High refresh rate is overrated

[Merc009]

Difference between 30 and 60 is night and day. Difference between 60~80 is nice, but the difference between that at 100+ fps is absolute non sense from people “hur dur smooth i want 300hz”

Can’t stand everyone saying how 120hz is much better than 240hz. Yeah its better but not outstanding like they make it seem




Yes I tried them all on a 30-60-75-120 and 240hz monitor....

[flrda77]

no reason to have anymore than 100 FPS

[illah]

Can’t stand everyone saying how 120hz is much better than 240hz.

This made no sense.

[dizzin9]

Diminishing returns but better is better nonetheless

Thank you and have a great day.

[Dan916]

Agreed. Bought a 32 inch 4k monitor and its flawless. But its not 120 refresh? KEK

[lampelys]

Nah

[Visel]

Part of this is a repeat from OP but oh well:

30->60 FPS, huge difference.

60->120/144 FPS, huge difference

After that and it doesn't even matter anymore, or at least isn't as easily discernable to the human eye.

I lol at anyone sacrificing resolution for a refresh rate upgrade of 120hz/144hz -> 240hz. I lol at anyone thinking they're gonna actually hit 120/144 FPS Ultra at 4k in most modern graphically demanding games (especially without DLSS).

For the 120/144 FPS crew, we're currently in the generation of 1440p. Perhaps RTX 40/50 or RX 7000/8000 we'll be able to move on to 2160p.

For the 240 FPS crew, we're currently in the generation of 1080p and CPU bottlenecks.

There is a correlation between high FPS and competitive advantage, at least until the 120/144 FPS ballpark. And once you've experienced it anyways, you don't want to go back, even with singleplayer or non-competitive titles.

[mgftp]

[dcbone30]

I definitely noticed a difference buying a 120hz g-sync monitor, but that was going from 60 to 120. No idea where the cutoff is after 60 just saying the new monitor was great

[AWillis]

depends, have you tried PC gaming on a 100" screen?

[OptimusTrajan]

Part of this is a repeat from OP but oh well:

30->60 FPS, huge difference.

60->120/144 FPS, huge difference

After that and it doesn't even matter anymore, or at least isn't as easily discernable to the human eye.

I lol at anyone sacrificing resolution for a refresh rate upgrade of 120hz/144hz -> 240hz. I lol at anyone thinking they're gonna actually hit 120/144 FPS Ultra at 4k in most modern graphically demanding games (especially without DLSS).

For the 120/144 FPS crew, we're currently in the generation of 1440p. Perhaps RTX 40/50 or RX 7000/8000 we'll be able to move on to 2160p.

For the 240 FPS crew, we're currently in the generation of 1080p and CPU bottlenecks.

There is a correlation between high FPS and competitive advantage, at least until the 120/144 FPS ballpark. And once you've experienced it anyways, you don't want to go back, even with singleplayer or non-competitive titles.

4K on a desk monitor makes no sense. 4K sub 32 is a waste of money too.

[ClivesTriceps]

4K on a desk monitor makes no sense. 4K sub 32 is a waste of money too.

4k 32" screen = 137ppi

4k 27" screen = 163ppi


games look better when the ppi is greater. I've played games on 1080p 24" and 27" in the past and the picture was sharper on the smaller screen. 27" is the perfect screen size for a desktop.


Higher refresh, the better. Gaming at 60fps sucks after being on 144hz for so long.

[FAPhaggot]

What happens with HFR is you get used to it. Go ahead and cap some of your games at 60 FPS and it'll be like "strong everything."

[eod8989]

I can either play at 4k 60 fps or 1440p 165hz and i choose 4k 60 fps

Might play some 1440p 165 fps tonight though to see how it looks again lol

[JayJ350]

Honestly as someone with a good 144hz PC setup I gotta agree that it's overrated to some extent. It's nice but it's really only a big deal for a handful of things such as fast paced FPS and serious competitive gaming. Most games look great at 60 frames.

[amikaelmorris]

60-100 is unplayable
120-144 is great
144+ is a waste of money

you probably tested your 120 at lower refreshes with gsync or freesync on and couldn't tell a difference because it was locked

[OptimusTrajan]

4k 32" screen = 137ppi

4k 27" screen = 163ppi


games look better when the ppi is greater. I've played games on 1080p 24" and 27" in the past and the picture was sharper on the smaller screen. 27" is the perfect screen size for a desktop.


Higher refresh, the better. Gaming at 60fps sucks after being on 144hz for so long.

I agree with everything you have said, but my point was running windows at 4K on a 27” monitor would be miserable. The perceivable difference between 1440 and 4K on a 27” or less screen isn’t worth the cost or performance hit.

[ClivesTriceps]

I agree with everything you have said, but my point was running windows at 4K on a 27” monitor would be miserable. The perceivable difference between 1440 and 4K on a 27” or less screen isn’t worth the cost or performance hit.

I definitely don't think it's worth the cost at the moment, 4k monitors are still expensive.

[iZZmatic]

I agree with everything you have said, but my point was running windows at 4K on a 27” monitor would be miserable. The perceivable difference between 1440 and 4K on a 27” or less screen isn’t worth the cost or performance hit.

I run 4k on a 28 inch monitor and I don't find it miserable lmao.

[OptimusTrajan]

I run 4k on a 28 inch monitor and I don't find it miserable lmao.

If you run native everything is too small. If you use scaling it looks bad.

[PattBattmann]

I can either play at 4k 60 fps or 1440p 165hz and i choose 4k 60 fps

Might play some 1440p 165 fps tonight though to see how it looks again lol

Same here. I am more concerned with graphics. I am using a 34" PC monitor @ 4K/60FPS for my gaming (both console & PC). I feel that this is best for me.

[bemyguest]

Everyone who cant see huge diff between 60 and 144hz or 30 and 60hz is a casual.

The real talk comes when you go above 144hz. There is no noticeable difference between 144 and 240hz.

[freeburn]

60 - 120hz is absolutely mind blowing

Beyond that is meh, it's not about visuals as much as it is that instant response time feeling. I think that's what alot of people get wrong on the return from 144-240 and beyond.

I can play controller games at 4k 30. But anything using my mouse and keyboard I prefer 100+hz

[dizzin9]

ITT: Non-competitive normies

Thank you and have a blessed day.

[ScramFranklin]

Same with resolution, except even more so. Always lol at people wanting gaming to go beyond 4k. Most people would have trouble differentiating between 1440p and 4k.

I sit 5' away from a 65'' OLED. 20/20 vision. On several games now on my Series X I have switched the consoles resolution between 720p, 1080p, and 4k. Difference between 720p and 1080p is huge. 1080p and 4k not nearly as much, often I struggled to find any noticeable differences.

[Sobekhotep]

120hz at 1440p is the sweet spot.

[KingSWRV]

This made no sense.

This

[DieselZ]

ITT: Non-competitive normies

Thank you and have a blessed day.

This.
240hz crew checkin in, will smash anybody on less hz monitor in any comp game.

[MilkforBrains]

I preferred lower fr. I like the cinematic feel over the soap opera feel. I only play old games like Halo Reach and that looks slightly cheesy in 60fps

[blissful88]

I preferred lower fr. I like the cinematic feel over the soap opera feel. I only play old games like Halo Reach and that looks slightly cheesy in 60fps

Strong username to comment ratio




There's not a person with two eyes that would prefer 30 fps over 60+