When given the option I generally prefer uncapped frame rates because games feel more responsive. I really started to notice that when Bioshock on 360 gave the option.

But it also depends on how erratic it is, there is a point where it just feels bad. The worst was 6th and 7th gen games sometimes dropping to teens in frame count and shooting up to an uncapped 60 fps. Quake 4 on 360 comes to mind, that was rough.

120 fps screen also allows a stable 40 fps, repeating every frame 3 times. Pile on the eye candy, cap it at a stable 40 fps with occasional drops back to 30 when going over render budget. I'm enjoying 24 fps on a 144hz screen, perfectly judder free. Unfortunately, the smoother it is, the more you notice micro stutters.

I doubt anyone playing at 120 fps is even bothering to look at this site, or anything on Internet 1.0. They are probably using Internet 2.0, seeing the universe more clearly than any of the rest of us, and counting in base-quantum.

Huh, never considered that. There will be games capped at 30 fps in the next gen. But when 120Hz is detected, a game could run 40 fps if the headroom is there. I bet that would feel considerably smoother without a significant demand in resources.

The FPS number isn't any concern for TVs who can do 120 Hz. Most TVs who can do that also support VRR, which means the game can run at any FPS and look smooth. So it really doesn't matter if the game is locked at 40, 60, 69.8008 or any range.

Consoles are PCs now and TVs are monitors now, so we need to say farewell to old limiting technology.

Once you go high refresh rates, it's hard to go back.

In saying that, if you are getting inconsistent framerates AND inconsistent frame times, then it's going to be a poor experience.

Ah. I bought my TV too soon, no VRR. My laptop has a 144hz screen, but also no VRR.

The game still needs some stability to look smooth. It's probably for the best VRR is still very niche for now. Imagine devs not even trying for a stable fps anymore... On the other hand, imagine what creative effects you can make with VRR.

The only reason why "stable" framerate exists is because they are capped at the top, not because developers somehow managed to have every scene output the same amount of fps. If it was up to them they would never cap fps. It was only necessary because VRR didn't exist and neither did high FPS. The optimizations devs do go into increasing the minimum fps and they will still always do that, even with VRR.

I wouldn't call VRR niche anymore. It stopped being niche after they added it to TVs and consoles. By the end of this gen it will be the standard for any display.

Only since screen tearing fell out of favor although you can still choose to 'endure' tearing with uncapped frame rates. But true, it's only stable if you cap it (low enough)

VRR will be niche this gen until cheap tvs come with VRR. HDR is still niche and 1080p tvs are still dominant in most parts of the world. 1080p tvs and even 720p are still for sale. I doubt VRR will be standard for any display by the end of this gen. It would be nice, although I won't buy a new tv again until this one breaks. Same for the old one which lasted 12 years before it started showing problems.

By the end of this gen HDMI 2.1 will be the TV standard. All but the very bottom garbage tier of TVs will feature HDR, VRR and 4k. 5 years is a long time. Nobody will buy a 1080p TV without HDR then. VRR will just become another standard feature even if most people won't use it because the panels will be ubiquitous.