What‘s the Real Difference? Breaking Down 59.94fps vs. 60fps for Gamers

As a gamer and content creator, achieving smooth footage that matches the high frame rate capabilities of modern systems is a top priority. So when looking at capture options and display specifications listed as 59.94fps‘‘ or60fps‘‘, understanding the origins and real-world differences between these video rates is key.

In this guide tailored for the gaming audience, we‘ll compare 59.94fps and true 60fps to reveal how the 0.06 frame gap could impact your gameplay experience and recording quality.

Why 59.94fps Exists: Analog TV Broadcast Legacy

First, let‘s cover why 59.94fps became a standard in video technology to begin with.

The NTSC analog television broadcasting system adopted in North America and Japan used an irregular refresh rate of 59.94Hz to avoid interference issues on CRT displays. This rate was chosen to prevent overlapping visible scan lines.

As television technology evolved into the digital age, video equipment makers carried over and continued to support this 59.94Hz rate for compatibility with older content and hardware.

The following table shows how modern video resolution standards correlate directly to the 60Hz analog NTSC vertical refresh frequencies:

Essentially, the 59.94fps standard persists today due to its legacy roots in analog NTSC television technology. But for gamers using PCs and latest-generation consoles designed around a true digital 60Hz display refresh cycle, operating at 59.94fps introduces a mismatch versus the native capabilities.

Performance & Precision Differences Actual Gamers Notice

PC gaming hardware company NVIDIA has reported measurable performance advantages when games are able to render at an exact 60fps matched to display refresh rates. Their data shows significantly improved frametime consistency compared to capturing at 59.94fps.

Higher frametime variance between the GPU‘s rendering capabilities and display refresh intervals causes microstutters. This disrupts fluidity which gamers perceive as annoying intermittent hitches in motion smoothness.

Competitive esports players are so sensitive to performance differences that even with average framerates above 190fps, they can detect the incremental improvements dropping from 200fps down to 190fps.

The 0.06fps rate difference between 59.94fps and 60fps may be imperceptible to many, but gamers performing at the highest skill levels could potentially notice the impact. Particularly hardcore gamers deeply accustomed to their system‘s native refresh rates and response times.

Slow Motion Flexibility

Another major consideration is leveraging high frame rate footage for slow motion replayability. Recording natively at rates divisible by common refresh intervals provides more editing options.

As this table shows, true 60fps allows for flexible 50% slow motion at 30fps while 59.94fps creates awkward values for playback:

The same limitation applies for attempting more extreme replays like 25% or 12.5% speed when capturing at 59.94fps. You lose the key advantage of directly matching refresh intervals.

Summary – Match Display Refresh for Optimal Results

In the analog age, 59.94fps made sense to avoid CRT television interference. In today‘s natively digital gaming era focused on high frame rate fluidity, capturing at true 60fps aligns best with modern display refresh rates.

Gamers striving for maximum performance, response, precision, and future-proof flexibility should consider recording and creating content at full 60fps rather than 59.94fps where possible. That native 1:1 capture-to-display ratio helps unlock the full smoothness potential of high frame rate gaming.