Are high refresh rate monitors a joke or do they actually improve reaction time?

Are high refresh rate monitors a joke or do they actually improve reaction time?

Other urls found in this thread:

frames-per-second.appspot.com/
techpowerup.com/227606/benq-announces-the-zowie-xl2540-e-sports-gaming-monitor
hardforum.com/threads/benq-xl2411t-scanlines-120-hz.1765487/
rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?87097-Asus-PG248q-moving-artifacts-Scan-Lines
youtube.com/watch?v=hjWSRTYV8e0
techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/monitors-and-projectors/monitors/asus-ml249h-972118/review
prad.de/new/monitore/test/2011/test-asus-ml249h-teil6.html#Helligkeit
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

...

the human eye cannot process more than 24 fps. any 30 fps will do. standard is 60 and its overkill.

This is still very much technology related.

>24 fps

Then why can the human eye see the difference between 30 to 60 fps?

Not necessarily, but they do reduce input lag if you have the hardware.

not a meme at all when playing competitive shooters. It is kind of mandatory tbqh.
Even playing other fps @ 144hz will be more enjoyable and immersive

Anything even remotely related to video games triggers Sup Forums. Probably due to the overlap of Sup Forums and Sup Forums crossposters.

you are still limited by your own skill

at least it looks nicer

Bullshit AND shitty bait.

I NEED A SCIENTISTS

IS THIS A MEME OR WHAT

24 fps is the minimum a video can be to give the illusion of full motion video.

There's definitely a difference between 30 fps and 60 fps but I just don't think it's worth the price to bother with anything over 60Hz at this point in time.

Any real PC store worth their salt will have one set up with a couple games for you to judge yourself. The short answer: yes, they make a world of different for twitch-based shooters. They look nice too.

The human eye can most definitely see and process more than 24 fps, but this is b8 anyway

as for whether or not a 120/144hz monitor will actually do you any good in gaming, the average human reaction time is 250 milliseconds and a single 60fps frame is 16.6 milliseconds, so make of that what you wish

12 fps*

Less motion blur allows you to 'see more' and it makes the game smoother.

It's not mandatory to play at a high skill level but it's something pros use when trying to eliminate every possible bottleneck.

Get better at whatever competitive shooter game you play, if you feel the need to get a 144Hz monitor, by all means do so, just don't expect your skill level to improve overnight.

t. Top 500 OW US player

Dude ...
>frames-per-second.appspot.com/

>Top Overwatch anything
why should OP listen to your pleb ass?

High fps isn't for blur reduction in competitive environments.

It looks a lot nicer than 60hz, idk if it actually helps your reaction time tho

I'd recommend they are cheap now.

stop this fucking meme
retards are actually believing it

I have a 2k gsync at 144hz with a 980ti and my god it makes games like the Witcher 3 look amazing. I have a 4k too, not g-sync, and while 4k monitor has better resolution the 2k gsync looks smoother and crisper. It is amazing to look at.

This other day I was playing NetHack on my brothers gaming rog 144 monitor and I honestly saw no difference. I think its just one of those gaming jew memes.

Why do modern gamers just parrot garbage? I'm curious what started this shit about refresh rates not mattering for competitive.

99% of gamers dont play competitively, they grind their pretty numbers in matchmaking and think they dont need good setups because they managed to get to the higher ranks of the lowest level of play

jesus fuck stop spreading this fucking meme

It's more than that. Everything about PC since the mid 2000s has just been in decline. Guess you could say that about video game in general.

The frequency I see comments about high fps not mattering is really odd. It's that kind of comment and the shitty gaymer headphone comments I notice the most being parroted.

>improve reaction time
What does that have to do with anything?

They just look much much better, you don't realize how 'framey' 60fps looks until you see 140> hz with your own eyes - it can't really be explained until you see for yourself.

They are worth it if you game however it gets to the point of diminishing returns real fast.
I went from a 60hz to a 75hz freesync monitor and the difference was quite noticeable. I then upgraded to one of those 21:9 gsync capable ultrawdies, jumping from 75 to 100hz the difference was quite large
I then tried out 144hz after being used to 100hz and there was fuck all difference between that and 100hz

This has been more or les as a result of the xbox360 and ps3 starting to show their age after a couple of years and the current gen of consoles not being up to par, so fanbois and game publishers have been spreading the meme that framerate and resolution don't matter

Because game graphics quality has reached a point where the hardware is too expensive to keep up so console manufacturers have cut down on power sol they can sell their consoles for under $500, but game developers still want to have the best looking game they can.

So they either sacrifice frame rate or sacrifice resolution to make this happen.

Some people prefer better quality graphics and resolution over maintaining a decent frame rate and other people vice versa so there is this constant debate.

No. Video game companies have just gone to shit because the consumers pay for it.

Games on consoles are still 720p.... 7 fucking 20 p in 2016.

The problem is Sony and Microsoft spend money on shit like facebook buttons, streaming features, and other bullshit instead of just making a powerful console. And modern gamers can't get enough of it.

I don't want to link the replies that are true, so I'll just copy/paste them for emphasis.

>Not necessarily, but they do reduce input lag if you have the hardware.
(assuming this poster means your computer can actually push 144 frames per second, which is mandatory for getting the full benefit of 144hz)

>not a meme at all when playing competitive shooters.
>Even playing other fps @ 144hz will be more enjoyable and immersive

>you are still limited by your own skill
>at least it looks nicer

>don't expect your skill level to improve overnight

Regards,
A baddie with a 144hz monitor

The human eye can see a lot. The human brain disregards it.

But the brain notices changes in frame rates. This is why solid thirty fps is better than jerky 60fps.

If you're not gonna play games there is no real meaning in buying anything above 60Hz.

>This is why solid thirty fps is better than jerky 60fps.

>this is what people with dementia believe

I actually saw a marketed improvement in "skill"

But i had a 10ms delay gateway poorfag monitor, locked at 60hz.

Keep in mind you have to use DVI duel link for it to work at 1080p

When playing The Witcher 3 I instantly notice my fps drop when I'm in Novigrad, from solid 60 (v-sync) down to approximately 45~ish on ultra.

Ahove 60Hz monitors can be cool, but be prepared to always have top tier premium cards etc to actually make use of it or play older games.

It all depends man.

For online shooters, like CS:GO, you dont need top tier shit to get it around 144hz, yet it really helps. Worse comes to worse you drop the graphics.

Fir cinematic games, where that twich movement is not needed, yeah, lock that shit to 60 and crank the graphics.

Yeah, hence my inclusion of 'Older games'

Despite CS:GO being 'recent' it's just a graphical update of a graphical update really.

>reaction time

Don't know about that but they certainly look better.

Thanks, I'll use this to collect (You)'s in future.

One of my best purchase decisions. Wish I had done it a long time ago. Even just casually hovering your mouse around on the screen is noticeable, but I'm also real picky. 60 fps looks sluggish now.

t. placebo effect

Bait is bad. Try harder. ^_^

Protip, if you want to get good, use a fucking CRT monitor with High Hz tolerance.

I regularly go toe to toe with the top 0.5-1% of players on planetside 2 with 60fps and depreciated hardware.

I'd see the greatest gain from 144hz.

Get your skill up first, then when you want to really push it, when you're kill trading with opponents at the highest brackets, then consider exausting every possible option.

higher number of frames per second = less time inbetween frames
theres still displaylag in everything that isnt a CRT, but the time between frames being reduced greatly improves the smoothness
1000 ms / 60 fps = 16,67 ms between frames
1000 ms /120 fps = 8,33 ms between frames

if you dont know how much 1 ms is keep in mind that ping (latency) in online videogames is shown in miliseconds

>CRT
>good

Enjoy your blurry and washed out image

>blurry
>at 0.25mm pitch
lmao
>set non-standard resolution on LCD/LED panel
>blurry shitty scaling and bad quality
>set non-standard resolution on CRT
>perfect scaling, looks like native res

>analog
>not blurry

>he thinks digital input makes thing sharper
did you buy your VGA cable for 2 bucks on chinatown ? theres technically no limit to the quality of analog input other than the quality of the cable

>tfw this is coming out soon
techpowerup.com/227606/benq-announces-the-zowie-xl2540-e-sports-gaming-monitor

Do agree with the gains, but purchasing because of advantages isn't the only reason you'd wanna upgrade; it truly does revitalize your old games.

It's not just the refresh rate. The higher refresh rate sets higher requirements for pixel response times. High refresh rate with slow pixel response times just makes the image smooth but blurrier which isn't helpful. Input lag is at least equally important, more so if we are talking about reaction times where any delay is just added overhead. Get all of these three well and you have a nice monitor for fast paced games.

ULMB is amazing stuff for the pixel response times btw, at least on IPS screens which are slower than TN. I have a PG279Q which can do 165 Hz with G-Sync but I keep using it at 120 Hz with no G-Sync to use ULMB when playing something competitive. The reduction in blur is far more important to me than G-Sync and refresh rates above 120 Hz, provided that I can actually run the game at above 120 FPS and preferably a lot higher to minimize the latency added by out of sync frame buffer and display refresh rate.

Does that monitor also have issues with scanlines (or whatever they are called) becoming visible at 120 - 144 hz? That stripey pattern.

Scanlines on a TFT? None that I've noticed and nothing that could be described as scanlines. I previously used a BenQ XL2420T which didn't have any either. What exactly do you mean by these "scanlines"?

Are you perhaps talking about tearing?

>tfw my reaction time is 150ms
>tfw I can react faster than pro players
>tfw really high ranking in Starcraft/csgo/LeL
>tfw they accuse me of cheating and report me for it every other game
>tfw I'm just gud
Git gud.

No, it's not tearing.

The whole area of the monitor is divided into alternating brighter and darker horizontal lines, sometimes rolling up and down.

I think these guys are describing the issue:
hardforum.com/threads/benq-xl2411t-scanlines-120-hz.1765487/
rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?87097-Asus-PG248q-moving-artifacts-Scan-Lines
Apparently lots of monitors with a certain panel have that issue, or maybe high refresh rate monitors in general.

It's subtle but enough to be annoying. It's also very hard to see on photos. With my own eyes it's very clearly visible but my camera doesn't pick it up.
I have it with the asus mg248q.
Just wondering if other people have that / know about that problem.

The human eye can't see

Apparently some people can't tell the difference and some can. To me, 144hz is much smoother. You kind of get used to it, though, and the wow factor dies off in the first month. It's worth noting that any frames higher than the refresh rate of your monitor don't matter in terms of how smooth a game is. Higher refresh rates don't improve your reaction time. The response time is what you want to look at for that. Some consider TN panels better for gaming because they can have a response time that's as low as 1ms while an IPS offers better color reproduction at the cost of response time. My Dell U2412M has an 8ms response time and I found it very difficult to game on. 7ms doesn't sound like a big difference, but I was doing noticeably poorer in shooters while using it. See if a friend has a 144hz monitor and get him to let you try it before you spend the momey. It would suck if you bought one and saw no difference. If you don't notice a big difference, get a 4K monitor as long as your hardware can handle the high resolution.

The human eye can't see more than 17 frames per second.

Try looking at the sun while blinking.

>It's worth noting that any frames higher than the refresh rate of your monitor don't matter in terms of how smooth a game is.
HOL UP
youtube.com/watch?v=hjWSRTYV8e0

>You kind of get used to it, though, and the wow factor dies off in the first month
Yeah but going back to 60 Hz makes it look stuttery, almost like something is wrong once you've gotten accustomed to a higher refresh rate.
>Higher refresh rates don't improve your reaction time.
It does tie into that but loosely. More frames a second, less time waiting for the next frame to draw. If your monitor can't refresh in sync with frame buffer, this effect is emphasized.
>The response time is what you want to look at for that.
The total amount of display lag is what you look here. This includes pixel transition time(often one transition instead of G2G) so half of the response time with signal processing lag.

An example. Let's say you have a non G-Sync/Freesync monitor which has a refresh rate of 60 Hz. The panel is fast, with G2G measured around 4ms across the panel and signal processing lag is very small at just 1ms. Since for displaying an image you just need one transition, we halve the response time and add that to the signal processing lag of 1ms. This totals a (4/2ms+1ms)3ms total display lag for any image sent to the monitor. However, as the panel is only 60 Hz and is not synchronized with the frame buffer, you might be waiting for the next refresh up to 16,6ms. Now if you had a higher refresh rate monitor like 120 Hz, this overhead caused by an out of sync monitor refresh would be smaller. With synced we eliminate practically all of that.

...

...

I have a 120hz monitor, $60 sennheiser headphones with the bass turned off through EQ, an imo1.1a, shitty keyboard, and also modded my cvars. Consistently get banned within 30 minutes on most fps servers, key/guid banned from 99% of cod4, 70% of cod4 promod for example. It's also really more about tactics over trying to make up for failing to have any with "high end gaming gear". it's true that you'd probably be statistically better off with it but you can do better tactics for free

Shit just got real.
No matter how much you think you know, there's someone who knows more.

All that matters is the panels response time.
>getting banned in cod4 is an achievement
It's as irreverent as ever, especially considering the only servers left are run by slavs.

High refresh rates only really matter in twitch shooters and racing games, but you notice a difference in other kinds of games as well. Just remember that 30fps is cinematic :^)

Thread seems relevant. I have a dual monitor setup. One is a 1080p 144, the other is 1680x1050 portrait mode for reading vertical websites.
When I got the 144 I thought I would notice the difference but I can't really. I have a 1070. Whether my eyes are fucked or not-I probably wouldn't be able to tell in a blind test.
I was thinking of upgrading to something else. Anyone here have an ultrawide? What's been your experience with that, especially if you were transitioning back from 144, or from a dual monitor setup?

If you are playing fast paced games especially at a competitive level it makes a significant difference.

>benq

The only way to know is to see it yourself. Go to Best Buy, they'll have a 24" 144hz setup somewhere and see it yourself.

144hz looks much smoother, even on the desktop the mouse looks more fluid and windows and such slide around the screen, 60hz looks choppy to me now.

I overclocked my old korean PLS to 100hz and even with just an extra 40hz it's a noticeable difference.

oh, but I wouldn't say it gives you better reaction time, however it is much easier to track motion on screen, it is just an overall improvement for videogames.

Reminds me a lot of what it was like to use really high refresh rates on CRT monitors back in my counter-strike days. 1024x768 @ 160hz, 100 pound CRT, those were the days.

They make it look better

That's all

You didn't change to 144 in your monitor did ya

Some can see 180fps if they're trained for it and expecting it

Keep it going retards are actually believing this

I'm pretty much your armchair expert which got all of his info from reading thorough monitor reviews online and understanding rather basic stuff about technology behind them. Go to TFTcentral and read their reviews properly. So well that you understand each and every measurement they conduct and graph they provide to truly assess the performance of a display.

Nice video, clearly explained too. This is a very noticeable thing once you've gotten really accustomed to your game and mouse movement in it. I always wanted to go way higher than the refresh rate for two reasons. Number one being the fact that I can't use G-Sync with the monitor settings I have so I don't want the displayed frames to be variably delayed because of out of sync monitor refresh vs framebuffer. And number two is to avoid any possibility of the frame rate dropping below monitor refresh rates which causes noticeably visual stutter which is at least equally disorienting as uneven frame times.

For an untrained eye and especially for someone who doesn't play fast paced stuff and have gotten really used to the setup at hand it isn't always very apparent. I did a simple test with my normie friends who had never used a monitor above 60 Hz or even seen one in person. They didn't notice anything when I was switching between different refresh rates and moving windows around/playing a game but this changed once I let them try and switched the refresh rate on the fly without telling them what it was changed to. Both instantly commented how much smoother the "other" setting felt like which was 144 Hz compared to the 60 Hz.

Frames per second is a poor unit of measurement for human eye as it works fundamentally in a different way. We're also concerned about not just the clear visual impact but rather the feel of controlling something which is being refreshed on a high refresh rate monitor. Hand-eye coordination of sorts.

>which is mandatory for getting the full benefit of 144hz
Unless you have g sync (which is usually only in 144hz monitors already)
I don't know if any of my games can hit 144hz at 1440p but g sync makes anything from 40-140fps look good

I agree completely though, consistency is what matters. On my games than can just barely keep up 60fps, when it starts stuttering I would really rather have a problem-free console experience

>tfw movies are still recorded in 24fps because every frame costs the studio money for the actors and this is the only concept to keep the costs low

You can get 144fps in CSGO on a fucking laptop

us military found humans can accurately determine things shown to them at 300fps, this isn't a what we can perceive, its being shown something for 1/300th a second and accurately recounting what it was, the limit of our perception is though to be somewhere around 500fps unless you are physically disabled.

EASILY perceivable, had a 144 and a 60 side by side, moved a window around on the 144, smooth, went to the 60 thinking it would be similar... holy shit was it always that choppy? go to another computer, yes it is that choppy and i'm just use to it. fucking hell does over 60fps make everything better.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now as for op, what you want is free/g sync over framerate, as what makes a game feel better is the moment you move the mouse the person moves on screen, not you are waiting for frames, your gpu pushes a frame, it dispalys a frame if its not, it holds off, this makes even sub 30fps feel as good as over 100,

fps = looks
frames display when ready = feel

the human eye in the focus point procces arround 24 fps thats true, pheriferical vison can process fast;

he 24fps displayed by the pc are no sync with the eye,

that reason why we need the more fps we can; arround 60+ is ok the more fps the better.
thats theathering effect.

Going from 1.7ms latency of "frame wait" to .7ms isn't what makes 144hz feel better than 60hz, in that case ULMB wouldve fixed all your problems. G sync prevents the irregularities from happening and also syncs the initializing cycle with the last frame output, but the latter isn't a g-sync/freesync only thing

I'm looking at a few monitors atm

Basically I'm torn between:

>Nicer monitor I've looked at in-store that has Freesync for my rx 480 at 60hz and supports 60hz freesync. 4ms response

>Alright monitor that is 144hz with no freesync that has a few negative reviews on needing tweaking with colors to make it more accurate. Have only seen it online. 1ms response.

Both are identical otherwise with IPS, 1920x1080, screen size, LED, and the mounts ability to position the monitor.

Is Freesync better than having higher refresh?

Nah man, you can have both frame rate and good graphics if you actually spend the time into use the hardware (any hardware) well the problem is devs being lazy and hardware sellers needing games that "push" new graphic cards. Also devs instead of making the program more efficient they can say man you need at least 16gb of ram so upgrade your rig

you never want ANY motion blur, as for free/g sync, it holds displaying frames till the gpu is ready, if you ever felt mouse delay in a game, this fixes it entirely, it has a side benefit of killing screen tearing which they push as the main benefit.


every number on the box is a fucking lie, every god damn one of them.

contrast > fps =/= free/g sync >>>> resolution >> ips

Now, contrast is the number 1 thing that improves how a monitor looks, you want it to be at least 1000:1/1:1000 i forget the way that number works, some monitors go up to 1:5000 but the best in your price range will likely at best be 1:3000

after this, fps is the second biggest thing, if you game, free/g sync is, make sure it has a low bottom out and can hit monitors max refresh rate, i have access to one that advertises 30 as its bottom but continues to work into the high teens, this EASILY makes a game playable that would otherwise feel like absolute shit. if you cant have both, pick the one for your normal task, don't let 60 with a sync be an option.

after this resolution, I will tell you now, 1440p looks no different then 1080p in motion, it is a hardware based AA pass, the only reason to go for a higher then 1080p resolution is if you are also getting a monitor that still falls in the 80-120 dpi range, as this is the sweet spot. and yes its a sweet spot, if you see jaggies in text get your nose off the glass

finally, the issue of tn v ips. have access to one of the best ips monitors currently for computers outside of pro 10bit full adobe rgb screens. I can tell you this, a shitty tn looks like shit, a good one looks like low end ips, and ips have the same shit viewing angles that tn's do, they just don't invert the color at a far enough angle, they still have the if not looking dead on, its lighter or darker depending on angle, and to me that is damning.

color inaccuracies are largely ignorable, get the sync + fps + contrast over ips.

You can see a difference outside of games.
You may notice a difference while playing games.
You likely don't have a computer that can consistently render >120/144 frames per second though.
Variable refresh rate monitors will give you a MUCH greater visual improvement when it comes to motion quality.

>contrast is the number 1 thing that improves how a monitor looks,
Wrong. My 4000:1 static contrast MVA monitor is nothing compared to my rMBP with a ~1000:1 ratio or my 5k iMac's screen which has slightly over 1000:1, both of which are IPS.

happen to know the model numbers on the mva screen?

oh, and the imacs 5k screen is 1,229:1

reason I ask is I never seen a screen benchmarked that was 4000~ only seen the sub 1000, the 1000 range is most common and is give and take 20% some via panel that is 3000:1 and a benq that is 5000:1

It just feels better to do anything. Using my 55Hz refresh rate laptop leaves my eyes in discomfort after using 144Hz for a year.

It was some ASUS shit. I don't even know who owns the monitor anymore since I gave it to my sister and she gave it to her friend, but that friend now has my Qnix monitor.

techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/monitors-and-projectors/monitors/asus-ml249h-972118/review

I'm pretty sure it was this though. It was 3000:1, sorry. Still looked worse than my rMBP for the bit of time I had them side by side back in 2014. Even the blacks looked better on the rMBP.

found a review for that monitor that isnt a fucking press release.

prad.de/new/monitore/test/2011/test-asus-ml249h-teil6.html#Helligkeit

the average contrast of that monitor is around 800.

EVERY NUMBER ON THE BOX LIES, there is not one fucking spec of truth outside of resolution and display type, thanks to come companies even how many inches it is is a fucking lie

you went from an 800:1 contrast ratio monitor to a 1229:1 contrast ratio.

If you get 144hz you will notice when you go back to 60 and not be able to stand it.

>reaction going from 60hz to 144hz

computer feels smooth and responsive, cursor looks like it's cut out of paper and "glides" over the screen.

movement in 3D applications feels a lot more life-like

>going from 144hz to 60hz

input lag, stutter, "removed" feel