Comment on I can barely tell the difference between 60 and 165 hz on my monitor

Toes@ani.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

• tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I’ve never seen any difference with the top two with that test. My monitor is 144hz and TBH I might as well have saved my money and got 60Hz ones.

  We’re not all hardcore gamers trained to see miniscule differences.

  source

  • Vlyn@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Humans can see a single solid color frame changing at 1000 fps. So if you don’t notice a difference between 60 and 165 fps something isn’t working. It’s not your eyes.

    source

    • GiveMemes@jlai.lu ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Seeing a solid color frame change is completely different from the minor changes generally occurring per frame, especially in media such as movies and games which are continuous.

      source

      • Vlyn@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        The Hobbit movies at 48 instead of 24 fps still looked much smoother and better.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Turun@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Your usecase may be different, but I am usually not required to catch solid color frames in my day to day computer use.

      source
  • andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The difference shouldn’t be miniscule, though. If you’ve never been able to see a difference, my money’s on not setting the refresh rate in Windows. It’s not automatic.

    source

    • tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It’s mostly marketing. Films are perfect at 24fps and gamer bros think they can see framerates ten times that.

      source

      • midnight@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Really? Movies at 24 fps are tolerable because we're used to it and there's a lot of motion blur, but any motion or panning shot still looks incredibly jerky. You have to get way up into the 100s of fps before you hit diminishing returns of smoothness, and even then it's still noticeable.

        source
      • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        …240FPS is insanely noticeable.

        source
  • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    You dont have to be a hardcore ganer to see the difference. A lot of people who use phones see the difference 90/120hz makes over 60.

    source
  • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    You’re either trolling or you have a 60hz monitor lawl

    source

    • tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I’ve really upset the gamer bros here…

      source

      • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I use 165hz for art and productivity lawl

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Or it just doesn’t work right in their browser. It says in big bold letters “VSYNC is not available on the Linux platform” and at 960 pixels per second I actually can’t tell the difference between the 100hz and 50hz lines. If I slow it to 480 pixels per second it becomes apparent, but I still feel like that’s browser funkiness rather than a true frame rate difference. I don’t think it’s actually running at 100fps.

      It’s not my eyes, btw. I can usually tell the difference very easily. I had a problem with my Nvidia drivers for a while that would often make it reset to 60hz on reboot, instead of my display’s max of 100. It was always immediately obvious to me just from the mouse cursor, even without consciously looking for it.

      LOL as I was writing this, I reloaded the page and now it’s very very obvious at 960. Something’s definitely inconsistent on my device. Go figure.

      source
    • Tavarin@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I have a 60 Hz monitor and it doesn’t even try and display any UFOs above 60 Hz, just 15, 30, and 60. So if they see a row with 144 Hz, then they have a 144 Hz monitor.

      source
  • MustrumR@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Do you have elite enabled in Windows tho?

    source
• FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Cool, I’ve never seen this before. Thanks!

  source