Myrmidonas :
Tearing is introduced every time the GPU renders frames in a frequency above the frequency the monitor is capable of. In order this "phenomenon" to be overiden Vsync (Vertical Synchronisation) was introduced. It is purpose is to allways keep both GPU and the monitor synchronized while rendering frames, either those frames are for games or videos or anything presented on a monitor.
As you can see here https://www.asus.com/gr/Commercial-Monitors/VH238H/specifications/ your monitor is capable of displaying 56 to 75 Hz Vertical according to the manufacturer. This is a good guide for you. Either turn on Vsync on the games settings and on your GPU's driver software (nVidia geforce experience or the 3D settings on the nVidia control panel, or if you have AMD/ATI find the relevant settings on the CRIMSON software) or try to limit somehow the rendering inside the above mentioned boundaries. 60Hz are a good number, but if you can manage more, by all means use it. In general more FPS on games the better for your eyes, but the monitor has to keep up with your GPU in order to achieve the best result. Otherwise you have tearing.
False.
Screen tearing happens both above and below the refresh rate in FPS. It happens because the GPU and the monitor aren't in sync, hence why VSync, FreeSync, GSync exists, to make sure the frame variation doesn't happen (more than just FPS). Limiting FPS does nothing, as long as you're not limiting anything above 60 FPS in-game to 60 FPS, on a 60 Hz monitor. That is because the higher you go above 60 FPS, the more frequent the tearing.
Now, obviously the games play a huge part to, but I won't get into that. There's too much variation. There are even games where GSync doesn't function properly, so it's definitely not black and white.
If above was true, then pushing 60 FPS on a 60 Hz monitor wouldn't cause any screen tearing, but the GPU is rendering frames dynamically, where as the monitor remains static. The monitor is asking for a frame every 16.67 ms (1/59.94=0.01668), however, the GPU is rendering frames as fast as it can, it doesn't care if it's in sync with the monitor or not. If the timing is off, then you get screen tearing, because the monitor asks for a frame at the same time the GPU is copying it's frame from the back-buffer to the frame-buffer.
With that said, playing at 144 FPS on a 144 Hz monitor is likely to get rid of screen tearing, without any sync between monitor and GPU, but that requires overclocking (likely not achievable), or buying a new monitor...
The 56-75 Hz is just the specs of what the power supply is capable of. The refresh rate of the monitor while you're using it, never changes, it remains the same, at all times, unless changed manually.
If you're pushing 120 FPS in a game, it's no different than 60 FPS, if you use a 60 Hz monitor, that's just the way it is. The monitor is bottlenecking the performance of what your system is capable of, in the games you play. The solution is not to limit the FPS to match the refresh rate of the monitor. The real solution is to enable sync, or buy a monitor capable of a higher refresh rate.
The advantage of a higher refresh rate isn't just the FPS (smoother gameplay), the biggest advantage of a high refresh rate monitor (assuming LCD), is the fact that you get less visible ghosting regardless if you're pushing 60 FPS on a 144 Hz monitor. Obviously different "flicker" technologies such as Black Frame Insertion, Lightboost, Ultra Low Motion Blur, are not going to be effective at FPS that low.
However, you still get the benefit of the lower static response times. We know that 60 Hz is 16.67 ms, but what about 144 Hz? 6.9 ms, that's 2.4x faster transitions than 16.67 ms. The result? 2.4x less ghosting, in a perfect world.
Unfortunately it's not always perfect. Due to the fact that the manufacturers/brands are trying to convince the unaware/uneducated, saying things like "1 ms is better than 5 ms", we obviously have a problem. It's unfortunate that a lot of people/consumers seem to think they know it all, and I don't blame them. The big name brands are basically educating them into thinking they're experts. It helps selling more monitors, so why should they care?
I'm starting to get a little bit off topic here (partly related to refresh rate), but for those interested; the advertised response time isn't input lag (which many seem to believe is the case), and it's not better than the other "5 ms" monitors out there, it can't be. It's a spec developed to fool as many as they can, while still not completely lying, just partly a lie, though debatable whether or not if it should be allowed.
If "1 ms" was truly achievable in an LCD (not going to happen), then it would be true, but it isn't. The only way to reach a 1 ms pixel persistance currently, is to use Lightboost, there is no other way. So, not even the manufacturers agree with the refresh rate/response time arguments, it's just the people/consumers that carried on spreading the lies.
All the best!
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram