Gaming at 60 frames per second and higher has become less of a luxury and more of a measuring stick in recent years. Depending on the hardware you have, getting to that benchmark isn’t too difficult, even if some people prefer a more cinematic 30 frames per second. Does it make a difference if you’re playing competitively though? Nvidia certainly thinks so, but their recent testing is less focused on the age-old debate of 60fps vs 30fps and more on even higher numbers that most people aren’t capable of achieving…ever.
According to a study by the graphics card powerhouse, having a high-end GPU and a bleeding-edge monitor can yield a significant advantage to your overall kill/death ratio. An advantage that could give a skilled gamer a staggering 90% boost, which is simply bonkers maths:
“In conclusion, having a higher frame rate has definitive, measurable benefits: smoother animations improves target tracking, smaller ghosts and tears help reduce distracting effects, and lower System Latency helps you see targets sooner with a more responsive feel,” Nvidia explained.
Combining these benefits together, high FPS will give you an edge compared to your competition. On its own, correlation doesn’t mean causation of course. But put in the context of fps benefits such as animation smoothness, reduced ghosting and tearing, and lower system latency outlined in the article, the positive relationship shown in the chart makes a bit of sense.
There’s a lot of science to play around with here, with Nvidia claiming that a higher frame-rate which can help mitigate factors such as screen-tearing, reduce ghosting and lower system latency all contribute to improving K/D results. They’re not the first entity to even tackle the idea of higher frame-rates providing a competitive edge, as Linus Tech Tips also tackled the myth back in June.
So there you go. Definitive proof that so long as you have R26 000 for an Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti and another R24 000 for a monitor such as the Lenovo Legion Y44W-10, you should be able to see a noticeable improvement in your CS:GO games. Myth, confirmed.
Last Updated: December 5, 2019
Pariah
December 5, 2019 at 11:33
Ugh I’m so sick of pay to win mechanics in games…
Admiral Chief
December 5, 2019 at 11:33
Heh, I lolled
Admiral Chief
December 5, 2019 at 11:33
I really wanted to get a 144hz 2k (not 4k) monitor for my year-end gift to myself, but the size/specs I am looking to fully utilize that, was about R14k
So, settling on 75hz 1K 27” monitor for R2999
Raptor Rants
December 5, 2019 at 11:48
yeah, if your card can’t hit the 144FPS mark reliably it’s usually better to go lower response times. I think 75Hz and a 1ms monitor is perfect for a 1060. If you had a 1070 or better I’d have said rather get a 144Hz screen.
jimz0r
December 5, 2019 at 11:33
bUt tHe HuMaN eYe cAn OnLy sEe 24 Fps
Admiral Chief
December 5, 2019 at 11:38
xD
Raptor Rants
December 5, 2019 at 11:48
Ssssshhhh. Sit down. There we go. Now here’s a juice and a puppy. Off you go now.
HvR
December 5, 2019 at 11:59
Pretty sure that 90% improvement figure is a HUGE over estimation sales pitch.
Haven’t read the study but how do they compensate for the dedication factor; ie someone dropping R40k on a hardware is “more dedicated” than a person dropping R15k. More “dedication” = more time playing and training better K/D. Also if you use people used to higher end system and swift them to lower end system their performance will deteriorate more than person used to playing on a lower end system.
Another thing is an ideal network connection was assumed, if you say spend 80% playing on EU servers form the South Africa best ping rate is 150ms. So now your system updating your target animation every 4ms is great but heavily nerfed if the target data and player actions is only updated every 75ms.
Then thirdly when does this matter, when you play twitch shooters and maybe some MOBAs.
Viper_ZA
December 5, 2019 at 12:18
Hehe, pity it can’t turn a kid into a grown up ey? ;p
Caveshen Rajman
December 5, 2019 at 12:18
Jokes aside, going to 144Hz is the best gaming decision I’ve made.
jimz0r
December 5, 2019 at 13:28
Problem with making that choice is getting a monitor is usually going to dictate what power your next PC is going to be.
I’ve wanted a 144hz, 2k monitor for a while now, but have had to save for years to get a pc that could run it. (My poor GTX 970 had no chance)
Caveshen Rajman
December 5, 2019 at 21:29
Yeah for sure, I make no claims that it’s cheap. When I moved to 144Hz 2K, my 970 had to go as well. xD
Kromas
December 5, 2019 at 13:28
Not the only reason console kiddies suck. 😛
CrAiGiSh
December 5, 2019 at 14:13
Can never go back to 60Hz …
144Hz or higher.
Kashinto Himaru
December 5, 2019 at 11:42
Luckily I can notice the difference in FPS with my RTX 2080 and my 144hz 1440p resolution monitor on most games. #truestory
I just didn’t spend as much on this myth. lol
Admiral Chief
December 5, 2019 at 11:59
The difference is definitely true. However, does it make you a better gamer, or a happier gamer?
Kashinto Himaru
December 5, 2019 at 12:12
Maybe not a better gamer as I’m getting old and slow hahahaha but it does make me a happier gamer knowing I’m not getting those eye sore tearing andor input lag. 🙂
HairyEwok
December 6, 2019 at 09:17
Yeah nah, Linus did more tests on this with actual pro players (some dude from overwatch, PUBG and Shroud), and even they said the difference between 60hz and 144hz is huge, and I’m talking Trump huge here, but from 144hz to 240hz isn’t as big. The higher refresh rate makes gaming easier in fps games for sure.
Bobby C
January 27, 2021 at 16:59
Not to rain on Nvidia’s parade, but is this a controlled study? People who buy 240Hz capable equipment are naturally going to play Fortnite more often and be better at the game.
Bobby C
January 27, 2021 at 16:59
Not to rain on Nvidia’s parade, but is this a controlled study? People who buy 240Hz capable equipment are naturally going to play Fortnite more often and be better at the game.