Only some humans can see refresh rates faster than others, I am one of those humans.

[Dr. Dro]

I find 120 Hz to be an optimal refresh rate, it allows for very high settings without needing the most extreme hardware out there and/or will support high-color and high-resolution modes, but I can tell faster: and most people can, too. They just don't want to admit it to themselves. Usually to protect their wallet.

Sure, one may have difficulty telling 360 and 480 Hz apart past a certain age, but below 200 Hz, I think all of us can tell the difference in perceived smoothness.

 

[AusWolf]

I can tell faster: and most people can, too. They just don't want to admit it to themselves. Usually to protect their wallet.

I actually took the effort and money to buy a 144 Hz monitor, but still can't tell the difference above 60 FPS in a game. I can see that scrolling in a web page is smoother, and I can see the difference in the UFO test, but not in a game. Maybe if I played online shooters, but I don't. My gaming pace is too slow for these things.

 

[Space Lynx]

I actually took the effort and money to buy a 144 Hz monitor, but still can't tell the difference above 60 FPS in a game. I can see that scrolling in a web page is smoother, and I can see the difference in the UFO test, but not in a game. Maybe if I played online shooters, but I don't. My gaming pace is too slow for these things.

Some games are capped at 60 fps, but I am sure you know this and tried with an actual game and change din-game settings to 144. That being said, you are the one that needs to be studied, we need to like do catscans of our brains while I game at 360hz OLED and you game at 360hz OLED, and see if anything looks different.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

I cant see a difference beyond 144 Hz (terrible eyesight) but I can still feel the difference. The diminishing returns for me start around 90-100 hz. 30 to 60 is night and day 60 to 90 I can still notice a massive improvement. but after 120 hz any tangible benefits are gone for the most part. I can still feel / react to a certain degree but it doesn't improve immersion etc. A few years ago In Battlefield I messed around with FPS limits at 30 my K/D was abysmal at 60 i was around 0.5 to 0.75 at 90 it bumped up to around 1.0 but 120 or higher I ended up capping out with a K/D of 1.4. Higher FPS / refresh rates didn't allow for any further improvements essentially even if I could see a difference it didn't matter much when it comes to my reaction speed and coordination. That said, I have one eye that is 20/40 and the other is 20/200. With Glasses I am 20/30 20/100. The bad eye shakes slightly so a prism is used to focus it. However it is only slightly better than without. To avoid double vision my brain only ever focuses with 1 eye at a time the other is used to fill in the picture but cant process details. It also means I am a person that is always aware of my nose. Most of the time the brain automatically filters that out. Mine more often than not doesn't. I can also actively switch between the two at will. (used to have lazy eye before surgery) whichever eye was the primary would stare at the object the fill in eye would slowly move to the outer corner and just well look like the Steve Buschemi in Mr Deeds. If I switched the one out in space would snap to attention and the other would slowly drift. However, this switching made it hard to get a license among other things because if I noticed a pedestrian while driving I unconsciously switched the eye that's dominate. This caused a shift in perspective (stare at something 10-20 ft in front with one eye covered then switch whatever your looking at will due to perspective "move" This took quite a bit for me to overcome.

So its probably not hard to guess why I see / notice little improvement beyond a certain point.

 

[AusWolf]

Some games are capped at 60 fps, but I am sure you know this and tried with an actual game and change din-game settings to 144.

I always limit my FPS to my monitor's max refresh rate. I also have Steam's FPS counter enabled - whether it shows 80 or 100 or 120, it doesn't make any difference to me. It's around 50 where I start to think "hey, we're getting a bit choppy, aren't we?" This limit was a bit lower (around 35-40) when I was still on 60 Hz.

That being said, you are the one that needs to be studied, we need to like do catscans of our brains while I game at 360hz OLED and you game at 360hz OLED, and see if anything looks different.

Sure, unless it's an online shooter. I play games to relax, not to get pissed off at others (I do that at work more than I'd like).

Edit: I'd like to see the same test done on a non-gamer. I'm sure they can see even less difference, which would prove my point that the difference in perception comes from our differences in play style.

 

[Space Lynx]

I always limit my FPS to my monitor's max refresh rate. I also have Steam's FPS counter enabled - whether it shows 80 or 100 or 120, it doesn't make any difference to me. It's around 50 where I start to think "hey, we're getting a bit choppy, aren't we?" This limit was a bit lower (around 35-40) when I was still on 60 Hz.


Sure, unless it's an online shooter. I play games to relax, not to get pissed off at others (I do that at work more than I'd like).

Edit: I'd like to see the same test done on a non-gamer. I'm sure they can see even less difference, which would prove my point that the difference in perception comes from our differences in play style.

no we could even do it in card games, like I said in my original post, card games are more immersive to me at a higher refresh rate and more relaxing. no blur when the cards move, I can read them easier, it just makes overall experience more pleasant. I actually don't play much fps genre.

 

[AusWolf]

no we could even do it in card games, like I said in my original post, card games are more immersive to me at a higher refresh rate and more relaxing. no blur when the cards move, I can read them easier, it just makes overall experience more pleasant. I actually don't play much fps genre.

There, I might actually see some difference due to the contrast between the cards and the board, depending on the animation. Playing a roulette simulator on my 90 Hz Samsung feels a touch smoother than on my 60 Hz Blackview. But even then, I'm probably saying this only because I have something to compare against. On the PC, I only have one main screen that plays one game at a time.

 

[gurusmi]

Here must be all medical wonders disussing.
A new Study of the Trinity college, Dublin. According to that one can see up to 60Hz.
But here all the ferrytales are spoken as facts. Just against all medical and scientifical studies.

 

[Space Lynx]

Here must be all medical wonders disussing.
A new Study of the Trinity college, Dublin. According to that one can see up to 60Hz.
But here all the ferrytales are spoken as facts. Just against all medical and scientifical studies.

Are you saying my lived experience is false? Have you ever considered the variables that said ivory tower used to conduct said study may have been lacking to understand the comprehensive whole?

 

[chrcoluk]

I find 120 Hz to be an optimal refresh rate, it allows for very high settings without needing the most extreme hardware out there and/or will support high-color and high-resolution modes, but I can tell faster: and most people can, too. They just don't want to admit it to themselves. Usually to protect their wallet.

Sure, one may have difficulty telling 360 and 480 Hz apart past a certain age, but below 200 Hz, I think all of us can tell the difference in perceived smoothness.

If I had no VRR, I would appreciate 120hz on tales games as they have 24fps cut scenes in the game, and 120 is the lowest multiple of 30 frame rate that can handle 24 cleanly.

 

[Space Lynx]

If I had no VRR, I would appreciate 120hz on tales games as they have 24fps cut scenes in the game, and 120 is the lowest multiple of 30 frame rate that can handle 24 cleanly.

This is indeed an important factor to consider. It's one of the reasons I was considering a LG 120hz 42" OLED for a long time actually, since PS5 at that time didn't support VRR, etc. I think PS5 supports it now, but it didn't when I had mine.

 

[chrcoluk]

This is indeed an important factor to consider. It's one of the reasons I was considering a LG 120hz 42" OLED for a long time actually, since PS5 at that time didn't support VRR, etc. I think PS5 supports it now, but it didn't when I had mine.

Hopefully on the new elgato device that supports VRR passthru it is working reliably, I brought one a week or so back, although not used it yet, decided to grab it as when playing stellar blade demo I had some tearing. I will also be able to play PS4 natively at 1440p with it as well.

 

[gurusmi]

Are you saying my lived experience is false? Have you ever considered the variables that said ivory tower used to conduct said study may have been lacking to understand the comprehensive whole?

Scientifically every human has a recognition limit of 60FPS. That is proved bythe study I linked in my post. If someone says that he can recognize more he is either a medical wonder or he is telling ferrytales or someone doesn't know what he is talking about. The eye is limited by the sensors inside the eye, the transportation of that signals to the brain and the power of the brain. All are limited. All of ther limits are also researched pretty well. All of that are scientific facts. If one says he is above he must be a medical wonder or using alternative facts.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

Are you saying my lived experience is false?

Yessir. People like to promote themselves.

 

[sLowEnd]

A lot of people are very sensitive to quick motion, especially within their peripheral vision

 

[tommesfps]

This thread , duuude ...

Scientifically every human has a recognition limit of 60FPS. That is proved bythe study I linked in my post. If someone says that he can recognize more he is either a medical wonder or he is telling ferrytales or someone doesn't know what he is talking about. The eye is limited by the sensors inside the eye, the transportation of that signals to the brain and the power of the brain. All are limited. All of ther limits are also researched pretty well. All of that are scientific facts. If one says he is above he must be a medical wonder or using with alternative facts like Trump when he said that household detergent cure corona.

Yessir. People like to promote themselves.

Yes.

The medical wonder or self promotion is a result of only reading headlines or articles about a study and to interpret in the subjective way it caters a perception.

 

[gurusmi]

One more medical wonder trying to tell everybody he can see 100,200 or 500fps. It is like a thread where some try to tell, that their new bought and not modified Malibu is drving 500 mph on the Road of Atlanta...

 

[Assimilator]

So yeah, if people can provably see the difference between 120fps and 240fps

But they can't. Science has proven this.

 

[gurusmi]

But they can't. Science has proven this.

But you know. There are also special people believing, that RGB Enlightning makes a PC faster...

 

[Veseleil]

60FPS human cap crew strikes back. I guess it was inevitable.

 

[dgianstefani]

Blur Busters TestUFO Motion Tests. Benchmark for monitors & displays.

Blur Busters UFO Motion Tests with ghosting test, 30fps vs 60fps vs 120hz vs 144hz vs 240hz, PWM test, motion blur test, judder test, benchmarks, and more.

www.testufo.com

There is no limit to how many "FPS" the eye can see. It's a continual perceptive effect.

The limit is how well your brain can process.

For those suggesting otherwise, how about you put on a 60 Hz VR headset and try to live your life as normal.

Humans perceive flicker artifacts at 500 Hz - Scientific Reports

Humans perceive a stable average intensity image without flicker artifacts when a television or monitor updates at a sufficiently fast rate. This rate, known as the critical flicker fusion rate, has been studied for both spatially uniform lights and spatio-temporal displays. These studies have...

www.nature.com

Study done which shows people perceive flicker artifacts at more than 500 Hz.

In the present study, we find that viewers can distinguish between modulated light and a stable field at up to 500 Hz, much higher than the widely reported rate.

When the modulated light contains a high frequency edge in the spatial domain, we measure sensitivity above 500 Hz, much higher than the previously reported rate.

In fact humans have better eyesight than most animals. Birds of prey would an an exception.

A lot of people are very sensitive to quick motion, especially within their peripheral vision

It's an evolutionary advantage.

"Established science" can and has been wrong. Do the test a different way, wow, different results.

"60 Hz limit" lmao.

Andrew Jackson, Professor in Zoology in Trinity's School of Natural Sciences, said: "What I think is really interesting about this project is how a zoologist, a geneticist and a psychologist can all find different angles to this work. For me as a zoologist the consequences of variation in visual perception likely has profound implications for how predators and prey interact, with various arms-races existing for investment in brain processing power and clever strategies to exploit weaknesses in one's enemy."

Kevin Mitchell, Associate Professor in Developmental Neurobiology in Trinity's School of Genetics and Microbiology, and the Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience, said: "Because we only have access to our own subjective experience, we might naively expect that everyone else perceives the world in the same way we do. Examples like colour blindness show that isn't always true, but there are many less well known ways that perception can vary too. This study characterises one such difference -- in the 'frame rate"' of our visual systems.

Some people really do seem to see the world faster than others."

 

[dont whant to set it"']

After a few , one would be at 30Hz in no time(outside observer) -internal time is subjective.

 

[Space Lynx]

60FPS human cap crew strikes back. I guess it was inevitable.

yeah, apparently these studies that show 60hz knew the perfect parameters in which to conduct their studies, kneel before your PhD overlords, because you lived experience is an illusion!!!!

fuck this thread, I'm out, peace g's

 

[micropage7]

i always have headache playing FPS no matter in normal refresh rate or higher refresh rate, higher refresh rate would better but there many, not just the monitor itself

 

[wheresmycar]

Scientifically every human has a recognition limit of 60FPS. That is proved bythe study I linked in my post. If someone says that he can recognize more he is either a medical wonder or he is telling ferrytales or someone doesn't know what he is talking about. The eye is limited by the sensors inside the eye, the transportation of that signals to the brain and the power of the brain. All are limited. All of ther limits are also researched pretty well. All of that are scientific facts. If one says he is above he must be a medical wonder or using with alternative facts like Trump when he said that household detergent cure corona.

What are you suggesting?

I can clearly see the difference between 60hz and ~144hz. To stress on, as mentioned previously a "night and day difference" and that too without having to focus or paying special emphasis on set piece details on close inspection. It just occurs naturally with the gameplay being the primary focus. Perhaps not everyone has this ability to differentiate between the two extremes and maybe they're not losing out with 60fps already appearing super smooth (for them)..... to think of it, that's the 'true' super-human skill to more efficiently, cost-effectively and skillfully process 60 frames presumably in upkeep of visual fidelity and performance. Maybe the rest of us are the weaker link having to subscribe to more premium higher refresh rate displays to keep up with the scientifically 60-proven supermen/women of our age.

Something i'm trying to get grips with... are we suggesting the human brain/eye processes visual information the same way a display outputs fixed rendered images? I'm no expert in this field, in-fact a complete noob but i've got a pretty good feeling the brain/eye operates in a more dynamic and adaptive capacity opposed to "fixed frames" yielded from a display. And why the 60fps recognition limit and not 58, 59, 61, 62.34, etc.

FUN-FACT (its Sunday so i've got some time): Just for the sake of it, i've spent the last hour booting up Battlefield 2042 on a 1440p 144hz display. Some minor dialed down quality settings already pre-configured to hit around 120fps with a 5800X3D + RTX 3080. I asked my brother to sit in for a test. We alternated between 60 and 144 several times, each time concealing the changed setting from the test subject. This was done 8 times. Jotted down his preference each time. Then I asked him to do the same for me (but 10 times) and we jotted down our results. The test question was guessing whether it was high or low refresh rate. His results: 7 out of 8 correctly identifying the Res. My results 10 out of 10 correctly identifying the Res. As i said a night and day difference... i can even clearly see the difference standing 3 feet away from our 27" display... at 4-5/+ feet it starts getting trickier (yep just tested that too - i was bored!)

I have to ask, have you tried the two extremes yourself? I have come across similar threads in the past but never paid attention. Its a bit surprising for me for some (or is it most) can't see beyond 60FPS. Maybe its largely also down to the type of games we play and how well the display performs in producing the end result.