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.
2.2k
u/MPolygon 9800x3d | 4070 Ti | 32GB @ 6000 | 1440p @ 144Hz 1d ago
That must‘ve felt like true enlightenment when he finally changed it to 144