Just me I couldn't tell?

[AlfaProto]

I was a 1080p60-75Hz user monitor for a very long time. It was until the end of 2021, which I bought an ASUS VG27AQGL1A ZAKU edition. The non-ZAKU model was out of stock, and the sale rep offered a discount on the ZAKU model. This was recommended because it was:

1. Below my budget
2. 27 inch
3. 1440
4. 144 Hz stock, 170 Hz OC
5. Excellent colour reproduction without calibration

 

The original intended purchase was an Acer gaming monitor (couldn't remember which one, but it had an X-based stand), definitely IPS and 1440p@144Hz+, but every where I went, it's out of stock.

 

Now, I kept hearing people that going from 60-75Hz to 144Hz+ is better, however, that's NOT the case for me. I could barely tell the difference. Now, I did tried 120Hz on my cousin's PC, and a friend of mine from old school. I couldn't tell the difference straight away---I thought maybe I haven't acclimated to it.

 

So it's been 3 years, and I couldn't tell the gameplay (Valorant or Overwatch 2) NOR windows desktop is very smooth. It still feel like 60/75Hz, though, with more mouse trailing.

 

Recently, I decided to went to an internet cafe and play some L4D2 with some old school friends (including the one I mentioned above earlier), though decided to go for a 'premium' computer with 240Hz monitor (of course it was TN because looking on my left & right, the colours washed out). I could tell the different immediately---though I couldn't tell which model, because the bezel is covered (likely to prevent tampering), it was buttery smooth.

 

I gotten a chance to use my co-worker's PC, diagnosing his AIO issue, and he's using a ultrawide curved Samsung monitor, like Samsung G95SC, because I initially thought he bought an Alienware display (the stand). I was blown away that it felt smooth, and I just had to check it, it's running at 240Hz. I had the same experience as that internet cafe's TN 240Hz monitor (minus the shitty TN colour).

 

I think my original purchased is flawed (I mean there were multiple red flags that 120-144Hz isn't working for me prior to my purchase), however, I'm interested if anyone has the same experience, 120-170Hz doesn't feel like a jump, instead 240Hz+ is better.

 

Of course, I'm not buying a new monitor any time soon, I'm waiting for the same spec monitor as the ASUS monitor, though at 300Hz+ to be more affordable.

[Tan3l6]

I try not to be condescending, but some people have used their 144+Hz monitors at default settings for a year, before a revelation that the refresh-rate has to be raised in display setting to the highest Hz. So not saying it's your case.

But anyway I've always felt the higher refresh rate even when moving the mouse on the desktop, with all of my monitors. Though difference between 144/180/240/360Hz is a bit harder to tell than 60 vs 144+.

[PDifolco]

16 minutes ago, AlfaProto said:

I was a 1080p60-75Hz user monitor for a very long time. It was until the end of 2021, which I bought an ASUS VG27AQGL1A ZAKU edition. The non-ZAKU model was out of stock, and the sale rep offered a discount on the ZAKU model. This was recommended because it was:

1. Below my budget
2. 27 inch
3. 1440
4. 144 Hz stock, 170 Hz OC
5. Excellent colour reproduction without calibration

 

The original intended purchase was an Acer gaming monitor (couldn't remember which one, but it had an X-based stand), definitely IPS and 1440p@144Hz+, but every where I went, it's out of stock.

 

Now, I kept hearing people that going from 60-75Hz to 144Hz+ is better, however, that's NOT the case for me. I could barely tell the difference. Now, I did tried 120Hz on my cousin's PC, and a friend of mine from old school. I couldn't tell the difference straight away---I thought maybe I haven't acclimated to it.

 

So it's been 3 years, and I couldn't tell the gameplay (Valorant or Overwatch 2) NOR windows desktop is very smooth. It still feel like 60/75Hz, though, with more mouse trailing.

 

Recently, I decided to went to an internet cafe and play some L4D2 with some old school friends (including the one I mentioned above earlier), though decided to go for a 'premium' computer with 240Hz monitor (of course it was TN because looking on my left & right, the colours washed out). I could tell the different immediately---though I couldn't tell which model, because the bezel is covered (likely to prevent tampering), it was buttery smooth.

 

I gotten a chance to use my co-worker's PC, diagnosing his AIO issue, and he's using a ultrawide curved Samsung monitor, like Samsung G95SC, because I initially thought he bought an Alienware display (the stand). I was blown away that it felt smooth, and I just had to check it, it's running at 240Hz. I had the same experience as that internet cafe's TN 240Hz monitor (minus the shitty TN colour).

 

I think my original purchased is flawed (I mean there were multiple red flags that 120-144Hz isn't working for me prior to my purchase), however, I'm interested if anyone has the same experience, 120-170Hz doesn't feel like a jump, instead 240Hz+ is better.

 

Of course, I'm not buying a new monitor any time soon, I'm waiting for the same spec monitor as the ASUS monitor, though at 300Hz+ to be more affordable.

What's the rest of your system?

Cause if your PC only get 40fps it won't be smooth whatever the monitor 

And are you sure it ran at 120Hz or more, and with some VRR in games?

[porina]

16 minutes ago, AlfaProto said:

I think my original purchased is flawed (I mean there were multiple red flags that 120-144Hz isn't working for me prior to my purchase), however, I'm interested if anyone has the same experience, 120-170Hz doesn't feel like a jump, instead 240Hz+ is better.

It could depend on the game and settings. For me, it is very clear going from 60 fps even to 100 fps. However in gaming this pretty much requires VRR for me as I'd rather have high quality around 90fps, than low quality at 140+ fps. I only recently got a 240 Hz display. I've never taken it anywhere near that far, yet. For my games, there is no point.

[AlfaProto]

30 minutes ago, Tan3l6 said:

I try not to be condescending, but some people have used their 144+Hz monitors at default settings for a year, before a revelation that the refresh-rate has to be raised in display setting to the highest Hz. So not saying it's your case.

But anyway I've always felt the higher refresh rate even when moving the mouse on the desktop, with all of my monitors. Though difference between 144/180/240/360Hz is a bit harder to tell than 60 vs 144+.

It was initially ran at 144Hz for one year--since I was trying to prove that 144 Hz is better, but I decided to just use the 170Hz OC setting afterwards, making sanity check.

But for me, regardless whether it's IPS, VA or TN at 120-144Hz+, I couldn't feel the smoothness.

23 minutes ago, PDifolco said:

What's the rest of your system?

Cause if your PC only get 40fps it won't be smooth whatever the monitor 

And are you sure it ran at 120Hz or more, and with some VRR in games?

Windows 10, 10850K with an RTX 3080.

 

My friend's desktop with that ultrawide monitor has a 12700K with an RTX 3080 Ti, running on Windows 11.

 

My cousin's desktop currently has second version of the same monitor as mine, 180-185Hz, 5800X, RTX 4070 running on Windows 11.

 

I don't play that 3A games, mostly Overwatch 2 and Valorant, it's already exceeding 170 fps in most cases. Even so, I should be feeling the smoothness.

[WereCat]

5 minutes ago, AlfaProto said:

It was initially ran at 144Hz for one year--since I was trying to prove that 144 Hz is better, but I decided to just use the 170Hz OC setting afterwards, making sanity check.

But for me, regardless whether it's IPS, VA or TN at 120-144Hz+, I couldn't feel the smoothness.

Windows 10, 10850K with an RTX 3080.

 

My friend's desktop with that ultrawide monitor has a 12700K with an RTX 3080 Ti, running on Windows 11.

 

My cousin's desktop currently has second version of the same monitor as mine, 180-185Hz, 5800X, RTX 4070 running on Windows 11.

 

I don't play that 3A games, mostly Overwatch 2 and Valorant, it's already exceeding 170 fps in most cases. Even so, I should be feeling the smoothness.

Check game settings if the refresh rate in game is correct. For example Overwatch used to have Hz next to resolution and default is 60Hz you have to pick correct resolution WITH correct refresh rate. 

[Doobeedoo]

Rather weird as on desktop you easily tell, let alone in game, maybe in game cap of Hz was on. Would be strange monitor was actually broken showing Hz in Windows ans menu but not display that.

[AlfaProto]

21 hours ago, WereCat said:

Check game settings if the refresh rate in game is correct. For example Overwatch used to have Hz next to resolution and default is 60Hz you have to pick correct resolution WITH correct refresh rate. 

It's always high.

 

1 hour ago, Doobeedoo said:

Rather weird as on desktop you easily tell, let alone in game, maybe in game cap of Hz was on. Would be strange monitor was actually broken showing Hz in Windows ans menu but not display that.

Even if there's a cap, it's usually almost double the refresh rate (meaning 144 Hz/170 Hz, I would cap it at 300 FPS).

Read again, I've tried on multiple 120-144Hz monitor before purchasing it, I thought it's just myself not acclimating to the higher refresh rate, because I was on 60/75 Hz monitor. However, that one internet cafe game I visited and paid, I could immediately tell the 240 Hz smoothness, the same thing happened when I used my co-worker's PC while diagnosing some issue.

[Doobeedoo]

2 hours ago, AlfaProto said:

It's always high.

 

Even if there's a cap, it's usually almost double the refresh rate (meaning 144 Hz/170 Hz, I would cap it at 300 FPS).

Read again, I've tried on multiple 120-144Hz monitor before purchasing it, I thought it's just myself not acclimating to the higher refresh rate, because I was on 60/75 Hz monitor. However, that one internet cafe game I visited and paid, I could immediately tell the 240 Hz smoothness, the same thing happened when I used my co-worker's PC while diagnosing some issue.

Yeah I know, maybe those were not good monitors, older ones really had poor transition speeds. Just saying it's odd, if it's not about those monitors, people usually say the opposite how it feels to them, that 120ish Hz is more impactful over 240Hz vs it. So that is strange is all I'm saying. But can always lower the Hz and you should tell that it feels worse. Even people saying like 60Hz is fine once they try either 120/240Hz, then go back to 60Hz it feels worse to them.

 

[AlfaProto]

20 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

Yeah I know, maybe those were not good monitors, older ones really had poor transition speeds. Just saying it's odd, if it's not about those monitors, people usually say the opposite how it feels to them, that 120ish Hz is more impactful over 240Hz vs it. So that is strange is all I'm saying. But can always lower the Hz and you should tell that it feels worse. Even people saying like 60Hz is fine once they try either 120/240Hz, then go back to 60Hz it feels worse to them.

 

Played on 60 Hz via Display setting and Graphic settings. Initially looks horrible--but that far, but after few hours--yesterday, it's kinda normalised.

 

Revert back, and it's kinda better, but not really much.

 

I'm guessing my eyes prefers something very fast smooth motion.

[Doobeedoo]

1 hour ago, AlfaProto said:

Played on 60 Hz via Display setting and Graphic settings. Initially looks horrible--but that far, but after few hours--yesterday, it's kinda normalised.

 

Revert back, and it's kinda better, but not really much.

 

I'm guessing my eyes prefers something very fast smooth motion.

I'm glad phones, tvs, tablets, laptops and some productivity monitors are at least 120Hz though. Anything lower is so bad to me. I've used CRTs back in the day with faster Hz as well so slow LCD is super bad to me. 

I wouldn't use any display if not aleast 120Hz, moving stuff around working or scrolling is quite a difference.

For games if buying a new monitor I'd go for 240Hz at minimum, they're cheaper now and slowly becoming new standard. Can always go higher for competitive play.

[AlfaProto]

On 6/12/2024 at 10:05 PM, Doobeedoo said:

I'm glad phones, tvs, tablets, laptops and some productivity monitors are at least 120Hz though. Anything lower is so bad to me. I've used CRTs back in the day with faster Hz as well so slow LCD is super bad to me. 

I wouldn't use any display if not aleast 120Hz, moving stuff around working or scrolling is quite a difference.

For games if buying a new monitor I'd go for 240Hz at minimum, they're cheaper now and slowly becoming new standard. Can always go higher for competitive play.

I have a Samsung S21 FE, it's 120Hz, and I cannot tell the difference between that and 60 Hz (battery saver defaults to 60 Hz).

So definitely, my eyes prefer very high refresh rate to completely tell the difference.

[Doobeedoo]

1 minute ago, AlfaProto said:

I have a Samsung S21 FE, it's 120Hz, and I cannot tell the difference between that and 60 Hz (battery saver defaults to 60 Hz).

So definitely, my eyes prefer very high refresh rate to completely tell the difference.

I have the same phone. Once I got it and set it up, I switched between them and notice instantly. Maybe you don't notice switching homescreens, try scrolling through apps or webpages a bit faster. I tend to scroll while I read and higher Hz I can read text without becoming blurry with 120Hz vs 60Hz.

But gamin on good PC monitor definitely priority.

[Andrewtst]

Every human eyes was different. Just don't bother about it, at least you feel the differences from 60hz to 240hz. 

Now you know your next monitor needs to be at least 240hz or above.

 

Some more 144hz or 170hz is pass already, basically all good monitor now is 240hz as minimum. This is the second reason you no need to bother you can't tell the differences from 60hz to 144hz even though most people can tell. You are not cannot tell all changes but maybe you need more drastic changes to be notice. Nothing to worry about this.

 

[AlfaProto]

18 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

I have the same phone. Once I got it and set it up, I switched between them and notice instantly. Maybe you don't notice switching homescreens, try scrolling through apps or webpages a bit faster. I tend to scroll while I read and higher Hz I can read text without becoming blurry with 120Hz vs 60Hz.

But gamin on good PC monitor definitely priority.

Even games like Star Trek Timelines, which has a lot of scrolling, I cannot tell.

 

1 hour ago, Andrewtst said:

Every human eyes was different. Just don't bother about it, at least you feel the differences from 60hz to 240hz. 

Now you know your next monitor needs to be at least 240hz or above.

 

Some more 144hz or 170hz is pass already, basically all good monitor now is 240hz as minimum. This is the second reason you no need to bother you can't tell the differences from 60hz to 144hz even though most people can tell. You are not cannot tell all changes but maybe you need more drastic changes to be notice. Nothing to worry about this.

 

Agree. I only wanted to know if there are users who cannot tell the difference between 60-144hz/170Hz vs 60-240Hz+ (or 120hz+ to 240Hz).

Although I would be very interested in the effects of using a 360Hz+ monitor.

[Doobeedoo]

21 minutes ago, AlfaProto said:

Even games like Star Trek Timelines, which has a lot of scrolling, I cannot tell.

 

Agree. I only wanted to know if there are users who cannot tell the difference between 60-144hz/170Hz vs 60-240Hz+ (or 120hz+ to 240Hz).

Although I would be very interested in the effects of using a 360Hz+ monitor.

Yes we are all not the same or had same experience with displays. And sure more then doubling refresh rate can have larger perception of fludity. But it was always arguable how like 60Hz is just very bad in general and doubling or so was considered decent minimum. Even back in CRT days, but also due to flicker too, but on LCD it was not due to flicker but slow pixel response time and also 60Hz has heavy input lag and mouse feel. To me it legit feels bad. I played fast games on good CRTs which had higher Hz but also they have much better motion clarity over LCD. 

So maybe in your case it may not be as stark difference in higher framerate monitor can show as in more information, but clarity of each frame. I sure hated switch to LCDs due to that main reason, they are blurry in fast motion. Only lately we've seen some very fast LCDs and with strobing, so finally getting back to old school CRT motion clarity. Or also high Hz OLED too.