Lets say my lowest is 180fps and highest 237fps on a 240hz monitor
57fps between low and high and changing frametimes are they that bad for consistent aim? Or is it more of a myth and those tiny frametimes differences are negligible? 

 

ofc u need 300fps minimum for 240hz or just make 144hz 

Theoretically stable frametimes should be better for aiming due to it being consistent but I don't have any scientific proof for it, you also have to consider that the overall responsiveness could be (slightly) lower compared to uncapped however as long as the framerate is close to 240 I imagine that it should be fairly marginal on 240hz , compared to 144hz anyway. I think Battlenonsense referred to some test/study in his video on frametimes so that might be something to look into.

But honestly I don't really know much about 240hz, on 144hz I definitely prefer uncapped over 140fps + Gsync on 144hz 1440p just because it feels more responsive, I've been wanting to try 240hz but I wouldn't really want to trade my 1440p for 1080p and there's no way I'd go with 1440p 240hz since 144fps is already hard enough to achieve. 240hz + Variable refresh sync seems like it would be pretty nice though.

8 hours ago, iBerggman said:

Theoretically stable frametimes should be better for aiming due to it being consistent but I don't have any scientific proof for it, you also have to consider that the overall responsiveness could be (slightly) lower compared to uncapped however as long as the framerate is close to 240 I imagine that it should be fairly marginal on 240hz , compared to 144hz anyway. I think Battlenonsense referred to some test/study in his video on frametimes so that might be something to look into.

But honestly I don't really know much about 240hz, on 144hz I definitely prefer uncapped over 140fps + Gsync on 144hz 1440p just because it feels more responsive, I've been wanting to try 240hz but I wouldn't really want to trade my 1440p for 1080p and there's no way I'd go with 1440p 240hz since 144fps is already hard enough to achieve. 240hz + Variable refresh sync seems like it would be pretty nice though.

need to pay attention to cpu/ gpu bottleneck/ throttling , i got a 240 hz monitor and set it to 144hz in fps games for the lowest possible input lag / stable frames  

i use 237 gsync for everything not real time

On 1/23/2020 at 5:41 AM, iBerggman said:

Theoretically stable frametimes should be better for aiming due to it being consistent but I don't have any scientific proof for it, you also have to consider that the overall responsiveness could be (slightly) lower compared to uncapped however as long as the framerate is close to 240 I imagine that it should be fairly marginal on 240hz , compared to 144hz anyway. I think Battlenonsense referred to some test/study in his video on frametimes so that might be something to look into.

But honestly I don't really know much about 240hz, on 144hz I definitely prefer uncapped over 140fps + Gsync on 144hz 1440p just because it feels more responsive, I've been wanting to try 240hz but I wouldn't really want to trade my 1440p for 1080p and there's no way I'd go with 1440p 240hz since 144fps is already hard enough to achieve. 240hz + Variable refresh sync seems like it would be pretty nice though.

More framerate = more responsive typically. If you wanted to "set it and forget it" uncapped vsync off is best for competitive games. If you want absolutely lowest input lag it would actually be:

1. Locked at Highest stable framerate below refresh rate. (99% you are achieving it) 

2. Not hitting over 98% utilization on GPU.

 

In practice, a game like CSGO won't utilize enough GPU for it to matter. In CSGO, the more frames the better, but highest stable framerate is a good recommendation for any game. I don't know if there is any evidence of it increasing performance, but truly it's just the best experience. High, perfectly stable frametimes - the smoothness of the game is just sublime. I actually prefer gsync on, vsync on, and locking to a framerate I can hit via the criteria above. Blistering framerates for marginal input lag improvements are not really worth it to me.

i don't prever any sync on, because every sorts of sync adds delay, csgo is not my problem.. hitting easily 500fps lol

its battlefield 1 ,mainly larger maps (64 players) fps fluctuate between 190 and 230.. can we actually feel frame times difference between 3 and 5 ms?

19 minutes ago, dutch84 said:

i don't prever any sync on, because every sorts of sync adds delay, csgo is not my problem.. hitting easily 500fps lol

its battlefield 1 ,mainly larger maps (64 players) fps fluctuate between 190 and 230.. can we actually feel frame times difference between 3 and 5 ms?

gsync it self doesnt add any lag but yeah it feels different https://www.blurbusters.com/