| Spindel said: I don’t care for either of the options. |
That depends on resolution and motion. The more stuff moves around the more frames you need for a stable picture. Your eyes follow movement, 'collecting' the incoming image, not quite like a camera does but you can compare it to shooting a moving object with long shutter speed. Move the camera with the object and the object is clear while the background is motion blurred. To be able to do that with something moving over a screen, it needs to smoothly move over the screen. The more pixels, the more steps, the higher frame rate you need.
So while static and slow moving visuals are fine at 30fps, fast movement can use higher frame rates. And indeed, a stable frame rate is always better than VRR fluctuating between 40 and 80fps, or worse a 60fps game dropping to 30fps when missing v-sync. As long as the frame rate is steady, you can easily get used to it and adapt to the input lag. When I was at my most competitive in GT Sport, changing tvs meant adapting all my brake points and turn in points again. The slight difference in display lag meant having to adjust my timing as well. I can't imagine playing a racing game with VRR. Render time needs to be constant to make the perfect lap.
But agreed, 120fps to get a bit better motion clarity is a waste of processing power. Aliasing and pop in are more distracting, so spend the extra time there.
