ASUS Announces first ever 500hz G-Sync Monitor

[Vishera]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

I sincerely doubt the command lists are being pushed 500 times per second even in the best designed games.

Commands are not rendered in the scene,they run at the backend.

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

And as I said, you're not going to be having a "500fps" game experience if the netcode is locked to 200ms. It's a known thing in pretty much every game that relying on the game client to be honest is a mistake.

The netcode is independent of the framerate of the client.

Framerate no longer affects the speed of the game like how it was in a lot of older games.

 

The framerate of the client is not synced in any way to the game server and it's code.

[Kisai]

3 hours ago, Vishera said:

The framerate of the client is not synced in any way to the game server and it's code.

Then the framerate of the game client has no bearing on playing it competitively which is what I said.

[Vishera]

47 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Then the framerate of the game client has no bearing on playing it competitively which is what I said.

It has a bearing,You can react faster because of the high framerate,

The moment you land a hit it will take the amount of latency from the client to the server for it to register.

So there is a x amount of delay between you and the server,and if you have a good internet connection it will be low and constant.

 

The advantage is visual,it's not server side but client side exclusively.

[Mihle]

5 hours ago, Kisai said:

Then the framerate of the game client has no bearing on playing it competitively which is what I said.

 

Let's say netcode is 60 Hz and framerate is 60 fps, but they are not in sync because how games works.

Then, it could be the frame in the framerate comes 1ms before netcode is, or in other words it shows based on the netcode that was received 15,67 ms ago, or it could be that it is based on netcode that was received 5 ms ago, you don't really know, but it could be up to 16,67 ms theoretically, real world it might be worse because prossesing delay.

 

If the netcode is 60 Hz and framerate is 120 fps, because it's half the time between each frame, the same delay, would be at worst 8,33 ms, theoretically.

 

That's my understanding of it.

[MageTank]

15 hours ago, Kisai said:

The entire problem is that the eye is analog, and trying to measure it in "FPS" or "Hz" is the same problem as the nyquist theorm.

Again, I'll need you to cite some sources on this, because it sounds completely made up. No sources online seem to match your claims beyond that of random forum posts with no medical experience to back it up. Baffling people with BS only gets you so far before people start asking for evidence to backup claims. I may not be the brightest bulb in the knife drawer, but I can at least avoid getting lost in the big words.

 

15 hours ago, Kisai said:

I can also hear the full 20hz-20khz audio range, but keep having arguments with people who insist you can't.

This has nothing to do with the context of the conversation. Human hearing range is well established, as is the diminishing of said range as one ages. Limitations on visual motion process is still unknown and currently being explored (as evidenced in the study I provided earlier). I personally can't hear behind 18khz while older men on my engineering team can't hear beyond 13khz. This came up as I was the only one that could perceive a signal switching noise in one of our PSUs and we had to test it to see why that was.

 

16 hours ago, Kisai said:

You aren't at a competitive disadvantage with a 60hz monitor. TN panels suck, they're dim and make everything look like there is a grey film over it.

This is fundamentally false and has been proven time and time again. Even if we ignore what the eye can "perceive", there is an undeniable benefit to the reduction of input latency that coincides with how many frames one is getting. Being able to process those increased frames on your display gives you the benefits of reduced input latency without the added drawback of screen tearing. You don't even need to take my word for it either, you can find videos on YouTube that test this:

 

The difference between running a 60hz monitor at 360fps vs running a 144hz monitor at 360fps was 3ms. If you think 3ms worth of input latency isn't enough to secure a kill in high competitive games, please join my ranked games on the enemy team, lol.

 

14 hours ago, Kisai said:

Cause it's not the monitor, it's the game timing loop and netcode, which is often well below 60hz anyway.

You are aware interpolation/extrapolation exists beyond rendering, right? You can still render a game at a high refresh rate and benefit from reduced input latency even if the netcode is slower... Anyone that has played an online game and noticed their inputs all happening at once when the client and server re-sync knows what I mean here, and having less input delay to "queue" or buffer those inputs can still be beneficial. Anyone that has played a fighting game like SF5 knows exactly what I am talking about here. 

[Vishera]

17 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Even if we ignore what the eye can "perceive"

It shouldn't be ignored...

I would call it the eye-monitor latency - The higher the refresh rate the lower the latency between the eye and the monitor.

21 minutes ago, MageTank said:

there is an undeniable benefit to the reduction of input latency that coincides with how many frames one is getting. Being able to process those increased frames on your display gives you the benefits of reduced input latency without the added drawback of screen tearing. You don't even need to take my word for it either, you can find videos on YouTube that test this:

Yep,higher framerate = less input lag = smoother mouse movements/faster reception of keyboard and mouse input.

 

I did some testing,locking the FPS to 60 vs locking it to 120 FPS vs unlocked framerate.

The difference in input response between 60 FPS to 120 FPS is huge and very noticeable.

 

As for locked 120 FPS vs unlocked it depends on how much you get while unlocked,

but it's recommended to have unlocked FPS when possible.

[WereCat]

@Kisai

I'm sorry but most of what you've said just seems to be made up or you just don't understand how it works.

 

First to adress your LOTR comparison. Watching content at X FPS vs playing content at X FPS are two completely different things. Not only are the movies sprinkled up with a ton of post production stuff like motion blur, frame smoothing, etc... but the frame pacing in movies is also way different than frame pacing in games even if you lock them to the same framerate for the sole reason that in-game you always get some variability in frame times. Also when you are in control, it's different vs watching.

For example, people may get motion sickness when traveling by car but not driving but they don't get sick when they are driving.

 

Tickrate is a very difficult topic with so many factors to consider that we could talk about it for days. And that's before you even account for tickrate related to FPS related to refresh rate that related to "average individual".

 

From what you've said it seems like you think that if the tickrate is 60 then at 60FPS you get one tick per frame. That is not true at all in the slightest. Tickrate is in no way synced with FPS and that analogy does not even consider the ping between player and server and ping between the enemy player and the server, does not take into account missed packets, drop in framerate, input latency, refresh rate of the monitor (if you run with VRR or without), etc...

 

So it's quite common that you can get multiple ticks per frame or multiple frames per tick. By increasing your FPS you have better chance to "spread" the tickrate across the spectrum and allow for smoother, better and more accurate competitive gameplay. Sure, what I've just said is far fetched and does not take into account all the other factors I have mentioned above but you get the idea. That's why this topic is so complicated.

 

Quote

You aren't at a competitive disadvantage with a 60hz monitor.

That is so wrong...

You're at massive competitive disadvantage with 60Hz monitor.

 

Not only you can find a ton of proof on this (even from LTT when they did tests with Shroud and other proffesional players) but other people who extensively test this as well, for example Kliksphillp or BattleNonsense, etc...

 

Time and time again its prooven that with higher FPS even at 60Hz you still get the benefit of much lower input latency but if you also step up to higher refresh rate you have much better chance of reacting to whats goin on. You can't see "FPS", you perceive motion better most of the time.

 

For sure, the reaction times are greatly dependant on the individual and many people won't be able to take the most advantage of this but have in mind that people that do will benefit greatly from higher refresh rate screen..

 

Avg person has something like 250ms reaction time but that does not mean that avg person should play at 4Hz monitor (just exaggerating). By increasing the Hz and FPS accordingly you have a chance to react to the latest "input" + reaction time. So you will still benefit. Having better reaction time on top of this drasticaly improves the chance of "winning" (obviously that again does not take into account the skill of the player, just having better reactions does not mean you can for example aim better, you may still get outplayed by the slower player).

 

I have to agree that at 500Hz you're getting into a lot of diminishing returns and really only the best players will be mostly able to take advantage to this so this is not really a monitor for you or me, doesn't mean people who play or want to play competitively won't buy it though.

 

Image quality is irelevant and so are most of the features on this monitor. People who are in market for 500Hz screens will not care about G-Sync or DLSS or colors, brightness, etc... Their only goal is to max out the frame rate by reducing the game detail as much as possible even by editing some game files... heck, they will likely play with black bars on the side in 4:3 aspect ratio as well.

 

 

[3vitor]

On 5/24/2022 at 9:57 AM, Kisai said:

 

a) Your eye perceives motion at 15fps

 

You guys took the bait and got caught lol

[Kisai]

40 minutes ago, 3vitor said:

You guys took the bait and got caught lol

Looks like you're the one who didn't read. watch a video at 8-12fps, and it will have the slide-show effect. Hand-drawn 2D Animation is typically on two's, and that's why animation "looks" can look anywhere from stiff to smooth depending on what studio animated it.

 

As for "eye motion"

https://www.wondriumdaily.com/motion-perception/

Quote

But something else unexpected happened that the subject reported after the experiment. As soon as he became paralyzed, he noticed that the world seemed to jump around wildly, up and down, and side to side.

 

Eventually, he figured out that this happened whenever he tried to move his eyes. Remember that his muscles were paralyzed, including the muscles that control his eyes, but the corollary discharge system within the central nervous system was still active.

When he tried to move his eyes, a signal was sent to his visual cortex telling it to expect a particular eye movement. When it didn’t take place, the visual cortex inferred that the objects in the environment had moved in the same direction as the eyes.

 

Think this through for a moment: If you moved your eyes 10 degrees to the right, and if the world around you rotated 10 degrees to the right as well at that same moment in time, what would you see? You would see the same thing before and after the eye movement, right?

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Corollary_discharge_in_primate_vision

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Eye_movements

 

I'll summarize it as "what you perceive is not uniform across your field of vision."

 

Then we go into what counts as "refresh rate"

https://mollylab-1.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/FastDetect2014withFigures.pdf

The document mentions 13ms or 14ms.

 

https://itigic.com/how-many-frames-per-second-fps-human-eye-can-see/

Quote

“If you work with gamers, you are working with a small part of the population that is probably operating very close to the maximum levels of the human being, and this is because visual perception is something that can be trained, and action games they are particularly good at it. Games are unique, they are one of the few ways to massively increase almost all aspects of vision, so contrast sensitivity, attention skills and tracking multiple objects simultaneously are far superior. This method is so good that, in fact, games are used for visual therapy. “.- Adrien Chopin, researcher in cognitive sciences.

So, the answer is "depends what you're trying to convince the other person of"

 

If you're trying to convince someone how fast they can track something, it's 180ms (5fps). If it's remembering information, it's 13ms (77hz.) If it's strobing light's, it's 100ms (10fps). You can train yourself to use additional information, but the general population sees no benefit from above 60hz (16ms), and most of that additional information is only usable if it's within 2 degrees of the center of your vision.

 

Then there is this choice quote from the last link as well

Quote

“Certainly, 60 Hz is better than 30 Hz, demonstrably better, and it’s a claim we’ve been seeing for a long time from hardware manufacturers. Since we can perceive movement at a higher speed than the flickering light source at 60 Hz, the level should be higher than that, but I don’t think it stays at a certain number. Whether it’s 120 Hz or 180 Hz, I don’t know. “- Thomas Busey, Indiana University professor in the department of neurology.

 

“I think that normally, once you exceed 200 FPS the human eye sees the images as if they were from real life. In more regular terms, the point at which people notice changes in the smoothness of the images in motion it is around 90 Hz. Obviously this is for the general human being, since as we have said before gamers have a greater perception of these changes “.- Jordan DeLong, professor of psychology at St. Joseph University in Rensselaer.

 

“It is clear that when you read a book we do not see anything beyond 20 Hz, because they are static images, but when we talk about moving images on a screen I do not dare to give a specific data.” .- Adrien Chopin, researcher in science cognitive.

There is no agreement on what humans can see.

[Moonzy]

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

There is no agreement on what humans can see.

Great, so there's no point trying to say 500hz is pointless and those who aren't in the market for these monitors can just ignore it instead of trying to convince other people what they should want

 

Ps: I like high refresh rate but since there's OLED gaming monitors, I'll wait for a bit

[Quackers101]

3 hours ago, Moonzy said:

Great, so there's no point trying to say 500hz is pointless and those who aren't in the market for these monitors can just ignore it instead of trying to convince other people what they should want

we want 5000hz live image streamed right to our brain, through 8G.

atleast half of 500hz is nice, if they can handle low fps gaming too.

[AnonymousGuy]

12 hours ago, Mihle said:

 

Let's say netcode is 60 Hz and framerate is 60 fps, but they are not in sync because how games works.

Then, it could be the frame in the framerate comes 1ms before netcode is, or in other words it shows based on the netcode that was received 15,67 ms ago, or it could be that it is based on netcode that was received 5 ms ago, you don't really know, but it could be up to 16,67 ms theoretically, real world it might be worse because prossesing delay.

 

If the netcode is 60 Hz and framerate is 120 fps, because it's half the time between each frame, the same delay, would be at worst 8,33 ms, theoretically.

 

That's my understanding of it.

It gets crazier when we start talking about lag compensation that every game since CS 1.5 has had.  This is where you get into shit like getting shot behind walls or kill trading or whatever when you killed a player based on their extrapolated motion but in reality they juked back behind the wall and it took 30ms or whatever your ping is for the server to receive that. 

 

I swear some games like Fortnite even have some sort of queue-ing within their server tick rate, because the game is 30hz tick rate but having single digit ping is a huge advantage for the speed you can do actiotns.

[Vishera]

1 hour ago, AnonymousGuy said:

It gets crazier when we start talking about lag compensation that every game since CS 1.5 has had.  This is where you get into shit like getting shot behind walls or kill trading or whatever when you killed a player based on their extrapolated motion but in reality they juked back behind the wall and it took 30ms or whatever your ping is for the server to receive that. 

 

I swear some games like Fortnite even have some sort of queue-ing within their server tick rate, because the game is 30hz tick rate but having single digit ping is a huge advantage for the speed you can do actiotns.

At the end of the day it's all about latency:

Latency from server to client>latency from client to display>latency from display to eyes>reaction time latency to input>input latency to client>client latency to server

 

You have an advantage over others if you have:

High speed low latency connection between the client and the server

High refresh rate monitor for lower display-eyes latency

A brain with faster reaction time than average to use an input device

High framerate for lower input latency

 

And it all stacks up.

[NF-F12]

On 5/24/2022 at 11:20 PM, Kisai said:

You aren't at a competitive disadvantage with a 60hz monitor.

This is not only objectively false but also painfully ignorant.

 

Simple example, 128 tick CSGO server, player position is updated 128 times per second. Players with a monitor capable of displaying that many frames per second or more will see an enemy player model moving into view from a corner before someone using a 60hz monitor will see it move into view while they wait for their display to refresh again and see it and have a chance to react to it.

This was demonstrated nicely here.

 

In addition to the reaction time benefit, players who are panning their camera while looking around see a MUCH more discernible image while doing so with higher refresh. The blurring effect of motion at low refresh rate is reduced the higher you go leading to increased ability to spot enemies and movement while panning the camera.

 

Please don't act like an expert and argue with people if you aren't a competitive gamer (you clearly aren't or you'd know these things are literally the basics of competitive play).

[Giganthrax]

On 5/25/2022 at 12:20 AM, Kisai said:

You aren't at a competitive disadvantage with a 60hz monitor.

I play CSGO on a 1440p 170hz panel at home. I also occasionally play it on an old 60hz monitor at my parents' house.

 

Trust me, it's significantly easier to react on time with a higher refresh rate. I consistently do a lot better on the 170hz panel, even though the game runs well on both computers.

[Kisai]

8 hours ago, NF-F12 said:

 

 

Please don't act like an expert and argue with people if you aren't a competitive gamer (you clearly aren't or you'd know these things are literally the basics of competitive play).

Don't jump into a thread without reading it, cause clearly you haven't.

1. There is no point in buying a high refresh rate monitor, or television. The games are not designed to operate that way, especially multiplayer games. There isn't a single piece of media that is designed for 60hz+ until you get into hacky VR and 3DTV things.

2. This is a TN monitor. TN monitors suck. Also guess what, all the high-refresh rate monitors are TN. 

3. I'd rather have a better looking 4K picture on an IPS monitor than a 6-bit 720p experience on a TN monitor. I've seen what people "competitively" play with from FPS to MMORPG's, people resort to playing at the lowest quality settings, sometimes going as far as breaking the game with Reshade and mods to get more frame rate that doesn't exist. 

4. The connection between the game client and the server matters more than any hardware on the client end.

5. There is no scientific consensus on what "everyone" can see, only that you can train yourself. Like anything else you can learn.

 

Everyone defending buying 120, 144, 240,360,480,500hz monitors are doing so to defend wasting their money on a low-resolution dim TN monitor I find. In the same way I find people justify QoL mods in games that don't permit them. 

 

So pardon me if I don't believe any of the excuses people use to "improve" their competitive advantage.

[Guest]

I don't get how anyone could look at this test and claim that the low refresh rate looks the same as the high refresh rate one unless they are heavily visually impaired. This may only be text but the concept translates to all motion on a screen

[Rauten]

8 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Everyone defending buying 120, 144, 240,360,480,500hz monitors are doing so to defend wasting their money on a low-resolution dim TN monitor I find. In the same way I find people justify QoL mods in games that don't permit them. 

I have 2 monitors connected to my computer

A 4K, 60Hz, 27" IPS panel.

A 1440p, 144Hz, 27" TN panel.

 

I -always- game on the 144Hz because dear lord it is so much smoother. Yes, the 4K is sharper. Yes, the 4K has better colours.

I still prefer the 144Hz because, to me, to my eyes, it is extremely noticeable how smoother it is.

So much in fact that I bought a 1080p 144Hz panel for my "secondary" computer, at my mom's house, so I can also have high refresh rate when I stay on a visit.

And I rarely play competitive games.

 

To me it sounds more like "Well it doesn't do anything for me, so clearly everyone else is wrong! HRMPH!"

[Mihle]

I personally don't have a PC monitor that has more than 60hz, I choose 4k instead because photography and stuff and I don't play competitively, but at some point I might get 4k 144hz when the market for it is better.

 

But switching between 60hz and 120hz on my phone I can easily see the difference when scrolling for example. It's not a tiny difference either. I tried doing tiny blind test on it on my mum's phone for her too and she could easily tell one felt nicer when scrolling(120hz).

 

I personally doubt the difference between 120/144hz and up is that noticeable tho but I haven't used it personally.

[Avocado Diaboli]

I'm sure this will excite all those people playing CSGO in 4:3 aspect ratio for maximum FPS to convince themselves that this will make them better gamers. Even though the game only has a tick rate of 64, so all that waffle about "more information reaching your eyes, making you react to more up to date information" is nonsense because the game itself only runs its calculations 64 times per second, regardless of your framerate.

 

Yes, you can probably see a difference between 60 and 144 Hz. I mostly see it in the Windows shell, less so in games. But I feel like people are really chasing diminishing returns here, especially considering that most of the people clamoring for ever higher frame rates are those who play online games, whose performance is tied more to a server and your internet connection, rather than what's being computed on your end.

[MageTank]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

Don't jump into a thread without reading it, cause clearly you haven't.

Ironic, given you've been spreading misinformation without reading the sources you provided. None of them corroborate your claims.

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

1. There is no point in buying a high refresh rate monitor, or television. The games are not designed to operate that way, especially multiplayer games. There isn't a single piece of media that is designed for 60hz+ until you get into hacky VR and 3DTV things.

Why do game engines allow frame rates up to say, 300fps if they weren't designed to operate at 300fps? Why do they allow uncapped framerates? Multiplayer games included. ESO's default frame cap is 100fps and you can change that cap in an ini file without breaking anything. GW2 allows uncapped framerates with no limit, breaks nothing in-game. The only games that traditionally offered capped framerates with broken physics engines if pushed beyond them were originally console games ported to PC (Souls titles being the easiest and well known example).

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

2. This is a TN monitor. TN monitors suck. Also guess what, all the high-refresh rate monitors are TN. 

Subjective opinions do not equal facts. TN panels may have washed out colors and poor viewing angles, but it is hard to beat their G2G responses short of expensive OLED panels. Gamers do not care about color accuracy or viewing angles. They want high refresh rates and reduced motion blur. TN's excel at this

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

3. I'd rather have a better looking 4K picture on an IPS monitor than a 6-bit 720p experience on a TN monitor. I've seen what people "competitively" play with from FPS to MMORPG's, people resort to playing at the lowest quality settings, sometimes going as far as breaking the game with Reshade and mods to get more frame rate that doesn't exist. 

Another subjective opinion offered as if it is fact. What you want is irrelevant to what others can perceive and their reasoning behind their purchases. Your preferences do not dictate how others are to spend their money, nor are your visual limitations representative of the limitations of others. Also, no competitive gamer is using ReShade to increase performance. Anytime you hook into the frame buffer, you add latency, not reduce it. Competitive gamers look for FOV mods as that would give a significant competitive edge (especially in third person games). Some competitive gamers are fine with that wide FOV fish eye effect, it makes me sick to attempt it.

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

4. The connection between the game client and the server matters more than any hardware on the client end.

You are still ignoring the concept of interpolation and extrapolation between client/server. You having faster input latency can still help even during server lag if your inputs are being interpolated by the server based on estimates provided by your previous inputs.

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

5. There is no scientific consensus on what "everyone" can see, only that you can train yourself. Like anything else you can learn.

Then why make the claim that people can only see at 15fps? If you're going to contradict your previous statements, at least do us the courtesy of admitting you were incorrect. The great thing about being wrong is learning something in the end.

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

Everyone defending buying 120, 144, 240,360,480,500hz monitors are doing so to defend wasting their money on a low-resolution dim TN monitor I find. In the same way I find people justify QoL mods in games that don't permit them. 

Ah, so we are going to ignore the high refresh VA panels now? lol... Let me help you out buddy: https://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#D=120000,360000&P=6,2,7,3,5,9,4&sort=-refresh&page=1. 360hz IPS panels at the top of this list. Someone needs to get themselves up to date on modern panel technology.

 

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

So pardon me if I don't believe any of the excuses people use to "improve" their competitive advantage.

We aren't asking you to believe. I'd be content if you remained blissfully ignorant on the subject. I only ask that you do not attempt to educate from your place of ignorance and leave that up to people that know what they are talking about. The problem with you in particular is that you articulate your posts in a manner where someone less versed in the subject would likely believe you. It's a dangerous combination to be both completely misinformed and well spoken, lol.

[Vishera]

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

Don't jump into a thread without reading it, cause clearly you haven't.

1. There is no point in buying a high refresh rate monitor, or television. The games are not designed to operate that way, especially multiplayer games. There isn't a single piece of media that is designed for 60hz+ until you get into hacky VR and 3DTV things.

2. This is a TN monitor. TN monitors suck. Also guess what, all the high-refresh rate monitors are TN. 

3. I'd rather have a better looking 4K picture on an IPS monitor than a 6-bit 720p experience on a TN monitor. I've seen what people "competitively" play with from FPS to MMORPG's, people resort to playing at the lowest quality settings, sometimes going as far as breaking the game with Reshade and mods to get more frame rate that doesn't exist. 

4. The connection between the game client and the server matters more than any hardware on the client end.

5. There is no scientific consensus on what "everyone" can see, only that you can train yourself. Like anything else you can learn.

 

Everyone defending buying 120, 144, 240,360,480,500hz monitors are doing so to defend wasting their money on a low-resolution dim TN monitor I find. In the same way I find people justify QoL mods in games that don't permit them. 

 

So pardon me if I don't believe any of the excuses people use to "improve" their competitive advantage.

 

The discussion has run it's course,at this point everyone are repeating things that have already been said.

[Moonzy]

10 hours ago, Kisai said:

The games are not designed to operate that way, especially multiplayer games.

Uhh... What?

 

10 hours ago, Kisai said:

Also guess what, all the high-refresh rate monitors are TN. 

There's a 360hz IPS monitor from Asus

And I think almost all mainstream panel tech have 144hz offerings

Though I guess 144hz isn't considered "high refresh rate" when 360 and 500hz exists

 

10 hours ago, Kisai said:

I'd rather have a better looking 4K picture on an IPS monitor than a 6-bit 720p experience on a TN monitor.

Good for you, I'd rather have a balance, but skewed more towards refresh rate myself

 

10 hours ago, Kisai said:

4. The connection between the game client and the server matters more than any hardware on the client end.

Doesn't mean high refresh rate panel doesn't do anything for the player

Just because a chef has good pot doesn't mean they don't need a good stove

 

Side note: would love to see you play competitive shooters on a cheap Bluetooth mouse with Bluetooth mono headset with a 60hz panel powered by the worst PC in existence that stutters

But you get <10ms ping to the server

 

10 hours ago, Kisai said:

There is no scientific consensus on what "everyone" can see, only that you can train yourself. Like anything else you can learn.

Exactly, most people won't benefit much from higher than 144hz, but if you play a game enough on higher refresh rate, you'll be able to feel the difference

 

Just few days ago I accidentally reset my monster hunter world (3000 hours game time) settings to default and it felt extremely off. I forgot that, by default, the fps cap was set to 60 instead of the 90 that I use

Can I play mhw at 60fps? Sure, I've done it before. But can I tell the difference almost immediately? Absolutely

[NF-F12]

11 hours ago, MageTank said:

snip

 

9 hours ago, Moonzy said:

snip

 

Great posts guys, you have saved me the job of replying to him again. @MageTankyou covered everything very well thanks for taking the time. I could not agree more about the danger of being well spoken and misinformed.

 

The reason I sometimes engage people like him on forums is not so much to convince him himself, but to prevent others from seeing his claims with no counter points being made. It makes me feel like I'm almost complicit to misinforming people if I don't sometimes.