I'm not sure I follow. That would mean to me on a 300Hz display you'd want your minimum frame rate to never drop below 300? Sheesh, my 3090 never see's framerates that high but I also don't play at 1080p.The main issue with gaming at a high refresh rate is keeping the minimum FPS above the refresh rate or it will stutter like mad. Having the latest and greatest graphics card doesn't matter too much because you can always turn down the eye candy until it succeeds, but the CPU/RAM has to be up to the job. I don't play competitively, but my son does.
I'm not sure I follow. That would mean to me on a 300Hz display you'd want your minimum frame rate to never drop below 300? Sheesh, my 3090 never see's framerates that high but I also don't play at 1080p.
I'm perfectly content with my 100Hz Gsync 3440x1440 ultrawide for single player games and some, as of late, casual Apex Legends (game is super fun). I know of lot of these competitive gamers are still playing in 1080p which is crazy to me who moved to 2560x1600 in 2010.
No benefit, just headroom. The display might have very good response times so that it can handle that 300 Hz though.
This is true for VRR and VSYNC ON.There is benefit
Frame is still drawn on the screen and it takes time.
144Hz monitor would draw frame in almost 6.94ms and 360Hz in almost 2.78ms. Difference between these numbers will be input lag improvement at the bottom of the screen. Half that in the middle.
Incidentially, G-SYNC is good for low-latency low-framerates.TLDR - run this scenario with Gsync (or similar) and you are down to 100hz in the original scenario but with the best compromise of lag and image stability (I think?)