system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
ELI5: Is 60 fps on a 60 hz monitor as good as having 200fps on a 60hz monitor?

I'm having a bit of a disagreement with a friend, who's against having more FPS than what your monitors Hz is rated for. 
A lot of people say there's no point in having more FPS than what your monitors refresh rate (Hz) is, but there's a clear noticeable difference between 60fps, and 200. People who play competitve online games like CS:GO will instantly see the difference 

So basically what I'm asking for is some clarification on this age old question: Is 60 fps on a 60 hz monitor as good as having 200fps on a 60hz monitor? if not, why not?
gpt
If you play a game at 200FPS on a 60Hz monitor the remaining 140 frames per second will be discarded. So it is easy to assume that you only need 60FPS on a 60Hz monitor as that would ensure all frames are used. However a big problem with the rendering pipeline in reaction games is that it takes a snapshot of the scene and spend some time processing that into a frame before it can display it to you. If the game needs 1/60s to render a frame then events that happened between the frames will not show up on the first frame. However if the game spends 1/200s to render a frame then most of the events that happened between the frames are included in the one that is being shown. In some frame perfect reactions it will make a difference.

To prevent rendering unused frames a lot of games have vsync. This is a way for your monitor to tell your game when it is rendering the frame so that the game and the monitor will synchronize their actions and reduce the time between an event in game and when you see it on screen. Having the ability to render at 200 FPS is still helping but without having to actually render all the frames.