
Yes, depending in the severity, you'll notice screen tearing.

Then the higher the refresh rate, the better, even when I can't reach high framerates? At least I don't risk tearing.

144 hz will still tear, but it's still a lot better

The higher your monitor's refresh rate, the more closely it can approximate whatever oddball framerate your game is running at. The magnitude of jitter from a framerate mismatch is limited to at most the monitor's refresh time.

For lack of explanation, yes. Also it allows you to be free of vsync bullshit.

Ok, it's clear. What about frequency response? Is that important? 1 ms is really visively better than 2 ms or 4 ms?

Not entirely.

Tearing produced by lack of vertical sync on games where you can reach maybe about 60 fps will be far less noticeable. However it'll look exactly the same otherwise.

A 144h monitor is useful if you can get over 60fps minimum framerates.

Lower = better and accurate.

Depends on what you're using it for, however I'd always opt for 1ms if viable.

OP unless you only play the latest shit, you will find games where you'll hit such framerates and much more.

Hell a modern PC can run GZDoom at over 1000fps it looks sweet as fuck.

Also if you use Retroarch, you can use black frame insertion and it'll look like you're legit using a CRT monitor instead. No discernible lag.

Lower is better. But that's just something you have to weigh against the monitor's other features, like viewing angle and color gamut. Lower-latency fast-refreshing monitors can sometimes have more ghosting issues for example.

Mondern games don't rely on low-latency monitors as much as old games do, since they have to work on consoles (LCD TVs have higher latencies than most monitors.) However, if you are playing older vidya like quake 3, it can matter more.

I want to build a new pc and a good monitor is one of those things I'd like to get. I'm mostly going to play a bit of old fps, like Team Fortress 2 and Chivalry Medieval Warfare. I want to use low settings because graphic quality doesn't matter to me. I should get around 110 fps for TF2 and around 70 fps for Chivalry, because I saw some clips on YouTubes running these games with the same video card I'd want to get (even though I'm going to get a better processor).

Can somebody tell me where did this 144hz meme come from?In most games the ideal FPS to reach is 120 or 125.Yet we have this 144 fps thing?

The "ideal framerate" is as high as possible. 120 FPS is not better than 144, although it is certainly better than 60. 144hz is still not close to the limits of the human eye.