We all love when a game looks great. Graphical fidelity has only continued to increase as time goes on; game developers continue to push the envelope with how good a game can look, integrating tech like ray tracing and textures at extreme resolutions. This, of course, comes at a cost, and it’s paid for in FPS.
Generally speaking, a computer that’s capable of pushing out frames at extreme fidelity, with all the graphical bells and whistles turned on, will also be capable of pushing out high framerates at lower settings. However, the threshold for a computer to put out high framerates is significantly lower, both in price and parts availability. Here’s why your next PC build should be planned around high framerates rather than high fidelity.
6 PC building disasters that could cost you hundreds of dollars
Some mistakes can be fixed easily, while others can kill your precious PC components
3 Your build will be much more affordable
Unlike high settings, high framerates don't have to break the bank
Especially in esports titles, reaching framerates in excess of 144 shouldn’t be too difficult for most modern gaming hardware. A mid-tier system is absolutely capable of putting out consistent framerates, allowing for a smooth experience. In order to crank up the graphics settings, however, a more powerful GPU is required, which has only been ballooning in cost as of recently. Cards like the 4060 or 7600 XT from this generation are more than adequate for 1080p gaming at medium to low settings, and if found at MSRP, provide a decent value. Want ray tracing and slightly better-looking textures? That’ll be an extra few hundred dollars, as well as a big chunk of your average framerate.
5 reasons DLSS and FSR are game-changers for budget gaming PCs
Budget gaming PCs deal with aa ton of constraints. DLSS and FSR help ease the load
2 Consistent, high framerates provide a better gaming experience
You won't notice the extra fidelity while playing anyway
The starkest difference between gaming on a console and gaming on a PC is the ability to push out high framerates. That’s not a slight to console gamers either, by the way. A consistent 60 FPS is better than 120 FPS average with dips to below 60. But every time I’ve introduced someone who’s only ever played console games to a similar title on PC, they immediately notice the fluidity of the experience.
It obviously depends on the title, but I find cranking settings like effects and lighting to their max doesn’t provide a better experience, and if anything, only takes away from gameplay. If you were to take a screenshot of a game running on low settings and look around, I’m sure you could point out multiple graphical imperfections, maybe even things that just look straight-up bad. To me, though, how the gameplay feels is so much more important, and if I’m getting constant dips in framerate just for some better glass refraction effects, I’d rather just turn the settings down a bit.
Is ray tracing even worth it in 2025?
Ray tracing is over 6 years old now, but it's still pointless for the majority of gamers
1 It allows you to harness high refresh rate displays
High refresh rate screens can make a huge difference in some titles
It’s likely the case that if you have a powerful PC, you probably have a nice monitor as well. A high refresh rate display is only as good as the frames you send to it, so if you’re only able to output 60 FPS to your 240hz display, you’re wasting a ton of potential. Even for those of us who may not have the highest-end components, it’s still possible to squeeze out framerates that make a high refresh rate display worth using. In FPS titles like Counter-Strike 2 or Rainbow 6 Siege where you’ll absolutely feel the extra hertz, it’s possible to output great framerates with a system that doesn’t break the bank.
Higher refresh rates or better resolution: Which one do you prefer?
2024 has been an amazing year for monitors, with LG's new UltraGear series putting the age-old resolution-vs-refresh-rate debacle to rest with its 4K 240Hz panels. Sadly, these displays tend to cost a fortune, and you'll need to spend an obscenely large sum of money to hit such high frame rates at 4K. So, the debate still rages on for most of us.
While I do believe that my Uperfect UGame K118 portable monitor provides the perfect compromise with its 2K resolution and 144Hz refresh rate (well, technically 130Hz, since that's the highest I could go via the mini-HDMI port), I tend to lean heavily on the resolution side. That's because I spend most of my gaming hours immersing myself inside single-player game worlds, with casual titles like Lethal Company and Phasmophobia comprising my multiplayer game library. But enough about me. Are you a part of the high refresh rate faction? Or do you believe in high-resolution supremacy?
Playing on high settings can be overrated
There are games that look absolutely fantastic at high settings, especially some single-player titles where framerate isn’t paramount. If you’re looking to get into these kinds of titles and want the highest fidelity possible, it’ll cost you a pretty penny, but it would be worth it if that’s what your primary use case would be. For a lot of PC builders out there, though, it’s worth it to save a few bucks and just turn the settings down a bit. A fluid game on medium settings is better than a choppy one on ultra.