You've just said 300 is the best, what are you even asking?

but what if 125 gives 2% more lg accuracy

I would assume that the higher your FPS is, the better your gameplay experience will be. I do perform better at 300 compared to 120 or 125 fps. And yes, even if your monitor only runs at 60Hz you'll feel a difference.

Basically, the quality of the experience can be affected by the quality of your mouse, the hardware, the software, the internet lag and monitor. Those usually are the major factors.

The smoother the game runs on hardware, the smoother it will be displayed on your monitor, but that one is limited to 60Hz.

Maybe we could use the analogy of downsampling. Basically the hardware runs the game at a higher resolution, then downscales it to your native resolution and in results... the image you get is sharper.

The process behind gameplay inputs and player performance (hardware -> monitor) is similar.

There are holywars in the "mainstream internet" about FPS values. Some people say that 24 is more than enough because movies has 24 fps. Why 300fps with 60Hz looks smoother than 125? Both of this numbers are beyond refresh rate.

Maybe its from staring at 100 hz monitors for so long but 24 fps and games with low fps /w motion blur actually make me semi nauseous and feel less in control(if that makes sense). bleh

The reason for more than 125 fps is beyond me, wouldn't higher fps also mean you're more prone to fps drops? Someone obviously pushed for this change, I am curious what his argument was.

Tidal Blast's downsampling idea is intriguing

The reason is the fact that there are monitors with 240hz. They do have a lot of input lag though, at least compared to the 144hz monitors.

higher fps => smoother gameplay.
however, ql audio engine drops some sounds with higher framerates.

No general answer could be found, it mainly depends of the game, the hardware and software layers and the player but basically a straight answer is: the most FPS your PC can handle, the smoother your feeling.

FPS in Goldsrc = wuuuuuuuuuut

ql is goldsrc?

No, just saying.

posting in Tek-9 thread.

125 < 250 < 333 with quake engine

are you talking about CS?
With CS is different. http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2911026

I'm talking about games in general. But every game has different engine.
About noticable difference between 125 and 300 - I tested it in CSS v34 by binding fps_max with different values and changing it on-the-fly.
Also I'm trying to find out what FPS is best for:
CSS v34
CS 1.6
UT 3
UT 2k4
UT 99

imo for all CS games it will be the same or almost the same... depending on rates etc.

UT? Doesn't it capped on 60 or 90? so always max is best?

heard that you can up the fps cap, but only locally, not multiplayer games.

Not sure about UT99, but you can in the others. Max in UT2k4 is 170 or 200fps, stable.

>Doesn't it capped on 60 or 90? so always max is best?
Yes, but in UTEngine.ini you can set:
bSmoothFrameRate=TRUE
MinSmoothedFrameRate=0.000000
MaxSmoothedFrameRate=10000.000000
And even online it will get up to 1000-1500 and higher (if your PC can handle it).

in any cs game your fps should be the same as server updrate or cmdrate
64 tick servers=64 fps(cs:go mostly) 128tick 128fps
100tick=100fps(cs1.6)
source i have no idea
but in general the higher the better the one i put are minimums to so ur game performs well

the higher = the better in 99% of cases...

As a general rule, the highest stable frame rate you can get is the best, no matter your refresh rate. Less visible tearing, improved responsiveness - it's just better all around.

Some specific game engines might prefer some values though (like Quake where the netcode works best with 125 &250 or even 500fps)

I find anything above 125fps overkill, you should concentrate on getting a 120hz monitor.

125fps/120hz is much better than 300fps/60hz.

1337.

general rule is that h8m3 is always right