Is there any point in running at a fps that is faster than the refresh rate?

[eyez]

What is the point of running at 110 fps if your monitor only refresh at 85hz?

 

[Howard]

That's why V-Sync should be disabled.

 

[MikeyP]

For most people, there is no point; however for very good players it is an advantage. Although every frame is not displayed, the perceived response time is much better. When the frame is displayed, you get a slightly more accurate picture of where everyone is. However, turning v-sync off can lead to tearing.

 

[Dufusyte]

As the monitor is drawing a frame, it will include the newer information in the lower half of the screen. Thus, you will get a slice of the new frame.

If the monitor's refresh rate were higher, it would draw the entire new frame, but if the monitor's refresh rate is slower, then it only has time to draw a slice of the new frame.

But at least you get a slice. Who knows: it might be the slice that has the incoming rocket in it.

 

[Howard]

Triple buffering works as a substitute for V-Sync, and it doesn't have as much of a performance hit.

 

[gnognugs]

110FPS is only peak. Prolly still dips down to like 50 somtimes.
But FPS is where it should be now.
Features will be soon too (not that there can ever be enough).
I want to see 48bit color.
That'd be nice

 

[Mixxen]

I only disable Vsync if I am benchmarking.

Other than that, I have it enabled because tearing sucks.

Just take a look at of the intro videos in games like Quake3, Alice, NOLF...if vsync is disabled you'll see a lot of tearing and it looks like it's dropping frames but it's not, with it enable the video looks smooth.

Also if vsync is disabled some games do not display exacly how the developers wanted the game to look. Alice is a good example.