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

[Space Lynx]

CRT monitors always felt smoother to me at 75hz, by a lot compared to modern LCD's at 60hz. Then in 2012/2013 I imported my first ever Korean monitor that overclocked to 100hz, that is the day gaming changed forever for me. Fast forward to now and I regularly game at 165hz 1440p or 1080p, and I very much prefer even my card games like Magic the Gathering Arena to run at 165 fps 165hz, single player games like Witcher 3 just feel more immersive, etc.

Some humans can't experience this. We didn't really know this until recently, but a study was done. So, I guess this is why some people just don't understand the immersion factor. I can distinguish between 75hz and 90hz, I can tell between 144hz and 180hz, and 240hz almost looks too "soap opera" like for me, so I actually prefer like around 165hz to 180hz range. I wonder if this also is different among those who can experience high refresh rates? Very interesting to think about. I don't think I'd want to own a 540hz monitor for example, but some competitive gamers swear by it. Immersion and competition are different though, so its something we would need to look in to, I suppose.

I cap out at around 180hz to 200hz fidelity - some professional gamers can do 540hz though, but it looks bad to me... so lot more for us to learn over time.

The Ability to See the World at a Higher 'Frame Rate' Could Give Some Gamers an Edge - IGN

Some lucky humans are capable of seeing the world at a higher "frame rate" than others, according to the results of a new study, and the authors believe that the trait could even give those people an edge when it comes to competitive gaming and sports.

www.ign.com

The speed of sight: Individual variation in critical flicker fusion thresholds

The critical flicker fusion threshold is a psychophysical measure commonly used to quantify visual temporal resolution; the fastest rate at which a visual system can discriminate visual signals. Critical flicker fusion thresholds vary substantially among species, reflecting different ecological...

journals.plos.org

 

[64K]

I fear I'm one of the poor souls that can't see such small chances in fps. Being an old fart is my excuse but really I think my brain is just wired that way. To my salvation I went from a 60 Hz monitor to a 144 Hz monitor and I can tell some difference but I imagine any higher refresh rate would be wasted on me.

I do want at least 60 fps in shooters especially though.

 

[Space Lynx]

I fear I'm one of the poor souls that can't see such small chances in fps. Being an old fart is my excuse but really I think my brain is just wired that way. To my salvation I went from a 60 Hz monitor to a 144 Hz monitor and I can tell some difference but I imagine any higher refresh rate would be wasted on me.

I do want at least 60 fps in shooters especially though.

I can tell a major difference going from 60hz to 90hz even, like it's night and day "holy fuck this is immersive" kind of difference. Interesting how our eyes our so different from one another.

I am wondering also if it declines with age, so when I am age 70 will I still be able to have that experience? Will be interesting to find out.

 

[freeagent]

By the time we are 70 we wont have these kinds of computers anymore is my prediction. I am 46 now

 

[Space Lynx]

By the time we are 70 we wont have these kinds of computers anymore is my prediction. I am 46 now

I'm not sure I can allow 60hz users in this thread.


jk

 

[dgianstefani]

I can still notice individual frames at 237 Hz.

I wonder if 360 is my limit, or perhaps a better type of display technology is needed.

OLED 360 Hz is really something I want to try.

 

[Space Lynx]

I can still notice individual frames at 237 Hz.

I wonder if 360 is my limit, or perhaps a better type of display technology is needed.

OLED 360 Hz is really something I want to try.

Indeed, 360hz OLED might be a sweet spot for you personally.

 

[wNotyarD]

I can easily distinguish from 60 to 120~144. Above that I can tell that's smoother, but already in the realm of diminishing returns, and I do use a 175Hz OLED monitor.

 

[Outback Bronze]

I can still notice individual frames at 237 Hz.

You must be half Robot

 

[chrcoluk]

I fear I'm one of the poor souls that can't see such small chances in fps. Being an old fart is my excuse but really I think my brain is just wired that way. To my salvation I went from a 60 Hz monitor to a 144 Hz monitor and I can tell some difference but I imagine any higher refresh rate would be wasted on me.

I do want at least 60 fps in shooters especially though.

If I fire up a game at 120fps I can see the difference, but to me it isnt a positive experience, the supposed cut in latency as an example I definitely do not notice. Instead it just feels unnatural and after that experiment I never went above 60fps again.

I am super sensitive to stutters in games, and am aware the higher you push target frame rate the more likely a stutter, so that also impacts my frame rate decisions and I actually prefer to play RPGs at 30 as they feel more immersive. I think I cant feel input latency differences between 30 and 60 if I am honest, my brain just doesnt compute that fast.

Still these high frame rates did do some good, it brought about VRR. That does wonders when playing FF15 lol.

 

[Space Lynx]

Instead it just feels unnatural and after that experiment I never went above 60fps again.

it doesn't feel unnatural to me until past 200hz, this is why I find it so interesting, everyone is different and this study shows we are more biologically different than we realize.

I don't understand the technical jargon, like rods and cones, is that what's different from eye to eye or what, I don't know, its interesting though to think about

 

[cvaldes]

it doesn't feel unnatural to me until past 200hz, this is why I find it so interesting, everyone is different and this study shows we are more biologically different than we realize.

I don't understand the technical jargon, like rods and cones, is that what's different from eye to eye or what, I don't know, its interesting though to think about

Rods and cones should have been explained to you in middle school biology, maybe early high school. But there's a Wikipedia page that explains it.

Nothing preventing you from continuing your education -- saying "I don't know" (IDK) in situations like this doesn't absolve you from doing your own due diligence on a very, VERY basic level.

 

[DaemonForce]

It was a few weeks ago when ThioJoe posted the freshest of refresh memes and I can't believe the staggering effect it had on so many users.

JFC you mean to tell me people don't check their refresh settings?
In late 2016 I picked up my first 144Hz monitor, a Nixeus VUE24. A steep upgrade from my worn and aging Gateway VX720.
Not only is it the first monitor I've ever had that can go beyond 75Hz but first flat panel and first widescreen.

When I spent more time desktop gaming, I'd straight up lock it to 144Hz.
These days I lock it to 120 because something about this behaves weird when recording and I don't like the noise.
I notice more of a difference with GPU scaling enabled but the refresh differences are pretty solid.

48Hz on the Surface, yeah no.
60Hz feels like standard cheapo office display.
75Hz is more of a gaming monitor feel.
120Hz feels high performance.
144Hz feels more natural since I've looked at it for so long.

By the time we are 70 we wont have these kinds of computers anymore is my prediction. I am 46 now

Oh we're gonna overclock you.
Hops, bring the dry ice! (｀・ω・´)ゞ

 

[freeagent]

I'm not sure I can allow 60hz users in this thread.


jk

I figured it would be ok with a TV.. booo

Well.. as they say.. ignorance is bliss

 

[Space Lynx]

Rods and cones should have been explained to you in middle school biology, maybe early high school. But there's a Wikipedia page that explains it.

Nothing preventing you from continuing your education -- saying "I don't know" (IDK) in situations like this doesn't absolve you from doing your own due diligence on a very, VERY basic level.

I understand rods and cones at a higher level, I was referring to our advanced understanding of how it works, such as what alignment, amount is needed for Tetrachromacy people for example, is there something we don't understand that allows for refresh rate variation with certain rod/cone alignments, can Tetrachromacy be genetically edited into anyone someday?

What if there is a version of rods and cones that is slightly off that is allowing for different perception of refresh rates, similar to the extra colors Tetrachromacy allows?

Interesting to think about, its not that I don't understand rods and cones, I don't understand what alignments and amounts are necessary for variations in different perceptions of refresh rate, if you do, you might want to apply for a Nobel prize in science.

 

[DaemonForce]

Might want to get started on studying that now if that's the case. Myopia rates have been exploding these past few years.

 

[Space Lynx]

It was a few weeks ago when ThioJoe posted the freshest of refresh memes and I can't believe the staggering effect it had on so many users.

View attachment 346197

JFC you mean to tell me people don't check their refresh settings?
In late 2016 I picked up my first 144Hz monitor, a Nixeus VUE24. A steep upgrade from my worn and aging Gateway VX720.
Not only is it the first monitor I've ever had that can go beyond 75Hz but first flat panel and first widescreen.

When I spent more time desktop gaming, I'd straight up lock it to 144Hz.
These days I lock it to 120 because something about this behaves weird when recording and I don't like the noise.
I notice more of a difference with GPU scaling enabled but the refresh differences are pretty solid.

View attachment 346198

48Hz on the Surface, yeah no.
60Hz feels like standard cheapo office display.
75Hz is more of a gaming monitor feel.
120Hz feels high performance.
144Hz feels more natural since I've looked at it for so long.

Oh we're gonna overclock you.
Hops, bring the dry ice! (｀・ω・´)ゞ

I always go one step further and use toastyx cru to delete all other refresh rates other than my highest one allowed, it generally forces other programs to default to that resolution whether it likes it or not, which I find satisfying. I do not recommend the average person do this though, as it has some issues sometimes and you need to know what you are doing, I have been using toastyxcru since 2013 or 2014 though. Can't remember the exact year but its been a long time

Might want to get started on studying that now if that's the case. Myopia rates have been exploding these past few years.

myopia has already been solved, main cause of it is young people using close up reading, games, tv's, tablets, computers, staring at a close object for a long time during developmental period and growth spurts causes vast majority of myopia, China did a study on this, and they had one control group of kids almost do no close up activities other than the basics, and none of those kids developed myopia.

you won't change peoples behaviour though, so myopia will continue to be common in USA and western nations, not sure if China made any changes to its education system to mitigate this after this study or not.

 

[xtreemchaos]

depending on age and 20/20 vision the human eye can see between 30 to 60 fps so anything past that is a waste.

 

[gurusmi]

The human eyes can see in a rate of 14-16 pics per second. That is scientific evidence. Just take a look at Wikipedia. That means that 14 - 16 changes per seconds are realized as a movement. At a cinema one has 24fps.

 

[KrazyT]

I can see the difference, but I don't care, it's not "better" to me, 60 / 75 Hz is good enough.

 

[Onasi]

I can easily see the difference up to 240. Everything above is incredibly minor. Tried a 480 Esports tier display at a local PC club that hosts semi-pro CS tournaments about a year ago out of curiosity. I actually went in just to get a drink while I waited for some work related business and it was half empty, so the owner just let me mess around. Is it noticeably smoother than 240? Sure, a veeeeery tiny bit. But in practice, I don’t feel like that it would make much of a difference to anyone who ISN’T a high level energy drink snorting FPS addict. For single player or coop games or… well, practically everything apart from competitive FPS I think that 120-180 is the peak range for smoothness and responsiveness. No real point going above. Of course, all that also comes with a caveat VRR is engaged. I would not go back to static refresh of any kind.

 

[Psychoholic]

I wish i could not tell the difference.. would be better for my wallet/bank account

 

[xtreemchaos]

Just take a look at Wikipedia

i wouldnt class whats wrote on wiki as the end all bud. did you know our brains can stax images ?.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I can easily notice the difference of 60-90-120-175-240 but after that it's hard to notice without looking at blur busters and latency feels the same ish but I do mostly game with a controller so that could be part of it.

Maybe an oled 360hz would change that becuase Oled at 175hz feels much better to me than IPS at 360hz but it could just be the specific displays I own.

All that being said 60fps on an oled is more than adequate for me anyways so as long as I'm above that and on oled I'm good on Ips it needs to be at least 90fps but preferably 120hz for it to feel/look OK to me. Maybe I'm more sensitive to pixel response than framerate dunno.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

I'm short sighted, and have double vision so my glasses have prisms in to correct the double vision. It does cause some weird 3d effects with certain colour combos that is a bit odd and good.

I have a UW 144hz monitor and a pretty bad 32" 1080p@165hz. We only use high refresh because it came about, if it did not we would all be using 60hz quite happily. Now it is a major selling point on monitors pretty much over any other monitor fuction.