High refresh rate

[Vampet64]

What is the sweet spot for gaming and high refresh rate? What will give me the best refresh gaming advantage before it stops mattering. I heard that its 240. And beyond that its irrelevant

[Morrie Sells Wigs]

22 minutes ago, Vampet64 said:

What is the sweet spot for gaming and high refresh rate? What will give me the best refresh gaming advantage before it stops mattering. I heard that its 240. And beyond that its irrelevant

Personally, I feel 120 or 144 is ideal.

 

I honestly don't believe the average person can tell the difference between 60 or 80fps, 100 or 120 etc...

 

Therefore, is 240 really necessary?

 

Maybe, it is...maybe someone who plays regularly on a 240 hz panel can 100% tell if they swapped back to 144.

 

Resolution is also an issue, isn't it, as most affordable 240 hz screens are only available at 1080p.

 

Anyway, I use a 1440p @144hz monitor and I find it is the sweet spot.

[Bombastinator]

42 minutes ago, Vampet64 said:

What is the sweet spot for gaming and high refresh rate? What will give me the best refresh gaming advantage before it stops mattering. I heard that its 240. And beyond that its irrelevant

I’ve heard 240 only if you’re a pro esports PvP shooter gamer.  The difference between 144 and 240 isn’t actually even visible.  It has to do with the edges of hit boxes and edge situations like a toon leaping past a wall with a crack in it and shooting through the crack. Human eye is somewhere at or above 90 depending on the person. My suspicion is the functional visible limit is between 90 and 120 with some edge stuff perhaps up to 144 with some invisible gains in specific situations and for specific people somewhere between that and 240.  One thing I noticed when 144 was being pushed over 120 was the comparisons were always between 60 and 144 not 120 and 144.  One is below 90 and the other is above 90.  I have yet to see something that actually show (rather than claims) an improvement between 120 and 144.  I have heard that having a 144 monitor and running it at 120 can be very nice though. If a comparison between 120 and 144 could be found that actually showed a difference that might change some things.  I’ve never seen one myself though. 

[Vampet64]

1 hour ago, Maury Sells Wigs said:

Personally, I feel 120 or 144 is ideal.

 

I honestly don't believe the average person can tell the difference between 60 or 80fps, 100 or 120 etc...

 

Therefore, is 240 really necessary?

 

Maybe, it is...maybe someone who plays regularly on a 240 hz panel can 100% tell if they swapped back to 144.

 

Resolution is also an issue, isn't it, as most affordable 240 hz screens are only available at 1080p.

 

Anyway, I use a 1440p @144hz monitor and I find it is the sweet spot.

That makes sence. But actually I'm trying to find a laptop. 1440p isn't common on laptops. Any suggestions for a 1440p 144hz laptop that can achieve 120 fps?

[Morrie Sells Wigs]

36 minutes ago, Vampet64 said:

That makes sence. But actually I'm trying to find a laptop. 1440p isn't common on laptops. Any suggestions for a 1440p 144hz laptop that can achieve 120 fps?

Ahhh, sorry, mate, I didn't realise it was for a laptop.

 

My mistake. 

 

I'm afraid I'm not really that informed on the capabilities of laptop screens.

 

Good luck, though. 

[Morrie Sells Wigs]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

I’ve heard 240 only if you’re a pro esports PvP shooter gamer.  The difference between 144 and 240 isn’t actually even visible.  It has to do with the edges of hit boxes and edge situations like a toon leaping past a wall with a crack in it and shooting through the crack. Human eye is somewhere at or above 90 depending on the person. My suspicion is the functional visible limit is between 90 and 120 with some edge stuff perhaps up to 144 with some invisible gains in specific situations and for specific people somewhere between that and 240.  One thing I noticed when 144 was being pushed over 120 was the comparisons were always between 60 and 144 not 120 and 144.  One is below 90 and the other is above 90.  I have yet to see something that actually show (rather than claims) an improvement between 120 and 144.  I have heard that having a 144 monitor and running it at 120 can be very nice though. If a comparison between 120 and 144 could be found that actually showed a difference that might change some things.  I’ve never seen one myself though. 

100% agree.

[idontlikephysx]

https://www.healthline.com/health/human-eye-fps#how-many-fps-do-people-see

Makes me laugh at the people pushing for 120 fps on console.  Honestly doesn't make me laugh but get upset as 4k 60 fps with top visuals matters more than getting 120 fps especially when the majority are not pro gamers. This selling of 120 fps on consoles is just going to prolong developers / programmers to give us what we already had but just with more frames.  I don't get why people would want that with next gen consoles.  Also when people with next gen consoles want something it lately has held back pc gaming.  People stop asking for 120 fps and such.  

[Bombastinator]

2 hours ago, Vampet64 said:

That makes sence. But actually I'm trying to find a laptop. 1440p isn't common on laptops. Any suggestions for a 1440p 144hz laptop that can achieve 120 fps?

144hz monitors can achieve 144fps by definition.  Some TVs that claim 144hz can only do it with trickery and are really only 120 easily, but I can’t see a thing that claims 144hz not being able to achieve 120.  Anything that can achieve 4k should do 1440p as well, so that should open up your choices some.  There are a lot of laptops (though higher end) that have 4k 240 monitors.  Generally the hardware inside can do 4k OR 240, but not both at the same time for many things.  Different things come with different levels of difficulty though.  Such a device would be able to display the desktop at 4k/240hz, but not a big video game. There is a common (though inaccurate) way to think of video display by “k” 1080@60hz by that measurement would be 1k. Therefore 1040p@60hz would be 2k as would 4k monitors @30hz.  4k@60 is 4k and 1040p@120 is 4k as well.  So what you’re looking for is an above 4k device.  The upper end of gaming laptops should be able to do this.  Gonna be pricey though.

[Vampet64]

14 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

144hz monitors can achieve 144fps by definition.  Some TVs that claim 144hz can only do it with trickery and are really only 120 easily, but I can’t see a thing that claims 144hz not being able to achieve 120.  Anything that can achieve 4k should do 1440p as well, so that should open up your choices some.  There are a lot of laptops (though higher end) that have 4k 240 monitors.  Generally the hardware inside can do 4k OR 240, but not both at the same time for many things.  Different things come with different levels of difficulty though.  Such a device would be able to display the desktop at 4k/240hz, but not a big video game. There is a common (though inaccurate) way to think of video display by “k” 1080@60hz by that measurement would be 1k. Therefore 1040p@60hz would be 2k as would 4k monitors @30hz.  4k@60 is 4k and 1040p@120 is 4k as well.  So what you’re looking for is an above 4k device.  The upper end of gaming laptops should be able to do this.  Gonna be pricey though.

Budget isn't a concern. So I imagine something like the Alienware area-51m is what I'm looking for?

[Bombastinator]

48 minutes ago, Vampet64 said:

Budget isn't a concern. So I imagine something like the Alienware area-51m is what I'm looking for?

Looking at the Alienware page, there’s a r3 version going for a twitch above 2 grandUS that could do it.  The issue is gpu more than cpu with that thing I think.  Finding a cpu that will push enough frames isn’t hard.  Having a screen that will do the job and enough gpu to power it is.