Do you need more than 60hz for Sim Racing?

[@SimRacingCorner]

So what do you think? Is 60hz enough for sim racing purposes... Comment below and share your opinion with the sim racing community. ▶ You can support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/simracingcorner ▶ Buy a Coffee for Sim Racing Corner: ko-fi.com/simracingcorner

[@mateerdei1275]

Great content, but what about response time? Isn't that also an important aspect?

[@SimRacingCorner]

​@@mateerdei1275It's a good question. I don't think that's a critical area for sim racing usage. Even budget monitors have a more than sufficient response time for driving games.

[@mateerdei1275]

@@SimRacingCorner thanks, I was considering buying a "gamer" monitor. But now i know better. I mean i still would if i had the money but now i know it's not vital for being consistent on raceways.

[@unotoli]

Next time please try 90 and 120hz as well.

[@SimRacingCorner]

@@unotoli Why 90hz? Can you buy 90hz monitors? 100 and 120hz are briefly covered later in the video. As the most common familiar standards are 60 and 144, it made sense to focus on these.

[@Distroreport]

I agree that 60hz is more than adequate for sim-racing. I just moved to 144hz myself having raced on 60hz for god knows how many years. The upgrade is not essential, however I do find that the smoothness and fluidity greatly enhances the immersion and feels far more natural and realistic. I've have never had the feeling that 60hz was unrealistic, however when you compare it does feel more real in a way. I'm really happy with the 144hz, however if you are a simracer and looking for an upgrade of your rig. Spend your hard earned cash on wheel/pedals that is far more influential than 60hz vs 144hz. If you are in the market for a new monitor than go with higher refresh rates but with (which is maybe even more important) Freesync or GSync enabled.

[@kratoz_858]

Can you compare the input lag? Im on 65hz monitor but running on 90fps, i can see the lag based on replay. My braking points are not the same on replay vs actual.

[@mickaelsflow6774]

Never really had a problem with 60Hz, but I can tell the difference with higher framerate too. What I do notice that makes more of an impact is... Freesync/G-Sync! Not having screen tearing and not having to force V-Sync (which does get choppy at lower frame rate since it cuts through range), now THAT is a massive change. Other than that, consistent frame is 2nd most important. For this reason, I tend to stick frame rate cap at 60 on 60Hz monitor. If/When I use a different monitor, I stick at at 90-120fps, which ever is closer to my 1% low, then just enjoy a tear free experience.

[@garysmith3068]

This is exactly the consideration I am having. Upgrade my sim rig to a high refresh monitor, or keep my current 55inch 4k TV and upgrade the GPU to run high settings in 4k. This answers the question. I do love some eye-candy on screen. Thank you.

[@rochlanteigne5123]

@@garysmith3068 but if you keep your 55” tv instead isn’t there more lag than using pc monitors?

[@p.a.16motorsport27]

is your performance improve with better monitor?

[@NuScorpii]

I think the way FPS games work vs racing sims is fundamentally different when doing this type of comparison. Most racing sims now run the physics, FFB, and input loops at a different rate to the graphics engine, whereas FPS games generally run all at the same rate. So upping the refresh rate in an FPS will not only gain you a smoother image but also gain precious ms in input reaction time, minimising lag. Doing the same in racing games will only gain you the smoother image.

[@barters8124]

That’s what I was thinking. I wondering where the point of diminishing returns is now.

[@mve_simracing]

Reviving this comment especially with ACC's latest update

[@shavenkat]

It's not just hz, but the combination of fps and freesync/gsync. At 220kph the car moves 61 meters per second. So assuming your video card and Monitor is perfectly in sync, 60hz means an refresh onscreen is an update every 1metre, 100hz is update every 60cm, 144hz is every 40cm. That's perfect scenario with no input lag, etc. Your brain makes up for the missing information anyway, but i think if you can afford it, go for it.

[@mickaelsflow6774]

Agreed. It's mostly the freesync/g-sync that matters to me. Second is consistent frame rate.

[@TheOfficialOriginalChad]

I came here to say this.

[@nyftn]

fully agree , i put my pc on max 120fps . in some games the rendertime is only 3ms + 8ms input lag from the tv.

[@Jok3sta]

Man remember when 60 hz was top of the line. I feel like that wasnt even that long ago. 60 fps is the new 30fps.. Just like 1080p is the new 480p.. Time flies

[@das7099]

remember I was able to afford nothing when 480p now im 1080p

[@wallthemart]

In sim racing i'd say 60hz is enough. Your reactions aren't necessary to be in the milliseconds as correcting a car is chaotic enough whether the screen is smooth or not. For fps games though, one ms could mean your mouse hitting the pixel of the enemies hitbox or completely bottling the shot. Overall your shots on target will be consistent and you will never have doubts about whether you hit the enemy or not. Everything is clear and cut. Fps games: high frames high hz. Sim racing: high frames, good pedals are all bigger factors compared to the measly smoother vision upgrade you get from a high hz monitor.

[@thethirdman225]

*_"Your reactions aren't necessary to be in the milliseconds as correcting a car is chaotic enough whether the screen is smooth or not."_* Exactly. Nobody's reactions are that fast (and mine are better than most). Besides, in sim racing, you are mostly relying on information which is predictable (you see a corner coming and you brake and shift to negotiate it). In other words, it's a learnt skill and not a random thing. However, despite what people say, that's applicable to fps games too. Humans simply can't process that much information through their central vision are in such a short space of time.

[@dannydanko4627]

For racing games and first person shooters a high refresh rate monitor is second to none imo.

[@robertt9342]

I think the higher the better, but I highly doubt it gives any advantage in sims, likely higher refresh rates and frame rates are just a matter of preference and enjoyability. In shooters however, there really is an advantage to be gained.

[@rtazz17]

Yes higher the more fluid

[@TooManyCatsRyan]

Rule of thumb (IMO): Aim for 120hz minimum. I'm looking forward to the next gen of large size OLED gaming panels, hopefully with 240hz. Or possibly next gen mini LED tech which already is 240hz, yet hopefully with an improved OLED-like image. No noticeable difference between 120hz and 144hz is significant information for many of us. Which renders this video to be of tremendous value. So, thank you. 👊🏻 I am in the market for a triple monitor purchase. I can save quite a bit of money on a sim racing spec 48" triple OLED setup for my soon-to-be-built motion rig if I'm willing to settle for 120hz as opposed to the only other 48" OLED option available which is an overclocked 138hz 48" OLED monitor (apparently uses the same LG panel). For 3 monitors, I'm talking about saving $500 ($450 + $50 tax) if I'm okay with settling for 120hz over 138hz (!!) 💲😀 So, what I have been looking at is the Gigabyte AORUS FO48U 48" 120hz OLED currently at $850 vs either the LG 48GQ900 48'' UltraGear 138hz (overclocked) OLED at $1100 or INNOCN 48Q1V - 138hz (overclocked) OLED at $1000. I was certain about my feelings regarding 120hz vs 60hz, but not 120hz vs 144hz. Now I feel more confident buying the 120hz AORUS. 🥳🤠🙏🏻 The last thing I'll mention is my belief that while we might not notice a difference between 120hz and 144hz, we are probably going to notice a difference between 120hz and 240hz. 😲 I'd like to see a video that compares those two frame rates as thoroughly as this video compares lower FPS. This video hereby receives my award for Most Helpful Video of the Year. 🏆❤

[@itsJPhere]

Input lag is also improved by a higher refresh rate, not just visuals.

[@itsonlyniles]

This

[@captainslav6528]

I've always had 60hz for my sim but I did try 144hz on a sim a few times and it didn't make me any faster but it was noticeably easier to drive more consistently and with much less eye strain at 144hz and it was very clear that reaction times were better when noticing the small movements of the car earlier I'm sure that's what led to more consistency. It's so much more pleasant to use I want to get a high refresh rate screen for my sim just on that alone.

[@Username_Invalid]

If you use TrackIr or any head tracking, the difference is huge.

[@plentyrightfoot4204]

In Dirt 2.0 using a steering wheel I am far quicker with a faster monitor. I was over correcting slides and loosing control of the car at 60. I originally changed my steering wheel and pedals which made a very small improvement but changing to a 144 monitor was a night and day improvement.

[@larrymlangford6464]

I've been using 5760x1080 triples for the last 5 years refresh rate set to 66 and it works out pretty good no problem I love it

[@vMaxHeadroom]

Finally made the step up to 144Hz but on an Ultra wide, which for me has made a difference, especially the extra screen real estate at 3440 x 1440. AMS2 just looks better....

[@adaptable1]

Lastly, the smoothness you mention doesn’t require 144hz. In my experience, simply getting above 75hz, creates the smoothness. Certainly, faster is smoother, but beyond 100hz, it’s hard to distinguish between the 144hz or 120hz.

[@SimRacingCorner]

I was able to tell a difference under certain conditions between 100 and 120, which I cover later in the video with the slides. I did plenty of back to back testing to observe this.

[@CYNC33]

144hz is the sweet spot, most can do fine with 60hz. I wouldn't recommend people go for 240hz (even as someone that actually has one) for racing games in general. The benefit of 240hz vs 144hz doesn't translate as well to racing games as it does for fps games for example, and most argue that there isn't even that big of a difference anyway in those cases. I can see a difference personally but that's not what this is about. For 144hz you don't really have to go out and get a beefy PC to be able to play at those refresh rates, you could run most games on a 1660, 10400f with some settings turned down. 60hz, even less power is required. 240hz is a different story. I have to turn a lot of my settings down to play F1 2020 at close to 240 fps (hovering around 210-230) with a 3060 Ti and 5600x... 240hz is a money pit and you don't want that cost on top of your rig as well. So yeah, I completely agree with your points. 60hz is fine for most and 144hz is something that's nice to have pretty much. My two cents is avoid 240hz, though I think most people kinda already knew that.

[@CiroDiMaRzio12304]

I think that even 100hz is enough for racing. I bought 240hz screen because i believed it was better but in fps games is surely does give some advantage but with racing it probably doesnt do that much.

[@radicalpark]

I have a 120Hz monitor, and I’m thinking of triples 75 or 144. To decide as soon as my steering wheel arrives, I’ll do time attack tests. if I notice that I get faster with more FPS I go to 144. I think at the moment, just testing to really notice the difference. nice video!

[@FoXHaloMaster]

How did your tests go?, im in the same situation here...

[@rtazz17]

120 is fine..... 75 forget it

[@hiiiiii9886]

I have 3 1440p 144hz monitors if you run I Nvidia surround it only lets you do 120hz

[@B_stu]

Your gloves looked much smoother at 144hz

[@SimRacingCorner]

The webcam camera is recording at 60FPS throughout so my real hand movements should look the same.

[@thethirdman225]

Probably a phase issue during transfer to a KZbin clip more than anything else.

[@B_stu]

Sarcasm is lost in text )

[@h3aDmAsTeR]

Thank you for taking the time and sharing your experience! Cheers man! I'll be looking at 144hz definitely 👍👍

[@DreRaphael]

​I've been on 144hz. When i go back to 60hz i can see the difference. 144 just seems smoother. Kind of like watching 60fps video vs 24 fps. I'd save up and get 144hz if your GPU can handle it

[@SeyoxSem]

This ^

[@valrond]

I've been on 120hz, which is the refresh of my 35 inch UW. It's a bit better but not groundbreaking, among other things, cause I couldn't keep 120 fps on iRacing or ACC. I prefer VR, more inmersive and you get 90 hz that is a good compromise.

[@wallthemart]

@@valrond Definitely VR is going to beat out all the other visual displays especially if you get decent frames and refresh rates on VR

[@WarriorPleb]

-the amount of twitchy aim you need in fps games, quick 180 degree turns for example - high frames are always going to help to stay competitive, you arent going to turn that fast in a racing sim -racing 60hz is still decent enough to have unless you are an elitist and just want top stuff just my opinion, i have 1 x 32 inch 144hz monitor for shooters and a triple 24inch 60hz screen setup for racing and this combo does me just fine

[@jarQ-]

I think that 60hz is enough if you like to drive alone. Iv noticed that it is hard to follow cars in tight corners with lower fps. Its hard to explain, but it feels like I have to pull my head back a bit, struggling to focus on where Im on the track due to that the car in front blocks most of the view. And if the small sections of the curbs/tracklimits that Im able to see are jagging it is hard to sense speed and track placement. So in those situations I would like to have as many fps as possible.

[@robertkiell]

true... and im using a tv as monitor... cheaper and same fps as monitors.. my tv is rated at 60 fps max and still i dont see any difference except on tight corners like u said. my old monitor is ultrawide but it died rated at 120fps

[@p1ronthegrid461]

I’d expect 144hz to be a huge benefit when looking for visuals cues braking points etc. obviously the quicker the series the bigger the impact

[@JumboGaming200]

i found 75fps is perfect for racing and gpu isn't stressed much

[@Cagefighter]

I went from a 27inch 60hz to a 32inch 144hz, and the differences is night and day, not just in sim racing but fps games, but I did have to upgrade my whole system so I was getting all those frames, but it was so worth it, sharper, smoother!

[@adaptable1]

I have triple 144hz monitors with g-sync and the benefits of g-sync cannot be understated. In certain titles I can maintain 144hz across three monitors, but in others, I can barely maintain 60hz and they fluctuate constantly. G-sync keeps my experience smooth.

[@SimRacingCorner]

G-sync prevents screen tearing, which makes a big difference to the image quality, but it doesn't create the illusion of a higher smoother framerate.

[@B_stu]

Frame times are a factor. At 144hz the visual information is sent to your screen faster than 60hz. So it's not only about the smoothness.

[@johnnypenso9574]

Yes, the total difference is 1/100th of a second. No one has reactions that quick. It will look better which will inspire confidence and make you enjoy the game more, but no one has reactions so quick that they can notice 1/100th of a second.

[@B_stu]

Johnny Penso I notice a difference. I'm not superhuman.

[@johnnypenso9574]

Visually, yes and you're probably confusing visual fidelity with reaction times.

[@B_stu]

Johnny Penso kzbin.info/www/bejne/q6vTaa1nnppgfsU To be fair its like opening a can of worms.

[@CamaroWarrior]

I'm using with my rig a 48" LG CX OLED 4k@120 display, i make sure my fps matches my display hz at 120+ to have it as smooth as possible

[@Jonas-xy8ir]

I think that for most people 60hz is enough for sim racing However when you are trying to get competitive then it does make a difference I was running a 60Hz for many years and i was able to be around 0.8 seconds off the world records on most tracks After i got my 144hz i was able to gain 0.3 seconds in the first week of testing out the new Monitor Something I couldn't do after practicing for more then a year and putting hundreds of hours into the game So thats a big gain in my book

[@8odycount]

I would never go back to 60 Hz. Even for windows it hurts my eyes. 144 Hz is a must have today. If you are used to high frames, you will never go back. 4K otherwise is nonsense in my eyes and a 144 Hz monitor a much better upgrade.

[@abuelb]

Advantage of bigger 4k 120hz tv over tiny 49" 144hz monitor is pure immersion at 4k resolution. Very little to no difference between 120hz and 144hz

[@RikFastNL]

Is not only about smoothness of the video stream, is also about user input reaction time. I've tested my reaction time on different monitors and TV's. Result difference is enormous. On a 43" HD-TV 60hz i have an average reaction time of 275 ms --> 60hz WQHD 32" monitor of 215 ms --> 27" 144hz monitor of 175 ms (also trough input lag difference). You drive not that much faster because your brain adapts, but you drive much more consistent. In traffic you have better accident avoidance skills with a faster reaction time. Let's do some math.. If you drive 250 kmh then 100 ms difference is 6.9 meter in game. (250kmh * 1000)/(60m * 60s *1000) * 100ms=6.9444 meter. Thus you see your braking point or opponents brake lights much later then you're in reality in the game. Even 40ms (between the 2 monitors) is 2.77 meters of road. 144 hz monitor has a full new frame every 6,944 ms and a 60hz --> 16,67 ms, with vsync off you get partial build up if your framerate is higher then 60hz. Ideally your reaction time would only be YOU with no added monitor lag, like you would have in a real car. Just my thoughts about this topic.

[@SimRacingCorner]

Can I ask you, how we're you able to record your reaction time?

[@RikFastNL]

@@SimRacingCorner : Search for reaction time test like this one: humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime. Have fun. I tested also all my family members on the three monitors and they experienced the same difference within margin of errors. You could also do an input lag test of monitors because my believe is that smoothness of image is only secondary to proper "in time" showing of the car on the track in conjunction with other cars.

[@SimRacingCorner]

​@@RikFastNL Thanks, that's handy. Input lag from screen to screen does vary of course and can make a difference. It's an area I avoided not to over complicate things when I was looking at hz and framerates. The 60hz TV screen I used does have screen lag I can easily see from the onscreen driver wheel compared to my real wheel movements. But my projector and 24" monitor look completely in sync through my eyes. So I avoided the subject, as it's no longer a basic 60hz vs 144hz comparison when different 60hz screens have this variance. I just tested my reaction time at 60hz and 144hz on my main monitor, and the results are the same. Around 200ms. I will rerun it a few more times, but on the surface, 60hz and 144hz isn't making a difference on the same monitor. By testing different Hz on the same screen we are taking out the input lag element variable. Or at least reducing to a point that I can't humanly perceive.

[@RikFastNL]

@@SimRacingCorner Thanks, on the same monitor the difference is minimal. Technically with standard vsync on it would be a maximum of 10ms added lag. But vsync settings on the graphics card will make a difference. Nvidia/Amd have a low user input lag vsync where the card rendered the frames continues and the last rendered frame will show with the refresh. You're input is registered the same as with vsync off. Just for fun: Let's say you have a future monitor of 240hz with a input lag of 2 ms, this in contrast of a 60hz monitor with a input lag of 5 ms. (tv's have 15 to 150 ms input lag). The future monitor will show you a clean new frame of your input every 6,167 ms or 0,42 meter road @250kmh against 21,667ms or 1,5 meter road for the 60hz monitor. Does this matter, not really for most but if you are an alien esport simracer (with a big price money on the line) i think any advantage you can get will help. For me it will not because I'm to slow anyhow. Reaction time of feet is also different as from hands, and the brake is the most important input for any simracer. I hope this helps the discussion, even if the conclusion is that it is academic and in reality it makes not worthwhile difference. I would love to see a brake test video: two simracers in the same lobby locally over LAN closely following each other. Different monitors and TV's ond the driver following and then full brake and the second car reacts. How much does low input lag help to avoid a head/tale crash....

[@SimRacingCorner]

@@RikFastNL I do appreciate your input, it's been very interesting. I do have a plan for a future video to compare 60hz vs 144hz hot laps on my gaming monitor just to see if higher framerates = faster consistent laps times. I am avoiding the whole input lag element for the test by using the same monitor and just focus on the frame rate. Input lag could easily be another video by itself. But I may not get around to tackling that subject, due to the logistics of getting my big TV screen on the sim rig.

[@leventezari7540]

of course you need - no question:)

[@TheRealHoltzy]

If you NEED more than 60hz, maybe it's time to accept that you're not that good 🤷‍♀️

[@leventezari7540]

@@TheRealHoltzy you are right - I like smooth things in my life

[@thecarbonfiberkid]

I built a pc last year and have been using a 40 inch 1080p led tv 60hz. Used to run my sim rig on my 52 inch 1080p lcd tv in living room on ps4 before building pc and moving rig to my new game room. Want to get either the ASUS PG35VQ 1440p 35 inch curved ultra wide or the Aorus FV43U 4K 43 inch monitor. I only play racing games and the pc is only really used for gaming. Internet KZbin and other I am on my iPad.

[@ProSimRacing]

There is a clear difference between 60hz and 144 Hz, my personal preference is definitely 144hz, but at the moment I use 4X 27inch 60hz monitors and it has never hindered me in any way.

[@diegoosierra]

Is better to priorize the quality than FPS. Not necessary to play in high FPS, better video quality is essencial in sim racing. 60hz is just the best for this games. I was thinking about buying a 4k 60hz monitor and it's definetly the best option. Nowadays I play on a 1080p 60hz but I'm planing to upgrade to a 28" 4k 60hz overclock

[@andrewwhite2863]

I currently have a 60hz TV. With my ryzen 5 3600 and gigabyte 2070 super. And I can tell that my TV can't keep up with my PC. I should have my 34" 144hz monitor next week.

[@xdidixx]

Any recommendation on prebuilt pc? Trying to get started but don’t know which one is best

[@RabbitConfirmed]

For me the problem is, it's hard to go back, so ever since I jumped to 144 I will never go below 120hz ever agian, except for movie consumption.

[@belgiumsimraceramateur841]

I noticed the difference between 60 and 144hz the hardest in the chicane @ Zolder. If you have to steer right to the left quickly, the image will follow much better at 144 hrz. But that's my humble opinion .

[@SimRacingCorner]

Yes, I agree there will be so corning situations like you describe where the higher frame rate really helps.

[@plentyrightfoot4204]

Excellent video and a great approach to testing.

[@SimRacingCorner]

Thank you!

[@stefanoviaggio8096]

60,100,144 for me is little difference. More feeling is change proper FOV or use high end pedal and wheel set up

[@h1tzzYT]

Yeah i agree with your conclusion, heck even for first person shooters 144hz is not essential, yes its nicer but it wont make you much better player. Also running 60hz panel takes out the huge headache for that 144fps chase in games. I used to run 144hz monitor for 5 years and for the most part it was nice, however i really got fed up with 1080p resolution and terrible colors of that TN panel and i upgraded to 60hz 4k nice screen, 100% worth it. Some people can get legit headache if monitor runs at 60hz then i totally understand the need for 144hz but for the most part 60hz is good enough for most people.

[@beemrmem3]

I have an RTX 2060 and run f1 at max everything with 95fps. If I turn it down to get 120+ I can’t tell a difference. IMO 90 is plenty for sim racing.

[@nilen]

144hz is essential imo

[@cristianuk1823]

there is too much latency at 60hz should be avoided for sim racing, i could see a big diference in latency between 75fps and 150 fps in rfactor2 there is more resolution in handling of the cars the feel is totaly diferent, VR should be avoided as well for anything competitive

[@MrNiceHk]

Did I miss the part were you say which monitor you are using ?

[@mangs9940]

Thanks. I now understand the difference.

[@cocosloan3748]

And to you driving SIM on TV and monitor 60 or even 144hz makes little to no diff? Wow.. I played SIM on TV before i got my 144hz monitor. And even with 60hz i borrowed in meantime - the difference is HUGE! Not in smoothness (although there is) but in input-lag. On TV i had to turn before the curve and in the curve changing direction was so bad. I almost sold my wheel. Was disappointed from the feeling i got driving. But on 144hz (even 60) with monitors with proper sag- changing direction was instant and it felt like dream!

[@SimRacingCorner]

The subject of the video is just the refresh rate to keep a focused subject and input lag if different for each screen. Input lag will vary greatly from TV to TV (and monitor to monitor, regardless of Hz), they are not all terrible. I have two large TV sets and there is a very noticeable difference between them in respect of input lag. One is perceivably lag-free like a decent monitor, and the other, though still usable for driving games exhibit some lag.

[@davidtaylor8172]

Good video mate. If you had to choose between detail setting or refresh rate do you think your findings would be the the same? I run Assetto Corsa at 120hz on a 49" 32:9 screen at max settings but lower it to 100hz for Assetto Corsa Competizione because the detail settings would have to be lowered. I too noticed no real benefit going up to 144hz. For me, visuals are more important as long as I don;'t have to drop down to 60hz.

[@SimRacingCorner]

Thanks David. I would sacrifice some detail for more FPS, to at least maintain 90-100. At around that margin it's good enough where things are moving along nicely. But 120 is where I'm finding it's perfect and don't need anymore than that.

[@tahirballikaya213]

@@SimRacingCorner someone else told me the exact same. 90 fps is a good sweet spot.

[@RVRCloset]

Nice vid mate!👍 I upgraded from a 60hz to a 120hz monitor a month ago or so, haven't tried racing on it yet though..😁 But I didn't do the upgrade for the hz, I did it to get a bigger and curved monitor for better immersion for the times I race titles that not have VR support.

[@SimRacingCorner]

Did you make a video on that one, what did you get? I always have some popcorn and 3D glasses ready to see your latest pickups.😎

[@RVRCloset]

@@SimRacingCorner Hehehe, no I never did one on that..🙈 I got the Aoc Agon AG352UCG6.

[@Bubbi_177]

i am still on a 60hz monitor and have just bought a new pc and it now feels smoother than before dont know why but maybe it is just because the graphics is much better that i think it feels more smooth

[@SimRacingCorner]

I suppose If your old PC wasn't able to maintain a solid 60fps at all times, then that could be why your new system is delivering a smoother experience.

[@matttactics8275]

I find in VR frames really matter. I know some ppl will use asw or the steam equivalent to cut their frames in half and use higher settings. I experimented with this a bit and found my performance in Dirt rally 2 to be much worse. Same case with project cars 2. I have a 2080 super on the way so hopefully I can just crank up my settings and not worry about it. But for VR frames are I think more important then flatscreens.

[@SimRacingCorner]

We're just more sensitive to framerate in VR as we're trying to trick our brains. I remember the first few times I played room scale games using free locomotion and found it difficult to keep my balance. That was weird.

[@nilen]

Why didn’t you buy a 3080?

[@matttactics8275]

@@nilen I got a good deal on the 2080 super. And between the problems they were having, and the general unavailability im glad I didnt get a 3080 for now. Besides when I ordered my 2080 super we didnt know much about the 3000 series cards.

[@nyftn]

60Hz with vsync enabled the lag is very visible. for slow cars no problem. myself i can't game with 60fps . i get sick , with 120 i have very little issues. also the steering wheel is almost exact to the movement irl .

[@nyftn]

i grew up with CRT monitor gaming. maybe that's why

[@nyftn]

you can drive better because your inputs and FFB matches what you can see on screen.

[@jayzh4997]

VR is only thing that can make you drive better. 60 and 144, same time and skill.

[@JURacing]

thanks for that well done test and comparison. Very helpful

[@SimRacingCorner]

Glad it was helpful!

[@jclafi]

The question is, do your lap time on better monitor is faster ?

[@adaptable1]

One topic that you did not mention is frame sync and what happens when your system dips below or above the chosen frame rate. What does that do to the picture quality? What happens when you hook up your PC to a massive television for immersion?

[@SimRacingCorner]

I just wanted to keep things simple focused on the core objective of the video title. The areas you mentioned could be separate videos in there own right.

[@TracksideViews]

Once you go 144hz you’ll never be able to look at 60hz the same again

[@andrewwright.]

500+ hz monitors now available for the e game titles 4 years later

[@richysracing9524]

I have a ryzen 3600, b450, 16gb ddr4 3200, rx580 8gb, im looking to upgrade to a 5700xt, but i really want a ultrawide 1ms, or triples but this is where i get stuck, i don't know what to do

[@kratoz_858]

Can you compare the input lag? Im on 65hz monitor but running on 90fps, i can see the lag based on replay. My braking points are not the same on replay vs actual. Like on monza, if I brake on 150 before T1, my replay will be braking on 140m.

[@SimRacingCorner]

Input lag and refresh rate are not linked, you could have 5 different 60hz monitor brands and the input lag would not be identical. On your screen does the onscreen driver wheel stay in sync with your real steering wheel while rotating quickly?

[@siedliko]

7:15 you can see easily that 144hz is smoother than 60hz.

[@p.a.16motorsport27]

have a good pc can make the difference in time performance?

[@curleex3838]

Great subject to cover, i use the rift s atm and i want triples and im looking at 3 40inch 4k tvs! I run a Ryzen 5 5600x and rtx3050 32gb ram so im hoping it will work! Not sure if the pc will run triple 40s at 1080

[@SimRacingCorner]

I don't have any experience with a triple screen setup. But I would imagine triple 1080p monitors with your setup (and lowering some GFX settings) would be okay. Maybe post this question on Reddit or a racing forum, I'm sure you'll get plenty of feedback that should help with that.

[@MoonieGTRacer]

I enjoyed your video. I have a Alienware Ultrawide on my desk, but I've got a sim rig on the way. I am trying to figure out if I want to want to move my ultrawide over to the rig and get some other monitor for my desk (I do play FPS like you do) or if I should just get a ~$300 50" 4K TV for the rig (I do a lot of VR racing). I guess what I'm really weighing is a 1440p 120FPS ultrawide for the sim rig vs a 50-55" 4K/60Hz TV for the sim rig... A 50" TV would have around 10" more width for better FOV at the same viewing distance as the ultrawide... would appreciate any insight you might have since you've just gone through all that testing.

[@SimRacingCorner]

Personally, I prefer the aspect ratio of the ultrawide for sim racing. With a big-screen TV, you do get an oversized cockpit view with the correct FOV setting. If you already have a big TV in your house, you could test that and see if you're happy with the image scale. You should also make sure if you go for the TV option, make sure it has minimal input lag.

[@MoonieGTRacer]

@@SimRacingCorner I'm thinking I could have the FOV of the TV to basically just be more than the FOV of the Ultrawide? If they would be mounted in the same position, the fact that the TV is 10 inches wider should give me a wider FOV, albeit with more picture above and below...

[@SimRacingCorner]

@@MoonieGTRacer Yes, If you can get the TV positioned just behind the wheel then it should work well.

[@CiroDiMaRzio12304]

100hz is i think the sweet spot between smoothness and affordable price range.

[@faydulaksono]

agree!

[@MsTheCops]

Everything in this business has a "trade off". I run a high end water-cooled PC with a 3080 ...it can run EVERYTHING at any frame rate. Until one adds three 4K displays @ 43 inches each. It is here that we appreciate a powerful GPU & we have to accept 60 fps (or less with MSFS 2020). When I run a single display I get 4K resolution & the frames rate indicator makes no sense as it has indicated an FPS over 600. Going back to 3 displays I do notice a big frame rate drop ...but the immersion of hard racing or flying on 3 screens makes it all worth it ...an expensive "trade off"! I find that I almost never use the better performing single monitor set up due to that. My disclaimer is that I haven't played FPS (First Person Shooter) games on this new PC set up yet. I just realized this gaming business has a "dual meaning" Acronym ...FPS ...for those who care ...lol!

[@bbogdanmircea]

My question is how can you drive on that tiny monitor and seeing less than half the windshield? It's like driving a tank to me, can't see the Apex in hairpins or tight turns with such a small screen so I make the FOV wider but then I lose precision

[@SimRacingCorner]

With repetitive practice of a track, you can get past the limited view.

[@bbogdanmircea]

@@SimRacingCorner Probably you now the tracks by heart, or I don't know how you orient yourself with such a limited lateral view. I have a 22 Inch monitor at 50-60cm, so the FOV is like 30 or even less so this is really quite small.

[@SimRacingCorner]

​@@bbogdanmircea If you know the track well then you're already planning the corners ahead which makes it easier and you're almost on autopilot, and the small monitor used in the demonstration wasn't a problem for me. For sure a wider and closer monitor does help a lot.

[@bbogdanmircea]

@@SimRacingCorner I just began sim racing, most tracks are totally new to me, so I am struggling between bonnet camera which gives me a really nice perspective but no precision, and cockpit camera which offers lots of precision but no perspective. I will buy a TV that can do 60Hz and I hope it will get better.

[@geekytechycool]

So I've got a 27" Dell 1440p 144hz monitor or a 43" 4k 60hz Sony monitor. Please advise which one I should build the cockpit off of for my first sim rig? (Pc can support either screen at native resolutions and maximum frame rate for either monitor). I have limited space for a dedicated rig so I'm also contemplating going with VR but, being my first rig I'm not sure how well I'll handle not being able to see the wheel/shifter/e-brake/buttons in my peripheral vision.

[@SimRacingCorner]

I suggest you try both screens and see which works best for you. I'm assuming the 43" is a TV. In which case, latency could potentially be an issue to look out for. This can be checked using the cockpit view, and observing the onscreen wheel motion in relation to your real wheel.

[@geekytechycool]

@@SimRacingCorner I don't have any "sim rig" equipment yet. I have many screen solutions available as I buy and resell IT equipment as a side hustle. You're correct the Sony "monitor" is a Sony x800h TV (very hated TV as a TV, but quite good as a budget 4k PC monitor at the time I bought it in 2019) with pretty low latency/input lag for a TV (under 10 seconds according to rTings) I could also muster up a triple screen layout using standard "office" style monitors (24" 60hz panels) so not the thinnest bezels or the best response times. I'd love to test all of these different configurations but I don't have the space for that as this will determine the layout of the rest of my rig/office space at this point.

[@SimRacingCorner]

I would say a single 16:9 ratio screen isn't ideal for racing games from the cockpit view, as a realistically set field of view is quite a narrow view. I run an 38" ultrawide Alienware monitor (21:9), and VR. From a personal perspective; for a single screen setup, I feel an ultrawide monitor is the minimum spec for serious racing. My space is limited also.... kzbin.info/www/bejne/h167o5aPgayip68

[@geekytechycool]

@@SimRacingCorner so you're advising wider FOV (so wider screen real-estate) is better than a single standard larger screen or a faster refreshing smaller single standard screen? So that would lend me to believe a triple monitor setup is my best option even if I don't have the nicest monitors to choose from and then build on that over time with choice upgrades

[@SimRacingCorner]

@@geekytechycool Essentially yes. A wide FOV is where it counts for sim racing purposes. If you can wrangle up a triple screen setup, go for it. I would add, do experiment with your other screens too and find out for yourself.

[@gustavorigo7]

I have a doubt that is driving me crazy ... I have a 27 "monitor, 1080p, and I consider it small ... I need a bigger one ... my options are: a 1080p AOC, 165hz or a 4k 60hz tv .. .use for simulators only ... the idea of ​​the bigger size seems excellent to me ... will I lose a lot due to the update rate?

[@SimRacingCorner]

TV's usually suffer from bad input lag so be careful and look for reviews that show some gaming tests. Personally I'd recommend going ultrawide. A 34" ultrawide monitor is a good setup for sims, and getting the monitor close up behind the wheel. 49" Ultrawide is of course even better.

[@gustavorigo7]

@@SimRacingCorner The big problem is the value. A 31.5 AOC monitor of 165hz has the same price as a 43 "60hz TV ... I do not have access to the input lag of these devices. Ultrawide at the moment here in Brazil is out of the question!

[@yorkstbd]

Dirt Rally 2 on 75hz to 144hz have a huuuuuuuuuge difference

[@foaley77]

I wonder at what framerate you would need to get the rocks to look smooth on dirt rally 2, on the other tracks i couldnt really tell the difference between 60Hz and 120 hz

[@SimRacingCorner]

In DR 2.0 I do find a higher frame rate does help to make the car shaking less jarring on my eyes. I'd say 100+.

[@TheRoyp80]

Thanks for the video i have a 34inch ultra wide with 75hz. Do you believe it would be adequate for a startup setup ? I appreciate that you haven’t tested that yet but would. Be interested in your thoughts. TIA

[@SimRacingCorner]

I would say that's fine. The extra 15 fps still makes a difference.

[@TheRoyp80]

@@SimRacingCorner thank you for responding. Might see you at the track

[@ayo1097]

I'm not a high tech person so sorry for the dumb question. this question relates to playing simulation RF2, ACC at 4K. If I have a 2080 TI card with a high spec PC and buy a 49 inch monitor or TV that can do over 100hz...then can frames go beyond 60...or is there a max cap at 60 now because there is a limitation of HDMI 2.1 being not available. i was curious if the 2080TI can push beyond 60hz without HDMI 2.1 ...or is the highest you can do now is 4k 60hz no matter how high end system you have? thank you.

[@SimRacingCorner]

HMDI 2.1 supports up to 120hz at 4K. So there is a limit to the bandwidth, and does mean a max of 120 frames per second. However, high spec monitors will also come with DisplayPort and that can handle 144hz at 4k. These specs can be found on monitor brands websites.

[@enricobononi8655]

Did you try to make lap times comparison?!?! Rather than be just a subjective sensation I would run a series of lap and see the difference in lap times

[@SimRacingCorner]

Not yet, but plans for a comprehensive test of this type is in the planning stage.

[@Simlife101]

Makes a huge difference for me in slower cars. Way smoother feeling ad image. Sim Racing Corner wat was the model of the acer predator screen u used because have the z35p and it looks identical but i only get 120hz ifit is the same how did you up the hz

[@SimRacingCorner]

I have the non 'P' version, it's a lower res monitor with higher mhz.

[@Simlife101]

@@SimRacingCorner owe is it 1080p?

[@SimRacingCorner]

@@Simlife101 Yes, a wider version of that, 1080x2160

[@elmars302]

My laptop has 144hz screen, but it's 15", soo... not the best racing experience anyway. And buying large, high res monitors, the framerate difference is in different price brackets..

[@abuelb]

I simrace with my XBSX and Laptop (144hz, rtx3060) hooked up to my 55" 4k 60hz tv. It's a perfect size for immersion view as if you are looking through a real size car windshield. No issue with fps.

[@huhkgerry]

My eyes were already sitting tight on 165hz when i came back to 60hz i really get dizzy LMAOO

[@juangago7999]

Great video mate! I'm in doubt here, I moved from PS4 Pro to a PC (RTX 3060ti) I have a 4k 50" TV so my doubt is, should I prioritize refresh rate over screen size? Will a 50" 4K TV force the GPU too much? maybe it's a newbie question but I'm a console guy that bought his last gaming PC back in 2008 that is returning to the PC world

[@SimRacingCorner]

I'm assuming your TV is 60Hz. So as long as you're able to maintain 60FPS then your setup is fine, it's okay to run your GPU at it's limit during gaming, it's made to handle the load.

[@johnnypenso9574]

I thought about upgrading a couple of years ago but went with triple 46" TV monitors instead. At some point I might upgrade my card beyond the 1080 and then switch to 3x high end 32" or larger screens but other things like a transducer set up are interesting me first. IMO there is little difference though in sim racing. The frame time at 60 Hz is .017 seconds. At 144 Hz the frame time is .007 seconds. It looks better, you will feel better while racing and if you're in the market for a new monitor this is the way to go but anyone that says that a 1/100th of a second difference in frame time improves their response time and therefore their laptimes within the game is just talking out of their ass IMO. You might feel that's what's happening but logic tells you that no one has inputs accurate to 1/100th of a second to begin with.

[@mauri3793]

Hiya, I've just bought the new xbox series s and I was wondering what would be the best and smart option between buying: A) a 50-55" TV 4k UHD with HDR 10+ Or B) a pc monitor FHD 1080p 144 hz with FreeSync Or C) a pc monitor 1440p 144 hz with FreeSync Could anyone help me out please? I'm not too much into these stuff. Many thanks!

[@agontprevarator5214]

Depends on what you are looking for and what you PC setup can run.

[@abuelb]

55" 4k 120hz native hdmi 2.1 TV is your best option. There are many available on the market as of now

[@jw2par]

What game were you playing driving the cart racing?

[@SimRacingCorner]

I believe that was Automobilista.

[@LorenzoClara97]

In my opinion for simracing it isn't a game changer at all. For esport FPS maybe but I don't play them Of course the game would feel nicer and smoother to the eye but no difference in laptime.. And also.. I don't know why but my eyes gets tired way sooner at 120hz than 60/75..

[@bappi4218]

So 75hz freesync then?

[@setsbase2244]

Hey, great video! Did you measure your lap times with 60Hz and 144Hz?

[@SimRacingCorner]

I haven't but it is a test I mean to do at some point.

[@dapriyambodo3112]

its just simple to me no matter the game is but when i play on 60hz my eyes fatigue faster compared to 144hz. but when i played on 240 hz, my eyes fatigue at the same timing with 144 hz. so that happen my eyes fatigue faster when watching youtube, than when playing game in 144hz and bigger lmao

[@brulaapgaapmeester8234]

Shame that you jump from 60hz to 144hz. I would be interested to know when (in simracing) more hz becomes useless, so 60hz compared to 80/100/120. Is 144hz also much better than 100hz would be nice to know, since there are for instance several ultrawide monitors for sale that have 100hz instead of 144hz. And are considerably cheaper. I specifically mention ultrawides for two reasons. First is that an ultrawide does work well with simracing, and the second is that a 1440p ultrawide is even harder to operate for your videocard than a normal 27" 1440p, so you really need a strong machine to get anywhere near 144 fps, which makes 100hz ultrawides interesting since most PC's without a 2080ti wouldn't get much more than a 100 fps anyway. Nonetheless, thanks for your video. :-)

[@SimRacingCorner]

Actually, late in the video I put up some slides up that cover 100 and 120hz with some brief observations. You should find that useful.

[@brulaapgaapmeester8234]

@@SimRacingCorner Thanks for your reply. It was useful. One last thought. You speak of a smoother picture with a higher refresh rate, which is of course true. In simracing specifically, the car moves a certain number of meters per frame (depending on your speed), which is obviously a smaller number with a higher refresh. So that might help you position the car more precisely when aiming for an apex for instance. Unfortunately I'm kinda old and can't really see the difference between 75 fps and higher in the game I play mostly (ACC), but that's me. When I was young there were no PC's and nobody spoke of monitor refresh rates. ;-) But I do 'feel' that 75 fps is a bit smoother than 60 fps.

[@SimRacingCorner]

@@brulaapgaapmeester8234 This is a fair question, and I hope to look at whether there is a competitive advantage for sim racing with a higher frame rate at some point, along with a follow-up video.

[@robertt9342]

I wonder how many people in the comments have a high refresh rate monitor and swear by it, but run at lower frame rates.

[@niallith]

so should i just set my max fps ingame to 60 for a 60hz monitor yes?

[@SimRacingCorner]

Yes, rendering more frames than the monitor can display is a waste, it runs your system harder using more electricity.

[@niallith]

@@SimRacingCorner ok would turning v-sync on sort that out or do i have to limit the fps specifically

[@SimRacingCorner]

@@niallith Ideally avoid VSync as it creates input lag. Use the FPS limiter in-game or in the GPU driver software. Some people like to set the cap a little above the framerate, so you could try 65-70 fps as the cap. Or try Adaptive vsync in the GPU driver software.

[@karthik.max4450]

single 24" monitor enough for sim racing?..or i should go for 27" or 32".....and also i'll use that for FPS games

[@SimRacingCorner]

Any size monitor is okay, but for immersion and obtaining a more realistic scale, 27" is the minimum I'd recommend. If your budget can stretch a 34" ultrawide is really good for sim racing and all other gaming too.

[@karthik.max4450]

Thanks :) I'll go for 27"👍

[@dennyf57]

@@karthik.max4450 I have a 24” 144hz and I’ll rather use my 32” TV even tho it’s 5 years old just because everything is bigger, before the switch I was locking up on corners now everything is bigger so no more doubting myself on corners. :p hope it helpz

[@karthik.max4450]

@@dennyf57 thanks dude... currently 27" 1440p 144hz is sits on my ultimate budget limit for monitor...✌

[@andyw0340]

Great video mate 👍 . I guess it comes down to what you are used too , if like me you have only recently moved from console gaming on a TV to pc SIM racing then 60 Hz at 1440 resolution feels magnificent ! It's a bit like the jump from SD to HD TV , you don't realise how bad SD is until you get used to HD . Also if like me your pc is only mid spec is it worth having to drop down in resolution and detail to gain an extra 80 ish Herts ?

[@SimRacingCorner]

Thanks Andy. Yeah, I guess if you haven't tried something then you're not going to miss it. My 144hz monitor res is 1080x2160, so it's basically a 27" inch monitor with more width. I haven't tried a 1440p or 4k monitor for gaming so I don't have a reference or notice my current resolution is lacking because I haven't used anything else other than 1080p screens. So I don't know if I find would dropping down from a higher resolution will seem like a big downgrade.

[@efabiano82]

It's just not true that there isn't much of a difference between 60fps and 144fps in sim racing.

[@bluey7520]

That's not what I heard him to claim...

[@efabiano82]

@@bluey7520 @Bluey well, you could believe a guy that makes KZbin videos on controversial topics like this, who also has a vested financial interest in making polarizing videos. I on the other hand have no vested interest in stating my opinion on KZbin, no financial motivations, just triple 32" 144hz monitors with a full-motion simulator that I use everyday. What kind of sim rig do you own?

[@bluey7520]

@@efabiano82 Badly phrased, I think I meant that I don't believe he made that claim in the video. EDIT: Though tbh I don't even remember watching this video lol

[@lampat.8830]

what monitor for 144hz do u have thank you

[@SimRacingCorner]

My current monitor is the Alienware 38 aw3821dw

[@BryanJ1994]

I think the sweetspot is around 90FPS...for FPS Games...for Simracing the extra HZ you get with buying a 1440p 21:9 is a nice little extra for me. Not really necessary but nice to have...I think curved and 21:9 + the Resolution does alot more for me than the Refresh rate.

[@BlueYouttube]

What game was that @3:41????

[@SimRacingCorner]

World War Z

[@PhilippeDaix]

what is that first person shooter gane you play ? the one with the zombies :)

[@SimRacingCorner]

World Zar Z

[@TheXnyu]

the eye cant see more than 29frames per second

[@SimRacingCorner]

Try setting your monitor at 30hz and compare that to your monitor at 60hz playing the same game. Enough said!

[@scratchacker]

For oval yes, road course no

[@Garrus4Spectre]

helpful video. thanks.

[@SimRacingCorner]

You're welcome!

[@elementeliteye1234]

I known, I tell u what happened my ps4 60hz I was race get crash by curve a wall Make me confuse wtf. 144hz is best make me easy to driver and faster at curve. Truth this happened to u.

[@marijnvis1714]

I play on a old tv with a ps4, everything looks good compared to that