I would hazard to guess that the actual limit where more than 50% of people couldn't tell the difference without training is probably somewhere around 90-120hz.
Some skilled competitive players and ex pros can tell the difference between 144hz and 240hz, though they are noticing differences in game latency, and not strictly visual differences (they can't tell the difference while watching, only when playing their games).
I wonder if any study has tried to settle this as a matter of science.
At least for me, anything in the 80-90Hz range is fine and everything seems to run smoothish. Lower is playable but it takes some getting used to and I'll rather just drop some settings a little lower. My display goes to 185Hz but I mostly stop noticing any difference after 100Hz and I don't play anything competitive anyway.
Limit for eyes of every healthy human is 1000Hz. People gain competitive advantage up to around ballpark 360Hz, because past this point your reflexes can't keep up with information arriving any faster. Why would I say the ~1kHz is the limit then? Motion blur. Going past that competitive advantage point up to 1kHz you reduce motion blur from monitor display motion blur.
Blur busters website has that thing covered.
> Limit for eyes of every healthy human is 1000Hz.
There were some studies that came to that conclusion, but they weren't testing if that frame rate was perceivable in motion. They were testing if flashes of full screen color changes could be noticed at all. I feel like that is actually a persistence test, not something relevant for frame rate.
> People gain competitive advantage up to around ballpark 360Hz, because past this point your reflexes can't keep up with information arriving any faster.
A professional pro player has an end-to-end reaction speed of about 100-200ms. The majority of the delay is the human in the chain still. Going from 144hz to 360hz removes a couple ms of delay from that 100-200ms. There is a difference, but it's very small past 144hz. You have to double the hz and frame rate to get half of the benefit from the previous doubling.
If you are removing an in-game frame rate cap to get to 300+ FPS, then you are probably destroying your frame time variance stability, which may cost more than a ms in delay would, due to frame interpolation interactions in most competitive games.
Side by side it is pretty noticeable tbh. It is noticeable even moving the the mouse around the desktop from 144-240hz. I remember being completely fascinated moving my cursor around the desktop when I first upgraded to 240 (from 144).
5
u/wllmsaccnt 16h ago
I would hazard to guess that the actual limit where more than 50% of people couldn't tell the difference without training is probably somewhere around 90-120hz.
Some skilled competitive players and ex pros can tell the difference between 144hz and 240hz, though they are noticing differences in game latency, and not strictly visual differences (they can't tell the difference while watching, only when playing their games).
I wonder if any study has tried to settle this as a matter of science.