this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
79 points (94.4% liked)
Games
31804 readers
1248 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Who the fuck wants a 120hrz screen on a portable ๐คฃ
Me.
I guess if you want to shit your battery life away while having to struggle to hit 60fps more power to ya ๐คทโโ๏ธ
Struggle? Did you see the specs?
I did. I doubt many games will push past 90 much less 120 without significant fidelity loss.
I suppose we'll see it in testing. I imagine you think high refresh rate is only nice for games though? It's certainly the main factor, but I enjoy high framerates for skimming text with smooth scrolling among other things.
Having the option for 120hz on the ROG Ally was a game changer. Especially combined with AMD Fluid Motion Frames 2 which just released and variable refresh rate on the screen. It's hard to go back to anything without them now.
I honestly can't imagine too many games that can be driven past 60fps with this hardware besides 2d stuff. I'm sure there are a few but I imagine it mostly just burns battery for most people.
Again, AMD Fluid Motion Frames 2. And when there are cases where your game cannot hit whatever threshold needed for 120fps, that's where the variable refresh rate comes in.
You think fluid motion is just going to make games perform at 120 fps or near that? Especially without artifacting or fidelity? That's highly optimistic.
Also I'm not sure why you keep on mentioning vrr, it has nothing to do with a 120 hrz screen wasting battery power chasing on paper metrics. Power is still allocated and not dynamic on this device.
Everything I'm running gets between 100-120+ fps with AFMF2 with far less artifacting than previous AFMF1. I'm mentioning VRR because it means that if a game doesn't hit 120FPS, it stays perfectly smooth so frame dips are far less noticeable. I'm using an ROG Ally X, so I don't spend much time worrying about battery power at all anymore unlike the previous ROG Ally. I get about 2-3 hours playing the bigger games on it and for anything that I want to basically play forever (2d stuff), I can set screen to 720p, lock screen to 60fps (or less) and lock TDP to 7 watts and get 10 or so hours out of it.
If you aren't interested in trying the driver with AFMF2 (which is not yet officially released for the handheld Windows devices yet but can be sideloaded), you can also play with Lossless Scaling on Steam which can also do frame generation up to 4x.
Variable refresh rate is best on monitors that have high refresh rates because there's a wider range of fps that it can adapt to. Even if you're only at 80-100 fps, you're benefiting from your refresh rate of your monitor being higher, particularly for frame times.
Also, I simply cannot imagine why you're offended about refresh rate reaching 120hz. That's purely a benefit. You can turn it down to save battery. There is literally zero downside.
Being honest, and I know this isn't a laptop or some productivity device, but I personally very much dislike using any screen under 100Hz now, even for just simple desktop use. I think I get your point, that it would have made more practical sense to use a more economical display.
I just know I personally wouldn't spring for something like this if it only had a 60Hz display, though.