Yep, yep and I assume 120>90. 120 is a pretty big jump too in motion and input lag. Which can be felt more in direct inputs like KB+M.

But yeah 60 is fine for singleplayer games. Anything lower and its compromised experience; whether underpowered GPU, console or handheld. 90 is an upgrade and is definately noticable over 30 and 60, as is 120 and beyond. Multiplayer games really need to be played at 120+ though. Especially fast action and twitch shooters. World of difference moving from 60 > 120 and it doesn't stop there. Though diminishing returns hits its rear head once you go over 165hz.

I can get used to 60, though it looks choppy immediately after 120-144.

30 is just a slideshow at this point. 40 should be the bare minimum for consoles.

I've never owned a monitor faster than 60Hz, and other than the time I played the original Crysis and the final battle was like a slideshow (I'm confident the fps went down to single digits at some points), I don't pay too much attention to how many frames I get.

Of course, I only play single-player titles and not very fast first person shooters, like DOOM, and that helps.

60 FPS or no bust (when it comes to PC gaming).

I can tolerate 30 FPS but prefer 60.

Havent tried 120 FPS, dont have the hardware capability for it - would prefer higher resolutions at 60 FPS.

Gonna be weird when I try out the 40 FPS option on my PS5.

30 is okay for slower paced games on a controller.

60 is the minimum for faster paced games and for mouse & keyboard.

Anything in the hundreds is appreciated but sees diminishing returns for me. Honestly the thing I value most at high frame rates is web browsing, lol. Plugging my laptop in and suddenly going from 60 to 144hz immediately makes it more responsive and useable.

60fps (if at 120hz)

72fps (if at 144hz)

Originally I used to roll with whatever framerate my setup allowed for, but as the years have gone by I've become so adjusted to the flow of framerates going up and down that I notice fluctuations very easily, which in turn has me reverting back to caps I know I can hit 90% of the time, in order to keep the flow more stable. 

These days I feel comfortable with around 72-80fps. Anything higher I'm not really concerned with (unless it increases GPU temps). 

My monitor doesn't support VRR, so 90 Hz is not really an option. The big thing is desktop use, where 144 Hz is vastly better than 60 Hz. As for games... I don't really know, because I haven't really played a lot of games where I've been able to hit 144 Hz. It's great compared to 60 FPS in osu!, but that game has a significant reaction time element anyway, so obviously higher is better. I suspect the difference isn't that important in many other games, but like I said, I have too little experience to comment about it.

Since most of the games I play are anything but fast-paced (Strategy, Managerial, colony-builder, and RPGs with a party and turn-based or pauseable battle system), I really don't care about the FPS. Really before I got my new laptop, some games I played had FPS that were barely double digit and I hardly noticed unless I changed the zoom or moved fast over the map.

8 years. Kinda feel bad for the devs.