>had a chance to try a 144hz screen everybody keeps hyping

You don't see a difference in games. You see quite a big difference with UI stuff (animations look smoother) but that's about it. You're better off getting a good 60hz or 120hz monitor, and the only reason to get 120hz is so you can play 24/30/60fps video without judder or interpolation.

>>56165215

Oh I am, I have 2 Dell U2417's and I'm very happy with them. This one is from a friend, that swears by the smoother fps while gaming. Well he must have better eyesight than me, because I saw nothing different.

>>56165170
I hear you. You can spot the difference a bit, but nowhere near enough for it to be worth it.

When I first saw one of the mythical 144hz displays I was disappointed. Really underwhelming.

2k doesn't seem that worth it either. Though I can't really comment on that since I have no experience with it.

>>56165280
It's a placebo. You can't even react to 1/144th of a second anyway, so it gives you no benefits other than silky smooth UI animations.

>>56165310
With that logic we might as well have 1 frame per 2 seconds. Or 2 frames per second for the ones with fast reflexes.

>>56165310
Yes you can

I definitely notice it, get your eyes checked.

>>56165354
Why? There are many clear benefits for choosing 60hz over 1 or 2hz.
If you were to compare how fast you react on 60hz, 120hz and 144hz you would not see a difference, provided things like input latency and response time are similar. You're just an idiot.

>>56165412
Have a citation for that/

>>56165170
I've never tried a monitor with more than 60hz but I have played games with 120 fps or more. They feel much smoother and responsive even over 60 FPS.

inb4placebo

>>56165462
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

>>56165492
Maybe you should go look up what "reaction" means. No one is arguing you can't see a difference between 60hz and 120hz.
Why is /g/ so fucking stupid?

File: 1400213439864.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>56165170
>had a chance to try 60fps everybody keeps hyping around
>test some games out, even set low graphics settings to have those so wanted fps
>see absolutely no difference from 30fps

if you don't see an improvement then don't buy it, you're not always going to see the appeal in every niche technology that comes your way

>>56165522
Your brain fucking reacts to it retard. You notice it in your head. Why can't you be more specific to which body part you meant reacted. You can look at a naked woman for 10 seconds before your penis starts reacting you know?

I don't know OP, I notice a huge difference and everyone I know does. I really like the smooth feeling of it and would not like to go back to 60Hz.

Then again like people have already posted in this thread, if you don't notice anything different, don't spend money on it.

>>56165170
I knew that kid in school and we play video games all the time. He's pretty chill.

I have a 144hz and 60hz side by side. Huge difference for me. Maybe you need to see both side by side to get a better idea. I won't ever go back.

>>56165462
I think you might get like a 10% increase in reaction time.

I.E, useless unless you play games professionally pretty much.

>>56165215
you can see a difference in stuff like racing games and anything with really fast paced motion

>>56165672
It is a huge difference, but only in gayming and movies/videos. Anyone who just uses their PC to browse the web, for their job or for anything that doesn't need fast screens won't notice a difference.

>>56165613
>You can look at a naked woman for 10 seconds before your penis starts reacting you know?
I've got some bad news for you, friend.

Assuming people who say they don't notice 30 - 60 FPS in a shooter are being honest, then it seems plausible some people might get benefit from 144 Hz even though I don't.

For me, 30 to 60 FPS is a massive jump in the play experience. Playing at 30 FPS is like playing with a handicap when you're trying to track so many fast moving objects.

>>56165992
>I'm a horny teenager, I'm always turned on
Calm down

>>56165170
You have to use it for awhile then switch back to 60hz to see a big difference. It's one of those things you'll never notice an appreciate until you own it and then try to go back.

>>56166017
To be fair. There is a lot of diminishing returns in going from 60 to 120 and so on.

Like 15 fps will feel mind bogglingly slow compared to 30fps, 30fps will feel sluggish compared to 60fps, 60 fps will feel slightly less smooth compared to 120/144 fps.

>>56166073
That is genuinely one of the reasons I don't want one.

Ignorance is bliss, and I don't want to waste money where I don't have to.

>>56166059

So, how much viagra do you consume on a monthly basis? Have you been checked for heart abnormalities or hypertension?

>>56166105

Tbh I'd rather spend my money on better quality images/display than "smoother" animations. Which I did. I am happy.

>>56166319
I don't care that much about displays in general as long as it's at least 1080p and 60hz.

Hell, I'm using a damn VGA cable for it.

>>56166347
>I don't care that much about displays in general as long as it's at least 1080p and 60hz.

I hear ya breh. Although I am DVI myself... I just value color accuracy/reproduction much more than some extra frames.

>>56166378
I would use a DVI but both my slots are taken.

I don't generally notice it unless it's a black color and I'm shoving my face right in front of the screen.

the upper end of human visual reaction time is like 165th of a second under very high stress and focus

I agree it's nearly impossible to tell 144 from 120 Hz, but the jump from 60 to 120is clear as fucking day . You won't notice as much if you're playing solitaire (even with this you would notice) but it helps much more with fast moving games .

>>56167457

>but it helps much more with fast moving games

After reading all this, I'm fairly convinced if I couldn't see the difference on cs:go and dirt rally, then I won't see it on anything.

bump, today on "why is /g/ so fucking stupid"

>>56165215
>you don't see a difference in x you just see a difference in y
>>56165310
>it's a placebo because of this strawman argument that nobody was making
>>56165354
>>56165412

-----

>>56165697
>I think you might get like a 10% increase in reaction time.

on a 120hz monitor you get an extra 8.3333ms window to react to an event over a 60hz screen; 9.7222ms on 144hz, 1.388ms going from 120hz to 140hz

there's enough variation in an individuals reaction time at best that 10ms here or there is absolutely meaningless, never mind the variation in any other source of latency such as network communications

>>56165798

less jitter when moving about windows on a desktop is one of the easier examples to demonstrate the smoothness of 120/144hz monitors, of course someone using a computer for typical shitposting use will be able to see a difference, whether that's worth an upgrade is another matter entirely

>>56166089

there are diminishing returns but there's also a case of getting used to 60fps and perceiving it as smooth for motion in games just because it has been the norm for so long because of performance reasons; it wasn't unheard of to get crt monitors in the 90hz range and people swore by using it over 75hz or lower

never mind that smoothness of motion isn't the only reason to increase the refresh rate, as a higher refresh rate greatly reduces the perceived flicker of a screen

120/144hz displays are still within the realm of not being completely smooth for interactive playback

>>56166526

for an average person maybe, it's quite a bit quicker for trained military personnel and studies generally find that people who play games that require quick reaction times tend to do a lot better than the average person, more comparable to that of military personnel

move your mouse across the screen quickly on a 60hz monitor and you can literally see the individual frames.