Refresh Rates - When is it Enough?

[WallacEngineering]

JaysTwoCents on YouTube recently decided to investigate refresh rates and whether or not you can actually see or feel the difference in high refresh rate monitors. Here is the video:

 

 

Now I decided to comment on this video with my thoughts, and I also wanted to see how you guys feel about high refresh rates. Here is my comment, literally copied and pasted:

 

"I just got my first gaming monitor for the first time. I usually just hook up to a 4K TV since I always felt that 60Hz was enough for me. However, when I fired up my new ASUS 3440x1440 100Hz 34", I immediately saw a massive difference just powering it on on standard 60Hz just due to input lag. Then stepping up to 75Hz with overclocking, I again saw a pretty huge improvement. Then, however, pushing to 90Hz I could only see a very slight improvement, and then maxing out to 100Hz I could see no difference at all from 90Hz. Game play really is affected by refresh rate, but only to a certain point. Using Call of Duty: Black Ops 4, I can use the custom frame rate slider in game settings to set custom frame rate caps in increments of 1Hz to whatever I want. I have found that just above 60 FPS, literally at 65 FPS, single player experiences are as smooth as butter, and really don't need any more frames. However, fast paced multiplayer and shooting games can benefit from a few more frames, and at about 80 FPS, I can't even really see the difference in those games anymore either. Honestly, I think mainstream monitors should all just be 100Hz max. There is no need at all to be pushing ridiculous amounts of frames. Even 120Hz is overkill for anyone who doesn't play E-Sports professionally. This would save display companies and customers quite a bit of money as they wouldn't need to needlessly spend extra on refresh rates that they don't need. I say after about 90Hz, focus the money on a better panel and color accuracy instead. I love that my ASUS is a true IPS panel with insane color accuracy and contrast, all while having 4ms response time and 100Hz refresh rate. My 5700-XT Red Devil drives this panel beyond 90Hz in most games on high settings and it is just wonderful, just about the best gaming experience I could ever ask for! I cant ever realistically see myself needing an upgrade from this monitor. It has more resolution than my eyes can even see, more frames than I will ever need, and insanely fast response time. I would honestly be happy to use this monitor for the rest of my life. On a related note, a lot of flagship SmartPhones are now pushing for 90Hz displays. Really? Just another waste of time and money. Its a phone, 60Hz still feels incredibly responsive on my OnePlus 6. If anything, the perfect phone would have a 75Hz display to balance the ultimate responsiveness with decent battery life."

 

So what do you guys think?

[Praesi]

I notice differences up to 100. Above that i cant realy tell without a counter. Never saw a 200+ hz display live tho.

[homeap5]

More frames = better gpu = more profit. :)

[WallacEngineering]

2 minutes ago, homeap5 said:

More frames = better gpu = more profit.

Thats what I think, I honestly think its just marketing to sell more products at higher prices and make more money.

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

just turn off all FPS counters, relax and enjoy the games

an avg 60hz overclocked to 75hz,and not feeling any difference

[WallacEngineering]

1 minute ago, dgsddfgdfhgs said:

just turn off all FPS counters, relax and enjoy the games

an avg 60hz overclocked to 75hz,and not feeling any difference

Well I use an FPS counter to see where my game settings can push max refresh rate, but otherwise just to keep tabs on performance as I play, not to really test anything but rather to make sure all is running smoothly. The only game Ive had to lower down from High settings on 3440x1440p is Metro Exodus. And that's just because well... its Metro Exodus... lol

[Uptivuptiz]

People are different in how they notice higher framerates. Take my friend and I as an example:

My friend can't really notice a difference beyond 90Hz, however I on the other hand can notice a difference in framerate (even if its only a slight one) up to around 160Hz.

[WallacEngineering]

1 minute ago, Uptivuptiz said:

People are different in how they notice higher framerates. Take my friend and I as an example:

My friend can't really notice a difference beyond 90Hz, however I on the other hand can notice a difference in framerate (even if its only a slight one) up to around 160Hz.

You must have some serious reflexes lol

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

also what type of game make whole story diff.

eg

playing ffxv at 40fps ultra details is still very enjoyable,

while in fast shooting games you will need 60+fps but the graphic settings really doesnt matter that much

[Uptivuptiz]

4 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

You must have some serious reflexes lol

Or maybe because I'm used to play on 144Hz and every time I go under 144FPS my brain is just like: "Huh, this doesn't look right..."  

[dgsddfgdfhgs]

1 minute ago, Uptivuptiz said:

Or maybe because I'm used to play on 144Hz and every time I go under 144FPS my brain is just like: "Huh, this doesn't look right..."

no thats not the case

"why is the 4k movie running at 24fps?"

[WallacEngineering]

10 minutes ago, dgsddfgdfhgs said:

also what type of game make whole story diff.

eg

playing ffxv at 40fps ultra details is still very enjoyable,

while in fast shooting games you will need 60+fps but the graphic settings really doesnt matter that much

Very true. Ive found that lowering settings in Metro Exodus doesn't make the game any less amazing at all lol. Medium looks almost the same as high but yields way more frames. Im running 3440x1440p Medium with aspect ratio locked at 21:9 with low Motion Blur, full V-Sync, Hairworks and Tessellation on, Advanced Physx off, AF 4X, Shading 1.0X, and on DX12. FPS counter will show anywhere from 110 to 130 FPS depending on the scene. Im thinking about trying high with advanced physx on since its a single player game and doesn't need so many frames. With these settings the game tends to run between 75 and 90 FPS, but the lows dip seriously close to 60 FPS.

[Sorenson]

I find that the difference between 60 -> 80 is the largest. I can definitely notice a difference between 80 and 144, but its in the diminishing returns category. Its more of a feel you get because when you turn a camera it look blurrier than you're use to. 

 

It also depends on what you are playing. If it is something like tomb raider you would be hard pressed to notice a difference. But a game like Sekiro, 60 -> 144 (through the mod) makes it so much easier to reaction parry. Personally, I have a 144hz 1440p monitor and a 60hz 4k tv and I game more on the 60hz 4k tv. People like 144hz or 240hz mostly because it is a larger number. For most games the difference is so slight it doesn't even matter. 

[homeap5]

People very often "feel" difference where is no difference at all. For me 60 fps or even 50 fps (yes, I can lower my monitor to that rate so I can play one game in vsync without frame drop when I had worse gpu) is smooth enough. The same way I listen 44100 @ 16 bit and it's enough because I can't hear any sound beyond 20kHz (or even less), but that not stop producers to made sound cards that can play 192kHz audio (probably for bats, they may evolve some day and become very good customers). It's mostly "higher must be better, isn't?". But as tests and professional analyses shows - not always.

 

Maybe 240Hz game is great experience, but I think mostly because it minimizes input lag at vsync mode.

[SkilledRebuilds]

59 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

Very true. Ive found that lowering settings in Metro Exodus doesn't make the game any less amazing at all lol. Medium looks almost the same as high but yields way more frames. Im running 3440x1440p Medium with aspect ratio locked at 21:9 with low Motion Blur, full V-Sync, Hairworks and Tessellation on, Advanced Physx off, AF 4X, Shading 1.0X, and on DX12. FPS counter will show anywhere from 110 to 130 FPS depending on the scene. Im thinking about trying high with advanced physx on since its a single player game and doesn't need so many frames. With these settings the game tends to run between 75 and 90 FPS, but the lows dip seriously close to 60 FPS.

AF 4x being Anisotropic filtering, for years has little to no affect on FPS anymore (cept bargain GPU's) but can be noticed,..so may as well set 8-16x for every game you can do so..
Keeping distant details isn't my priority but Anisotropic filtering over the years has basically been a SuperLow cost setting.

[WallacEngineering]

3 hours ago, SkilledRebuilds said:

AF 4x being Anisotropic filtering, for years has little to no affect on FPS anymore (cept bargain GPU's) but can be noticed,..so may as well set 8-16x for every game you can do so..
Keeping distant details isn't my priority but Anisotropic filtering over the years has basically been a SuperLow cost setting.

Well Metro Exodus only has two settings for AF - 4X or 16X. I guess Ill try 16X but I was hoping for more of a mildish 8X. Im hoping the jump from 4X to 16X doesn't drop my 1% lows too badly because from what Ive seen, AF can hurt your lows a bit in modern AAA titles.

[Doobeedoo]

Well, depends in what context, if your playing fast fps games competitively you'd want say 240Hz though for many 144Hz will suffice for sure. But yeah 60Hz is low by todays standards really. 120Hz would be the minimum for everything from now on. So yeah if you're mainly into competitive fps 240Hz can be of a good use, 144Hz is definitely no slouch and most will be more than fine with it for online fps play. Or just anyone buying a new PC/monitor no point not getting at least 144Hz one now.

[MadAnt250]

18 hours ago, WallacEngineering said:

I think mainstream monitors should all just be 100Hz max. There is no need at all to be pushing ridiculous amounts of frames. Even 120Hz is overkill for anyone who doesn't play E-Sports professionally. This would save display companies and customers quite a bit of money as they wouldn't need to needlessly spend extra on refresh rates that they don't need. I say after about 90Hz, focus the money on a better panel and color accuracy instead.

The funny thing is, they did that 20 years ago.

[flashiling]

On 11/21/2019 at 7:49 AM, WallacEngineering said:

If anything, the perfect phone would have a 75Hz display to balance the ultimate responsiveness with decent battery life.

i have the oneplus 7T Pro McLaren edition and i'm doing tests on battery life difference with 90 and 60 Hz.

It's brand new so the battery is going to preform at 100% so the thing that's intrigues me is how long i'm going to be able to go from 06:30 at 100% to 00:00 20% battery life with high usage (i know i don't get enough sleep)

personally i can see the difference quite well from 60-90 it's a lot more fluent when scrolling and reading text.

but i understand your point and it's not a bad one, but it's not the greatest either since people react differently.

[WallacEngineering]

On 11/22/2019 at 3:46 AM, flashiling said:

i have the oneplus 7T Pro McLaren edition and i'm doing tests on battery life difference with 90 and 60 Hz.

It's brand new so the battery is going to preform at 100% so the thing that's intrigues me is how long i'm going to be able to go from 06:30 at 100% to 00:00 20% battery life with high usage (i know i don't get enough sleep)

personally i can see the difference quite well from 60-90 it's a lot more fluent when scrolling and reading text.

but i understand your point and it's not a bad one, but it's not the greatest either since people react differently.

Well I just hope they don't push above 90Hz. Like thats enough. I know there was the Razer Phone with 120Hz but that was a special "Gaming" Phone (and honestly a waste of frames). Obviously 90Hz is better than 75Hz as long as it isn't wrecking battery life. I just feel like 60Hz is already smooth enough and nobody is going to be able to tell the difference between 75Hz and 90Hz on such a small device so why not just use the 75Hz to save money on the display and save some battery life? I say maybe the special gaming phones should get 90-100Hz displays while 75Hz displays become the standard.