How important are refresh rates to you?

>tfw 75hz

meh

>>58727261
60 is plenty

>>58727261
Anything under 60 is trash.
Anything over 60 is trash.

>>58727307

what about 59.95Hz

File: 1485648461089.jpg (486KB, 1000x1312px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1000x1312px

>>58727318
Wow good one Anon, you're so clever.

>>58727301
idiota

I can beat people with 144hz, 120hz, 180hz, 60hz. It doesn't matter as long as my eyes don't bleed. I know top level players that play with poverty setups with old lcd panels with a lot of input lag and low refresh rate and they have no problem being at the top of their respective games. The advantages it gives you isn't that great.

>>58728026
>>>/v/

>>58728115
If you're not talking about video games or CRTs then refresh rate means jack shit. Maybe you should tell the OP to go to /v/

>>58727318
A U T I S M

Anything below 60 is bad unless its a console.

>>58728157
>>>/v/

I only notice it if they aren't consistent

1 4 4 H z

>>58727261
i have 60 Hz,4ms really bad for my eyes
120 Hz, 1ms looks perfect

>>58727301
Most monitors can be pushed to 75 and it's well worth it

144hz is so nice, going back to 60 looks awful in comparison

>>58727261
do they have a penis

>>58727261
Not very. 30's acceptable, 60+'s preferred, 20's playable if it's all the GPU can do.

>>58728343
LG 27ud58 and I get frame skipping even at 65

>>58728129
um, sweetie, ur wrong.
high refresh rates are good for preventing scroll tearing, cursor jacking and high-framerate video content consumption.

File: 5751173_0e0c9692c3540f4a507a2376c12fc24e.png (81KB, 735x475px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 735x475px

>>58727261
>human eye can only see at 30 fps
>shills on /g/ keep shilling 60+ fps monitor

Really makes you ponder.

>>58730217
ebin

>>58727261
60 because i'm no goyman. i could use an crt for all i care

>>58727318
I never got this why does this show up ?

>>58728586
Yeah there's a webm of him lifitng up his skirt and showing a bulge

>>58730238
>implying CRTs are bad for gaymes

File: 1449032839861.png (35KB, 218x196px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 218x196px

>>58730217
Yeah I assumed on of you blind shitters would show up. Just because you're such a subhuman that you can't see why 144 fps is so great doesn't mean it's a meme.

You should remove yourself from the gene pool. No joke.

>>58730264
no i'm not because i don't play games

>>58727261
I don't care much about refresh rates only about frame rates, as long as it's consistent I'm fine, running at native refresh rate is a bonus however.

>>58730349
You're dumb

File: 1485541628986.png (1MB, 1100x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1100x1080px

>>58730251
Haha You wouldn't happen to know where an inquiring mind might find it haha. You know, as a joke haha.

>>58727261
cute boy

>>58730251
wtf source I didnt even know there was anymore images of 'her'

>>58728775
yeah cause we all watching dem 120 frame movies. give me a break

>>58730217
Actually the human eye can perceive up to around 1000 frames per second but is limited by the brain during normal use

>>58727261
Dont care at all...
wtf is this meme anyway?

>>58731261
it's not a meme if it's backed by actual science

>>58727307
30 fps if constant is playable.

60 fps in gaming is the minimum it takes to not notice choppiness and feel smooth.

from there the more the better. if you ever played a game on those 144 hz monitors on a rig that can actually run games at those frame rates constantly the difference is truly very noticeable.

>>58727261
I moved from 60hz to 144hz. I barely noticed. 144hz feels like a lot of hype. The problem is that now I have bought into it, it'll be really hard to persuade my conscience that I don't need 144hz when I replace the monitor years down the road.

>>58731278
kek

I'm happy with 60

>>58730217
It's unironically 24fps. Why do you think all movies run at that rate? 30fps and above is a meme.

>60+ fps is a meme
http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates
>I can't afford to buy a 144 hz monitor and therefore can't see the difference between 60 and 144 on this service

>>58730217
>>58732090
That's not a limitation of the human eye, you absolute idiots.

It's the rate at which the eyes send info to the brain, it's approx 25 frames sent to the brain each second, with the latter normally skipping the conscious procession of the 25th frame. It is, however, processed subconsiously.

And yeah, the fucking human eye can definitely see framerates above 30 fps. Fuck off my board now, illiterate twinks.

>>58732174
>It's the rate at which the eyes send info to the brain, it's approx 25 frames sent to the brain each second

this is completely wrong the way eyes transmit information is through the nerves firing the signals and specific nerves that fire from the eye to the brain can fire anywhere from 100 to 1000 times a second depending how trained the optical nerves are.

If yours are firing only 25 times a second you might have either extremely atrophied/damaged optical nerves or you might have literal brain damage.

>>58732174
No it's not. The motion blur we get is to help calculate speed and distance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rp-2_dAJ0k

>>58732090
>Why do you think all movies run at that rate?
because at the time they made the standard they were using movie reels and if those reels spun too quickly the film would tear

only reason they don't move to 60 fps is that they see no reason to deviate from an ancient standard due to no problems arising

really it comes down to how many rpms the reel can take and more frames means more film which meant more cost to process the film roll

I use 800x600 @120Hz.

Anyone tried 240hz monitors?

I have 2 monitors, one of them 120hz, the other one 60hz.

Not gonna lie, 120hz is nice. It's nice even in general, not just games. With smooth scrolling it's actually smooth.

Problem is, it's a shitty 120hz monitor. Really shitty TN 1680x1050 monitor. My 60hz monitor is much better on that regard.

And another problem is, it's a pain in the ass to work around playing games on fullscreen on a second screen.

itt: gamer babies.

Is a 144hz 4k IPS freesync monitor 27" or larger really so much to ask for?

>>58731244
1000hz 16K OLED Ultra-Wide Curved monitors when?

File: 1485393012676.jpg (106KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1280x720px

>>58730217
>human eye does not percieve world in refresh rate
>therefore, we're not physically capable of even experiencing refresh rates
>human eye can't see fps at all
>yet retards are buying racing 144hz displays for twice as much monies

tech illiteracy is terrible problem

File: wA8G9d7.png (44KB, 688x432px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 688x432px

>>58730217

>>58730217
The human eye may only be able to see at 30fps, but the point of 60fps is not how fast you can see but, how much is shown. In other words you can see 30/30fps or you could see 30/60fps or more.

>>58732174
Jesus, where do you guys get this stuff.

Everyone that has seen 144hz knows that it is much different than 60hz. With games you interact with what's on the screen and it's even more noticable. Yes the brain is able to fill in the gaps between 24/30 frames pretty well, so you get a moving picture but that doesn't mean that our max processing is 30 fps or that the eyes send signals to the brain at 30 hz.

>>58727261
60 hz - nice, 120 hz - double nice.

>>58727261
Who is this dirty skank?

Not important.

60hz is alright for me.

code + strategy games

>>58734098
>human eye does not percieve world in refresh rate
except we literally do perceive the world in this way

just replace refresh rate with neuron fire rate

and the nerves that connect the eyes to the brain fire off at rates between 300 to 1000 times per second, as in it updates visual information 300 to 1000 times a seconds, which literally translate to a screen changing the image 300-1000 times a second

you need to put the effort to at least understand what you are talking about

>>58727261

post feminine penis plz

>>58731419

Same, except I didn't buy it, a friend of mine did. We even tested ours side by side, and while he kept swearing by the smoothness of 144hz, I couldn't tell the difference. Personally I can stick with 60hz for all I care.

>>58727261
you need to buy special tvs with 600hz refresh rates. its well proven than the more fps the less blurry racing cars get.

I've had a TV capable of 120Hz for five years and the only time it's ever been above 60Hz was to play games with SimulView

>>58727261
someone needs to source that cute boy

>>58730241
I think it'd a difference in panels in US and Europe for back in the day.
I think modern displays it doesn't matter

>>58727261
Input latency issues
screen refresh latency issue


60 hz has about 16 ms latency.
120 hz has about 8 ms latency

The difference is quite huge when you have two monitors side by side, you can see the motion lag.

I can't really see the difference between 144 Hz and 60 Hz in games, aside from being able to react faster.

I can see the difference outside of games, but who cares about that? I'd rather have a 4k monitor with 30 ms more input latency.

>>58727261
i want his testicles on my chesticles

>>58727261
The difference on a good panel that also handles motion well ontop of having a good refresh rate is very noticeable. Obviously having a 144hz VA panel with horrible motion blur and judder isn't gonna be the best experience paying for a 144hz spec.

Finding a "good" TN panel isn't easy either because of their color representation. There aren't many high refresh IPS panels out there and they're expensive as fuck.

There is a huge perceivable difference between 60hz and 144hz. The thing is that it's not gonna make you any better at videogames or improve much of your computer use. It's just comfy and nice to have. I'd almost say it's like the difference between mechanical and membrane keyboards.

>>58730349
who are you trying to convince, anon-kun ?

>>58734098
see you in /g/ humor

>>58727261

Going from 60 to 75 was a huge deal. Anything above 75 is arguably negligible for anything other than competitive FPS.

>>58735674
If you watch movies a 120Hz monitor is pretty nice

>>58734764
>>58731419
Reminder: it only makes a difference when you're running older games at like 200+ fps. It helps the rendered frames be displayed more readily, so you get no tearing, no delay, and a true consistent 144Hz video output.

For normal tasks, who cares? You will never need to watch video footage at higher than 60fps. And scrolling? Really?

>>58735715

>movies
>120Hz

I hope you're referring to ~24fps divide. In that case,

>doesn't know what madvr is

>>58735826
>I hope you're referring to ~24fps divide
Of course
>madvr
All I know is that it has to do with video playback., Given it's Windows-only, that's all I care to know.

>>58735852

Madvr is better than watching films on 120Hz. It is identical to true 23.978 playback. Plus, you get upscaling that is arguably as good as native if you have a decent PC.

I think you can get a linux media player that supports madvr.

>>58735941
Neat
>upscaling
I'm pretty sure all my movies are Full HD

>>58735941
I don't get how you're saying madvr works (a monitor is still limited to its hard-wired refresh rates) but...

Could G-sync or free-sync adjust their refresh rate to match a 23.978 movie?

>>58735852
>>58735826

>120/24 = an interger is important

I seriously hope you guys don't believe this.

The monitor just renders 24 frames out of the refresh rate then stops until the next second.

File: conedog.jpg (47KB, 666x339px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 666x339px

>>58734507
>or that the eyes send signals to the brain at 30 hz.
Imagining this is just stupid. Twitch gameplay would be impossible, in fact, if we were that slow we'd have trouble keeping up with the fucking letters that appear on the screen as you type into this box.

Brainlets, when will they learn

>>58736139
It is important.
>The monitor just renders 24 frames out of the refresh rate then stops until the next second.
No, it displays one frame three times, the next frame two times, the next frame three times, and so on.

File: 1471704669765.jpg (427KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 800x1000px

>>58728775
>"""sweetie"""

>>58727261
After using 144 and reverting to 60 it's fucking cancer and I'm not even talking about games

Having all the nice hardware and then cucking yourself with 60hz slideshow is the worst you could do

Once you go high refresh rate you never go back

>>58735443
it's a girl

>>58736086

>a monitor is still limited to its hard-wired refresh rates

Films are also limited to 23.978, so having a higher refresh rate on your monitor is useless unless it can divide that 23.978 perfectly.

Most (if not all) monitors don't do that. Madvr translates 23.978 to match your screen's refresh ratio without adding fake frames the way interpolating software does.

>Could G-sync or free-sync adjust their refresh rate to match a 23.978 movie?

No, i don't think so.

>The monitor just renders 24 frames out of the refresh rate then stops until the next second.

Even if this was correct, films arrive at 23.978, not 24. There's a difference. You might not have 3:2 pulldown on a 120 / 144Hz screen, but a 60Hz one will still be slightly smoother with madvr.

>>58727261
You can tell from the lips that this is a woman

>>58736583

>Having all the nice hardware and then cucking yourself with 60hz slideshow is the worst you could do

The problem with this reasoning is that stable 60fps will always be smoother than a higher framerate jumping all over the place, even on gsync monitors. I'll take a stable 60 over hiccups and microstutter any day. You won't be able to maintain a framerate well above 144 on average in order to lock your refresh rate on all games, even if you cuck yourself with 1080p.

The sweet spot for a decent PC these days is 1440p 75Hz. (that could be OCd to 80-85) The difference between 60 and 75 is huge, and it also allows you to play at a higher resolution with locked framerate.

>>58727261
Does she have a penis?

>>58737210
Well you won't have the hiccups if you have the high end hardware like I mentioned.

Personally I like more fps than graphic details. I'm probably in the minority though.
For example I run BF1 at 1080p low and I never go below 144fps. I average about 180fps and it's extra smooth.

But yeah I agree with the 80ish refresh rate.
Even extra 20hz is still a pretty nice step up from 60hz.

>>58737126
>woman

144hz is so good

File: 1485091731864.jpg (37KB, 402x402px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 402x402px

>>58737363
My dick doesn't care either way.

>>58727261
> 60 Hz - does the job for most things OK
> 120/144 Hz - quite nice, but needs strobing to look truly great in vidya
> 240+ Hz - where I wish things were, so I could use strobing all the time without getting eye strain. not gonna happen on IPS/VA though.

>>58737292

>Well you won't have the hiccups if you have the high end hardware like I mentioned.

Your hardware is irrelevant unless it can provide a framerate well above 144 in order to lock it. If your framerate is not completely locked at your refresh ratio, it will never be as smooth.

This is why i suggest 75-80Hz. It's the best compromise, even for current top tier PCs.

>>58727261
It doesn't matter is she's a girl or has feminine benis, I couldn't say her no.

>>58737622

>needs strobing to look truly great in vidya

What exactly do you mean by "needs strobing"?

>>58737743
strobing reduces motion blur by flickering the backlight on after the pixels have fully changed color.

>>58737683
I found that locking the framerate to refresh rate actually causes frame lags

I never go below 144 on uncapped fps and it's perfect but when I lock it to 144 then it goes 142/3/4 all the time which causes microlags

90+ or bust. 60 is nauseating now

File: despondent.jpg (68KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 700x700px

>tfw I wanted a 4K laptop but its 48hz
I fucking fell for the 4K meme on a 15.6" laptop and I now I realize I care more about refresh rates.
I can still see the pixels though if I look for them, and that bothers me.

>>58737913
what a retard, you deserve your faith

>>58727261
>bought 1080p144hz freesync

Its way too good. 60hz looks poopy now

>>58737913
laffin @ u

>>58727261
Quite as play a lot of games and it's much more enjoyable to do it with a high refresh rate, low response time and low input lag monitor.

>>58737743
LCDs with backlights that flash like strobe lights once per refresh are able to to leave sharp image patterns on your retina even when your eyes are moving around, so you can actually see fine detail on moving objects you're visually tracking.

the downsides are:
- you need the content fps to match the display refresh Hz or you start seeing ghost-like multiple images on moving things.
- you need >~90Hz to avoid perceptible flicker, and substantially higher rates to avoid eye strain and headache from long periods of use.
- moving objects/text that you're not following with your eyes has a very visible "stair-step" appearance to its motion.

90 Hz with strobing (as in 1st gen VR) look sharper than even 144 Hz without strobing, but ideally you'd have 200+ Hz strobing and everything would look great with no real side effects.

>>58737913
Should have gotten the new Yoga 910.

I used to have a 60hz and i thought the whole "144hz" thing was kind of a meme, but holy shit i was wrong and the most horrible thing is now i cant go back
just on the cursor alone i could tell the difference, its true though that video is the same as on a 60hz but everything else is computer generated and its never been more smooth and clear

>>58736899
i want her boobies squished against my man boobies

>>58737829

>I found that locking the framerate to refresh rate actually causes frame lags

Said nobody ever. You're doing it wrong, somehow. Try using Riva Tuner. The other option for smooth gameplay is to exactly double your frames, (like 150 fps on 75 Hz), it doesn't have tearing, and its basically the logic behind Nvidia's fast sync. But that will never happen on your monitor.

_"I never go below 144 on uncapped fps"_

...on CS GO?

>>58738006
>choosing 1080p144hz over 1440p75hz

>>58737913

Can you please tell us how much you paid so i can laugh even harder?

>>58739453
Yeah buddy I'm lying on 4chan xd

I tried locking with Rivatuner, I even tried capping to few frames less than refresh rate like many suggested(like 140fps) because it's better for tearing or some shit. The point is that even if you lock it it won't ever stay locked. It just doesn't work like that, try it yourself. I get 600avg and 250min in CSGO and even if I lock it at 144 it will still drop to 142-143 all the time.

Did you even read the fucking post, it's 1080p on low settings. I'm sorry you can't hit 144fps on low settings with your poverty setup famalam

>>58739585

Cap it at 147, then.

>>58739646
I might try in the future but it doesn't really matter.
There's no visible lag even with huge fps min-max gaps in CSGO, like going from 700 to 300 frames the next second.
I noticed that those huge drops would lag on 60hz but not with 144hz so I just uncapped it and didn't even bother anymore. It works great for me as is.

>>58739525
Especially the lower battery life.

>>58731244
what part of the eye ? the lense ? no. the lense is only limited by speed of light. the retina that collects the energy from the photons ? no thats also only limited by the speed of light.

What part of the eye limits the refresh rate to 1000 ?

>>58727261
would fuck if not boy

>>58739525
$1300

>>58727261
Don't believe for a second that's a boy.

>>58739691

Light absorption in the eye causes a conformational change in retinal in cone cells, which requires time to regenerate before it can be excited again.

I don't know if 1000 times per second is the correct rate, as he says, and the stronger the light, the longer it can stay excited, but there's definitely a finite rate.

>>58739585

>Yeah buddy I'm lying on 4chan xd

Yeah sorry didn't catch that "low" on your first post...

>The point is that even if you lock it it won't ever stay locked.

That's weird. Riva tuner always behave as it should for me.

Now i completely forgot what we were talking about though

>>58739680

For me, the derpness goes : 4k on a 15 inch > 4k on a laptop (battery/performance) > 4k @ 48Hz > price

[spoiler]gameplay[/spoiler] > monitor size > resolution > colors > refresh rate

>>58740149

input latency > response time > frame rate > resolution > colours > size

With all having a minimum acceptable threshold, of course.

>>58727261
As long as I can't see the screen flicker, and it doesn't give me a headache to look at; it is enough. Anything on top of that is just added cost without benefit.