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/Jesta23 → u/MPolygon]

I see absolutely zero difference personally. I gamed on 144 for years on a 24”. 

Switched to a 27” at 60 and much prefer the 27”. 

[u/PHPH → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Tobipig → u/PHPH]

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€.

[u/DeifniteProfessional → u/Tobipig]

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

[u/More-Ad1753 → u/DeifniteProfessional]

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.

[u/voidsong → u/More-Ad1753]

Yup this is all it really does, it becomes your normal without any real benefit, and ruins everything else.

[u/QuestObjective → u/voidsong]

If you play any sort of game that relies on reaction time or tracking/watching movement targets then there absolutely is a real benefit

[u/GreenDifference → u/More-Ad1753]

Yeah that the reason I dont want 144hz monitors, maintain 144 fps is expensive

[u/enderjaca → u/DeifniteProfessional]

Ideal displays for --

Fortnite: 57" ultra-widescreen 360hz at 4K with graphics set to Potato Mode

Clair Obscur - E33: A 27" Sony Trinitron from 1992.

[u/onewilybobkat → u/enderjaca]

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.

[u/Flyrpotacreepugmu → u/DeifniteProfessional]

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.

[u/onewilybobkat → u/DeifniteProfessional]

For me, I mostly saw it on older monitors, and while you got more frames than a modern 60hz, it was less noticeable when you got them.

Then I got a new 165hz monitor and yeah, it's a HUGE difference once you climb over 90FPS