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.