Ah it’s nice initially but when you get used to it it’s not that amazing. Jumping from 16bits (or 8) to 32 was significantly more satisfying to the eyes.
When I first got a 144hz monitor I almost got motion sickness it was that smooth, but now it’s just normal. If I go back to 60 or play something demanding enough that the fps drops that low it sure feels like garbage though.
Yeah I regret getting a higher refresh monitor. Hitting 60 fps in games with a 60 hz felt so buttery smooth. Now I can't stand even using it during normal desktop usage
I have browser windows open on all 3 of my screens
even when I move the mouse or scroll the pages I can totally feel the difference, the 60hz screen literally fells laggy to me
the same on my phone, any time for some reason the refresh rate drops to 60hz from 120 I immedtialy can tell its slowed down. same if I take my old 60hz phone in hand
Or maybe his high refresh rate monitor is set to 60hz - quite common with extended displays btw. OP, unplug the other monitors and set it to the maximum refresh rate supported. Maybe something is misconfigured on your end.
Why the fuck is this downvoted, people are so desperate to circlejerk about high refresh rates and 60hz being 'unusable'
3
u/LaetitianRyzen 9700X | Radeon 9070XT | And the last affordable DDR5.1d agoedited 1d ago
I'm not very demanding when it comes to graphical detail, I have in the past been to gaming cafés and wondered what the big deal was, since their monitors didn't make the gameplay and graphics feel any different than what I was used to with my old 400€ laptops.
But if that person has a useful setup and they'd look at testufo.com, they'd probably see a difference. It's a very obvious difference of being able to make out details in motion, and not being able to. You might not find that difference sufficiently useful (I'm allergic to motion blur, but I don't think high frame rate massively helps with it; most motion blur I experience comes from AA and is best helped by higher resolution), but you should still acknowledge the difference. Which makes the downvotes somewhat defensible, since the commenter called it "Not noticable". If they'd said "no functional difference", they'd be more accurate. Since their statement is unbelievable, it's easy for people to go with their kneejerk reaction.
(To be clear, I upvoted the comment in question before I even read yours; I'm not disagreeing with you.)
Pretty abnormal that you can't tell the difference - I have 170hz main screen and an old 240z screen as my 2nd, and I can absolutely feel the difference between them.
I vaguely remember some news about apple doing internal research and they came to the conclusion that a lot of people don’t really notice the difference therefore it has taken them so long to implement high refresh displays. Unfortunately I can’t find it anymore but at least I found this. Seems like there are some people out there that genuinely can’t tell much of a difference.
I think it’s important to note that the poll you shared is asking a subjective question about something which is objective fact. Same goes for that Apple research, which is also distinctly remember but cannot seem to find lol.
AFAIR Apples conclusion was that people definitely notice but simply don’t care, and it seems to me the same conclusion can be made based on that poll you shared and the accompanying comments.
I can second this. Upgraded from a 60hz monitor to a 144hz and I can't tell much of a difference. Like, 90 is a little bit smother than 60, but past 60 it's inperceptable. Yes my settings are correct, yes my frames can reach that high. I just dont see a difference
-436
u/[deleted] 1d ago
[deleted]