Discussion I see no difference between 60Hz and 120+hz

[gdansk]

The apparent motion of the cursor is noticeably more smooth at 120Hz than 60Hz. Because it is drawing an updated cursor position every frame. I'm not sure why you think it isn't distinguishable or why polling rate (even the most basic USB mouse polls at 120Hz or higher) would be insufficient to notice it...

But as I said to start: the diminishing returns are harder to notice going from 120Hz to 160Hz, for example, I cannot distinguish from fluidity of cursor movement alone.

 

[mindless1]

^ Or you just think assumed it was drawing an updated position every frame and it really wasn't, so more frequent frames gives the updated position sooner after a frame didn't show it. That doesn't make the observed smoothness increase any less... real.

 

[gdansk]

Why dwell in theory

It's obviously different with a camera and clearly different with the eye (unless you're quite aged). I really don't know why one would jump through hoops to say it isn't rendering more between positions. But you do you.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

I think Mark Rejhon is on these forums somewhere

 

[AlexanderSalazar]

You can look at this video for more detailed info

.
Generally when I bought my 144hz monitor I also didn't notice any difference, it's noticeable only when you get back to 60hz and also not when you use if for a day.

 

[dr1337]

When I was still using a 580 on my gaming rig, I would drop GTA and BeamNG to 1440p because having less input lag felt so much better than staying on 4k. 120fps to me is always noticeable but it really matters in speed based games, and FPS is really not the only genre where reaction times matter.

As someone that has been playing VR for 7 years now, 90hz stable vs 90hz average is the difference between a good and bad experience. I can see how people wouldn't mind input lag, given I grew up playing ps1 and N64, but at the same time its 2024 and gaming really is just so much better than it was before.

But even in slow games, normal turn based games like CIV or XCOM, camera movements and animations are still so much smoother than they ever were at 60hz. Its not like thats a big deal but its still always visible

I just wanna bring this back around to input lag, because since I started gaming at high refresh rates several years ago, I have really begun to appreciate having a game respond to my inputs in real time. I think maybe all those years growing up playing games at 30hz on old unoptimized hardware really makes me appreciate having inputs match what I see on screen 1:1. I find it to be a lot like driving a car, if my steering wheel had slop while I am on the highway I feel much less confident in my ability to drive. Or like, if my legs were springs, walking down stairs would be a lot harder.

TL;DR: if you can't see the difference between 60hz and 120hz you have messed up your display settings and the monitor actually isn't at 120hz, or you have very special eyes.

 

[CP5670]

60 to 120 is a huge difference in everything, while 120 to 160 or more is less so. I'm thinking of upgrading my surface pro to the current version just for the 120hz screen.

 

[Heartbreaker]

Let's discuss the differences between refresh rates for people that DO NOT PLAY ANY FPS GAMES. I hate FPS games like Call of Duty, so I can't comment on those.

I see no difference between 60Hz and 120+hz. Am I simply crazy? I checked this with RPGs like Fallout, Baldurs gate, and Encased. I also play RTS games such as Warcraft 3, Starcraft 2 and Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War.

No you aren't crazy. Probably the reaction of most people if they don't get caught up in hype.

I just upgraded from 60Hz to a 165 Hz panel.

IMO, the difference is greatly exaggerated, and mostly discernable in test cases.

To be clear. I can see the difference if I do some kind of test case.

Test Case: Blur Busters
If I do the blur busters UFO test. It's very obvious that 120 Hz is much clearer than 60 Hz. Though any difference between 120 and 165 is so negligible, that I'm pretty sure I would fail an ABX test between 120 and 165, so would never upgrade for even faster.

Test Case: Desktop Mouse
Whip around mouse on desktop. This is often cited as proof it's much better. Higher refresh and the pointer breaks up into more image points, lower refresh you get less segments. But other than breaking up into more segments, it actually doesn't feel any different when just moving it around normally.

Test: Gaming
Most of the games I play are older, and are frame limited, or wrong genre, so far I haven't been able to see a difference. This is probably mainly a benefit to FPS esports gamers which I'm not...

Anyone care to suggest an open source game game where I can test? I'm not buying a game just for testing, nor will I install any new gaming stores (I'm GoG only).

Edit: Found I have Metro Last Light Redux in my GoG library. Tried that, and really I don't see any significant difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS.