Sorry, kiddos it is entirely a placebo effect. Outside of smoother animation and screen-panning. There's no meaningful difference between 60FPS and 144FPS in gaming.
Netcode and latency have a far greater impact at response time in MP.
> Been gaming at with ~24, 60, 100, 144, 200FPS for years.
The whole more FPS = better experience! meme came from Quake 1-3 engines where basic code for physics was tied to framerate. People running at a higher framerate could jump further, higher and faster (It is small, but noticeable difference).
This issue doesn't exist on modern engines so there's no real tangible benefit from running games at ultra-high framerates aside from smoother screen-panning/face-paced animation.
Protip: The human body has always been the biggest bottleneck at latency and response times. Why do you think stimulant-abuse is so rampant in the esports world?
Like I said > Been gaming at with ~24, 60, 100, 144, 200FPS for years. There's no difference. It's placebo combined with post purchase rationalization.
I literally cant notice the difference because the nerve connecting my eyes and my brains is damaged (since birth) so there's a slight delay in what I see.
Grayson Clark
this. there is clearly a difference, its easy to tell just by moving a cursor around.
Brayden Jones
You are a blind troll then.
Austin Ward
>flick mouse cursor across screen at 60hz >can easily see the individual frames
Nathan Cruz
this. have your display options open, move your mouse around and windows then switch to 60hz. complete difference and i was actually considering going back to 60hz... looks like i'll splash the money for 165hz 1440p ips
Kayden Sanders
I'd take higher resolution over higher refresh rate anyday
Ian Cruz
>Outside of the whole reason to get one, there's no reason to get one
lol
Jeremiah Perry
>muh gaymen monitorz Motion blur is caused by pixel response time and panel input latency. If you have the same input lag and the same pixel latency and their phase is 0, you'll always have a sharp image. You can have sharp images at 12 24 50 60 or even 240 fps/hz. Same shit applies to movies and tvs, input lag and pixel response time is manipulated in a way to remove all motion blur, even if the movie is at 24 fps. After that, it only matters the capture medium, which if it has similar problems it causes additional motion blur in the movie. Gpus do no know what's the inermediate, they only send one frame and then the next. If the previous frame is stuck on the pixels while the next is drawn, you will get pixel blur.
All aging monitors, even the most expensive ones from eizo get motion blur eventually, because pixels age and respond in greater latency in their colour changes. Motion blur has nothing to do with the monitor's refresh rate.
Samuel Perez
I have a 2ms tn panel at 60hz. Which category do I fit in?
Jack Ortiz
>Outside of smoother animation and screen-panning. >Outside of the whole reason to buy them there are no reasons to buy them Great thread OP, I feel enlightened with this new knowledge.
>its a placebo >but there's a noticeable difference in certain instances
Don't use words you don't understand.
Nathaniel Edwards
ITT: Someone who's lying about using anything higher than 60hz or is fucking blind.
David Morales
It doesn't help that Bethesda has movement tied to frames in games like Fallout 4 so better framerate = faster sprinting. Sloppy as fuck and made for a lot of framerate fix mods since any stuttering during a sprint would slow you down. Pretty sure it's been patched, but I know some speed runners use older versions specifically for that on systems capable of high framerates (that, and punch warp, cover slide, and infinite buy credit glitches present in earlier builds)
So yeah, some gamers think high framerates = better game for valid reasons due to lazy fucking devs, but it is otherwise a placebo above 60FPS
