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

[tabascosauz]

Maybe it matters more with little monitors? By little I mean desktop?

That's a reasonable conclusion, I think.

As long as VRR is working properly, I have no problems when my fps dips into the 50s in DCS, on my 4K120 43" screen.

If Helldivers dipped to 50fps on my M32Q, however, I'd be screaming.

And as an apples to apples, when running DCS on my 32" panel, anything less than steady 120fps is noticeably bothersome. Whereas 60fps on my 43" has me overjoyed.

 

[Launcestonian]

When I went from 60Hz to 75Hz, it was quite a noticeable difference & I'm not young either. However when going from 75Hz to 144Hz, it was super fantastic with frame smoothness. So it seems to me that it can vary from individual to individual. There is no right or wrong about any of these refresh rates, do whatever pleases your eyes.

 

[remixedcat]

I get this too, it's really strange, the mind adapts really fast though, only takes me a day or two of regular use to make this phenomena go away, and Steam Deck/SteamOS does something really interesting to refresh rate, cause 60hz doesn't feel like 60hz on a Windows PC... it's very strange indeed, I can't figure it out.

w me it's like 3-4 hours

 

[nguyen]

Most people wouldn't notice the difference between 120hz-240hz is because the reduction in frametimes is not large enough
30hz: 33.3ms
60hz: 16.6ms
120hz: 8.3ms
240hz: 4.1ms
480hz: 2.1ms

The difference will be very noticeable between 120hz and 480hz. Now I want to try the new LG OLED with 480hz 1080p mode

 

[OkieDan]

My favourite difference in the way people's brain works was the discovery that some people don't have a mind's eye (ie, they cannot visualise images or scenes in their head, at all - they are barely visual and work entirely off patterns of association, apparently!)

Interesting, I wonder if these people have dreams and, if so, what they visualize in their dreams, or if they're more likely to have nightmares.

 

[Chrispy_]

Most of LGs can. Heck even my old B9 can but it breaks gsync and only works at 60hz.

Ah yeah, I'm not touching 60Hz strobing. Instant eyestrain and headaches thanks!
120Hz minimum. I'd probably be okay with 90Hz, but I've never seen a 180Hz OLED TV.

In regards to my original post, which I think this thread has completely deviated from, I would like to share with you all some direct experience. I was one of the earlier people I think to experience 120hz refresh rates on a 1440p IPS (imported South Korean panel in 2012) and it 100% gave me an advantage in multiplayer games. I specifically remember that in fps games I was topping the charts for a decent amount of time before high refresh rates became more prevalent, and I credit it to those high refresh rates, and that is one of the reasons I find this study interesting, because it shows that not everyone can experience high refresh the same way. Worth thinking about, it is interesting anyway.

In the future I hope we see some studies revealing more information about eyes, perception, image formation in the mind, etc.

Yeah, I jumped on one of Samsung's early 120Hz TN models not long before then and even though the viewing angles and colour gamut were terrible, it was totally worth it to get 120Hz when almost everything was 60/75Hz back then.

On a tangent of a tangent, why did 144Hz become the default. You'd think it'd be double what we were used to, so either 60 or 150Hz, right?
It makes little sense either, since before VRR was a thing in ~2015, we were stuck with vsync and 120Hz plays back 24fps, 30fps, 60fps video and content flawlessly. 144Hz only works with 24fps and is awful for 30fps and 60fps content, requiring some frame-pacing shenanigans like 3:2 pulldown for the old hitchy and uneven 24fps on 60Hz TVs...

 

[R-T-B]

Ah yeah, I'm not touching 60Hz strobing. Instant eyestrain and headaches thanks!

Yeah, but that was in a 2019 baseline model. I'm sure it's gotten more modes since then.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Yeah, but that was in 2019. I'm sure it's gotten more modes since then.

The CX/GX/C1/G1 all have 120hz options I believe but the C2/G2 were downgraded to 60hz and it hasn't improved since at least on LG Tvs.

 

[R-T-B]

The CX/GX/C1/G1 all have 120hz options I believe but the C2/G2 were downgraded to 60hz and it hasn't improved since at least on LG Tvs.

For frame blanking though? My B9 can do 120hz as well. But it can't do frame blanking there (only locked to 60hz). I heard next model year added that, but never confirmed it.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

For frame blanking though? My B9 can do 120hz as well. But it can't do frame blanking there (only locked to 60hz). I heard next model year added that, but never confirmed it.

Yeah, talking about BFI which gives an extremely clear picture but the brightness takes a nose dive and no VRR so useless in my book.

 

[Dr. Dro]

They removed black frame insertion in 120Hz mode after the C1/G1, yes. Apparently it didn't work as intended, but I know the G3 does not have it

 

[oxrufiioxo]

They removed black frame insertion in 120Hz mode after the C1/G1, yes. Apparently it didn't work as intended, but I know the G3 does not have it

It works better than the 60hz version on the G2 but I wouldn't use it on either.

 

[Jacky_BEL]

On a tangent of a tangent, why did 144Hz become the default. You'd think it'd be double what we were used to, so either 60 or 150Hz, right?
It makes little sense either, since before VRR was a thing in ~2015, we were stuck with vsync and 120Hz plays back 24fps, 30fps, 60fps video and content flawlessly. 144Hz only works with 24fps and is awful for 30fps and 60fps content, requiring some frame-pacing shenanigans like 3:2 pulldown for the old hitchy and uneven 24fps on 60Hz TVs...

It is the double of 72 Hz , and 72 Hz was also a standard frequency.

 

[QckSilver]

My uncle is a hardcore gamer ever since his teens, mostly arcade and console and barely ever in his life played on a PC, he is now 45
When i first got a decent enough machine to run games at higher than 60FPS i was really mesmerized, and the first game i showed him was Battlefield 1 running over 100 FPS on a 165hz monitor
He said he really couldn't tell a difference between 60 or any higher than that, despite the game, while in my eyes it just screams a terrible difference even if it's something minor like 75FPS.
No wonder he is a console player lmao

Same goes for my wife, who can't notice much of the 120hz refresh on her phone.

Sometimes i felt like a alien for noticing subtle differences on FPS under higher refresh rates, but then my brother can also notice it, although not as precise as he can't discern much difference above 120hz, while i can up to 165hz, because so far that's the fastest i've got my hands on, so maybe i could see more if i ever get a faster one

 

[wheresmycar]

My uncle is a hardcore gamer ever since his teens, mostly arcade and console and barely ever in his life played on a PC, he is now 45
When i first got a decent enough machine to run games at higher than 60FPS i was really mesmerized, and the first game i showed him was Battlefield 1 running over 100 FPS on a 165hz monitor
He said he really couldn't tell a difference between 60 or any higher than that, despite the game, while in my eyes it just screams a terrible difference even if it's something minor like 75FPS.
No wonder he is a console player lmao

Same goes for my wife, who can't notice much of the 120hz refresh on her phone.

Sometimes i felt like a alien for noticing subtle differences on FPS under higher refresh rates, but then my brother can also notice it, although not as precise as he can't discern much difference above 120hz, while i can up to 165hz, because so far that's the fastest i've got my hands on, so maybe i could see more if i ever get a faster one

I was under the assumption the happy-60 were possibly playing less competitive fast paced games to notice a difference. Now that you've mentioned "battlefield", i guess its confirmed, we humans simply differ in frame rate sensitivity.

I'm curious what the ratio is between people who can and cannot see the difference. (actually i'll throw up a poll)

 

[Space Lynx]

My uncle is a hardcore gamer ever since his teens, mostly arcade and console and barely ever in his life played on a PC, he is now 45
When i first got a decent enough machine to run games at higher than 60FPS i was really mesmerized, and the first game i showed him was Battlefield 1 running over 100 FPS on a 165hz monitor
He said he really couldn't tell a difference between 60 or any higher than that, despite the game, while in my eyes it just screams a terrible difference even if it's something minor like 75FPS.
No wonder he is a console player lmao

Same goes for my wife, who can't notice much of the 120hz refresh on her phone.

Sometimes i felt like a alien for noticing subtle differences on FPS under higher refresh rates, but then my brother can also notice it, although not as precise as he can't discern much difference above 120hz, while i can up to 165hz, because so far that's the fastest i've got my hands on, so maybe i could see more if i ever get a faster one

It is rather fascinating isn't it? It's a hard concept for some of us to wrap our head around. I felt the same way when I learned about the people I mentioned before in this thread, the ones who can't form images in their mindseye when reading books, but I can not only form images, but entire worlds in real motion when I get lost in reading.

I just can't imagine it any other way, so my perception of reality is altered by this, as theirs is too but in a different way. Being aware of these things I think helps us understand a deeper whole about our species. We still have much to learn.

I was under the assumption the happy-60 were possibly playing less competitive fast paced games to notice a difference. Now that you've mentioned "battlefield", i guess its confirmed, we humans simply differ in frame rate sensitivity.

I'm curious what the ratio is between people who can and cannot see the difference. (actually i'll throw up a poll)

I notice a difference even in card games, card games even become more high refresh rate for me, when others used to say I was stupid, it was probably because the limitations of their eyes... so understanding is becoming deeper now, which is fascinating. Hopefully we get more studies like this.

 

[DudeBeFishing]

It is rather fascinating isn't it? It's a hard concept for some of us to wrap our head around. I felt the same way when I learned about the people I mentioned before in this thread, the ones who can't form images in their mindseye when reading books, but I can not only form images, but entire worlds in real motion when I get lost in reading.

I just can't imagine it any other way, so my perception of reality is altered by this, as theirs is too but in a different way. Being aware of these things I think helps us understand a deeper whole about our species. We still have much to learn.

I notice a difference even in card games, card games even become more high refresh rate for me, when others used to say I was stupid, it was probably because the limitations of their eyes... so understanding is becoming deeper now, which is fascinating. Hopefully we get more studies like this.

You might be onto something with being able to see in your mind. I wonder if there's a correlation between noticing higher fps and being able to remember images visually in your head. Maybe it makes it easier to notice differences in visuals? Idk, just brainstorming.

 

[QckSilver]

You might be onto something with being able to see in your mind. I wonder if there's a correlation between noticing higher fps and being able to remember images visually in your head. Maybe it makes it easier to notice differences in visuals? Idk, just brainstorming.

Nah, it's just that some people really can't imagine in their head. Like an apple, you think of a apple, you can pretty much 100% "see" one in your head, right?
Some people can't do that.
And some can't even "talk" in their head. Kinda rare but it's REALLY amazing to me how something so simple for one person can be completely abstract to others

 

[Space Lynx]

Nah, it's just that some people really can't imagine in their head. Like an apple, you think of a apple, you can pretty much 100% "see" one in your head, right?
Some people can't do that.
And some can't even "talk" in their head. Kinda rare but it's REALLY amazing to me how something so simple for one person can be completely abstract to others

What he means is that there might be some correlation, as I said in a couple of my previous posts here.

 

[Jetster]

So i can blame my low kill count on my genetics?

 

[oxrufiioxo]

So i can blame my low kill count on my genetics?

Nah you just suck.... Get good!!! Noob.


All joking aside sure.

 

[Space Lynx]

So i can blame my low kill count on my genetics?

I think age matters here more, which is why the only champions in CSGO were young types, latency tests of reaction times just decline with age universally, I am not sure if there much crossover here, when everyone is given the same high refresh equipment.... maybe... I am unsure. Worth studying for sure. Really I am more interested in the immersion part of it. As said here:

You might be onto something with being able to see in your mind. I wonder if there's a correlation between noticing higher fps and being able to remember images visually in your head. Maybe it makes it easier to notice differences in visuals? Idk, just brainstorming.

 

[DudeBeFishing]

Nah, it's just that some people really can't imagine in their head. Like an apple, you think of a apple, you can pretty much 100% "see" one in your head, right?
Some people can't do that.
And some can't even "talk" in their head. Kinda rare but it's REALLY amazing to me how something so simple for one person can be completely abstract to others

I can see and hear in my head clearly. I can also see differences in high fps. That's why I was wondering if there's any correlation.

 

[Chrispy_]

I would imagine all of those that can see 240+ Hz need special room lighting because the constant 50 or 60 Hz flicker is giving you all a constant headache ?

I'm pretty sure 50/60Hz flicker from lighting isn't an issue.

The light output from a CRT looks like this with a 0-100 swing every refresh. This is what gave plenty of people headaches in the '80s and '90s



The light output from an incandescent or fluorescent bulb at 50/60Hz looks like this:



Imagine being in a supercar that accelerates and brakes from 0-60-0 over and over again as aggressively as possible so that you're at risk of blacking out from constant heavy g-forces, then compare it to a car on the highway cruising at about 60mph but not sticking to exactly 60mph, rather somewhere between 57 and 60mph. One is a painful physical assault and the other is regular highway cruising.

 

[gurusmi]

I'm pretty sure 50/60Hz flicker from lighting isn't an issue.

The light output from a CRT looks like this with a 0-100 swing every refresh. This is what gave plenty of people headaches in the '80s and '90s

View attachment 346602

I'm sorry. But your graph over time is wrong. A CRT doesn't work the way you tried to paint it. You would need to know how a CRT is built to know how it works and why some people got headaches.