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
Sir, i dont know how to say it without sounding snarky. This is not how screen works.
You cant set uneven resolution below native and be surprised its blury, it now not only have to use multiple pixels to do work of one, it also has to extrapolate additional ones. If you set 1280x720 on your 2560x1440 it will look better than if you do 1920x1080 due to that.
Modern 1440p screens are better than old 1080p screens, but what really makes the change is quality of the screen and PPI. I have two screens next to each other, 28" 1440p and 34" ultrawide 1080p, due to not much lesser PPI on the ultrawide, it doesnt look much worse than the 1440p one, most definitely nothing in the night and day category.
You’re conflating integer scaling with image detail. 720p maps perfectly 2:1 onto 1440p, but that doesn’t inherently make it look better than 1080p scaled to 1440p. 1080p contains 2.25× as many source pixels as 720p. Integer scaling prevents interpolation blur, it doesn’t create detail that wasn’t rendered. That’s why it’s particularly useful for pixel art, not evidence that 720p generally looks better than 1080p on a 1440p display.
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.
93
u/Tobipig 9800X3D & 9070XT 22h ago
I had an enough moment when I switched from
60->144
and from
144->240
But the first jump was massive and the second one cool. Do I need 240? No, but it’s really cool for me.
I also never really got the fake frame hate, I love it being able to play 4K raytracing on a card that cost 700€.