Is it worth going over 144Hz?

keef247 said:
So you need the edge on the npc's in a SP game, vs MP requiring real skill/response time vs a human? Riiight :D
Don't tell me, you can tell the difference where everyone else can't from 60-100 etc...
Click to expand...
I edited my post for a much better dunk.

Bro. I can tell the difference even with desktop apps. Going to 100+ is glorious and bigly winful. I only have the most frames, the fastest frames, more frames than I think you can appreciate.
 
Shaking a file manager about pointlessly is one thing but 60fps locked is fluid you can't deny that, so I just can't justify above that for SP, maybe 100fps as a middle ground but I prefer to have a silent rig that's fans never even kick in on the gpu and both cpu/gpu are sat at 53-57c and the case isn't burning my leg and making my room a sauna haha.

When it comes to a sesh on some MP, sure I'll uncap the fps, but my point was more to the fact 60 isn't juddery/rubbish like say 30fps is vs 60, and you won't get any advantage over a computer opponent like you would need the hz/fps with a MP game...
 
Why are you focusing on some sort of competitive thing? Sure silent is nice and heat production bad, yes, but to say it's "literally pointless" to go above 60fps is just wrong. People absolutely do notice the difference, it is not insignificant. Maybe you can't justify it, but that doesn't mean it's "literally pointless".
 
Last edited:
keef247 said:
and you won't get any advantage over a computer opponent like you would need the hz/fps with a MP game...
Click to expand...
It's not about getting an advantage, it just feels smoother. Even just panning the view around in an FPS and admiring the scenery, you can feel a difference as the view pans.

Badly written Games which run their input loop in sync with frame rate also feel more responsive.
 
There is more to it than refresh rate, a cheap 144Hz monitor with slow pixel response rate may be little better than a good 60/75hz in real usage so you get free bonus motion blur in games.
Best to read reviews and confirm the monitor can actually support the high refresh, most 1ms GTG (Grey to Grey) is just marketing nonsense, they will put anything on the box.
 
Got a 165fps monitor, can't really tell the difference when the frame rate gets up above 120. Playing Witcher 3 at the moment at a buttery smooth 120fps average is loovveelly though - definitely a big improvement on 60fps
 
decto said:
There is more to it than refresh rate, a cheap 144Hz monitor with slow pixel response rate may be little better than a good 60/75hz in real usage so you get free bonus motion blur in games.
Best to read reviews and confirm the monitor can actually support the high refresh, most 1ms GTG (Grey to Grey) is just marketing nonsense, they will put anything on the box.
Click to expand...
Got any facts to actually back that up, as I highly doubt it considering even the most picky of perfectionist/brand loyal people will admit when a cheap random brand/lower tier monitor surprises them and recommend them, I've never experienced any of this, I bet you think all VA panels are bad too right and have issues :rolleyes:
 
Zefan said:
Why are you focusing on some sort of competitive thing? Sure silent is nice and heat production bad, yes, but to say it's "literally pointless" to go above 60fps is just wrong. People absolutely do notice the difference, it is not insignificant. Maybe you can't justify it, but that doesn't mean it's "literally pointless".
Click to expand...
I doubt that, it's just 'the thing' to brag about your fps online/kiss upto youtubers that do it in pathetic sponsored biased back hander videos, as it gives you some sad sense of self worth after wasting money on 'gamer' branded products that give you no extra performance over the vanilla variants.

I bet your pc is on your desk with rgb blinding you in the face too :rolleyes: :cry:

You've literally proven you ARE one of those people.

I give up haha, falling on deaf ears much.

Enjoy your placebo kid. Unsubbed! You're an NPC to me now!
 
Crikey. That's quite the energy my guy. Allow me to introduce myself.

I am a tight arse who is hates the gamer aesthetic; I find form over function actually gross. My PC is a a windowless black box and the only game I've played since the Apex's release period is universal paperclips (and some Mario kart with my kid, on my second hand Wii U might I add, because I want to play native Wii games and I refuse to spend unnecessary money on a switch).

And I'm still more of a gamer than you :p
 
Last edited:
keef247 said:
Got any facts to actually back that up, as I highly doubt it considering even the most picky of perfectionist/brand loyal people will admit when a cheap random brand/lower tier monitor surprises them and recommend them, I've never experienced any of this, I bet you think all VA panels are bad too right and have issues :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Plenty of examples on Hardware Unboxed, Monitors Unboxed where the pixel response time in testing isn't fast enough to support for the claimed refresh rate, or is with overdrive but then generates way more overshoot errors than running a slower refresh.
Check out the blury alien shots... they aren't perfect on the best monitors, but on the worst they are no more than a smeared blob.

Personally going from a 32" IPS 75Hz to a 32" IPS 165Hz significantly reduced motion blur even when the game was rendering at the same FPS, below 75 due to high detail. This is based on clarity of kerb / signage etc. in racing games etc. when the motion blur in the game is switched off.
My 165Hz monitor is also noticable better for motion blur than my eldest 144Hz model, though it did cost significantly more and we were using similar GPU's so similar performance well below 100 FPS.

It's a fact, pixels in an LCD have latency, it's a mechanical movement based on the applied voltage.

VA is fine, better contrast. I WFH a lot with data and code and the office is rarely dark so IPS suits me better.
 
Ayahuasca said:
Framerate could have potentially played a part there as you went from 4k to 1440p.

I've used 1080p monitors from 60hz right up to 360hz for competitive FPS. The massive difference is 60 > 144, after that the difference is tiny, it didn't feel much better at all, only very slight improvements to how smooth it felt.
Click to expand...

I agree... I can't see the difference between 144hz and 165hz.

60hz does actually look pretty janky though, when you are used to 120/144hz.

@teh OP Id probably get a single 32" 1440p monitor, IPS 144hz +.

This looks pretty decent https://www.overclockers.co.uk/lg-3...freesync-g-sync-compatible-wid-mo-166-lg.html

IPS looks way better than VA to me.

I just wouldn't entertain a monitor that was less than 120hz or 1440p, full stop.
 
Last edited:
I think the whole thing is just the emperors new clothes. Your eye/brain interface simply can’t process it because of persistence of vision. It’s just a physical human thing.

Just consider the responses in this thread. You have the majority of people saying they can’t detect any difference above a certain rate, and there is confusion between frame rate and refresh rate. A screen that refreshes at less than 59.9Hz will look flickery to most people Irrespective of the underlying frame rate of the images being displayed.

Obviously once you’ve sold yourself on the basis that really high frame rates are a good thing (because you spent a fortune on that graphics card to get 100 frames per second) then you need to buy a monitor that refreshes as fast as that frame rate or it’s pointless, yes?

So the graphics card manufacturers and the monitor manufacturers will cheerfully tell you that more is better when truthfully 24fps at 59.9Hz is more than enough for smooth motion otherwise we’d not watch TV or go to the cinema.

I can’t stop anyone believing they can ‘feel’ the difference because they’re probably the same people who can taste a difference between free range eggs and barn eggs in a cake.

I simply choose not to be drawn into the pockets of the marketing execs. And yes, I have worked with high refresh screens and I cannot see the difference or feel any difference in the responsiveness of the user interface. And I can’t tell what kind of eggs were used to make this cake I’m eating.
 
Last edited:
WJA96 said:
24fps at 59.9Hz is more than enough for smooth motion
Click to expand...
24fps is the bare minimum for non-interactive content, anything below that will look jerky. And you can easily notice 50-60fps "feels wrong, like a tv-show" content
For interactive content we have settled on 60hz, but again, thats a bare minimum and really obsolete.

Anyone can spot the difference between 60hz and 144hz, just move a mouse on desktop or scroll a webpage.

After 120hz its diminishing returns, but it's proven humans can still feel the difference up to 1000hz at least.
Maybe you are thinking of input lag advantage arguments from high fps/high hz? Single digit millisecond difference in lag is hard to detect even with training. But smoothness of moving images is different

Anyway, how valuable it is may be a personal preference. Apparently for you high refresh rate not valuable, fine. But please don't spread misinformation that has been debunked many times.
 
alec said:
24fps is the bare minimum for non-interactive content, anything below that will look jerky. And you can easily notice 50-60fps "feels wrong, like a tv-show" content
For interactive content we have settled on 60hz, but again, thats a bare minimum and really obsolete.

Anyone can spot the difference between 60hz and 144hz, just move a mouse on desktop or scroll a webpage.

After 120hz its diminishing returns, but it's proven humans can still feel the difference up to 1000hz at least.
Maybe you are thinking of input lag advantage arguments from high fps/high hz? Single digit millisecond difference in lag is hard to detect even with training. But smoothness of moving images is different

Anyway, how valuable it is may be a personal preference. Apparently for you high refresh rate not valuable, fine. But please don't spread misinformation that has been debunked many times.
Click to expand...

And straight away you're conflating frame rate and refresh rate. They are very different. The simple fact is that science states that the human eye cannot discern changes at the frequencies you are claiming and please feel free to debunk that. Do you even realise that the colours you see are just filters being applied and because of persistence of vision when the filters are switched on and off fast enough you see a colour other than red, green or blue? Black and white aren't colours for clarity - that is the filters being off or the diode being completely off. If what you say is true you'd see the world like a Azerbaijani flag.

If Linus Tech Tips told you the pr0n stars all had clothes on would you believe them? Or wait until they actually tested it properly? :)
 
Last edited:
alec said:
you need help
Click to expand...
Well that’s my line of argumentation thoroughly debunked. I suspect if you actually do a bit of research into how these screens work and how your body works you’ll discover I’m not entirely incorrect.

Why is it some people claim to be able to see a difference at 240Hz whereas others can only see it at 100Hz? Surely if this was a thing it would just keep getting smoother and smoother? And everyone would keep seeing it getting smoother and smoother?

Bottom line is that 24fps and 59.9Hz is smooth. Above that you’re looking at the same image multiple times, and you can’t differentiate those refreshes.
 
Last edited:
WJA96 said:
Well that’s my line of argumentation thoroughly debunked. I suspect if you actually do a bit of research into how these screens work and how your body works you’ll discover I’m not entirely incorrect.

Why is it some people claim to be able to see a difference at 240Hz whereas others can only see it at 100Hz? Surely if this was a thing it would just keep getting smoother and smoother? And everyone would keep seeing it getting smoother and smoother?

Bottom line is that 24fps and 59.9Hz is smooth. Above that you’re looking at the same image multiple times, and you can’t differentiate those refreshes.
Click to expand...


Dude, no offence but that is an insane opinion, so it's difficult to take you seriously.

Playing forza horizon 5, the visuals are lovely and smooth @1440p 144hz or 165hz on my monitor. (Dell S2721DGF for info).

It's even fine at 120hz, I've tested it several times...presumably as I average about 100-120fps with in game graphics set to very high or above.

Same when playing on My LG TV, but that can only do 120hz max.


If I force it down to 60hz, it's, well, not good.. fast moving images look juddery like it's dropping frames or something, it's especially obvious in a racing game at high speed.

Don't get me wrong, like others have said, going from 144hz to 165hz for example, I think I can't really see any difference.

But the difference between 60hz and 144, is very very obvious, assuming you can run your chosen game at say an average 100+ fps.

If your PC is only powerfull enough to run at sub 80fps averages, then I can understand why you would think it makes no difference, but that's because your PC and/or monitor is a potato. I'm sorry but there's no other polite way to say it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom