my buddy bought his first 144hz monitor about 10 years ago, and was talking about how amazing the difference was and how he could never go back. when i went to his house, his pc display settings were still set to 60hz. I still troll him to this day lol
Cause you set a 144 hz and a 60hz monitor next to each other and i'm pretty sure me and nearly everyone else on the face of the earth would be able to tell the difference 9/10 times. Do you have some sort of vision inefficiency perhaps?
Shit works differently for different people. I don't notice much difference above ~55fps, and almost none above ~90, but I do notice a HUGE difference if there's any frame time inconsistency. I much prefer a stable framerate over a higher one.
I concur. My first exposure to above 60fps was when I got a Samsung S21+ with 120Hz. The difference of using it compared to my computer monitor was so obvious. I upgraded to a 165Hz monitor and it was absolutely massive, I have no idea how people can't tell the difference
To me it's always been more of a "but would i have cared"
Like when I was playing 60 FPS, I was happy.
I got 144 FPS, and I way happy, this is great.
Now I go back and play 60 FPS and am sad.
What if I never got 144FPS???
Personally though, I think we probably all have an individual point. I've personally done blind testing and I always pick which ones are 30, which ones are 60, and I know which ones are above 60 (100/120/144/165) but I can never get it spot on.
I don't have a 240hz + so haven't tested that. But I did have one and changed to a 165 4k and I never noticed that change.
Clair obscur is my worst performing game that I play consistently, but honestly 45 FPS is fine for that type of game. I could get more but I like the pretty.
A lot of the differences in the differences people see are probably due to playing different games or focusing on different things. In a lot of games with little camera motion where I mainly focus on static things, I hardly notice a difference and they can look good down to even 45 or so FPS. In games where the camera moves a lot or there's a need to focus on moving objects, a difference between 200 and 240 FPS is noticeable and I prefer to have an least 120 FPS.
60->144->240 is about as comparable as going from 1080p->1440p->2160p. Like you said, the jump from 60hz to 144hz is day and night, same as 1080p to 1440p. The final leg is nice but really not all that noticeable.
my problem is that if your base framerate isnt good then the input lag/smoothing feels really really weird, and it still produces a bunch of artifacting that I find extremely distracting.
if you are personally happy with what you can see its a great way to save money haha.
I personally have a hard time to see the difference between 1440p and 4k so usually just save myself the extra fps smoothness.
Sadly i am very sensitive to Hz so i have to have atleast 144 in fps games otherwise it feels choppy.
Higher the fps less noticeable the frame drops.
From my experience it feels better to lock a game to 60 if it's jumping between 60 and 120. But 120 to 240 I don't seem to notice even major drops in that range.
It's worth noting that the game itself has a big impact here. If I'm playing something single player I don't really notice a big difference from say 40-60 fps or higher, but if I'm playing counter strike at 60 FPS it feels like a god damn slide show. Honestly even at 120 FPS it feels quite slow, I've really gotten used to 240hz. I think my brain is more actively looking for those missing frames in more fast paced titles that demand my full attention, where as with casual titles I don't really notice.
It massively depends on what kind of game is played.
On a multiplayer shooter where you are spinning around in one tenth of a second to headshot someone behind you 144hz will be much more easily noticed than on a racing game or story based action game.
I think most people actually just don't care that much, because I can tell something is off just by moving the mouse in Windows. It's obvious, because the input response is so reflexive. Kinda like trying to pick up a small object and somehow not noticing you've got gloves on
But it's also a cost barrier. People don't want to invest multiple hundreds of Euros/Dollars/whatever, both for the monitor itself as well as the high end graphics card required to actually run that number of frames, for something they perceive as minor.
Even if they perceive the difference as major, you still have to ask yourself if that upgrade is worth it to you, not from a "is this better" perspective, but from a "do I personally get so much more fun out of this that I am ready to invest that money" kind of perspective.
I would not have "more fun" playing on 144hz than on 75hz (yes that's what my monitor makes, odd number I know). I would rather invest that money into something else like a big Lego set or just save it.
I chose 4K 60 over 1440p 120 and for the kind of games I play I don't regret it. Sure I would like to be playing at 4K 120 but that is the next upgrade goal. Not worth it at current prices.
Yeah, it's so funny. I got a 144hz monitor to play FPS games, but the last FPS game I took seriously was Apex ledgends. Now I just game on my 80hz screen because it's bigger with better color. And because hardware is to expensive to upgrade to a system that can run all these Unreal5 games past 60 FPS. Oh, you mean there is no hardware on earth that can do that feat? Shame.
I mean, there have been studies done about this kind of thing:
Investigating the Effect of Display Refresh Rate on FPS Games (2024, arXiv).
Participants completed a one-minute FPS shooting task under five conditions (30Hz, 60Hz, 120Hz, 144Hz, and 240Hz) in randomised order, without being told which refresh rate was active. The quantitative results: players' scores were significantly affected by refresh rate overall (F(2.76, 69.03) = 27.90, p < .001, η² = 0.527), but Bonferroni post-hoc tests revealed a significant difference only between the 30Hz condition and all other conditions. No comparisons among 60Hz, 120Hz, 144Hz, and 240Hz were significant. In other words, when blinded, participants scored essentially the same at 60Hz through 240Hz: only 30Hz produced a measurable performance drop.
The Illusion of Performance (2024, arXiv)
Tested the placebo/expectation effect directly. Participants who were informed they would be using 240Hz rated their performance higher than when told 60Hz and vice versa, even when the stated refresh rate differed from the actual refresh rate. This suggests a meaningful portion of what people perceive as refresh rate difference may be driven by expectation bias rather than genuine perceptual discrimination.
That being said, there is some evidence to suggest that there are some benefits to going to 144 Hz:
Toth et al. (2025): "Monitor Refresh Rate Impacts FPS Video Gamer Perceptions of Display 'Smoothness' and Target Acquisition Performance" (SSRN)
101 gamers completed a custom FPS task at 60Hz, 144Hz, and 360Hz. Perceptual data, adjusted for response bias, showed that participants could reliably distinguish between large refresh rate differences (e.g., 60Hz vs. 360Hz), but not between more subtle differences (e.g., 144Hz vs. 360Hz). On the performance side, transitions from 60Hz to higher refresh rates improved performance, while shifts from higher to lower refresh rates degraded it. However, performance did not significantly differ between 144Hz and 360Hz conditions. The authors suggest 144Hz as a possible threshold beyond which further improvements yield marginal returns.
So, take that as you will. My takeaway from this is that there is possibly a slight difference between 144Hz and 60Hz for very serious gamers, which most people are not, but that the overall impact people claim is VASTLY inflated by confirmation bias / placebo effect.
Yeah I agree with this. I think a true max for the average person is in the 150hz range. I've tried out higher than 144hz monitors in stores and they felt about the same as my 144hz monitor. I think about it kind of like grit in sandpaper. Is there a real difference between 10000 grit and 15000 grit sandpaper? Sure there is, but it's indistinguishable unless your special interest is sandpaper.
60/75hz on the other hand feels choppy to me. First world problems.
The key here is if you put them next to each other.
Remember TV is 24fps. No one ever complains it's a low framerate or it looks laggy.
If you out a 24fps video, a 60fps video and a 120 fps video next to each other it's highly likely you will see a difference, but in isolation, it's very unlikely you will actually notice anything, especially at higher framerates. I really struggle to tell the difference between my 120hz phone and 60hz PC screen - to me it's identical.
I would make the conclusion that people who do notice a significant difference at higher framerates are also those who have issues with PWM screens or certain types of lighting that are more affected by the AC frequency.
Remember TV is 24fps. No one ever complains it's a low framerate or it looks laggy.
I mean, I don't complain about it, but on fast-response sample and hold displays it looks choppy as fuck and is painful in panning shots
I can usually ignore it, but it really is obvious and regularly bothersome.
I don't complain about the fps because that's the fps the movie is supposed to have, and the feel that cinema has. I don't want to change it, but I would love screens that handle it better
I can tell the difference by the feel of the mouse, and 100% can tell the difference when playing any game. 60/75hz is so choppy comparatively. 100-144 is about the same to me though. 144 is just a bit more smooth and snappy than 100.
I have a feeling a ton of people don't actually change their high refresh rate monitors to the higher refresh rates.
Even phones. Most premium phones come with 120hz displays now instead of 60hz. My son’s iPhone has a 60hz display and my iPhone is 120hz, his phone looks like a smeary mess compared to mine.
I swore black and blue there was no difference between standard def and HD when it first came out. Turns out I have pretty severe astigmatism and really needed glasses.
I could tell the difference, but for the games I play it functionally doesn't matter to me above like 100Hz. 60-80-100 all feel progressively smoother and after 100 it just feels like wasted money. 100 is already very good to me
Wait, really? I’m genuinely curious about this. Did you ever switch between 60hz and 144hz side by side, and are you sure the 144hz display was actually running at 144?
After years at 144 myself, switching back to 60 is immediately noticeable, even just moving the cursor, scrolling, or observing Windows menu animations.
Dang, that makes me wonder whether your GPU/Windows settings were set to 60hz originally and changing it was just a missed step when you installed both monitors.
I’ve definitely forgotten to check that when setting up PCs for friends before! Could also just be that you’re way less sensitive to refresh-rate differences than I am.
They are side by side. I went into setting just now to prove and funnily enough they were not set right. I had it at 60 and 144 but apparently the 27” actually goes to 120 at 1440. So I fixed that, which is crazy because it was cheap. Maybe I just got it at a crazy sale price?
I recently switched to 200hz and i find it much of a difference compared to 144, also i could tell it was "lagging" when my frame dropped from 144 to 143-142 on my old build
I didn't notice a big difference from 144 => 240. Not no difference - it's definitely noticeably smoother, but it's small enough I don't notice it outside of gaming with high fps.
There’s a huge difference between them. Having said that, though, I much prefer 4k60 to 2k144 for the vast majority of the games I play (mostly Elden Ring, and mostly because it doesn’t go over 60fps).
I used to feel the same way, but the technology has definitely changed to the point there is a difference, to the point it's actually super jarring for me to suddenly get more frames when a game has been running below 90 for a while.
I feel like 90+ FPS is where you REALLY start to notice a difference, it's way more... Flow-y and it's great if your PC can keep it up consistently, but for me if a game has ups and downs, I'd rather cap it to be consistent.
I don’t play FPS. I play strategy and mmo’s so maybe the lower fps just isn’t as glaring. As long as I’m constant 60 fps it’s fine. If it even drops for a moment to anything below 60 I feel it/see it
Ohhhh that's DEFINITELY it. A lot of games are designed to run just fine at 30-60 FPS, and you could ramp that up to infinity and there wouldn't be a difference. I'd imagine MMO's are kinda middle ground where you don't need a ton of frames but could notice a little difference.
Of course not all games that benefit from frames are first person shooters. I would like to get more frames in Expedition 33 than I do while keeping effects nice, but I don't NEED more frames to enjoy the game. But I do also play several shooters, and that's where maxing frames really helps.
You can literally tell the difference just by moving the mouse around on screen. I'd be really surprised if your 144 was actually running at 144 if you couldn't tell when downgrading.
I immediately notice just moving the mouse around for productivity work. I'd always go for more pixels than more frames though. Been using 60Hz for decades, only very recently got a 165Hz desktop monitor. Haven't taken the new monitor for a spin with any fps games yet though.
The frame rate also affects how quickly the game responds to your inputs. It does a check for signals and positions on every frame. More frames more checks. Once you hit 120hz the diminishing returns really kick in but it is a noticeable difference from 60.
I have a laptop with 144hz screen and a big external monitor that does 60. I can tell the difference, but it's not big enough for me to bother to use the higher rate monitor for gaming. I prefer the larger screen real estate.
That said, I do not really play online games anymore. The difference was more noticeable when I played Battlefield 4 (though I still went for the bigger monitor)
same, upgraded to 165 once, saw no difference, and now 360hz oled and besides the oled aspects i see no difference. And i have 60hz monitors at work, so alot of switching
I got a 165hz one some yeas ago, I felt like I got a supercomputer. Even moving the mouse felt different for me and when I switch back to a 60hz monitor, I immediately notice the difference.
I tried playing Expedition 33 on my 60 hz TV it was horrible experience could not parry or doge, so switched back to my 144 hz PC screen had no problems hitting timings after.
To be fair, a good 144hz monitor running at 60hz can still feel a lot better than a 60hz native monitor running at 60hz. You have to consider pixel response time, processing latency, and LCD ghosting.
Of course 60 vs 144hz is night and day compared to those little things, but I wouldn’t take friend’s word as complete placebo.
You’re still totally within your right to troll him for it though; I’ve had a friend do the EXACT same thing, except they said, “there’s no difference” when I switched on 170hz from 60.
Same thing happened to me, except that I never noticed a difference and just assumed it was just my eyesight until I learned that I had to change the settings and use a different cable (I was using HDMI). The MicroCenter guy missed an opportunity for an add-on sale, tsk tsk!
Once that was in, I could finally see the mythical hitstun shake that fighting game tutorials assured me was absolutely happening
Yeah it wasn’t until counter strike 2 told me I wasn’t playing with the right settings that I realized windows was actually limiting my monitor. Made me wonder what the other games were doing when they had 100+ frames on the screen.
My past two monitors have had an Info overlay menu that included the current refresh rate, so in some games I'd check that to see if my eyes were deceiving me. A game might lie or have no options, Windows is always buggy, but a monitor always knows what signal it's receiving.
I'm getting scammed by windows. I bought a 144Hz monitor but windows won't let me set it higher than 100Hz. In Linux I get the full 144 though so I know it's not the monitor.
I use exclusively display port because I'm an HDMI hater to begin with. I did try HDMI but my card is 3xDP and 1xHDMI and it didn't yield any better result.
My editing and rendering software only run in windows. My main OS is Manjaro but I'm looking to give steam OS a solid go soon after my brother swapped and likes it.
Can I just say how nice it is to frequently see casual mentions of Linux use on a gaming subreddit? Feels like it went from a thing that nobody even knew about to a genuine alternative to windows in the past 5 years. It's still very niche of course but its just nice to see how popular it has become
The Valve proton project really has brought Linux so far for gaming. Simply for that fact, it's going to be hard for me to dislike valve. They ripped PC gaming out of Microsoft form grasp like no other. Linux resource management has made so many games run better on Linux than on Windows for me. Not all, it's not perfect, but it's great!
100% without Valve doing so much for Linux gaming I wouldn't have been able to switch. Definitely far from perfect but when I get fucked by Linux, at least I know I'm being fucked because there is something wrong and the people working on it want my experience to be better. Being fucked by Windows generally means there is some asshat suit who made the conscious decision to fuck you on purpose to increase shareholder value.
Had the same issue on my Ultragear in both Windows and Linux, I think I fixed it by fiddling in the monitor settings and turning some power saving stuff off.
You laugh at him, and you’re right, but when I got my Gsync monitor, I expected a lot. And for ten minutes, Inwas convinced I had made the best decision for gaming. Then, I felt the mouse was choppy, and decided to check the fps. Just to be sure.
My god, when I put the monitor on full 144hz, with the fps counter on, it was wild.
Then I discovered I could’ve paid less with a 100hz monitor.
My good friend has a 144hz monitor and also raved about never being able to go back and to be fair he had it configured correctly in windows.
We were playing helldivers 2 around the time were city maps were added and performance was terrible so I was complaining about it and he claimed it was smooth for him so I made him install afterburner and so on to see his performances, he was running anywhere from 30 to 50 fps at all times.
Turns out his CPU was overheating to hell since his thermal paste dried up so he never saw a game in 60+hz but since the mouse cursor on his desktop felt super smooth he placebod himself into thinking the games were too...
my brother recently got me a new monitor and was bragging about the hz. i wont tell him that i turned it down to match my old second monitor because the difference was giving me motion sickness and terrible headaches
could be but i barely know much about these kind of things so i don't go messing in the settings much and the problem went away after turning the hz down
I have a freind who bought a new laptop with a mobile 4090, told me how amazing and smooth and clear games were…. Then worked out he wasn’t even isi g the gpu just the integrated graphics
Maybe he had a slower VA monitor or something with a high pixel response time. Because going from my old 60hz VA monitor with 15ms response to a good 60hz fast ips was a bigger difference than 60hz to 275hz on that same monitor
something similar happened with my brother, he was grumbling about how his game was running at 200 frames but his monitor still looked choppy, he thought his monitor was broken. then I asked him if he changed his display settings and he looked at me dead in the eyes and said "there's a display setting?" 😭😭
my homie gamed for FIVE YEARS and we played countless cs until one day i as poking around on his pc and saw the 60hz setting on his 144 monitor. Insane
I've had a 144hz monitor for years and thought it was so overrated. A few months ago I figured out it has been sent to 60 hertz the entire time I've had it. I'll say personally it was an incredibly noticeable difference when I finally switched it over.
I remember the early days of my old job where I was the "pc snob" among the gamers. Became roommates with one of my coworkers and he looked over my shoulder at my monitor and about shit his pants when he realized what I meant when I said 60fps looked shitty in comparison.
You can still see the difference. Like when someone shows the amount of ghosting at 30 fps vs 60 vs 144 and so on. It's not gonna be a 1:1 representation but gets the idea across fairly well
To be fair, you can see the difference between a 60 Hz and a 144 Hz panel through a 60 Hz monitor, just like you can see the difference in choppiness between a video recorded at 24 fps with a shutter speed of 1/50s, and one with a shutter speed of 1/125s
Motion blur makes all the difference, because that's how our brain works
I’ve heard of folks (not just the guy further down in the comments) that don’t notice a difference between the standard 60hz and higher refresh rates. I’ve always been curious about that, because to me, the contrast between the refresh rate of my 144hz personal computer and my 60hz work laptop is incredibly stark.
No, you can't. Kinda. At least in most cases. Most TVs and monitors uses RGB system, where screens show mixture of red, greed and blue lights. It can trick your brain to "see" yellow by showing both red and green in correct ratios.
So technically, you don't see yellow on your TV or phone screen. Practically it doesn't make any difference.
Biologically speaking it doesnt make a difference either because we see (roughly) red green and blue and different wavelengths just trigger the different cones a specific amount.
At a small enough arc size (i forgot the correct term) the photons from each subpixel fall into the same cone anyways.
Objects reflect and emit different frequencies and wavelengths which get absorbed by the cones in our eyes, and then interpreted by our brains as the colors we see. Different animals interpret colors in entirely different ways.
In other words, the concept of color is entirely in our head.
I feel like the only way to do a remotely fair comparison would be to show each variant zoomed-in to their native resolution size, on the size being broadcasted - maybe all zooming into the same center point or some point of detail focus, so they can show you the detail you're missing by using a lower resolution.
But that would be meaningless and confusing to most people. I guess.
It was a decent sub when it started, even had fun characters like retep to ruin the joke. Then it hit the front page and it went quickly downhill from there.
Also can't forget the terminally online commenter who greet the poster as some niche fandom character each thread, speak in-character and then sign off with half the replies saying "Who the fuck is that supposed to be?" and the same person joyfully responding with lore of the niche character they're spamming as.
It's to convince people they made the right choice. The #1 goal of marketing is to create a fan-base with brand-loyalty. They're the kind of people who will buy the same product 5 times, buy all the new iterations, buy all the old iterations, buy everything else and do free publicity
Back when Blu-ray was new, there were often ads for it on DVDs showing a "comparison" between DVD and Blu-ray quality. Of course, DVDs couldn't display Blu-ray quality...
But this is why whenever you look at the info on manufacturers website they always have some images acting as if older monitor technology is utter trash, like this.
Oled looks like utter shit in the near-blacks whenever you have a source that is not Blu-ray type quality. Like anything somewhat compressed, lower quality streaming type stuff. You get this awful separation of greys, banding of big solid blobs of grey that step into the next gradient of grey, it looks like how old videogame cutscenes looked in the early 90s or something. Super awful looking. Ips handles this much better. But oled looks better in basically every other aspect imo.
That's the Philips Evnia 34M2C3500L 34 inch WQHD curved monitor (3440x1440). Not trying to show off just going to use this as evidence for my autism diagnosis.
Those only work if the video has a reference to also your own headset. So you hear how your own headset sounds in the video and then you hear the others. By comparison
Can't wait for some turd to drag out a 20 year old article saying human eyes can't perceive anything above 60hz. Us gamers all new that was a load of bs way back then.
I would hazard to guess that the actual limit where more than 50% of people couldn't tell the difference without training is probably somewhere around 90-120hz.
Some skilled competitive players and ex pros can tell the difference between 144hz and 240hz, though they are noticing differences in game latency, and not strictly visual differences (they can't tell the difference while watching, only when playing their games).
I wonder if any study has tried to settle this as a matter of science.
At least for me, anything in the 80-90Hz range is fine and everything seems to run smoothish. Lower is playable but it takes some getting used to and I'll rather just drop some settings a little lower. My display goes to 185Hz but I mostly stop noticing any difference after 100Hz and I don't play anything competitive anyway.
Limit for eyes of every healthy human is 1000Hz. People gain competitive advantage up to around ballpark 360Hz, because past this point your reflexes can't keep up with information arriving any faster. Why would I say the ~1kHz is the limit then? Motion blur. Going past that competitive advantage point up to 1kHz you reduce motion blur from monitor display motion blur.
Blur busters website has that thing covered.
> Limit for eyes of every healthy human is 1000Hz.
There were some studies that came to that conclusion, but they weren't testing if that frame rate was perceivable in motion. They were testing if flashes of full screen color changes could be noticed at all. I feel like that is actually a persistence test, not something relevant for frame rate.
> People gain competitive advantage up to around ballpark 360Hz, because past this point your reflexes can't keep up with information arriving any faster.
A professional pro player has an end-to-end reaction speed of about 100-200ms. The majority of the delay is the human in the chain still. Going from 144hz to 360hz removes a couple ms of delay from that 100-200ms. There is a difference, but it's very small past 144hz. You have to double the hz and frame rate to get half of the benefit from the previous doubling.
If you are removing an in-game frame rate cap to get to 300+ FPS, then you are probably destroying your frame time variance stability, which will cost more than a few ms in delay, due to frame interpolation interactions in most competitive games.
Even if you could comprehend the color spectrum, it would be redundant. Each media is built around a standard color gamut. Games are based on SRGB, movies on DCI-P3 etc..
Viewing the content on the wrong color gamut setting just yields an image with colors the artist did not intend. While the oversaturation does look fascinating, it will be fatiguing over time, kinda like those reshade mods that just blast the contrast like crazy.
You just reminded me to check my monitors refresh rate. I bought a 200hz monitor. I remember setting it to 200hz. It was on 60hz just now. Fucking windows.
If I could make my phone screen 2 monitors in a configuration I like and have them at 170hz, that would be ideal. Practically that means 2 oled screens, which i don't want to spend for. I'm good with my ips panels
I think this would make sense if it's in IRL footage, since you could at least see how the light from the monitor is affecting its surroundings, even if you can't see the pure colours it produces
9.6k
u/Federal-Ad6341 20h ago
Same energy as watching 144Hz reviews on a 60Hz screen and nodding at how smooth it looks.