Every PC gamer has internalized the same basic logic from the first day they learn about frames per second: more FPS means a better experience. It's the reason we obsess over benchmark numbers, chase GPU upgrades, and leave our framerates uncapped.

But what if I told you that your uncapped framerate is actually making your games feel worse? I tested three games at 4K: Cyberpunk 2077, Counter-Strike 2, and Battlefield 6, comparing uncapped performance against both in-game and Nvidia App FPS caps. The results were consistent: capping your framerate almost always produced lower latency, tighter frame delivery, and a smoother overall experience, even though the average FPS number on screen was lower. Here's what the data actually shows, and how to set up a cap that works for your system.

Capping your FPS dramatically reduces latency

The feeling of a game comes down to more than just FPS

The single biggest benefit of an FPS cap is what it does to PC latency, which is the time between your input and the result appearing on screen. When you leave your framerate uncapped, the GPU renders frames as fast as it can, but many of those frames end up sitting in a queue waiting to be displayed. By the time they actually reach your monitor, the game state they represent is already stale. A cap shortens that pipeline, keeping each displayed frame closer to real-time.

The difference can be subtle, but it can also be really noticeable. In Cyberpunk 2077, running the in-game benchmark uncapped produced an average PC latency of 36.01ms. Applying the in-game FPS cap at 60 dropped that to 16.31ms, which is less than half. The Nvidia App cap landed at 20.37ms, still a massive improvement over uncapped. You don't need a latency analyzer to feel a gap that large; the game simply feels more responsive with a cap in place, and this is also corroborated by the frametime graphs, which are shown in the next section of this article.

Battlefield 6 showed the same pattern. Running uncapped in an online Conquest match on Blackwell Fields, latency averaged 10.83ms. The in-game cap at 100 FPS pulled that down to 8.15ms, and the Nvidia App cap came in at 8.95ms. The margins are tighter here because the system isn't overshooting the cap by as much, but the improvement was still consistent and clearly visible in the per-frame data. If I were running more conservative settings instead of the Overkill preset, I'd likely see a greater improvement here.

Counter-Strike 2 is where things get especially interesting. With a 240 FPS cap on a de_ancient training scenario, the in-game limiter barely moved the needle on latency, producing 13.91ms on average versus 13.66ms uncapped. But the Nvidia App cap slashed it to 5.89ms, a reduction of more than 57%. In a competitive FPS game like Counter-Strike 2, that latency reduction is absolutely massive.

One important thing to note from this data is that, even with the same cap target, we see wildly different results depending on the method. That's a critical detail: not all frame limiters work the same way under the hood, and the best option will vary from game to game.

Frame consistency matters more than average FPS

It's not the entire story, but it's certainly part of the puzzle

Latency is only part of the story. The other major benefit of capping is its effect on frame consistency, where bigger gains can be felt, depending on the game.

In Cyberpunk 2077, the uncapped run averaged 73 FPS, which sounds great on paper, but when you look at the frametime graph, you can clearly see that the uncapped frametimes are all over the place, and this can absolutely be felt by the player, even in a non-competitive title like this. Battlefield 6 and Counter-Strike 2 have less obvious changes in frametime when you look at the graph and averages, but even when uncapped framerates don't have an outsized effect on reducing frametimes, the overall consistency of the experience is better thanks to the aforementioned reduction in overall latency.

There is a small quirk in the Counter-Strike 2 data, with uncapped FPS being actually lower on average than when it was capped, and I suspect this has something to do with how map assets are loaded after a player rejoins the server, but I wasn't able to confirm, as all of my runs with uncapped framerate ended up having lower average values. The bottom line is the same either way: your mileage will certainly vary when it comes to improving frametimes, as it all depends on the game and your hardware configuration.

How to set your cap

There are a couple of approaches

The approach is straightforward. If your GPU routinely exceeds your monitor's refresh rate in a given game, set the cap to or slightly below your monitor's refresh rate. There's no benefit to rendering frames your display can't show, and as the data above demonstrates, there's a real cost in latency and consistency.

If your framerate usually sits below your monitor's refresh rate, you can still benefit from a cap. Find where your average FPS typically lands during normal gameplay and set the cap slightly below that. This prevents the GPU from constantly overshooting and then dipping, which causes the frame time spikes that make uncapped performance feel inconsistent.

As for which cap to use, test both the in-game limiter and the Nvidia App limiter. The CS2 data makes this point very clearly: the in-game cap barely improved latency, while the Nvidia App cap cut it by more than half. In Cyberpunk, the in-game cap was actually the better performer. There's no universal answer here, so check your results with a tool like FrameView or the Nvidia overlay's latency readout.

When uncapped FPS still makes sense

Uncapped can be the right call

There are legitimate scenarios where leaving things uncapped is the right move. If you’re using G-Sync or FreeSync, the advice changes slightly. VRR can smooth out presentation as long as you stay inside the display’s VRR range, but that does not automatically eliminate render queue latency.

In many setups, the best approach is still to a cap a few FPS below your monitor’s maximum refresh rate, though competitive players may prefer uncapped or Reflex-based behavior depending on the game. Some competitive players also intentionally run uncapped well above their monitor's refresh rate so that the frame being scanned out at any given moment is as fresh as possible, which matters on displays where the refresh rate is pushing over 360Hz.

For most people, capping FPS is the move

For most people, on most monitors, in most games, a well-placed FPS cap produces a noticeably smoother and more responsive experience than chasing the biggest number your hardware can output. The FPS counter might show a smaller number, but your hands and eyes will tell you it feels better. It takes seconds to do and immediately yields a huge improvement in the overall experience.