this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
165 points (100.0% liked)
PC Gaming
14795 readers
1050 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The whole situation sucks, but realistically DDR4 is still fine. I'm using it on the 2 best PCs in my house. The other computers use older shit. I can run modern games at 100+ FPS on a big screen and even in VR.
Anything past 60 is just pissing contest stuff. 99% of games are totally playable at 60fps. 120+fps is great and everything, but if it's going to cost you 2k to get there, I mean you run your own journey but I'd be fine almost all the time at 60fps.
60 FPS is good for a flat screen, but 100+ FPS is better and I enjoy the vibrant fluidity of the games at those high framerates. I think I spent less than 2k on my PC but it has been a journey of upgrades over years so I'm not sure
60 FPS is NOT good for VR though. 90 FPS is the bare minimum for smooth 3D immersion with any modern VR system.
I think a large set of people hardly notice a difference past 90Hz (on flatscreen), but I find myself to be very sensitive to it.
When I play games where I need to be able to snap turn 180° in a tenth of a second and recognize what's on my screen, 120Hz is a mandatory minimum to feel confident in the image. 165+ is where it starts to not matter as much.
60fps is like saying 640x480 resolution is enough and eyes can't see more pixels, no need for HD.
TV movie at 24 fps, other content 25 or 50 fps. Sure, the TV is further away, less light in the faster light-sensitive corners. Still, in gaming, the FPS chase is likely artifically promoted by the vendors.
And then gamers talk about lagging (but anything after CRT smears), which displays a whole lot of misinformation/confusion in the audience. Which is mostly teens, which fiercely defend their convictions; a prime audience for campaigns.
There's a paper somewhere where researchers tested this. Some people discern higher frame rates, but many could not as the brain has a refresh rate of its own that analyzes incoming vision stream. At some point the brain won't notice a difference because its only getting X snapshots per second, not a true live stream.
No. No it is not. 60fps is totally fine for most things. Even great FPS's can have excellent, snappy gameplay at 60fps.
There is more to responsiveness and crispness of the picture than just the framerate. An excellent gaming monitor that has minimal input processing time, virtually no ghosting at 60fps, and vibrant colors is going to feel WAY better than some cheap office monitor at 60fps. Especially if it has adaptive refresh rate.
It's the ENTIRE reason CRTs were heralded as a wonderful gaming experience for the longest time until LCDs got good enough for humans to no longer notice the input lag, ghosting, and lesser color space of LCDs.
Only in the past handful of years have LCDs come out at reasonable price points that can even approach a good CRT.
BTW, my slowest monitor is a 120hz 1440p, so I'm not talking from cope.
I had plenty of fun playing Cyberpunk on my steam deck hooked up to a 1080p monitor running upscaled at around 30fps.
So did i playing duck hunt on NES
That's a strange looking apple you've got there, friend.
When I upgraded my CPU to a Ryzen 9 5900X I did the research on DDR5 vs DDR4. I was considering a better version of the CPU that used DDR5 (I can't for the life of me remember and I'm not searching just for this comment)
I decided to keep my ram but get a new MOBO and CPU. The performance gain from DDR5 was minimal for my use cases. The ECC would have been nice but that's ok. I run memtest once a year and have only had ram die on me once.