So... 240hz does definitely make a difference in FPS

[Beren]

OK, so I am not sure that this really deserves it's own thread - and perhaps it belongs in monitors, but you need the graphics power to get to 240hz so I thought I would pop it in here.

I know some find Linus a bit irritating, some of his stuff is a little silly - but he does actually do some really interesting science some times. If you don't want to listen to him do his thing then I would really still recommend watching the first and last 2 minutes of this video to see the setup and the results.

The difference in accuracy and response time really was shocking, for anyone at an average or better level in FPS games.

 

[Rroff]

From 60Hz yes - but also 100, 120 never mind 144Hz make quite a difference from 60Hz you don't need to go to 240Hz to get many of the same benefits.

 

[Beren]

Fair point, it would be interesting to see a larger test, also if in reality producing more frames than the screen can render actually ever makes a real difference.

 

[StriderX]

Using a single game to illustrate this is boorish. We all know CS is a strange and wonderful beast when it comes to FPS.

 

[DarkHorizon472]

I saw a noticeable difference going from 60Hz to 144Hz gaming it was smoother and more responsive for on line shooters like BF, CS etc. I doubt I would notice it as much going any higher.

 

[delvey]

I saw a noticeable difference going from 60Hz to 144Hz gaming it was smoother and more responsive for on line shooters like BF, CS etc. I doubt I would notice it as much going any higher.

Even going from 60hz to 75hz makes a difference. When my FPS drop below 75 you can notice it is not as smooth

 

[Besty]

The difference in accuracy and response time really was shocking, for anyone at an average or better level in FPS games.

They needed to do a 100hz test as this is the biggest jump from 60hz. The jump from 100hz to 144hz is not so big - for most people.

Apparently 240hz is good for eyestrain tho, I would expect that this is partly to the increased quality of circuitry components to drive a 240hz display.

 

[Chrisc]

I went from 75hz to 144, the difference is night and day. If i play overwatch now on my sons 75hz panel it feels a lot slower

 

[tyler_jrb]

In terms of K+M 60-100hz is a big jump in my opinion. But to me so is 100-144hz. 100hz to me anyway still feels choppy. I struggled getting back used to it again and went back to 165hz.

I find with a controller around 85hz and you struggle seeing much difference above that.

You don’t really need 240hz unless you need every ounce of response time for a competition. To your average joe gamer it will be a minuscule difference to say a 144hz display.

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

I wouldn't go to 1080p from 1440p to go from 165hz to 240hz just for a <2ms gain. But i would say the sweet spot is around 100-120, noticeably smoother for not a whole lot more FPS over 60.

 

[Rroff]

Back in the day I was amongst the first on 120Hz and playing COD4 sometimes it was like having cheats with most people on 60Hz monitors or 60-85Hz CRTs*, etc. often running 10:1 KDRs, etc. I could tell the difference as more people adopted faster displays.



* CRTs were pretty decent versus a TFT but not a lot of people actually had high end CRTs and/or played with them at best settings for fast response.

 

[Rofflay]

240hz made me worse, As in the more people who use it get better and thus kill me more. But i saw this video a few hours after it came out it really is true.


120hz with a controller with an fps cap is perfect, When the mouse is used 120 - 240hz is required.

 

[Poneros]

Still wouldn't trade resolution for framerate personally. Maybe once 8K hits I'll settle with that, but right now I'd rather have more pixels (& 60hz) for the games I play than higher framerates. Ofc, don't play CS:GO anymore so that makes it easy.

 

[EastCoastHandle]

If you watched the video clearly showed a few things.
1. 2 out of 3 in the test weren't able to take advantage of 240Hz.
2. Even though 1 was able to show better accuracy it wasn't consistent at all.
3. Although you get smoother animation of the character running across the screen there was no benefit shown that you will see them earlier.
4. 240Hz didn't make difference even though they said it did.

 

[Rroff]

Still wouldn't trade resolution for framerate personally. Maybe once 8K hits I'll settle with that, but right now I'd rather have more pixels (& 60hz) for the games I play than higher framerates. Ofc, don't play CS:GO anymore so that makes it easy.

With G-Sync I find ~60 FPS acceptable for single player games if there is a good increase in image quality with it but even fairly slow paced multiplayer games no way I'd be happy with 60Hz.

 

[Vexr]

There's at least one much older linus video where he says 75 hz is night and day compared with 60 hz. After upgrading from a 60 hz to 100 hz monitor, I agree. 75 fps is where smoothness begins and is a lot better than 60 hz in my opinion. I tend not to notice the difference between 85 fps and 100 fps though, even though it's just 15 more frames, same as 60-75. Head shot accuracy seems much improved in my experience at 80-100 hz compared with 60 hz too.

Would be far more interested in these sorts of tests if they weren't always the gimped 60 hz vs [latest high refresh rate here], and instead used 100 hz, or perhaps even just 75 hz, as a baseline.

 

[TNA]

Still wouldn't trade resolution for framerate personally. Maybe once 8K hits I'll settle with that, but right now I'd rather have more pixels (& 60hz) for the games I play than higher framerates. Ofc, don't play CS:GO anymore so that makes it easy.

Same here. I don't play online so 60fps is plenty for my needs. Though I will be avoiding jumping to 8K for a long time due to graphics card prices. Until there is a card that can do 8K 60fps on latest games that does not cost silly money. I jumped on 4K in 2014 and it was great as it felt like forever we was stuck on 2560x1600. But this time I will just stick with this monitor and a PS5 until AMD and Nvidia get pricing right.

With G-Sync I find ~60 FPS acceptable for single player games if there is a good increase in image quality with it but even fairly slow paced multiplayer games no way I'd be happy with 60Hz.

Yep.

 

[Yaayuh!]

From 60Hz yes - but also 100, 120 never mind 144Hz make quite a difference from 60Hz you don't need to go to 240Hz to get many of the same benefits.

Indeed.
Beyond 120hz/fps, providing you don't have a cheap wireless office mouse, it's down to the person, not the hardware. But it's easy to sell with numbers.

 

[Sc00p007]

Back in the day I was amongst the first on 120Hz and playing COD4 sometimes it was like having cheats with most people on 60Hz monitors or 60-85Hz CRTs*, etc. often running 10:1 KDRs, etc. I could tell the difference as more people adopted faster displays.

* CRTs were pretty decent versus a TFT but not a lot of people actually had high end CRTs and/or played with them at best settings for fast response.

I'm still waiting for screens with the same motion clarity as a crt.
I had a 120hz tft and it still didn't come close to the crt at the same settings.
I move the mouse a few inches per second on lcd and everything starts blurring. Crt kept the clarity. In fps, Crt high hz meant low lag + better tracking. Lcd just the low lag.

 

[Wizzfizz]

Back in the day I was amongst the first on 120Hz and playing COD4 sometimes it was like having cheats with most people on 60Hz monitors or 60-85Hz CRTs*, etc. often running 10:1 KDRs, etc. I could tell the difference as more people adopted faster displays.

You are very new school in compassion? I was using 120hz way before 2000.

Indeed.
Beyond 120hz/fps, providing you don't have a cheap wireless office mouse, it's down to the person, not the hardware. But it's easy to sell with numbers.

This is pretty much accurate for old school.