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.
Who the fuck wants a 120hrz screen on a portable 🤣
Me.
I guess if you want to shit your battery life away while having to struggle to hit 60fps more power to ya 🤷♂️
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.