480 fps

>>62063801
It isn't even useful for anything

>>62063821
Military and scientific purposes, maybe? It probably feels real good to play vidya on, too.

anything more than 144hz/fps is a waste

>>62063801
You won't need any version of adaptive sync?

>>62063801
It would be amazing for 3d single player games, since low server ticks make high fps multiplayer worthless.

So this panel tech will be the stuff in version 2 vr headsets. One panel, 480 hz, which is 240hz for each eye.

>>62063848
good luck getting that framerate in a game to match the sync rate

File: IMG_0556.jpg (215KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1920x1080px

>>62063801

>anything below 4 ghz

>>62063801
porn. gotta see that jizz flying off, every frame counts.

>>62064166
It would be hard since most/all gpus won't output more than 240fps.

>>62064101
333fps or go home casual

The human eye can't see more than 1 fps. Is there anything faster than 1 second? Didn't think so. How can more than 1 "thing" happen per second. You can only see 1 second per second. Checkmate Republicans.

>>62064970
>most/all gpus won't output more than 240fps.
Where the fuck are you getting this laughable claim from?

>>62064970
This is false.
Same GPUs start to whine due to ridiculous high FPS (think 1000s) when a dev fucks up and forgets to FPS cap the menus for instance.

>>62063801
Human eye can only see 60hz, no bait

>>62064970

source; my ass

>>62065459
>>62065561
>>62065905
Check your gpu specs you dumb faggot.

File: 1484012119168.jpg (7KB, 207x243px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 207x243px

>>62066133

Checked. There is no mention of a max framerate because there is none, you fucking retard. Show me a GPU that has a hardware cap for 240 fps.

>>62066186
what gpu do you have?

>>62065561
He is right, there's no video output that supports 1000fps on GPUs, you're right though that the GPU can be processing 1000fps even if it can't output that

File: FEAR.png (121KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 800x600px

>>62064970
took this sceenshot just for (you)

>>62065607
>Human eye can only see 60hz, no bait

You can't apply a fixed hz cap on the human eye since it is an analog system.

>>62066198
It's just a matter of bandwidth, isn't it? DP 1.3 can deliver 4k at 120Hz, so it ought to be able to deliver 1080p at 480Hz.

>>62063801
>>62063821
>>62064101

>technological progress is bad because i don't need it

>880hz
Get on my level normies

>>62066198
This. A gpu can process over 1000fps , but it won't output more than 240hz.

>>62066186
>Checked
And you skipped the part that it can only output at 240hz?

>>62065607
the AVERAGE human can only see 30hz per eyeball.
high performance athletes can see up to 60hz per eyeball

>>62066208
Literally stupid as fuck. You really think your gpu is pushing 1194 fps out of your dvi/hdmi/display port?

>>62066197
R9 390x

>>62066208 has disproved your erroneous claim.

see >>62066256

>>62066277
You're fucking dense because there's no such limit. It's a matter of bandwidth on the display protocol used. It can easy output 360p2000fps on DP1.2.

>>62066310
Yea man you're just stupid.

>>62066304
At 600p? Sure faggot

>>62066326
At any resolution.

halo product, whoever made this is flexing like a mad bitch so plebs will buy their other garbage

>>62066301
They did a test with a pilot and proved that he can see above 300fps

And your numbers are fucking wrong btw

>>62066396
Haha you took the bait

File: 1474732637637.jpg (52KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x600px

>>62066319
>>62066355
>>62066277
Yet to see a claim of a limited GPU.

I was right, you were wrong. You can stop the disinfo, OP.

>>62066414
This person posts on /g/.

>>62066414
this thread and board is cancer. the fastest monitor in existence, does 4k@120hz, and /g/ finds a way to bitch about issues that aren't even real because they are ignorant about technology.

I guess if you're 15 and a poorfag you gotta find an excuse not to purchase something to make yourself feel better

>>62066241
anything above 144hz is pointless. there's already 240hz monitors out, but you're not gonna notice a difference

>>62064250
This
all visual tech is spearheaded by porn

>>62066481
There's been 300hz, and 666hz monitors out for decades. why is 480hz impressive?

I don't see much of a purpose to having more than 240hz monitors.

As a daily user of a 144hz monitor, I've never felt that I needed more. The jump from 60 to 144 is like whiplash inducing in itself. But I don't think that packing in 100 more fps would result in any major advantage

I just think the 480hz is useless, I mean some games are soft capped at 300fps like overwatch and csgo(I'm pretty sure it is) or like CS1.6, 100fps is the max

>>62066481
Agreed

File: 1475352669328.jpg (33KB, 600x595px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x595px

>>62066449
>>62066477

>>62063801
Anything over 60hz is a waste. The human eye cannot see faster than 60fps.

>>62066588
good meme
checked btw

File: Selection_20170824_19:03:14.png (13KB, 444x131px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 444x131px

>>62066133

>>62066722
>Blown the fuck over one post
Did you just find out why your gpu can't output more than 240fps?

>>62066744
This is false.

>>62064101
Anything more than 60Hz is a waste for adults that don't play kiddie gaymes.

>>62063801
CS:GO meme players

>>62067275
>Not an engineer.

>>62067313
Wrong. Just the general smoothness in everything is so much better.

It's arguable whether it's worth it right now, but if the "gamer" standard becomes 480Hz and most affordable monitors start packing at least 120Hz then everyone definitely wins.

>>62063801
>>62065607

I know its a shitpost, but just pointing out, 14 frames per second is what the human brain needs to perceive motion, that said, tests have shown people to be perceptible to even 1000fps framerates.

>>62066588
t. Ubisoft PR

File: 1486471666625.jpg (40KB, 349x642px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 349x642px

>>62067377
Still no proof, only retardation and disinformation from your side.

Give me one source, one GPU spec, that says the GPU, not the monitor, not the protocol, is framerate capped. You didn't, you can't and you won't.

>>62067422
t. Nintendont Switch owner

>>62067452
The proof is in the specs young one.

>>62067422
Isn't 24FPS required for smooth motion? Otherwise the choice of framerate in the film industry seems rather arbitrary and unnecessary (since less frames = less data, less work, cheaper equipment, etc.)

>>62067461
He explicitly said
>name one GPU spec

"The spec lol" is not a valid answer to that

>>62067463
>24
>smooth
Only because your brain is accustomed to watching movies.

>>62067461
Yet you can't show it or point to it, because the claim is false.

>>62067452
Go to collage. Get a degree in electronic engineering, read specs, and pretend that you weren't the guy who was being an actual retard on /g/.

It's not 480 frames per second, it's Herz which means how many time it refreshes in a minute (gray to gray), quite impressive considering human eye cant see over 21fps.

>>62067502
Wrong.

>>62067496
>>62067493
If you don't know from reading the specs then /g/ isn't the board for you.

>>62067523
>if you don't know from reading the specs
What makes you say that? You haven't even provided the specs for me to read.

Do that then try again

>>62067523
False.

>>62067494
It's obviously not good enough for things like games, in fact including gameplay footage because
>no motion blur
>jerky movements that happen so fast that adjacent frames are different enough not to be perceived as smooth motion
But given a sequence of frames that follow each other fluidly, 24fps is very much good enough. (When was the last time you noticed the individual frames in a movie?)

>>62067516
People have said
>>62066198
and
>>62066256
And for tis guy.
>>62066233
>DP 1.3 can deliver 4k at 120Hz, so it ought to be able to deliver 1080p at 480Hz.
DP 1.3 delivers 1080p, and 1440p at 240hz max.

File: 1476315564190.jpg (69KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 480x360px

>>62067536
>>62067543
>>62067516
>>62067496
>>62067493
>>62067452
>>62067275
>>62066722
>>62066549
TROLLED HARD

>>62067313
Nope, like >>62067409 said, everything becomes smoother with more hz, it doesn't just benefit gaymers

>>62067565
Your claim was the GPU couldn't deliver. Which it can.

>>62067569
The trolls are the people who are suggesting that they can output over 240 frames with current hardware.

>>62067565
>DP 1.3 delivers 1080p, and 1440p at 240hz max.
If it has the bandwidth to deliver 120hz at 4k, it has the bandwidth to deliver 480hz at 1080p. The rest is just software.

>>62067587
A gpu can not output more than it's physically capable to anon, sorry for your ignorance. It must have been hard for you.

>>62067565
>DP 1.3 delivers 1080p, and 1440p at 240hz max.
Is this supposed to be a counter argument? Because the ability for 1440p at 240Hz only supports the claim to 1080p at 480Hz

>>62067619
>no proofs

Stay in "collage".

>>62067610
>hurr the only limiting factor is it's limiting factor.

>>62067633
>wants proof.
serious?

>>62067637
Pray tell, which part of the protocol is the one that stops it from delivering more than 240hz?

>>62067647
Sure, though I already know you have none. And I will only get an evading, non-reply to this.

>>62067648
How about it's actual specifications you moran?
Are there any gpu manufactureres who implemented an extention to current specifications for anything? Does nu/g/ need this much spoon feeding?

>>62067717
Still waiting for proofs.

>>62067658 was right

>>62067717
>How about it's actual specifications you moran?
So there isn't any actual reason it couldn't do that, in other words. The specifications are just the limit of what it's designed to do, not the limit of what it can do. And as it happens, the specifications say it has enough bandwidth to deliver 1080p video at 480Hz.

>>62067717
>>62067717
https://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalOffensive/comments/3oyilo/if_300_fps_is_better_than_144_fps_on_a_144hz/

Have a thread about people rendering CSGO at 300FPS faggot

File: 1492723740948.jpg (38KB, 462x461px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 462x461px

>>62067717

File: Screenshot_2017-08-24_10-59-47.png (102KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1680x1050px

Oldfags always act like muh sicrit club bsdfagtier muh fuck spoon feeding homos.
Please just post something instead of baiting for the sake of chat flow.

>>62066304
Yes

>>62063801
OS itself becomes a hindrance at such frame rates, any timer below 5ms is unreliable on desktop OS.

>>62067920
This shows the bandwidth limitations of DP versions, not that "GPUs are limited to 240 fps". Which is a lie BTW.

File: IMG_0687.jpg (45KB, 480x335px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 480x335px

>>62066449
But he's right. GPUs don't have fps limits or whatever you are trying to claim lmfao.

>>62067950
What port do you use that's better than display port?

>>62067920
I don't see a line for 480Hz saying "no"

>>62068013
It must be yes then.

>>62067987
you can use displayport 1.2 to output 8.000FPS at a really low res if you like. Your GPU does not limit the framerate. We have been over this.

Just say it to me: "I was wrong, you were right. Sorry for calling you a retard."

>>62068026
Different anon here (I only posted the screenshot), but it seems like you were in the wrong.

>>62068026
If you like I can say that you were in the right, but then we would both be wrong.

>>62068054
>>62068077
>Still no proof.

>>62068088
I'm just going to go. bye friend.

>>62068104
Evasion all the way huh? I'll take it, tastes sweet and salty. You were wrong, and you know it.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

AMD RX580 has a peak Pixel Fill-Rate of "Up to 42.88 GP/s". This means it can draw up to 42.88 billion pixels per second. 1920x1080 = 2073600 = 2.0736 MP; 42.88 GP / 2.0736 MP = ~20679 Hz.

DP1.4 has a throughput limit of 25.92Gbit/s. You can go higher with display stream compression. Regardless, you can do 1920x1080 at more than 240Hz, but without display stream compression you're not reaching 480Hz. Resolutions below 1080p will have an easier time making it to 480Hz.

So a modern GPU has absolutely no problem outputting >240Hz, and even the connectors support >240Hz. Why is this argument still going on?

>>62063801
To invent a use case for the 7700k? I thought 500fps CS:GO was a joke...

>>62068141
This anon needs a trip.

>>62067463
Yes 24 FPS is a high point in animation, but well before diminishing returns.

I prefer it to 60- but only if blending, tearing and smearing is used.

>>62068192
Where in dp 1.4's specs does it imply that it can output more than 240 fps?

everything is shit until 1000hz is the standard.

/thread

>>62068249
Nowhere does it say it can't.

>>62068284
So you just believe that it can output more than 240 despite the fact that dp can only output a max of 240 for 1080p, 1440p, and 4k? vesa specifications doesn't mention that at lower resolutions it can output at over 240 at any resolution, but for you it does?

>>62068249
What part of
>DP1.4 has a throughput limit of 25.92Gbit/s.
confused you?

>>62068284
DP can output 4k at 240, so why can't it out 1080p more than 240?

>>62068284
Is there such thing as an Open Source NVIDIA GPU? you have no idea how they behave. You're just talking shit.

>>62068249
Display protocols are bandwidth limited, Absolute FPS values do not matter. FPS x resolution matters. i.e. bandwidth matters. DP 1.4 has full support for 26 Gbit/s.

>>62068349
The claim was that "GPUs are limited to 240fps."

I swear everyone that is claiming +240fps is impossible is either retarded or trolling.

>>62068357
are you sure you know how bitrate works?

>>62068357
Throughput is not fps, or hertz. Why do you think that it's capable of this speed?

>>62063801
Finally, a screen for humming birds.

>>62068383
Throughput isn't the limiting factor. Why are you constantly bringing throughput up?

>>62068349
>So you just believe that it can output more than 240 despite the fact that dp can only output a max of 240 for 1080p, 1440p, and 4k?
So you just believe that half of the bandwidth becomes unusable just because it is outputting 1080? What part of the hardware causes that to happen?

>>62068416
Then what is the limiting factor, genius?

>>62068383
GPUS cannot output more than it's current hardware limitations. There is a curent hardware bottleneck.

File: 1479229313992.png (778KB, 960x1248px) Image search: [Google]

778KB, 960x1248px

>>62068249
If you understood how the bandwidth of the connection is determined you wouldn't be asking this question.

>>62068396
>Throughput is not ... hertz
What did he mean by this?

>>62068416
If the throughput isn't the limiting factor, then what is? Please give a full technical explanation of why displayport can't output more than 240Hz under any circumstances.

>>62067576
What are cores? It's a bad Moore's Joke.
But seriously, anything above 25fps is a waste, i/o and physics may need more, but for a display is useless.

>>62068384
Yes.
>>62068396
>Throughput is not fps, or hertz. Why do you think that it's capable of this speed?

1280x720 = 921600 pixels. Let's assume 10bit color depth instead of 8 for worse case scenario. That's 30 bits per pixel. 921600 x 30 = 27648000 bits. 25.92Gbit/s / 0.27648 Gbit = 937.5 Hz.

I feel like 240 htz will be my eyes limit. Any more than that and it will be placebo

File: deadpool.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>But why?
Because some people can detect flicker in an image at over 500Hz*

*James Davis (1986), "Humans perceive flicker artefacts at 500 Hz", Sci Rep, Wiley, 5: 7861, PMC 4314649Freely accessible, PMID 25644611, doi:10.1038/srep07861

>>62068467
Don't assume anything if the port itself is capped.

240 is end game
360 is placebo
480 is a waste

>>62068495
It's not capped. The fact that it can do 1440p at 240Hz is proof enough that even if it was capped, it's at such a high throughput that the cap is irrelevant for the range of this discussion.

Vesa says it can't, but anon says it can because friend plays cs:go.
I fucking love you /g/.

>>62068495
We've already determined that the GPU output is capable of well beyond what DisplayPort can signal. The DisplayPort interface is self timing, so there's no such thing as a "capped" DP port in the way that a DVI port could be limited.

>>62068525
This. You can't tell me it's worth expending twice the resources to go from 240 to 480Hz, that shit is already smooth as a baby's bottom. At that point we're talking about frame times of the order of milliseconds, which you really won't be able to tell apart in terms of input lag or whatever either.

>>62068608
>Vesa says it can't
The standard does not say it can't. It just doesn't address the issue at all.

File: mak.jpg (8KB, 200x146px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x146px

>>62068608
>Vesa says it can't
They literally don't, the only example in this thread is a table made by someone on wikipedia that simply doesn't list anything other than common display modes. VESA themselves specify only the maximum data rate the interface is capable of and a standardized method for signaling different display modes.

I would actually want to play csgo 4k@120hz

File: tumblr_inline_o2tl39my4A1qe66o3_540.png (8KB, 498x353px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 498x353px

>>62064101
Didn't they say the same about 720p too once?

>>62068705
There's clearly some hard caps at which the eye won't perceive a difference anymore. Obviously it's not the console tards "30 fps 720p" but you're delusional if you think you'll be able to perceive things smoother than ~240hz and things sharper than say, 400ppi.
In terms of raw specs, monitor improvement has to stop somewhere. Having a 16K panel at 23" running at 960Hz would be pants on head retarded no matter how far in the future you'd live.

>>62068802
>you're delusional if you think you'll be able to perceive things smoother than ~240hz
On what are you basing that, exactly?

>>62066241
that's actually true

>>62068834
Being a leader in the field of visual response testing and having read many highly credible papers on the subject.

>>62068908
That's a list of qualifications, not a basis for your claim.

>>62069011
That is alright, I merely mean to make my claim more credible.

>>62068705
hz is completely different from resolution. your eyes are unable see anything smoother than 240hz, so it's pointless.

>>62068705
While I can tell the difference in side by side, I can't really tell the difference without reference. So anything over 720p @ 60hz is only a minor improvement, but taxes the heck out of me given the added cost of better hardware and increase power consumption. It like having a 1000 hp car, never going to top it driving to work in traffic so why invest. Sure there are specialty application, I seen what artist have to do, but to the common man it is a waste, as collectively those additional cost really add up.

>>62069049
I am able to perceive more than 1000hz. Does this make me a god a mongst men?

>>62069213
just a liar

>>62069231
>just a liar
Or I'm an honest man that cannot be explained by the restraints of modern human science. Deal with it pleb.

30fps with fast logic is perfectly fine. Latency from input to display is the real problem (wich is mitiagted with faster framerates). People thinks that percivieng higher framerates makes you better, but in reality it only makes your life suck more.

File: ban.png (113KB, 812x517px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 812x517px

>>62069302
>but in reality it only makes your life suck more.
Can confirm. I play cs:go. every second feels like a minute, and every minute an hour.

>>62068475
I read through this article and I'm fairly certain they're describing flicker from low persitence displays whereas the panel in OP is a 480hz sample and hold display and thus not subject to the flicker being described in the study. In fact I looked at one of the sources linked in the study and it's comparing a sample and hold LCD to a low persistence OLED so yeah. There's no flicker on any sample and hold displays unless it's intentional by strobe backlight or PWM.

>>62068908
I can easily see motion blur at 240hz

>>62069416
That's some good anecdotal evidence but it will not beat the sheer top level experience I have in the field of human visual data processing.

>>62069447
Do you enjoy being retarded or something?

>>62069460
Well, obviously.

>>62069416
Motion blur and judder/smoothness are different things. The amount of motion blur you perceive on an image tracked by your eye is determined by the amount the persistent still image moves relative to your viewpoint and isn't tied to refresh rate if the persistence isn't equal to the frame duration such as in the case of a CRT or strobing backlight LCD.

>>62069447
Calling people out on anecdotal evidence is pointless when you provide 0 (zero) evidence yourself, though.

>>62066208
Turn on frame limiter. Your GPU is cooking itself rendering as many frames as it can when the vast majority will be dropped.

>>62068396
>amount of data per second is not fps

>>62069991
obviously it's not needed but the fps is there, just to disprove retards who think you cant get over like 200

>>62070799
What does it disprove?

>>62066477
I'm guessing you're a whopping 16 yrs old lmao.

>>62067313
60hz looks shit without vsync

>>62070827
>wah gpu cant do over 240fps

>>62070984
GPUs can do over 240 fps, but that doesn't mean you get 240 fps on screen. Who is disputing this?

ITT: thread full of retards that dont understand why we need 20khz displays

Even nVidia said it. look it up you shitlords

>>62066533
because if I remember the price right, this is sub 1000$

>>62071050
a ton of people in this thread for some reason, read it

>>62071436
>a ton of people in this thread for some reason, read it
I read it. I'm convinced that it's just 1 person with too much time.

>>62068450
Went from PS3 to 60hz in PC to 144hz. No way you said this seriously, there's no way I'm going back to the 30fps. I REALLY feel the difference between the 60hz in my phone and the 144hz display. You troll.

>>62064250
but we need to record porn at 480fps with those expensive slow-mo cameras

>>62067494
no, its because with the film they exposed it for a while so any motion had a blur masking the low fps.

and yes, 14fps is around where the average human will stop seeing the animation as motion, and instead see it as a slideshow.

for interactive media, you perceive the motion far easier up to higher fpses whereas with just watching video its not exactly the most easy thing to see.

>>62068246
diminishing returns happens somewhere between 144 and 240fps as the ms that the frame is on screen as 60fps is 16.6 and 144 is 6.9,

however 240 is 4.1, to be the same difference as 60-144 it would need to be around 320-350 fps

funny, the jump from 240 to 480 IS almost as big a leap as 60 to 144

granted these are all% based,

you are looking at the difference of
10ms
3ms
and
2ms
for 60-144, 144-240, and 240-480, that first jump from 60-144 is fucking massive, but the next is about 1/3 as big, and the one after that is 1/5ht as big a jump.

That said, for desktop use, as in moving files and folders around, 240 would be fucking amazing, having had a 60 and 144 side by side the difference is fucking stupidly big., im guessing at least with moving the mouse and files it would be very noticeable.

>>62063801
>
gamerz

>>62067619
They're not running 1080 for the 480hz kit though, they're running like 900p or some weird arbitrary resolution to accommodate for the lacking bandwidth in the monitor, and I believe they're using dual display port input to further resolve bandwidth issues, so your point is moot. It's the output standard that is hindering the frame output to a physical medium and not the GPU or its physical processing capabilities.

>>62064142
>One panel, 480 hz, which is 240hz for each eye.
I can see it.

>>62064166
I had the menu on space engineers hit something ridiculous around 900 fps with vsync disabled and got GPU coil whine while it was happening.

>>62066208
>>62066310
/g/ is so fucking stupid sometimes. Your GPU is rendering 1000 frames per second, it is outputting whatever your refresh rate is set to. Assuming you have a 1080p monitor, the best you could do over displayport 1.4 is roughly 512fps.

>>62066208
That would help me a lot with the gate skip.

>>62066534
fps_max 0 in the CS GO console, bud

>>62071729
>It's the output standard that is hindering the frame output to a physical medium and not the GPU or its physical processing capabilities.
Holy fuck. Am I reading this right? What the fuck are you trying to say with this?
>it's not the gpu, but it's the thing on the gpu?
So are you admitting that you are wrong, or are you you finding ways to pretend that you are right?

>>62068226
bro I get like 170-300 fps on CS GO on a 650 ti boost and an i5... it will run on anything

>>62073471
That would be for DP1.3 (4k@120hz == 1080p@480hz in bandwidth)
DP1.4 has HBR, which is supposed to be 3:1, so theoretically you could get 1080p/8bit/1440hz

>>62067313
My (fairly educated) opinion in this matter is the golden frequency is 75-80Hz. 80Hz to be certain. t. long time CRT user.

>>62073631
Work on your reading comprehension faggot.

>>62063848
>vidya
Human eye can't see a difference above 100fps, nor can a human body react that fast. Anything above 60fps is a meme, but higher frame rate looks smoother. The thing is there's a limit and I'm pretty sure it's far below 480fps.

>>62074009
Depends on your eyes. I can see individual frames when i play fast paced arena shooters.

>>62073631
He made a clusterfuck of a post, but the GPU hardware (pixel fillrate) isn't a limitation here, see >>62068192

You'd have to go back to the GeForce 4 days to have the pixel fillrate be an actual hard limit for refresh rate. The 480 Hz limitation on the monitor itself is from the maximum horizontal scan rate of the controller board; 276 kHz according to the designer. As for DisplayPort, the only time the DP 1.2 connection used for this monitor is a limit is when going over 60 Hz at 3840x2160 which requires a second connection. There is more than enough bandwidth for the lower resolution/high refresh rate modes with a single cable, as 960x540 at 480 Hz requires only half the bandwidth of 4k60.

I'm not sure why people try to argue there's some GPU or DP related limitation to getting high refresh rates when the monitor exists and has been tested already.

>>62073810
It was an incredibly poorly written post.

>>62063801

Accurately capturing super fast motion (ie not gayming)

>>62074232
You don't capture shit with a monitor, you doofus.

The human eye can't even register anything beyond 3.5GB, anyway.

>>62074321

If you want to witness it in real-time it is.

The applications for that are extremely niche.

>>62074357
Literally no one that can film at 400+ frames per second watch it at full speed. There is literally no use case for it.

File: ___.jpg (140KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1080x1080px

>>62074009

>nor can a human body react that fast
You will react relative to the time of a stimulus, regardless of how slow your reactions are

>Thing happens at 0ms
>Person 1 gets an output at 7ms (144hz)
>Person 1 has a reaction time of 200ms and shoots at 207.0ms
>Person 2 gets an output at 16.7ms (60hz)
>Person 2 has a reaction time of 200ms and shoots at 216.7ms
>Person 2 is already dead

Unless bullet travel is >9.6ms, high refresh does matter.
>Assuming that input lag is lower or equal.
>Assuming that network latency is lower or equal and/or has a compensation system

>>62074009
>Human eye can't see a difference above 100fps
FALSE

>>62074864

Still matters with a long bullet travel; just means you'll both be dead and one person has a more relaxed window to react.

>>62074864
>you will never fuck a girl in her private school uniform

why. even. live.

>>62074009
If you think anything above 60hz is a meme then I doubt you ever got to play on a 144hz monitor. Either that or you are blind

>>62074864
Network lag wouldn't overlap and cancel out the refresh rate like input lag does. You would add any network lag on top of your relfexes

>>62074864
Is this what euro dentistry looks like?

File: pls no triangulate.png (92KB, 713x809px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 713x809px

>>62074864
>>62075030

d-did I die boys?