Mio_96 wrote: 6s6k69
Blaziken wrote: 5a6426
Their must of been some performance fixes since I can now play on Widescreen 1440x900 without lag.
not really my fps at 1024x768 decreased from ~ 1000 to 90-150 max 300 in-game
That shouldn't matter much, if at all. Monitors only refresh the image 60 times per second (i.e. 60 Hz), and it becomes difficult to see any changes between 100 FPS and above.
As far as I know, the only reason you'd want such a phenomenally high FPS count is so that no frames are accidentally discarded by the graphics card. That is, if the frame count was lower, the U wouldn't be checking the graphics buffer as often, meaning some frames are not shown. [I'm not certain if this also occurs between the monitor and the U also, though it's unlikely.]
60 FPS is already more than enough, so going from 1000 to 150 isn't a bad thing.
After researching a little more, the preferred frame per second count for games is a multiple of the monitor's refresh rate, since that way, updates to the screen will be synchronized.
This website has a nice explanation in the 'Think of that, too' section.
EDIT: Just checked myself, 60 FPS on low latency does differ quite a lot from 120 FPS.
This explains all that I should have said, and vsync too.