Does 240Hz Matter for Gaming ft. Gav from The Slow Mo Guys

[nicklmg]

 

Buy 240Hz gaming monitors
On Amazon: https://lmg.gg/8KV5r

[LukeSavenije]

we all know it already

 

no

[Guest]

Missing with the dak dak

[Princess Luna]

 

Pretty much on the placebo/gimmick territory.

 

What has been upsetting me lately is how 1440p is getting ignored hard on high end laptops and alike, you either have 1080p240hz which is idiotic (pardon my french) or 4k which is pointless.

 

No middle ground for best balance.

[jiyeon]

It would have been interesting to see you guys experiment with rifles as well, as guns like the AK-47 and M4A4 would require much more millisecond aim adjustments compared to the snipers.

 

Nonetheless, it was intriguing to see Ed do well at 240Hz in particular aiming for the head compared to his 60Hz runs, nicely done Ed. I could see Ed was well focused and in-the-game when on 240Hz vs 60Hz.

[Edzel Yago]

1 minute ago, seoz said:

It would have been interesting to see you guys experiment with rifles as well, as guns like the AK-47 and M4A4 would require much more millisecond aim adjustments compared to the snipers.

 

Nonetheless, it was intriguing to see Ed do well at 240Hz in particular aiming for the head compared to his 60Hz runs, nicely done Ed. I could see Ed was well focused and in-the-game when on 240Hz vs 60Hz.

I blame the high sensitivity! (2.4 @ 400DPI) and the unfamiliar movement speed (80%).   =3     Also, I'm rusty and old.

[jiyeon]

2 minutes ago, Edzel Yago said:

I blame the high sensitivity! (2.4 @ 400DPI) and the unfamiliar movement speed (80%).   =3     Also, I'm rusty and old.

Aww you did great, don't sweat it.  Taking the high sensitivity and modified movement speed into account, it brings the 240Hz into a better light since you adjusted quite quickly on 240Hz despite those modifiers.

[Edzel Yago]

5 minutes ago, seoz said:

Aww you did great, don't sweat it.  Taking the high sensitivity and modified movement speed into account, it brings the 240Hz into a better light since you adjusted quite quickly on 240Hz despite those modifiers.

Actually, I massively choked too. The cameras, the people, and the expectations that I wouldn't miss. When the cameras weren't on I was relaxed and hitting everything fine. 

 

The mind game is real.

[PeterBocan]

Okay, my take on methodology: 3 people doing 3 sets on 2 refresh rates are statistically not significant. I think having one set of mice on specified DPI can play against a player who doesn't like that particular model of a mouse (have you noticed that many people hold their mice a bit different than others?). Just for the sake of making less-variable test, I would say that it really could hinder the results, especially when the test is measuring the best performance of a player. 

I really would say that having pro players doing more sets of runs with their own mice would be a better methodology, but it would require much more people to get through the tests and videos. Nevertheless, the video was quite interesting and I just can't wait when Brandon says he needs a high-speed 4K camera.

[jiyeon]

3 minutes ago, Edzel Yago said:

Actually, I massively choked too. The cameras, the people, and the expectations that I wouldn't miss. When the cameras weren't on I was relaxed and hitting everything fine. 

 

The mind game is real.

No denying that your 240Hz shot was insanity, would be hard-pressed to try that in 60Hz.

 

[BobVonBob]

I would have honestly been more interested to see a test comparing 120/144 Hz to 240, since the effect of that jump seems to be more contentious than the ones from 60 to 120/144 or 60 to 240.

[Red :)]

@Edzel Yago

Why didn't you test with 120 and 144hz refresh rates as well?

 

 

[Edzel Yago]

1 minute ago, Red said:

@Edzel Yago

Why didn't you test with 120 and 144hz refresh rates as well?

 

 

 

Time. Flight in was a bit delayed and he had to leave the next morning. We squeezed another video in the next morning/afternoon as well (without Gavin) while we had the camera though.

[CoalitionGaming]

I think a part 2 featuring Pros vs Joes would be neat. That way you could also gather data on how much of a difference it makes for pro level players vs casual players, or rather what difference skill makes when comparing high refresh rate vs standard refresh rate.

[Zberg]

54 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

 

Pretty much on the placebo/gimmick territory.

 

What has been upsetting me lately is how 1440p is getting ignored hard on high end laptops and alike, you either have 1080p240hz which is idiotic (pardon my french) or 4k which is pointless.

 

No middle ground for best balance.

Guy at work got a 15 inch lappy, they suckered him into the 4k.  He was pumped.  I haven't had the heart to have him put it next to my 1080p screen and see if he can spot the difference from normal sitting distance.  He does notice the significantly lower FPS than he had on his 1080p set up when gaming though.

 

1440p 17 inch screen would interest me though, probably would be a decent buy. 

[WereCat]

11 minutes ago, CoalitionGaming said:

I think a part 2 featuring Pros vs Joes would be neat. That way you could also gather data on how much of a difference it makes for pro level players vs casual players, or rather what difference skill makes when comparing high refresh rate vs standard refresh rate.

The issue with test like this is flawed in the way that the pros are very experienced in the game and even if you put them in a big disadvantage and let them play at 30Hz vs Joes on 240Hz, their knowledge of the map and greater ability to predict where the enemies are will still play a much bigger role than the refresh rate of the monitor. 

[PeterBocan]

1 minute ago, WereCat said:

The issue with test like this is flawed in the way that the pros are very experienced in the game and even if you put them in a big disadvantage and let them play at 30Hz vs Joes on 240Hz, their knowledge of the map and greater ability to predict where the enemies are will still play a much bigger role than the refresh rate of the monitor. 

That doesn't matter. It's not a competition but a rather quasi-research into the reaction time/FPS causation/correlation. If the reaction time and accuracy depends on the FPS, you would see a bigger improvement in professionals (which is more likely as they play at home at 120 or 144 Hz) and smaller in noobs, if it doesn't affect professionals, it would make sense to conclude that the human brain-hand tandem cannot react and process input faster than 60FPS and thus making higher FPS nicer to the eye but not getting any advantage out of it.

[AnonymousGuy]

47 minutes ago, BobVonBob said:

I would have honestly been more interested to see a test comparing 120/144 Hz to 240, since the effect of that jump seems to be more contentious than the ones from 60 to 120/144 or 60 to 240.

This.  In the intro the graphics they were showing from Nvidia was implying you do better at 240Hz than 144Hz.  I serious doubt this.  I was programming the refresh rate of an LED that is strictly on-and-off red color.  I couldn't see it flicker anymore when I went over 200Hz.  A monitor isn't "worst case scenario" like an LED is.

[Shahmir]

Shots 1-5: Clearly missed.
Shots 6-9: Missed due to recoil (bad spray control).
Shots 10-11: Very close, but recoil and inaccuracy make these reasonable misses.
Shot 12: Likely didn't actually fire because Linus was already dead.

[CoalitionGaming]

1 hour ago, WereCat said:

The issue with test like this is flawed in the way that the pros are very experienced in the game and even if you put them in a big disadvantage and let them play at 30Hz vs Joes on 240Hz, their knowledge of the map and greater ability to predict where the enemies are will still play a much bigger role than the refresh rate of the monitor. 

Sure but the goal isn't really pros vs joes, that part is just entertainment. The goal with my suggestion is to use the entertainment factor of pros vs joes to gather data on how big a difference refresh rate makes for the pros vs how much a difference it makes for the joes.

[Computernaut]

This videos proves that 240Hz is better than 60Hz, but it doesn't prove that 240Hz specifically is the best. An additional test at 144Hz would tell us if 240Hz is truly worth it. Response times might improve much more between 60Hz and 144Hz than between 144Hz and 240Hz or the other way around. Two data points (effectively) does not denote a linear or non-linear relation and so this experiment can only tell us what we basically already knew: that 240Hz is better than 60Hz.

[Zberg]

7 minutes ago, Computernaut said:

This videos proves that 240Hz is better than 60Hz, but it doesn't prove that 240Hz specifically is the best. An additional test at 144Hz would tell us if 240Hz is truly worth it. Response times might improve much more between 60Hz and 144Hz than between 144Hz and 240Hz or the other way around. Two data points (effectively) does not denote a linear or non-linear relation and so this experiment can only tell us what we basically already knew: that 240Hz is better than 60Hz.

The 144hz test would also be nice to know specifically because it is actually possible right now at higher resolutions.  240hz will be a 1080p only thing for a little while until there is serious improvement in GPU's.  144 is possible at 1440p (especially for esports titles), and even at 4k (very low demand esports titles, but still possible).  240 hz you are basically stuck at 1080p.  

[Zberg]

Just now, Zberg said:

The 144hz test would also be nice to know specifically because it is actually possible right now at higher resolutions.  240hz will be a 1080p only thing for a little while until there is serious improvement in GPU's.  144 is possible at 1440p (especially for esports titles), and even at 4k (very low demand esports titles, but still possible).  240 hz you are basically stuck at 1080p.  

Though I guess in fairness, most gamers are playing at 1080p so I suppose that resolution is the most applicable.

[Eraqus]

I'm an currently a senior premed student, hopefully going into optometry and I think it would be wise to give an optometrist a call or have one on that can explain in some detail how sight really works in high refresh, and the drawbacks of this kind of test. Mainly I think eye tracking should be the focus and not response time, as each person test in this video would be reacting differently and that isn't really what you want to  be testing. I would also think not having the cursor in the middle and having multiple locations where the opponent can come from equidistant would be smart for both application and creating error when they get more used to the trials.  

[unijab]

3 hours ago, Edzel Yago said:

I blame the high sensitivity! (2.4 @ 400DPI) and the unfamiliar movement speed (80%).   =3     Also, I'm rusty and old.

Should have set it there and have everyone do another round of testing at your preferred dpi setting