Ever since I got my first G-Sync monitor, the LG 27GN950, I've always been on the fence about VRR. Despite that, I went on to buy two more monitors that supported adaptive sync, the Alienware AW3423DW and the AW2725DF. Honestly, I didn't care whether they had G-Sync or FreeSync certification specifically because, at that point, adaptive sync support just felt like a standard feature you naturally get with a high-end gaming monitor.

I always left VRR enabled, mostly out of habit rather than because I strongly believed it was helping across all the games I played. But that changed once I started spending most of my time playing competitive games on my AW2725DF at 360Hz. The usual arguments in favor of VRR, like eliminating screen tearing, didn't feel nearly as convincing once latency became my top priority. So for the past week, I decided to properly test VRR on and off to see whether I actually played better with it enabled or if I had simply gotten used to it.

360Hz already hides a lot of what VRR is supposed to fix

Screen tearing stops feeling like a dealbreaker at higher refresh rates

The first thing I noticed after turning VRR off was that I could barely tell the difference, no matter what game I played. Sure, my AW2725DF doesn't carry an official G-Sync certification, but it still supports FreeSync Premium Pro, which is all you need to enable VRR in the Nvidia Control Panel. So it's not like I was comparing proper VRR support against a monitor that barely supported adaptive sync in the first place. If anything, this experience made me realize just how much my monitor's refresh rate was helping with tearing.

At lower refresh rates, screen tearing stands out immediately because each frame stays visible long enough for your eyes to catch it. But at 360Hz, the monitor refreshes so quickly that those tear lines become much harder to notice during actual gameplay. Another thing I want to point out is that screen tearing is common when your FPS exceeds your monitor's refresh rate, but I'm not maxing out my refresh rate in most games I play anyway. In AAA titles, I'm usually sitting around 80-120FPS, while in fast-paced competitive shooters, it's closer to 250-350FPS. So I didn't really feel the need to keep VRR enabled when the trade-off no longer felt worth it at 360Hz.

I want the lowest latency possible

I'd rather remove one more variable that affects latency for competitive gaming

You'd be quick to point out that G-Sync barely adds any latency in the first place, but that 2-3ms of added latency still matters to me when I'm playing fast-paced shooters at 360Hz. When you're playing competitively, you're chasing every tiny improvement that you can get anyway. People splurge on lighter mice with higher polling rates and hall-effect keyboards just to shave off a few milliseconds wherever possible, so I'd gladly trade a few tear lines here and there if it means removing one more thing that could affect responsiveness.

Also, for G-Sync to work properly on my monitor, I had to cap my max frame rate to 342 FPS using Nvidia Control Panel to stay within the VRR range and avoid constantly bumping into the refresh rate ceiling while playing lighter esports titles like Valorant and Counter-Strike 2. Now I know that isn't a huge compromise, but when you care more about responsiveness than perfectly synchronized frame delivery, it felt counterintuitive to limit performance. I'd rather let my PC push as many frames as possible and get the raw experience instead of worrying about the tearing that I barely even notice.

VRR is still worth it in the right games

But I rarely ever play the demanding AAA games that do benefit from it

Screen tearing is one thing, but that's not really the only use case for VRR. If that were the case, G-Sync and FreeSync wouldn't have become this popular in the first place. VRR also helps smooth out uneven frame pacing and inconsistent frametimes, so when you play demanding AAA titles where your FPS constantly fluctuates, you can get a noticeably smoother experience with adaptive sync enabled. To be fair, if I spent most of my time playing those kinds of games, I'd probably still leave VRR enabled without thinking twice about it.

But here's the thing: the last time I played a AAA game was over a year ago, when Assassin's Creed: Shadows came out. Nowadays, whenever I get time outside of work, I'm playing competitive shooters like Valorant and Battlefield 6 instead. In these titles, my frame rates are already well past the triple-digit mark, so VRR just doesn't feel nearly as impactful as it does in slower single-player games. And when tearing itself becomes harder to notice on my 360Hz monitor, it just makes more sense to prioritize responsiveness instead of trying to smooth out inconsistencies that barely stand out at high frame rates.

I just don't see VRR's benefits at 360Hz

It could've just been placebo or me overthinking the setup, but I actually deranked from Ascendant 1 to Diamond 2 over the weekend in Valorant while bottom fragging in a bunch of matches. Then I turned it off and climbed back to Diamond 3 in no time. Maybe it was all just in my head, but the entire experience made me realize how much I value responsiveness and consistency in competitive games. I still think adaptive sync is beneficial when your frame rates are heavily fluctuating. But since that's not a problem in the competitive titles I play regularly, I just don't see a reason to leave it enabled for a few occasional tear lines that I don't even notice at 360Hz.