How big of a gap is there between 120hz, 144hz and 165hz that you can percieve?

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm choosing between 120hz and other options for a monitor, i know that increasing refresh rate is going to have diminishing returns after a certain point, so my question is how much can you feel the difference between these refresh rates? does it matter that much?

[BANNES]

I personally don't feel too much of a difference between these refreshrates. The biggest jump between these are probably 120 to 144hz

[Sigi]

I have a 165 hz screen and I tried changing it to 144 hz but I see no difference

[glenalz81]

Pretty hard to notice after 120

[Swes]

I feel once you are in triple digits improvements start to fall away. What matters most is a stable setup at the refresh rate you choose

[Brooksie359]

Completely depends on what you are doing. For competitive gaming I can tell the difference but for everything else I can't. Honestly once you hit 100hz it starts to drop off because it's already pretty damn smooth. I think 120 is plenty if you are just play noncompetitive games. But if you are going for competitive gaming you kinda want a 1080p tn panel at which point it is likely much diffrent than the options you are looking at. 

[LukeSavenije]

i feel no difference between those three, but it's personal preference

[Guest]

Scientifically, our eyes cannot see faster than 60 hz. There's a video by Knowing Better that explains this well (It also talks about why 4k is dumb).

 

[Orbity]

1 hour ago, OttoVonBismarck said:

I'm choosing between 120hz and other options for a monitor, i know that increasing refresh rate is going to have diminishing returns after a certain point, so my question is how much can you feel the difference between these refresh rates? does it matter that much?

there is a small jump from 120 to 144 but its hard to see past there. I recommend a 144hz monitor

 

39 minutes ago, MagnesiumPC said:

Scientifically, our eyes cannot see faster than 60 hz. There's a video by Knowing Better that explains this well (It also talks about why 4k is dumb).

that video is wrong, there is multable videos debunking that and if you ever seen the difference between 60 and 144 you can easily tell.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Orbity said:

that video is wrong, there is multable videos debunking that and if you ever seen the difference between 60 and 144 you can easily tell.

You can see a difference between 60 and 144 yes. Between 75 and 144 no. You have to train your eyes, which is something most people cant do. 120 is the cap we can see to.

[OttoVonBismarck]

3 minutes ago, MagnesiumPC said:

Scientifically, our eyes cannot see faster than 60 hz. There's a video by Knowing Better that explains this well (It also talks about why 4k is dumb).

 

i mean, our eyes don't see in frames per second at all. I really haven't seen many people at all who say that there isn't a noticeable difference between 60 and 100+ hz, even just in windows moving around program windows. This is more of a "when do the diminishing returns based on how sensitive your eyes to those increases in smoothness come in" question.

 

[Neftex]

nice troll @MagnesiumPC but i have to remind you this forum isnt for trolling

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Neftex said:

nice troll @MagnesiumPC but i have to remind you this forum isnt for trolling

Not trolling, I'm being serious. Our minds, when working as fast a possible, or at heightened perception, cannot see faster than 120 hz. At rest, We cannot see faster than 72 hz. This is scientific fact. There might be some outliers, but this is true for almost all people.

 

32 minutes ago, OttoVonBismarck said:

i mean, our eyes don't see in frames per second at all. I really haven't seen many people at all who say that there isn't a noticeable difference between 60 and 100+ hz, even just in windows moving around program windows. This is more of a "when do the diminishing returns based on how sensitive your eyes to those increases in smoothness come in" question.

 

Between 60 & 100+ yes. There is a difference. Between 75 & 100+ no. Unless your looking for it.

[Doobeedoo]

11 hours ago, MagnesiumPC said:

You can see a difference between 60 and 144 yes. Between 75 and 144 no. You have to train your eyes, which is something most people cant do. 120 is the cap we can see to.

That's not true at all. It's not the human limit. I notice difference between 144Hz vs 240Hz and I'm not the only one. 

[schwellmo92]

I’ve used 120Hz and 144Hz and can’t notice really any difference, just make sure the monitor has at least 120Hz and get the one with the lower response time.

[tikker]

I'd say from 120+ you are entering the realm of diminishing returns. I still notice the difference when gaming at 75, 100 or 120 Hz, but from 120 to 144 I'd have to really focus on it, if I notice it at all. I never got the change to experience 165 or 240 Hz displays though. I'd love to see how 240 Hz feels. It's also very much a reverse effect in my experience. Going up in refresh rate doesn't seem to change a whole lot, but I immediately notice it when turning it back down to a lower refresh rate.

[Turtle Rig]

There is a nice difference between 120 and 165 ....... some cant tell, I can tell tho.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

That's not true at all. It's not the human limit. I notice difference between 144Hz vs 240Hz and I'm not the only one. 

The placebo is strong in this one.

[Doobeedoo]

40 minutes ago, MagnesiumPC said:

The placebo is strong in this one.

Ignorance is strong within you it seems. You clearly didn't do proper research even, so stop spreading misinformation. Scientific fact my ass. You probably didn't even test it your self, especially even properly in certain games where it matters. Even the video you liked has flaws in it.

 

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

Ignorance is strong within you it seems. You clearly didn't do proper research even, so stop spreading misinformation. Scientific fact my ass. You probably didn't even test it your self, especially even properly in certain games where it matters. Even the video you liked has flaws in it.

 

Our eyes cannot see faster than 60~72 hz at rest. Our eyes cannot see past 120 hz at maximum concentration. If you can show me a reliable source that proves otherwise, I'll accept it. I've used 60, 72, 75, 120, 132 (overclocked 120), and 144 hz monitors. I've noticed no difference between the 75 Hz & up monitors. The monitors that are the smoothest are the ones with frame-hertz syncing systems like FreeSync.

 

For now, I'll rely on my more scientific / expert-based sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate#Human_vision

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_perception

https://www.pcgamer.com/how-many-frames-per-second-can-the-human-eye-really-see/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4314649/

https://gizmodo.com/why-frame-rate-matters-1675153198

 

 

[Doobeedoo]

11 minutes ago, MagnesiumPC said:

Our eyes cannot see faster than 60~72 hz at rest. Our eyes cannot see past 120 hz at maximum concentration. If you can show me a reliable source that proves otherwise, I'll accept it. I've used 60, 72, 75, 120, 132 (overclocked 120), and 144 hz monitors. I've noticed no difference between the 75 Hz & up monitors. The monitors that are the smoothest are the ones with frame-hertz syncing systems like FreeSync.

 

For now, I'll rely on my more scientific / expert-based sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate#Human_vision

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_perception

https://www.pcgamer.com/how-many-frames-per-second-can-the-human-eye-really-see/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4314649/

https://gizmodo.com/why-frame-rate-matters-1675153198

 

 

Our eyes don't even see in frames, we perceive frames as motion, the more frames the more fluid it looks. Depends how you used those monitors, just straight up desktop is pointless, so games then. Even for any game like 120Hz will feel better than regular 60Hz one. Just turning around feels better. Maybe you didn't notice differences because you didn't test it in games or those that are not fast paced where you can notice it better and so or framerate wasn't high enough. And yeah not everyone can see difference, especially after certain threshold and especially if they're not active gamer in games where say high refresh rate will benefit you more. 

Monitors with like FreeSync make it smooth with no tearing when framerate varies. Though say on 144Hz you still want your framerate to be like 144 stable anyway.

 

As far as the links I've seen them. There's more to it though. Certain mentioned flicker tests tests differ really compared to gaming where there's many moving objects and you actually interact with so called camera in game. I've used various monitors of different refresh rates over years. 60Hz to 120 or 144Hz is definitely noticeable, heck even 144Hz vs 240Hz is when I tested it in Quake where you can have 240fps and going back from 240Hz to 144Hz and I could feel the difference. In that game you move extremely fast. Definitely not extreme difference as like 60Hz vs 144Hz where going down from 144Hz to 60Hz feels like a stutterfest. 

Many may not notice 144Hz vs 240hz, but how many competitive fps players do you have though. Still 144Hz is fine for me and really for almost everyone. No point going for 240Hz monitor unless your sole purpose is competitive fps and pro level gaming. I like higher resolution and better panel type along.

 

So yeah I've been gaming and playing competitive fps games for over 15y or so and oh does it make a difference to have a higher refresh rate monitor. I'm a living breathing proof and other people I know too. 60Hz is just shit even in general nowdays. Just scrolling through page is worse on it.

 

Well I'm off to bed it's 4AM for me.

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

Our eyes don't even see in frames, we perceive frames as motion, the more frames the more fluid it looks. Depends how you used those monitors, just straight up desktop is pointless, so games then. Even for any game like 120Hz will feel better than regular 60Hz one. Just turning around feels better. Maybe you didn't notice differences because you didn't test it in games or those that are not fast paced where you can notice it better and so or framerate wasn't high enough. And yeah not everyone can see difference, especially after certain threshold and especially if they're not active gamer in games where say high refresh rate will benefit you more. 

Monitors with like FreeSync make it smooth with no tearing when framerate varies. Though say on 144Hz you still want your framerate to be like 144 stable anyway.

 

As far as the links I've seen them. There's more to it though. Certain mentioned flicker tests tests differ really compared to gaming where there's many moving objects and you actually interact with so called camera in game. I've used various monitors of different refresh rates over years. 60Hz to 120 or 144Hz is definitely noticeable, heck even 144Hz vs 240Hz is when I tested it in Quake where you can have 240fps and going back from 240Hz to 144Hz and I could feel the difference. In that game you move extremely fast. Definitely not extreme difference as like 60Hz vs 144Hz where going down from 144Hz to 60Hz feels like a stutterfest. 

Many may not notice 144Hz vs 240hz, but how many competitive fps players do you have though. Still 144Hz is fine for me and really for almost everyone. No point going for 240Hz monitor unless your sole purpose is competitive fps and pro level gaming. I like higher resolution and better panel type along.

 

So yeah I've been gaming and playing competitive fps games for over 15y or so and oh does it make a difference to have a higher refresh rate monitor. I'm a living breathing proof and other people I know too. 60Hz is just shit even in general nowdays. Just scrolling through page is worse on it.

 

Well I'm off to bed it's 4AM for me.

Exactly. Our eyes don't see in frames. They see motion. They have a cap to how fast the can see. Also, as I stated earlier, unless you've trained your eyes (which you have, though I doubt to 240 hz since even fighter jet pilots cant perceive that), you cannot see / recognize differences past 75 ~ 120 Hz.

[OttoVonBismarck]

6 hours ago, MagnesiumPC said:

Exactly. Our eyes don't see in frames. They see motion. They have a cap to how fast the can see. Also, as I stated earlier, unless you've trained your eyes (which you have, though I doubt to 240 hz since even fighter jet pilots cant perceive that), you cannot see / recognize differences past 75 ~ 120 Hz.

im really curious where statements like "jet fighter pilots cant discern 240hz" comes from. Because as far as i know nobody has ever taken a bunch of jet fighter pilots and made them compare 144hz to 240hz. This sounds like a statement you have pulled from a place the sun doesn't shine

[Guest]

1 hour ago, OttoVonBismarck said:

im really curious where statements like "jet fighter pilots cant discern 240hz" comes from. Because as far as i know nobody has ever taken a bunch of jet fighter pilots and made them compare 144hz to 240hz. This sounds like a statement you have pulled from a place the sun doesn't shine

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

 

Test 3. Fighter Pilots have been observed being able to see flashes of aircraft at 1/250 of a second. Flashes of light & smoothness of movement are different.

 

Also, the Soap Opera effect is much greater at above 75 Hz.

[Doobeedoo]

9 hours ago, MagnesiumPC said:

Exactly. Our eyes don't see in frames. They see motion. They have a cap to how fast the can see. Also, as I stated earlier, unless you've trained your eyes (which you have, though I doubt to 240 hz since even fighter jet pilots cant perceive that), you cannot see / recognize differences past 75 ~ 120 Hz.

Well as far as cap it's not as low as you think it is. Comparing fighter jet pilots of what they can perceive to see flashes of aircraft at split of a second is not exactly the same thing like in gaming on a high refresh rate monitor. Playing a very fast paced game where constant movement of you as your camera and other moving objects on the screen that you tend to follow is important to be smooth. People can definitely see and feel the difference on high refresh rate monitor at those scenarios. So you definitely can see difference from 75 to 120Hz too. I've had those monitors, I tested side by side and back and forth. 

 

Watching movies let's say at 60fps 120fps may not make much sense but in gaming it definitely does. Oh and speaking of movies, 24fps is not the best experience too. Really reasons why it is stuck there was mainly since it was the minimum for cinematic viewing for our eyes, ease of recording, budget and so. I've seen 48fps nad 60fps movie footage and I can understand why some people mention the soap opera effect too. Thing is, they're way too used to 24fps and little information it tends to provide, especially with motion blur used in movies. So when they see a movie in higher fps it feels unnatural to them. They are not used to processing much more information, over time they'd get used to it.

Yet for me it feels better, possibly because I've been looking at higher refresh rate and fps for a long time and many of those people didn't. The fast zoomed camera panning in movies you tend to see is just terrible at 24fps for example. I've seen it in theaters too it literally makes my eyes hurt. Watching some generic fast action movie with constant explosions, fight scenes, scene switching feels like trash on 24fps though.

 

There's a 480Hz monitor prototype https://www.blurbusters.com/480hz-monitor-at-blur-busters-being-tested/

You can also check that site for various interesting tests and maybe check some comments from their author input too.