If it's only occassional dips, uncapped. Else, capped. Also, with the choice of words in the title I'd have to say uncapped in all cases, because it ignores games that are (mostly) capable of running at 60 FPS (or higher).

I would generally rather have the framerate locked.

If an locked game consistently runs between 30fps and 40fps and never drops below 30fps then IMO the experience is better with a rock solid 30fps than having low processing demand segments running at 40fps.

But if a game runs between 40 and 60fps and never (or rarely) drops into the 30s then an uncapped fps may make for a marginally better experience than 30fps locked. but only if the game spends the majority of the time in the 50+fps range. If it hangs around mostly in the 40-50 range and only occasionally hits 60 then might as well drop it to 30 locked.

Hmm, I never really think about it, so it's kinda hard for me to make a sure answer, but probably capped for consistency.

I prefer capped 60fps in every game facilitated through simple video settings.

As many have said, it depends. If its bouncing all around and generally unstable, a lock is better. But if its around 50-60FPS for most of the time, I can take it.

Capped 60fps when possible, uncapped for some other titles.

It depends a lot, it is a trend to say caped but that is not always the best option, In some games when they are uncapped it makes you wanna puke, however in other games it feels ok, I dont know why tbh, but there are a lot of games that I preffer to play at 40-50fps than at 30fps, it feels smoother.

The Poll needs more options.
Capped at 60 fps at best. I hate tearing.

30fps cap

Capped, definitely.