What's new
  • Please do not post any links until you have 3 posts as they will automatically be rejected to prevent SPAM. Many words are also blocked due to being used in SPAM Messages. Thanks!

Get that refresh rate up.

clshades

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
2,870
Location
Calgary
There are a couple games that can be a disadvantage. Games that involve trick jumping there's a sweet spot for fps and anything above or below prevents it. Quake needs locked in fps about 120 I believe.
 

CMetaphor

Quadfather
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
5,414
Location
Montreal, Canada
Lol.
Linus and Nvidia, two sources that are completely untrustworthy. I wouldn't accept their biased and half-assed results, ever.

Show me an independent study, some across all hardware. Betcha the results won't mirror these obviously skewed ones. "90% k/d ratio increase" my ass. I've never played above 75-90fps and in games I was good at, would easily have better K/d than people boasting about their much more expensive systems and their 144hz monitors. Just a gimmick. Nothing more.
 

Soultribunal

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
8,383
Location
Mississauga
I call BS on this.
Sorry but the human eye is only capable of processing information at a certain rate. Anything beyond that is a waste.
I'll have to see if I can dig the articles up on it, but IIRC it was something along the lines of 90FPS (ish).

So according to our Biology, the difference between 144 and 240 , we would not be able to perceive.

-ST
 

lowfat

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
9,501
Location
Grande Prairie, AB
I call BS on this.
Sorry but the human eye is only capable of processing information at a certain rate. Anything beyond that is a waste.
I'll have to see if I can dig the articles up on it, but IIRC it was something along the lines of 90FPS (ish).



-ST
I absolutely disagree. At least until we move away from LCDs due to sample and hold and the poor pixel response times.

On LCDs and w/o blur reduction modes on, the difference between just 90 and 144Hz is huge. W/ a TN and w/ a good blur reduction mode (or a CRT, Plasma, or a rolling scan OLED), it is way less noticeable.

I have 3 displays, PLS @ 85Hz, TN @ 100Hz w/ blur reduction, and a 144Hz VA. On the PLS, even just moving my mouse cursor on the screen feels laggy. Try to read text while smooth scrolling? Absolutely not happening.

The 144Hz VA, reading text while smooth scrolling is possible, but its still not crisp. But the latency you feel w/ the mouse is night and day. It feels twice as responsive. I game on this display, but even just dropping to 120FPS is absolutely noticeable to me.


The TN looks smooth as butter, text is 100% readable w/o blur while smooth scrolling due to the backlight strobing off when a pixel transitions from one color to the next. However I definitely feel the difference in input latency when I move my mouse from the VA to the TN. There is a noticeable amount of latency w/ moving the mouse around.

If / when we start to see good OLED monitors w/ rolling scan, then 60Hz probably will be enough in terms of motion clarity. But even then there is still will be a noticeable different in input latency.
 

Soultribunal

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
8,383
Location
Mississauga
This is where the difference between people might matter too.
I really don't notice enough difference on ones with a higher refresh rate (maybe I'm not playing the right game? Maybe I am wired differently?).
I've got 60hz, 144hz and there is nothing between the two that I notice or can perceive. I've had a myriad of panels and displays that you probably would never see in the consumer market, and still to me even on the high end Interactive Displays I don't really notice anything between it and my Samsung QLED TV.
Nor on the monitor front either and I've had some nice NEC panels in my house over the years.

So perhaps it might be somewhat subjective.
Though there is a hard limit to what our eyes (most people) can pickup. Though that will vary from person to person.
And, well, age plays in there too. I think I have 15 years on ya :p

-ST
 

Izerous

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Messages
558
Location
Edmonton
Your K/D ratio will also be higher if you upgrade your ball mouse to an optical mouse.
I know one guy who would play with a trackball and obliterate everyone he played against. He could double jump off a wall, flick the ball with his thumb to do a mid air 180 kill who ever was chasing him, flick it again so he was facing the right way and keep going. He was one of the fastest people I have ever watched.
 

JD

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
9,524
Location
Toronto, ON
I don't know if it makes you a better gamer, but there is definitely a difference when moving up to higher refresh rates and displays that don't introduce as much input lag. I think purely from a KDR aspect, it's more about the player than the hardware cause my KDR definitely hasn't improved from 60Hz to 120Hz...

I haven't experienced ULMB, but going from 60Hz to 120Hz w/ GSYNC was definitely noticeable. Whether your eyes can see it or not, the perceived smoothness and responsiveness does increase.
 

Entz

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Messages
777
I would like to keep my framerate up at a rock steady 144+ but Nvidia's price gouging on GPUs is making my PC have umm "issues" keeping it up.
 

Twitter

Top