POLL: Can you see the difference past 60fps (gaming/other)

[wheresmycar]

The curiosity was kicked up by the following thread where its pretty clear not everyone is, north of 60fps, frame rate sensitive: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...-than-others-i-am-one-of-those-humans.322103/

... i'm just curious about the CAN and CANT percentages:

As for me.....Voted: Yes (clear as night and day)

 

[ty_ger]

When the framerate is consistent for long enough a period of time, I feel like it all "feels" the same when my body "gets used to it". Therefore, I chose 'Uncertain'. I can definitely feel bad dips and feel the difference in framerate between 60 FPS and 120 FPS if it transitions, but after a bit, it's hard to tell if I can tell a difference other than a perceived belief that input delay is affecting my performance.

 

[Event Horizon]

Certain things really stand out like scrolling through a document or webpage, dragging windows around, the camera panning in video games.

 

[ir_cow]

No one will say 30 and 120 look the same.

 

[Space Lynx]

The curiosity was kicked up by the following thread where its pretty clear not everyone is north of 60fps frame rate sensitive: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...-than-others-i-am-one-of-those-humans.322103/

... i'm just curious about the CAN and CANT percentages:

I'd appreciate if all voters can post up their display resolution and refresh rate.

As for me.....Voted: Yes (clear as night and day).....@1440p 144hz

Great idea making a poll! Thanks for linking my thread too

 

[64K]

The curiosity was kicked up by the following thread where its pretty clear not everyone is, north of 60fps, frame rate sensitive: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...-than-others-i-am-one-of-those-humans.322103/

... i'm just curious about the CAN and CANT percentages:

As for me.....Voted: Yes (clear as night and day)

jmo but maybe ask a moderator if they will change the poll to anonymous. More will vote on these kinds of things if they are anonymous.

For me, I saw some difference going from 60 Hz to 144 Hz but not night and day.

 

[A Computer Guy]

When using CRT's I was somewhat sensitive. 30Hz was annoying 60Hz and up was much more comfortable. When the transition happened to flat panel displays 30Hz didn't bother me so much but I find 60Hz is still more comfortable in gaming. Perhaps one day I'll get me one of those fancy gaming monitors and realize what I've been missing at 144fps gaming.
When I was a kid my father had a grayscale monitor (maybe IBM?) it was the most comfortable monitor to look at ever but difficult to play Star Wars Tie fighter.

 

[Courier 6]

I don´t know, the fastest I have is 75Hz

 

[theFOoL]

To me.. It has to with your internet connection simple as that. I'm fine with 30-60. There are no longer single player Games peeps stop complaining about "OMG It's Laggy... It's called latency"

 

[Double-Click]

Can tell 60-120 no problem, I even noticed the difference between 90 and 120 w/ phones.
I don't have anything beyond 144 though so cannot speak for things like 240+.

 

[Redwoodz]

To me.. It has to with your internet connection simple as that. I'm fine with 30-60. There are no longer single player Games peeps stop complaining about "OMG It's Laggy... It's called latency"

It's not just your internet...it's the game server and other players internet too. Kinda funny when people spend a gazillion dollars for the fastest rig they can get and the results are the same lagfest you had with your last rig.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I have 120/144/165/175/360hz displays I can tell the difference up to about 240hz after that I feel it's placebo. I do prefer 120hz oled over 165hz ips/va though.

 

[wolf]

Clear as night and day, there comes a point beyond 200hz where in the absence of large jumps, say to 360hz or 4080hz etc I find it harder to tell, but 60 vs 120? dead easy.

 

[sam_86314]

I would say I can tell up to around 120Hz and then reach a point of diminishing returns.

60-100Hz is night and day, and 100-120 is noticeable but a much smaller difference.

There comes a point where response times are more important than refresh rate. Like how a 75Hz DLP projector can feel more responsive than a 100Hz VA display.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Easily so. Try a high-end 120Hz OLED TV and prepare to be blown away. Or even one of the recent 240 Hz OLED monitors.

 

[Endymio]

I saw a clear difference moving from 60 to 75hz. From 75 to 144, I doubt I'd do better than guessing 50% which was which on a double-blind test.

 

[Todestrieb]

Please define "clear as night and day". I guess that is the option I will vote, but because I'm not native English speaker, just in case.

Even though I have effectively done a lot of AB test (at home, the two similar sized 1080p of 60Hz and 144Hz literally side-by-side, and at a game center, old 60Hz and new 120Hz cabinets of the same game that should be extremely sensitive to blurriness) and the my eyes can tell the difference by smoothness, they are not fast enough to tell individual frames on the faster display settings. This is, you know, some of the reasons why there were flames on the other thread.

 

[taka]

Beside draging windows on destop look a bit beter from 60hz to 85hz and up, fast motion on LCD screens just isn't there yet. That 1ms GTG timing is bulls..t and dont compare to full white to full black 1-2ms the CRT had.
I have a 32" 165hz IPS panel but it looks worse in fast motion than 100hz Nokia or iiyama CRT. I'm more impressed by the 50-165hz VRR tech. Never tried Oled so cant tell nothing about it

 

[Sithaer]

Uncertain for me since even if you held a gun at my head I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 60-75Hz even on the same monitor.
Upgraded from an older 60Hz to my current 75Hz in 2019 and I couldn't notice and once I've had my current monitor default back to 60Hz for whatever reason after a fresh OS reinstall and I've forgot to check and I honestly have no idea how long it took me to accidentally notice it and switch it back.
144 and higher, possibly I could notice something but its just not worth it for me to care/spend on so even if I do upgrade my monitor at some point it wont be cause of a higher refresh panel but more like one with a better display/image/colors or whatever tho I'm fine with my current one for now.

Same with 60-90 on a Oled phone, my father got one recently and its hardly different to my eyes and he also can't see any difference so I've set it back to 60 just to save on the battery even if not much.

 

[Offwhitehlyss]

I have a XG32UQ which runs at 4K160Hz using 4090, because the GSYNC function FPS does not feel change in the game, but the 60-frame and 160-frame switching can be observed in daily use.

 

[AleXXX666]

jmo but maybe ask a moderator if they will change the poll to anonymous. More will vote on these kinds of things if they are anonymous.

For me, I saw some difference going from 60 Hz to 144 Hz but not night and day.

nope. I always "told" that "no gain" for 60+ Hz but I have tried 144 Hz screens and I say "there is a diff". But, I don't say "I never go back to 60 Hz anymore". That's like You have driven a Mustang from a rental, and you say that your daily Civic is cr*p now, lol. But, I haven't tried Mustang yet, and haven't tried all ya fancy "240 Hz+" screens. I definitely tell 100% that 165 Hz is PURE MARKETING BS. 75 Hz vs 60 Hz - well, for "daily office", maybe, it's better. For gaming, 75 Hz is fkin same as 60.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

So...no voting because this thread doesn't seem to understand the deltas. It also wants to reinforce that there's differences between 120 and 121 Hz refresh....which while some people are glad to claim they can tell the difference on really have no empirical results to state that they can.

I am of the mind that 0-60 Hz is distinguishable in buckets of about 2 Hz. IE, I can see a difference between roughly 58 and 60, but not a difference between 58 and 59. This aligns with the fact that humans recognize color and motion in a relative relationship rather than an absolute...and if you have any knowledge of DE you'll note that the different models of DE actually change the recognition space to match with whatever they believe vision is sensitive to. IE, one model had people seeing light to dark easier than yellow to blue, so instead of a DE of 2 in a sphere you might have an almond shaped area that is 1 unit high in the light-dark and 3 units around yellow-blue axis.

I'm likewise of the belief that after 60Hz my sensitivity drops to about 20. IE, 60 to 80 is noticeable but 60 to 75 is difficult to tell apart. I believe this space extends to 60-180 Hz. Again, assuming no shenanigans line frame interpolation and the like meant to smooth this by generating artificial frames...which I now have to state because both AMD and Nvidia think that it's fine to charge 80 series prices on 60 series cards because their AI "fixes" the issues with their raw performance.

Finally, I believe that the 180+ Hz refresh rates basically are another magnitude of order. IE, I can see 180 to 380 Hz being different, but a step of less than 200 Hz is basically impossible to see. This is not generally a discussion of fact though. This is a discussion of being able to state any wild opinion without having to explain (so I guess I'm out on charges of being too wordy). That said, color theory and human optical tolerance are not absolutes. Even stuff that's "always" the same color is not (think Caterpillar yellow, John Deere green, or Kubota orange)...so take the appropriate level of salt with your given conclusion and feel good because nobody here is even trying to pretend this is more than an opportunity to claim anything with impunity...just as long as there doesn't have to be proof.

 

[faye]

I'd convinced myself - "conveniently" years ago, when it was far more difficult and expensive to consistently get well past 60 fps and I didn't have the means to do so - that anything beyond 60Hz was pointless.

Now I'll never own another display that can't do at least 120Hz and would much prefer 240Hz given the option.

So yeah. Night and day.

Also hate 24FPS film because it makes panning shots so jerky I can barely watch. Pretty consistent.

 

[QuietBob]

Can I see the difference above 60 Hz/fps?
Yes.
Do I crave highest refresh/frame rate?
No.

When it comes to the perceived "smoothness" of a game (i.e. fluidity of movement), there are factors far more impactful than the max/avg fps, or the maximum refresh rate of your display.

 

[faye]

Can I see the difference above 60 Hz/fps?
Yes.
Do I crave highest refresh/frame rate?
No.

When it comes to the perceived "smoothness" of a game (i.e. fluidity of movement), there are factors far more impactful than the max/avg fps, or the maximum refresh rate of your display.

What factors would those be? Because I agree with you, potentially, but things like polling rate are only going to make a difference to a point, and I think we're already well past that point in the "enthusiast" space.

Like, 1KHz polling is noticable, but going up to 4KHz isn't as much, and I can't imagine 8KHz, as inevitable as it is, will make any difference at all.