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

[Uns1gn3d_C0d3]

I don't know if you meant that literally. I occasionally play competitive games at work on a 60hz panel... and it does give me a headache or eye strain after 20/30mins of play. Perhaps i've got used to improved motion fluidity with my 165hz gaming panel at home and the occasional transition back to 60hz does my head in. I don't recall having the same issue with 60hz back in the day before moving up the ladder.

I've seen people say that they experience motion sickness at 30 Hz. Thankfully I haven't had the displeasure. Even when struggling to play games at sub 30 FPS on a machine that didn't take well to gaming.

Oh it's this thread again, back on the front page.

Yeah, that was me. It's a topic I was recently thinking about and it just happened to be linked in another thread I was reading earlier today.

 

[jarablue]

Thankfully I have none of your issues. I can live on 120hertz forever. Good luck in getting your holy grail display setup.

 

[eidairaman1]

I've seen people say that they experience motion sickness at 30 Hz. Thankfully I haven't had the displeasure. Even when struggling to play games at sub 30 FPS on a machine that didn't take well to gaming.



Yeah, that was me. It's a topic I was recently thinking about and it just happened to be linked in another thread I was reading earlier today.

Motion sickness huh, they probably get air and seasick too

 

[AusWolf]

I meant it literally, that was on CRT and LCD, it has to be 75+

CRT had to be 75+ Hz, otherwise it gave me headaches. On LCD, I don't care much.

 

[eidairaman1]

CRT had to be 75+ Hz, otherwise it gave me headaches. On LCD, I don't care much.

I'm a rarity then, the cfl and flourescents do the same to me, no issues with incandescent or LED in the bulbs.

 

[PassportBro]

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

I think I'm an alien tbh. Not sure from which planet I am from and Art Bell isn't around anymore to pontificate on the issue.

Now, because I am an alien and not a "hooman", I can see no difference between 30 FPS and over 9000 FPS.

Not sure what difference does it make anyway to play Civ VI at 30 FPS or 930 FPS. Seething over 9000 FPS fanbois foaming at the mouth are amusing tbh.

 

[RaceT3ch]

As long as you can see 120fps, you'd be seeing pretty smooth animations.
240+ hz seems kind of redundant considering how little time each frame is shown at the 500+ hz range (2ms per frame)

 

[eidairaman1]

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

I think I'm an alien tbh. Not sure from which planet I am from and Art Bell isn't around anymore to pontificate on the issue.

Now, because I am an alien and not a "hooman", I can see no difference between 30 FPS and over 9000 FPS.

Not sure what difference does it make anyway to play Civ VI at 30 FPS or 930 FPS. Seething over 9000 FPS fanbois foaming at the mouth are amusing tbh.

In gaming I believe its the 1%s that are detected and measured now. Back then leaving vsync off was a good way to gain performance but in somegames it would still hangup/freeze/lag for a sec. I still believe leaving sync off causes issues.

But 120/240 FPS I don't believe is noticable, only the performance drops to say from 120 to like 50 suddenly it might be.

 

[igormp]

I've locked my displays to 60 Hz. When I cycled through the different refresh rates, I noticed and felt a clear difference between 30 Hz and 60 Hz, but beyond that I couldn't see nor feel any difference when cycling up to 144 Hz.

Maybe it would be more noticeable while playing online jump and shoot games, but I have zero interest in those.

I can notice the difference between 60hz and 120hz, but I personally do not care at all.

In my phone I disable it because I can get more battery life. My 42 OLED TV that I use as a monitor does support 120hz, but it's limited to 60hz due to a cheapo USB-C I'm using on my KVM Switch and I can't be arsed to get a new one because I don't care enough.
I do have promotion enabled on my MBP, but 90% of the time it's plugged to said TV, and when it's not it's on battery, which automatically caps the refresh rate to 60hz for extra battery life.

My brother does have a 165Hz display that I've used for 5 minutes. I can notice the lower latency, but it just feels so pointless compared to the lower DPI (27" 1080p display). I'd rather have crispier text and more screen real estate than being able to see my mouse zooming around faster lol

With that said, 30hz is sometimes uncomfortable to use even for basic stuff like scrolling text around, so 60hz is the sweet spot for me.

 

[64K]

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

I think I'm an alien tbh. Not sure from which planet I am from and Art Bell isn't around anymore to pontificate on the issue.

Now, because I am an alien and not a "hooman", I can see no difference between 30 FPS and over 9000 FPS.

Not sure what difference does it make anyway to play Civ VI at 30 FPS or 930 FPS. Seething over 9000 FPS fanbois foaming at the mouth are amusing tbh.

In a TBS game yes but what about shooters? 30 fps just don't cut it then.

 

[AusWolf]

I can notice the difference between 60hz and 120hz, but I personally do not care at all.

Same here. Oddly enough, everyone talks about high refresh in the context of gaming, but for me, it's more visible during scrolling.

I can notice the lower latency, but . I'd rather have crispier text and more screen real estate than being able to see my mouse zooming around faster lol

I agree completely. Also, the highest refresh rate displays tend to be TN panels. IPS, and even VA have better colours, which adds a lot more to my immersion in the game.

With that said, 30hz is sometimes uncomfortable to use even for basic stuff like scrolling text around, so 60hz is the sweet spot for me.

30 Hz is fine for watching films (most of them are 24, 25 or 30 FPS anyway), but crap for anything else.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

They must use their brains at 100% and see as if in slow motion the flight of each individual bullet in automatic AK-47 gunfire.

 

[AusWolf]

They must use their brains at 100% and see as if in slow motion the flight of each individual bullet in automatic AK-47 gunfire.

Can they see infrared and ultraviolet light, too? It must be amazing!

 

[Space Lynx]

I already said before in this thread, the reason for the strange title is because I am sick of people telling me that from 2012-2018 going to high refresh was dumb and 60hz was all they could see anyway. It's just a smartass title and I did it on purpose, I am aware it comes off as janky. This thread proves those people wrong with actual scientific evidence finally. That's all, was so annoying having to listen to that shit back in the day. I also knew high refresh rates directly helped K/D ratiors in Call of Duty too, because again I was one of the first people to import a south korean 1440p panel and overclock its refresh rate, and I noticed a direct correlation in winning more in fps games. Fast forward to today and even that big youtuber optimum on his 480hz OLED review said he can even tell a difference as it scales higher and higher

 

[AusWolf]

I already said before in this thread, the reason for the strange title is because I am sick of people telling me that from 2012-2018 going to high refresh was dumb and 60hz was all they could see anyway. It's just a smartass title and I did it on purpose, I am aware it comes off as janky. This thread proves those people wrong with actual scientific evidence finally. That's all, was so annoying having to listen to that shit back in the day. I also knew high refresh rates directly helped K/D ratiors in Call of Duty too, because again I was one of the first people to import a south korean 1440p panel and overclock its refresh rate, and I noticed a direct correlation in winning more in fps games. Fast forward to today and even that big youtuber optimum on his 480hz OLED review said he can even tell a difference as it scales higher and higher

There is no scientific evidence for what you can and cannot see. Everyone is different. And then, there's placebo, too.

 

[tommesfps]

I already said before in this thread, the reason for the strange title is because I am sick of people telling me that from 2012-2018 going to high refresh was dumb and 60hz was all they could see anyway. It's just a smartass title and I did it on purpose, I am aware it comes off as janky. This thread proves those people wrong with actual scientific evidence finally. That's all, was so annoying having to listen to that shit back in the day. I also knew high refresh rates directly helped K/D ratiors in Call of Duty too, because again I was one of the first people to import a south korean 1440p panel and overclock its refresh rate, and I noticed a direct correlation in winning more in fps games. Fast forward to today and even that big youtuber optimum on his 480hz OLED review said he can even tell a difference as it scales higher and higher

Call it what you want but it's mixing and twisting topics and not scientific at all.

 

[Space Lynx]

Call it what you want but it's mixing and twisting topics and not scientific at all.

the journal I linked on the first post seemed fairly scientific to me at the time, perhaps I misunderstood it though so I do apologize.

 

[AusWolf]

the journal I linked on the first post seemed fairly scientific to me at the time, perhaps I misunderstood it though so I do apologize.

About that journal... it actually proves the opposite of what you said in post #264. According to this diagram, the perceived proportion of flashes drops significantly among the test subjects above 57-ish Hz:

 

[natr0n]

Pro fps gamers need that fast fps to cheat faster. They are all cheaters.

I like 240 but stick with 120.

 

[Vayra86]

They must use their brains at 100% and see as if in slow motion the flight of each individual bullet in automatic AK-47 gunfire.

Omg thats it ofc. At 240hz in people's minds they think they can game like this, so obviously theyre more competitive now:

 

[TumbleGeorge]

the journal I linked on the first post seemed fairly scientific to me at the time, perhaps I misunderstood it though so I do apologize.

Attention! Prepare yourself not to fall off the chair. You are constantly being lied to in order to sell you things you don't need.

 

[Space Lynx]

Attention! Prepare yourself not to fall off the chair. You are constantly being lied to in order to sell you things you don't need.

I mean, I have experienced the benefits of high refresh first hand many times over the years. I think it's less malicious than you think, at least for this specific topic/context.

I mean we can get very philosophical about what do we actually need, but that would not be a place for a tech forum/this thread.

 

[Veseleil]

Playing Genshin Impact and for example, the difference between 120FPS and 165FPS mode is night and day. 120FPS - choppy panning movement, and overall not smooth experience; 165FPS - smooth overall experience. The game is by default locked to 60FPS, which feels really terrible on a PC. A Unity game IIRC.
I do see a difference, so I guess I'm an alien then. And for all the people making fun of the OP and his title, grow up please. At least he has an opinion and the balls to say it out loud, and suffer the consequences.

 

[Chrispy_]

About that journal... it actually proves the opposite of what you said in post #264. According to this diagram, the perceived proportion of flashes drops significantly among the test subjects above 57-ish Hz:
View attachment 367407

This is only relevant to strobing lights, something that disappeared with CRTs, and re-appeared only at 120Hz+ once it was reintroduced to combat sample+hold blur on LCDs a good 10+ years after LCD panels replaced CRTs for the masses.

I like 240 but stick with 120.

It's all about diminishing returns. I basically struggle to tell the difference between 180Hz and 240Hz, and I choose to run at 120Hz for single-player content on displays capable of 240Hz. If you're playing something competitive, even if higher framerates is only a miniscule advantage, you'd be silly to ignore that advantage on hardware capable of giving it to you. Even among top-tier e-sports champions, I'm willing to bet that the difference between 480Hz and 240Hz is so small that individual skill differences are more significant.

For me, the difference between 180 and 240Hz is only even noticeable when whipping the camera around very fast. It doesn't really register to me as that much "smoother" but I find I can recognise objects that pass by as I whip the camera around a bit more easily in my peripheral vision at 240Hz. It might conceivably help someone notice an enemy they'd misjudged the location of, but if the enemy already has the drop on you, noticing them isn't likely to be enough in 99% of situations.

Let's say you have two almost super-human gamers in a tournament and both have 150ms reaction times compared to the more pedestrian ~200ms of the rest of us. If one of them is running at 165Hz and the other at 500Hz, that means that in an almost-impossible-to-replicate fair duel where both of them spot each other at the exact same time, the guy with the faster screen has a ~5ms advantage, which means his reaction time is 152ms instead of 157ms as far as the game server is concerned. Whether that's enough of an increment to count for two different server ticks is another matter entirely....

 

[Space Lynx]

This is only relevant to strobing lights, something that disappeared with CRTs, and re-appeared only at 120Hz+ once it was reintroduced to combat sample+hold blur on LCDs a good 10+ years after LCD panels replaced CRTs for the masses.


It's all about diminishing returns. I basically struggle to tell the difference between 180Hz and 240Hz, and I choose to run at 120Hz for single-player content on displays capable of 240Hz. If you're playing something competitive, even if higher framerates is only a miniscule advantage, you'd be silly to ignore that advantage on hardware capable of giving it to you. Even among top-tier e-sports champions, I'm willing to bet that the difference between 480Hz and 240Hz is so small that individual skill differences are more significant.

For me, the difference between 180 and 240Hz is only even noticeable when whipping the camera around very fast. It doesn't really register to me as that much "smoother" but I find I can recognise objects that pass by as I whip the camera around a bit more easily in my peripheral vision at 240Hz. It might conceivably help someone notice an enemy they'd misjudged the location of, but if the enemy already has the drop on you, noticing them isn't likely to be enough in 99% of situations.

180hz seems to be about my cap too, but other people like the optimum tech youtube channel guy talks about how 480hz OLED is mind blowing smooth. I hope to experience that and see if 180hz really is my cap physically or not. we will see soon enough, cause I am not waiting much longer for my OLED upgrade