>>743278870
You unironically don't need more than 60hz

That's what motion blur is for. Don't propagate the degenerate term "insane". Psychology is worthless.

>increase the load on your gpu 10 times for a barely noticeable difference
BUY BUY BUY

I sincerely, honestly cannot tell the difference past 120
I bought three OLED 240hz monitors and they're phenomenal but if you put it up against my 120hz TV in the living room I could probably barely tell the difference
At 180hz versus 240hz, just forget it
The thing is the faster these get, the difference just drops like a rock. When you jump from 30 to 60 fps, that's another frame every 16 ms instead of every 33ms, massive difference
240hz versus 480hz is a difference of 2 ms. A blink is 100ms

>>743278870
wow this nigga running at 300 mph

Its not "Do I need this" its "Can I reasonably afford this". If your choises are a number and a several times bigger number why choose the first option?

>>743278938
fuckin console tier poorfag retard

the best use for +200fps i've found is that i don't notice unstable framerates when things get hectic or a game is unoptimized

>>743280624
True, I've actually bought thousands of dollars of plywood from Home Depot because I'm not poor. I just leave it in my backyard as a flex

>>743278938
i bet you're a brazillian with some shit laptop

>>743278938
This, any higher is usually uncanny, ends up having a cheap feel to it and can even make some people feel sick. Hard to explain.

>>743278870
I don't notice much difference if any after hitting 100. Unironically that 75~ range is perfect for me, because even if I can't notice much change as it gets higher, I absolutely notice when it drops 30 frames, even if it's running at 150 before it does.

>>743278870
The difference between 240hz and 120hz is definitely noticeable but not as big as 60hz and 120hz. IMO 120hz is good enough, and 60hz is borderline unplayable.

>>743280624
Diminishing returns.
I could buy a 4K display, but the improvement is not worth the extra cost over a 1080p display.

It's not "can I afford this" it's "is the difference worth the money?"
The answer has been "no" since 2014, if not earlier.

>>743281695
4k displays are like $300. Are you really that poor?

>>743281774
But to actually run things in 4K you need more than a display. 4K will be more taxing on my PC than 1080p, so I'd have to buy new parts to run it comfortably.

Is all of that worth it for a marginal bump in fidelity?
No.
Even if I had more money than I knew what to do with, the answer would still be no.

>>743278870
only for competitive games

>>743281976
That's fair I guess. I have a 5090 and 4k oled and it's great. Would never go back.

>>743278870
now lets see this in real time
oh wait