I just realized that my screen has been at 59.94 Hz for the entire time that I've owned it. Is it worth bumping it up to 75?
>>101572588The difference is unnoticeable comparing 75 hz to 59.94 hz
>>101572606What about 144Hz? Can the human eye even see that? People in the PC building general kept telling me that I needed to get a better monitor, but I like this one.
>>101572619This limit varies from person to person, but on average, the human eye can detect light at frequencies up to around 60 Hz, with some individuals able to perceive frequencies as high as 90 Hz.
>>101572619>What about 144Hz? Can the human eye even see that?yes of course. drag a bright white window across a dark desktop at a high resolution and you will instantly distinguish between 144 hz and 240 hz. lower refresh is even worse
>>101572619yeah, haven't tested 240hz monitors yet but 120+ is pretty damn good
>>101572606No, it's a pretty obvious difference if you are used to playing something at 75hz. >>101572619On sample&hold monitors, you can see motion blur until thousands of herz. Phantom array effects are also visible to 10,000hz and beyond.
>>101572619The human eye can't see more than 50Hz, you should lower the refresher.
>>101572588yes of course>>101572606wrong, it's a 25% increase>>101572619it's very noticeable up to 360Hz, after that you get diminishing returns>>101572636the human eye can't see more than 30 fps broyou have 2 eyes so that means 60 fps is the limit :)
>>101572619Just go to a store and try it out for yourself if you have a Micro Center or Best Buy close to you. Even my boomer mom notices the jump from 60 to 144hz when scrolling through text webpages. >>101573504>>101572636This bait got old like 8 years ago
>>10157260660hz to 72hz or 75hz is just good enough to mitigate some mouse cursor ghosting on poorfag panels. So, you're wrong.
>>101573547So I should switch it? It feels a bit smoother, but that might just be a placebo.
>>10157356360hz to 72/75hz is absolute must if you have nothing else. At low refresh, you need every bit of help. However there is no difference from 120hz to 144hz, or 144hz to 165hz. You basically need to double to get noticeable results.
>>101572588Yes. I mean you can test it yourself set it to 75 Hz and then do something that moves your entire screen at the same time like scrolling a text or website.Try it with 60 and 75 you should notice that the 75 is a bit more fluid. Motion is perceived by people as fluidity. Looking at a 30 60 90 120 240 480 screen static you obviously won't see shit but do a scrolling test side by side and it's VERY NOTICABLE.You have a phone right, most phones are 120 Hz these days and most people scroll on phones. Setting phones to 60 feels like your phone became laggy.
>>10157258860 Hz non-interlaced is the standard
>>101572606found the retard
>>101572619If you can actually see the difference between 60hz and 144hz you'd be able to tell that almost every single LED bulb flickers on/off at 60hz with the power grid.If you can't see LED bulbs flickering, you're not gonna notice much of a difference
>>101573956I've never noticed that with LED bulbs, guess I have slow brain.
>>101573973Most people genuinely can't notice, which is why LED bulbs are so prevalent nowadays despite the fact they flicker at 60hz.People who claim to be able to need 144hz but can't see the flickering lightbulbs are just lying to themselves.
I can see significant gains up to 240hz, probably beyond that too, just never personally seen anything higher than that
https://www.testufo.com/framerates#count=6&background=stars&pps=960This needs to be posted every time this topic comes up.
Recently had a problem with my monitor wanting to run at 59.951hz which caused it to drop a frame and then show two at once every minute or so. Used CRU to force it to run at flat 60.000hz. Fucking Dell.Even though it was a hardware incompatibility or something, that last 00.049hz made an astronomical difference.
>>101572619Sure. Scientific experiments indicate that if colors are massively contrasting each other, the average person can see something like 400-500 hz. (I forgor the exact number.)
>>101574060Useful. thanks
>59.94>60
>>101573535>Even my boomer mom notices the jump from 60 to 144hz when scrolling through text webpages.Would not trust these companies to not set up monitors at shit frame rates to get you to buy the more expensive thing.We're at that level of trust as a society. Don't ever trust them.
You fucking retards with too much confidence.I'd almost never recommend 75Hz. One reason it may pop up is that it's one of the basic VESA display standards. I've had a monitor that could accept the signal but still refresh internally at 60Hz.But even if it's native, 75Hz does not divide well into 30, so you're gonna have a lot of issues with jitter on a composited display.On the other hand, European music videos at 25 FPS will play perfectly.https://files.catbox.moe/nevb5b.webm
