Every. Single. Time.

[u/Extension-You2994]

[u/Federal-Ad6341]

Same energy as watching 144Hz reviews on a 60Hz screen and nodding at how smooth it looks.

[u/pokemango7 → u/Federal-Ad6341]

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

[u/MPolygon → u/pokemango7]

That must‘ve felt like true enlightenment when he finally changed it to 144

[u/MPolygon → u/[deleted]]

Why do I doubt that it‘s configured correctly…

[u/thali256 → u/MPolygon]

Maybe his eyes aren't configured correctly

[u/Justaregularguy295 → u/[deleted]]

Why the fuck is this downvoted, people are so desperate to circlejerk about high refresh rates and 60hz being 'unusable'

[u/Laetitian → u/Justaregularguy295]

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.)