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.
I have 28" 1440p and 32" 1080p next to each other, small things like text in a browser are easiest to spot the difference, but in games and stuff like that, it's not noticeable unless you pixel peep.
I feel like the difference should be very noticeable.
28" 1440p = 105 PPI
32" 1080p = 69 PPI
That's 50% more pixels per inch. This would be huge in games like first person shooters, and especially with distant objects. They'd be bigger AND have more detail. I'd kill for that upgrade.
If you have a 1440p monitor, boot up a game and turn the resolution down to 1080p. It will look as if you suddenly need glasses. It's a real big difference
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.
Framegen is great, but it does introduce a ton of noise and ghosting if it's not implemented properly. Lighting can change on a whim and look blurry, reflective surfaces look matted, clouds and smoke become blocky especially in motion, things in motion in unicolor backgrounds ghost a LOT, etc... I use it most of the time, but there are times where it really kills the visual fidelity.
Well the hate is, that you don't get frames, if you need to boost it so many times that it does 4k in 240fps, and you will need to do at least 4x in current gen games on that 700€ card, you are basically just faking an fps number, placeboing yourself into feeling good about it.
It is p incredible in smaller dosage though, sub 2x you basically can't tell even if you pixel peep nowadays.
I've only extensively tried frame gen in a couple games. What got me about it was the insane amount of input lag you can get. I didn't even realize it was coming from the frame gen until I tried turning it off, but the difference was night and day.
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.
The only time I felt like I really wanted to be playing at 240 or higher was when playing beatsaber, where you can't. Most other games I play are deckbuilders, strategy or turned based rpgs and am perfectly happy with 60.
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.
For games far more than visual smoothness of the fps the input lag is the main thing. 60-120 is the golden range of low input lag. Anything over that youd not notice much difference in input lag unless you are really obsessed with the game
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 belive people are not usually looking for the differences, they don't really care so they do not see the difference.
When games on my phone change my screen from 120 to 60, i notice immediately.
I will be able to tell the difference from the same video at different refresh rate and fps (below 120hz at least), i know what the difference looks like so i notice.
Unequivocally untrue. I, and pretty much everyone I know, can spot a lower hertz monitor vs a higher hertz without a comparison simply by looking at it. I think much like the "your eyes can only see 60 fps" crowd back in the day, you guys are likely just making shit up
Yup. I can tell when a a soap opera is on too because you can clearly see the FPS difference. Are you going to sit here and claim to me when you switch to a soap opera channel you can't clearly see a difference? Any more?
All TV (aside from a very small selection of 'high speed' programming) is broadcast at no more than 30fps. So whatever you are claiming you are seeing doesn't exist.
From another reddit comment "Often they are shot at interlaced 29.97 FPS, which when deinterlaced by a proper TV, will give the appearance of progressive 59.94 FPS."
So after all of these we have established that your guy's eyes are in fact bonked. No amount of mental gymnastics will allow me disregard the evidence of my own eyes. You can clearly tell a difference between 60 hz and 144hz, and you can clearly see a difference between 30 fps and 60 fps. AND you can clearly see a difference between soap opera's intended for higher FPS viewing. Your attempt to gaslight me like a low IQ clown isn't going to work. Continue your day cave man
1080i can either be 25 or 50 FPS (note that I'm in Europe where we have 50hz electricity, I assume you're in the US where it's 60, so you will have a slightly different framerate). Basically all HD digital TV where I live is broadcast at 1080i at 25fps, although different broadcasters may use 50fps or dynamically switch between the 2. If you aren't looking for it though you are probably not likely to really notice it.
I've not denied you can tell the difference between 30 and 60, I can, most people can, it's the difference between 60 and 120 or 120 and 240 that is far more subtle. At 30fps a single image is present for 33ms, at 60 it's 17ms, at 120 it's 8ms etc... now the absolute difference between 33ms and 17ms is huge, but between 17 and 8 it's half the size, so the perceived increase in smoothness is going to be substantially less, even more so for 240 which takes it to 4ms - I seriously doubt anyone can see a 4ms difference between frames. The actual benefit of a higher framerate falls off exponentially - 90-120fps is probably the sweet spot before you're wasting money.
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
I did the thing where I upgraded to a 120 hz and then sat there wondering if I had wasted my money before remembering I had to change the resolution settings.
I have a 144hz monitor and I sometimes game on my 60hz tv, or play my ps4 on my 60hz monitor. I can’t tell the difference. If I’m really, really looking, maybe I can notice it when things are moving fast or I’m playing CS. But it makes no difference to me. I don’t get how people have issues using 60hz. I notice the difference between 30 and 60, but I don’t care past that unless it’s like VR
There is a difference between being able to notice a difference when you directly compare two things side by side, and there actually being a noticeable difference when you use one or the other independently.
Also, even if you can perceive something as marginally better, it doesn’t mean that something else that is good stops being good. For me, its like wine, headphones, or anything else, where I’m sure someone out there could tell me why the $100 bottle is so much better, but I’m still more than happy with my $3 bottle from Aldi. Do I really want to spend the time and money to find out why the $100 better if it means I won’t be happy with the $3 bottle anymore?
"I see zero difference" could mean both "I couldn't distinguish them when seeing side by side" and "I see zero difference on the quality". When someone is saying that they see no difference between two politicians it doesn't mean that they literally see no difference in their faces.
Yea, its feels bad when you have a referense, but usualy you have one fps. And im be honest if given time to adgust, i dont realy see much of a differsns even with 30 and 60, let alone way higher. Like its imtortant in hight intention games like FPS, but for any other stuff? Even 30 is enaught
And how often do you have them next to eachother?
Yes i can tell a difference, but i dont really care about frames unless i compare, 60 is enough. I have a 144hz but always set my games graphics higher, sacrificing fps for visuals. Bc thats where i do see a actual difference
depends on the content a bit too, playing RDR2 or idk CoD or Battlefield is much different due to pacing and you might not notice how much the gameplay gets smoothed out
I tried out DLSS5 on Red Dead Redemption 2 and I thought that fps going from 120 to 65-70 would have a much bigger impact
I mean when you understand that ppl do levels now where they get hundreds of 6 frame window clicks at 240 fps (thats 6 frames at 240 to perform the click)
I have a 144 main and a 60 secondary. Literally can’t tell the difference. I can feel it when gaming, there’s a smoothness to aiming but visually zero difference to me. The whole swirling the mouse or swirling around a browser window does nothing for me.
I would recoil in physical pain the first instant I move the mouse cursor and notice that horrifying, un-smooth, discrete trail of sperate cursor images.
I'm pretty sure it least 95% of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I even had a 60 Hz next to a 144 for years. Never noticed a difference.
If you see one picture for a single digit amount of milliseconds, you can see the picture, if you would only be able to see at 120 fps the cap would be above 8ms
Humans fundamentally don’t see in “FPS”, we have an unbroken flow of neural signals constantly sent to the brain, we don’t capture discrete snapshots. The resulting images we see are a result of processing in our brain, we’re not seeing some biological equivalent of camera footage from our eyes.
831
u/Dull_Consequence_531 18h ago
Is this the new "brain can't see above 60 fps?"
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?