How much for a gaming PC that’ll support 200 FPS?

My son is after a gaming PC (currently has a 2 year old Lenovo Y520 gaming laptop). Typical 13yo, plays mainly Fortnite and CoD. Reason he wants to upgrade is to get a better FPS, he says at the minute he gets around 120, (which from what I’ve googled sounds like a good number for Fortnite, what do I know though...)

He’d like to sell his laptop and put the money towards building a gaming rig. I’m just trying to get a handle on the numbers, if we built a PC what would a realistic figure for the parts be, I know he’d need a 240hz monitor, good GPU. Is £1000 realistic?

What I don’t want is to go through the whole thing only to end up with something that’s not that much better than his current laptop.

Any advice appreciated!
 

fyl2u

Striker
Jesus. 200? Totally pointless. 120 is a superb FPS. No way does he actually need more than that. Christ he probably couldn't tell the difference between 120 and 70, he's just jealous about other people having a higher rate than him because he's heard that higher rates exist. If he played on a 200 fps system he probably wouldn't even notice the difference. Absolutely no need.

To put it into context, the standard TV frame rate is 25 fps in the UK. Have you ever watched TV and thought "ooh the frame rate on this is really low, everyone seems like they're moving in a weird blocky way"? No? Then give the lad a slap and tell him there's nowt wrong with his current one.
 
Last edited:
Jesus. 200? Totally pointless. 120 is a superb FPS. No way does he actually need more than that. Christ he probably couldn't tell the difference between 120 and 70, he's just jealous about other people having a higher rate than him because he's heard that higher rates exist. If he played on a 200 fps system he probably wouldn't even notice the difference. Absolutely no need.

To put it into context, the standard TV frame rate is 25 fps in the UK. Have you ever watched TV and thought "ooh the frame rate on this is really low, everyone seems like they're moving in a weird blocky way"? No? Then give the lad a slap and tell him there's nowt wrong with his current one.
Appreciate that context, it confirms my suspicion that he’s just watching too many youtubers showing off their setups. I’m clueless about gaming setups, to be fair i chose the 200 number as if he’s already at 120 that’d be the kind of figure it’d be worth changing things over for.

I’ll probably steer him down the route of getting a decent new monitor instead.
 

fyl2u

Striker
Appreciate that context, it confirms my suspicion that he’s just watching too many youtubers showing off their setups. I’m clueless about gaming setups, to be fair i chose the 200 number as if he’s already at 120 that’d be the kind of figure it’d be worth changing things over for.

I’ll probably steer him down the route of getting a decent new monitor instead.
No problem mate, I've seen it many times. I play FPS games all the time and I only get 70 fps tops, and at no point have I ever thought "I wish I had better FPS so I could compete with these other people". It's always been perfectly sufficient for me to kill, maim and destroy, and win regularly.

There really is no need at all. 120 is amazing already.

I've been playing FPS games for more than 20 years, and I'm not sure even I could tell the difference between 120 and 200. Or between 70 and 120 tbh.
 
Last edited:
As has beem said, if you're getting over 60 you're fine. I think you should be able to kick the can down the road for a year or two.

200fps, he's having a laugh mate. :lol:
 

Starborst

Goalkeeper
Fortnight would probably run on a cardboard box with a drawing of a computer on it.

As for FPS, anything over 100 is amazing, 60 good, 30 passable. If he has 120 already your wasting your money.

What Is The Best FPS For Gaming? [Simple Answer]
Depends what he ends up playing tbh. If he's playing just Fortnite then 120fps is more than enough.

However if he were to play a game like CS:GO, I'd say that he was justified in wanting more than 120fps. (Not that 120fps isn't exactly playable!). Even going from 60hz to 144hz for it was game changing
 
Last edited:
Depends what he ends up playing tbh. If he's playing just Fortnite then 120fps is more than enough.

However if he were to play a game like CS:GO, I'd say that he was justified in wanting more than 120fps. (Not that 120fps isn't exactly playable!). Even going from 60hz to 144hz for it was game changing
Unless he's a professional at the top of his game, I doubt he's going to need 200fps.

Why do you reckon CS:GO needs a better fps than fortnite?
 

fyl2u

Striker
Depends what he ends up playing tbh. If he's playing just Fortnite then 120fps is more than enough.

However if he were to play a game like CS:GO, I'd say that he was justified in wanting more than 120fps. (Not that 120fps isn't exactly playable!). Even going from 60hz to 144hz for it was game changing
🤨

Maybe if it was a PC he was taking to the international championships. :lol:

Even then, I believe they supply your PCs for those, so he still wouldn't need it.
 

Starborst

Goalkeeper
Unless he's a professional at the top of his game, I doubt he's going to need 200fps.

Why do you reckon CS:GO needs a better fps than fortnite?
Professionals in CS normally have around minimum 450fps in comparison

I'm just speaking from my own personal experience of both games tbh. I'd last played Fortnite at 60fps with my old monitor and thought it was absolutely fine. When I made the change from 60hz > 144hz purely for the purpose of playing CS:GO the difference was mental. It's probably the best change I've made.

CS:GO is probably my favourite game ever, whereas I'm not a fan of Fortnite, so I'm probably just a bit biased.. :lol:

🤨

Maybe if it was a PC he was taking to the international championships. :lol:

Even then, I believe they supply your PCs for those, so he still wouldn't need it.
The TO's do supply their own PC's, yes.

Although I don't really see what's so hilarious in it, the difference in playing 60hz to 144hz is massive, and if that's the switch someone was going to make they're going to probably want around 200fps just to stay above 144..
 

fyl2u

Striker
Professionals in CS normally have around minimum 450fps in comparison

I'm just speaking from my own personal experience of both games tbh. I'd last played Fortnite at 60fps with my old monitor and thought it was absolutely fine. When I made the change from 60hz > 144hz purely for the purpose of playing CS:GO the difference was mental. It's probably the best change I've made.

CS:GO is probably my favourite game ever, whereas I'm not a fan of Fortnite, so I'm probably just a bit biased.. :lol:


The TO's do supply their own PC's, yes.

Although I don't really see what's so hilarious in it, the difference in playing 60hz to 144hz is massive, and if that's the switch someone was going to make they're going to probably want around 200fps just to stay above 144..
I'm laughing because it's ridiculous to think it's going to make any difference to your gameplay.

At 60fps, you're getting one frame every 0.0167 seconds.
At 144fps, you're getting one frame every 0.0069 seconds.
At 200fps, you're getting one frame every 0.005 seconds.

Recent studies have shown that the brain at its absolute fastest can only process visual information that lasts a minimum of 0.013 seconds, so essentially, much more than 76fps and you're fooling yourself that you can see any difference at all. Brains just don't don't work that quickly when it comes to visual information.

In the blink of an eye
 

Starborst

Goalkeeper
I'm laughing because it's ridiculous to think it's going to make any difference to your gameplay.

At 60fps, you're getting one frame every 0.0167 seconds.
At 144fps, you're getting one frame every 0.0069 seconds.
At 200fps, you're getting one frame every 0.005 seconds.

Recent studies have shown that the brain at its absolute fastest can only process visual information that lasts a minimum of 0.013 seconds, so essentially, much more than 76fps and you're fooling yourself that you can see any difference at all. Brains just don't don't work that quickly when it comes to visual information.

In the blink of an eye
So you're telling me that I can barely see a difference between 60hz and 144hz? Quite clearly you haven't used one before, not for gaming specifically, just for any kind of general use. :lol:

Just googled '60hz v 144hz reddit'.. THIS is the first link that comes up on Google, people saying just how noticeable and smoother the experience is. Pretty much every link will be recommending 144hz monitors as well. Buzzing I bought mine, loads better than a 60. :cool:
 

fyl2u

Striker
So you're telling me that I can barely see a difference between 60hz and 144hz? Quite clearly you haven't used one before, not for gaming specifically, just for any kind of general use. :lol:

Just googled '60hz v 144hz reddit'.. THIS is the first link that comes up on Google, people saying just how noticeable and smoother the experience is. Pretty much every link will be recommending 144hz monitors as well. Buzzing I bought mine, loads better than a 60. :cool:
Well, PC Gamer interviewed a number of brain experts here:

How many frames per second can the human eye really see?

...and while there's no actual consensus between the different professors they asked, it's an interesting read.

One says 90Hz is the dropoff point beyond which few people will be able to tell the difference:
"“Sure, aficionados might be able to tell teeny tiny differences, but for the rest of us it’s like red wine is red wine.” "

Another says that once you get beyond 20Hz, your brain starts "dropping" frames:
"“It’s clear from the literature that you cannot see anything more than 20 Hz,” he tells me. And while I admit I initially snorted into my coffee, his argument soon began to make a lot more sense." He explains to me that when we’re searching for and categorising elements as targets in a first person shooter, we’re tracking multiple targets, and detecting motion of small objects. “For example, if you take the motion detection of small object, what is the optimal temporal frequency of an object that you can detect?” And studies have found that the answer is between 7 and 13 Hz. After that, our sensitivity to movement drops significantly. “When you want to do visual search, or multiple visual tracking or just interpret motion direction, your brain will take only 13 images out of a second of continuous flow, so you will average the other images that are in between into one image.” Discovered by researcher Rufin vanRullen in 2010, this literally happens in our brains: you can see a steady 13 Hz pulse of activity in an EEG, and it’s further supported by the observation that we can also experience the ‘wagon wheel effect’ you get when you photograph footage of a spinning spoked object. Played back, footage can appear to show the object rotating in the opposite direction. “The brain does the same thing,” says Chopin. “You can see this without a camera. Given all the studies, we’re seeing no difference between 20hz and above. Let’s go to 24hz, which is movie industry standard. But I don’t see any point going above that.” The important thing here is that Chopin is talking about the brain acquiring visual information which it can process and on which it can act. He’s not saying that we can’t notice a difference between 20 Hz and 60 Hz footage. “Just because you can see the difference, it doesn’t mean you can be better in the game,” he says. “After 24 Hz you won’t get better, but you may have some phenomenological experience that is different.” There’s a difference, therefore, between effectiveness and experience. "

(Their emphases in bold, not mine)

And also, different parts of your vision react in different ways, with the middle part of your vision being particularly crap at it, and your periphery being particularly good at it: "
But while we have trouble distinguishing the intensity of flashes of light less than 10ms, we can perceive incredibly quick motion artefacts. “They have to be very specific and special, but you could see an artefact at 500 fps if you wanted to,” DeLong tells me. The specificity relates to the way that we perceive different types of motion. If you’re sitting still and watching things in front of you moving about, it’s a very different signal to the view you get when you’re walking along. “They centre on different places,” DeLong says. “The middle part of your vision, the foveal region, which is the most detailed, is actually pretty much garbage when it comes to detecting motion, so if you’re watching things in the middle of the screen moving, it’s not that big a deal what the refresh rate is; you can’t possibly see it with that part of your eye. But out in the periphery of our eyes we detect motion incredibly well. With a screen filling their peripheral vision that’s updating at 60 Hz or more, many people will report that they have the strong feeling that they’re physically moving. That’s partly why VR headsets, which can operate in the peripheral vision, update so fast (90 Hz)."

(Again, their emboldening, not mine.)
 
Last edited:
From what I remember there's a distinct difference between passively watching a film (for example) and interacting with a screen. Probably why movies can get away with 24fps iirc.
So you're telling me that I can barely see a difference between 60hz and 144hz? Quite clearly you haven't used one before, not for gaming specifically, just for any kind of general use. :lol:

Just googled '60hz v 144hz reddit'.. THIS is the first link that comes up on Google, people saying just how noticeable and smoother the experience is. Pretty much every link will be recommending 144hz monitors as well. Buzzing I bought mine, loads better than a 60. :cool:
Fair enough if it's more enjoyable, but as the second reply on there states, it probably doesn't make you better at the game.

I've been a gamer for nearly 30 years now, and I just recently switched from regular 60 Hz monitors to a 144 Hz one so I can definitely chip in on this:

  • Competitive performance: 144 Hz might increase the ceiling on your aim, particularly with hit-scan weapons, obviously; the increased smoothness, and more importantly, the lower input latency, can help to some degree, that's for sure. With that said, I seriously doubt that the advantages are significant, and the final impact on a player's performance is probably very much subjective. What I mean is that, you're not a pro, I take it, so you're probably not limited by technicalities, but rather by your own reflexes and eye-hand coordination, so you could have 1000 FPS / Hz and not gain one single SR point out of it. That's just guesswork, but if gaining ad advantage is your sole purpose, I definitely wouldn't recommend spending any money to get such a minor, possibly insignificant advantage. Conclusion: it has the potential to give you a minute advantage, but most likely won't.
  • Enjoyment: if you own good hardware that can actually produce 144+ frames per second on the games you are interested to (it's not that easy, don't underestimate this), and if you're willing to spend the necessary money to keep the system up to date for the foreseable future (again, consider this very closely, top of the line graphics card don't come cheap), then buy a 144 Hz monitor. NOW. Believe me: you never experienced smoothness. You THINK yo're playing smoothly at 60 FPS, you're not: 60 FPS are a totally laggy and stuttery crap, and after you try 144 FPS, you start wondering how on earth you did manage to play at 60 FPS for years on end. 60 FPS literally feels like 45 felt before. On 144 FPS, everything is buttery smooth, the mouse feels responsive like never before, tearing is nearly gone even without vsync, some people even benefit from it when it comes to eye strain (I can't say anythign about this because I never had such a problem in the first place). 144 Hz are simply amazing. Best purchase ever. Just remember to carefully consider the expenses you will be committing to, because a 144 Hz monitor is entirely useless if your rig can't provide the actual frames. It would be like buying a Ferrari when you live on a jungle island
Bottom line: a 144 Hz monitor won't make you a grand master; it probably won't even earn you any SR at all by itself. But it's absolutely worth it just for the enjoyment you get out of games at 144 FPS: it is totally awesome.
 
Last edited:

Starborst

Goalkeeper
From what I remember there's a distinct difference between passively watching a film (for example) and interacting with a screen. Probably why movies can get away with 24fps iirc.

Fair enough if it's more enjoyable, but as the second reply on there states, it probably doesn't make you better at the game.
CS:GO doesn't exactly need the greatest hardware to run at over 144fps. It was pretty much my point in saying someone would be justified in wanting more than 120 fps! No reason that it can't raise your skill ceiling a bit though, even if it is only small. I mainly got mine as I'd tried me mates (Never believed they'd be that much better than a 60hz) and was shocked at the difference, mainly got it just for the upgrade in how smooth the game ran on it. I reckon every single person that owns one would recommend getting one.

Fucking hell, I should be on commission for them me. :lol:
 
CS:GO doesn't exactly need the greatest hardware to run at over 144fps. It was pretty much my point in saying someone would be justified in wanting more than 120 fps! No reason that it can't raise your skill ceiling a bit though, even if it is only small. I mainly got mine as I'd tried me mates (Never believed they'd be that much better than a 60hz) and was shocked at the difference, mainly got it just for the upgrade in how smooth the game ran on it. I reckon every single person that owns one would recommend getting one.

Fucking hell, I should be on commission for them me. :lol:
To be honest you've just killed my desire to ever play Csgo again.
 

Top