Submitted 11 months ago by Blisterexe@lemmy.zip to technology@lemmy.world
Title says it all (i have turned on 165hz on settings). Its a cheap monitor, do some 165hz monitors not truly give you that experience? Or are my eyes fucked
It’s wildly obvious if you grab a window and drag it around. Try having the settings on 60 and dragging it around when you change it to 165; it’s very glaringly obvious.
I thought you were talking about physical windows for a sec. Made no sense. I’m an idiot.
Please stop carrying huge glass panels around for no reason, that’s not a safe thing to do.
What works best for me is simply moving the cursor quickly in a circle. On a higher refresh display, you’ll see much more “ghost” cursors at the same time.
For me the difference was immediately noticeable. Even back in the old days I had to have at least a 75 Hertz monitor because 60 Hertz was slow enough that I could see the flicker pulse of the screens.
I will say I can't notice much of an improvement from 144 Hertz to 165 and I haven't had the chance to see a 240 yet, but anything under 75 is essentially unusable for me
I did that, I cant tell, iv had this problem on Linux and windows so its not an is issue either
What cable and interface are you using?
Have you configured your OS to use a higher refresh rate in monitor settings? The difference is night and day…
You’re only going to notice if the thing playing goes up to 165fps. If you’re, say, watching a movie or video you won’t notice anything because there’s nothing to notice.
Play a game that you can get really high FPS in (maybe Half Life 1 which a modern machine should have no trouble getting 300+). Limit it to 60. Check it out. Then go up to 144. Then 165.
An addendum to this, the jump between 60 and 120 is not as noticeable outside of dynamic movement so even though you may see a slight difference when looking, unless you use M+K it won’t feel that big. With mouse and keyboard quick mouse adjustments should feel smoother. And this isn’t a knock on FPS over 60, just that the difference between 30 and 60 can feel very big when you snap between them
Let's not forget that the industry always likes to exxagerate with the goal to sell.. IMO refresh rate is the latest victim of "bigger number is BETTER!" marketing.
It should be wildly obvious just moving your mouse across the screen. Maybe your graphics adapter has an issue and isn’t properly setting the mode?
Ah I have the same problem with my laptop. It is set to 144hz but I don’t see any difference with the external 60hz monitor. I guess I’m genetically not built for eSports.
You almost certainly have the settings screwed up. Your eyes worked have to be royally fucked to not see a 60 to 165 jump.
You may have to set the refresh rate manually to go higher than 60hz. Things should look much smoother.
Run ‘xrandr -q’ and see if it gives you multiple refresh rates for your displays.
Also, what GPU are you using?
RX 6600 on fedora 38 (a extension I like isn’t on 39 yet)
Is your monitor plugged into your GPU, as opposed to the plug on your motherboard (which would go to your integrated graphics on your CPU, if it’s supported)?
How are you testing? You can run the UFO test for a quick and dirty comparison: www.testufo.com
More subjectively, you could load up a game you know well and start it at 30FPS. Wave your mouse around a bit looking for blurring or artefacting, then step it up to test 60, 90, 120, etc to see if you can tell the difference.
When you say “settings”, did you check the settings on the monitor menus too? In your graphics card settings, outside the game?
What cable is connecting your monitor to your PC?
I’ve done UFO, and the top one looks a bit nicer IG? Might be placebo. Fanes are much the smae, I think theres a difference but I’m not sure
I’ll tell you the other info when I get home
I’m 100% sure if the majority of people in here claiming they see the difference were actually tested, they’d fail it. Something like
Take the Cartesian product of that for all the different possibilities and play them a random set thereof. Maybe 20 or so.
It’s just like screen resolution. If you sit at arms length or further away from your screen (which you should) and increase the resolution of your screen, everything becomes smaller (icons, text, images). That means you’ll have to scale them up to be at the same size as when they were at a lower resolution.
Also, at a certain distance, you become unable to spot details of a certain size --> you physically will not be able to see the different between 1080p, 2k, and 4k from that distance. It’s called visual acuity. I bet you, if you put did a similar test as above with video resolution, screen resolution, screen size, and distance from screen, the majority would start do much worse than they think they can.
It’s mostly marketing and “bigger number = better” think.
Is it possible that there are ghosting issues with the panel? I had a 120hz monitor at work at one point that had ghosting issues so bad it made it look barely any better than a 60hz panel. Going from 60hz to 120+hz should definitely be noticeable to most people
That’s my current theory, BC that monitor is a super cheap acer monitor
If its a cheap VA panel and not an IPS one, the chances of smear is fairly high
Have you checked this?
Yes, i can barely tell thé difference
I hope your eyes are still under warranty
I’ll never forget when I went from 60hz to 165hz, everything seemed so fluid and smooth. I couldn’t imagine going back.
Getting a higher refresh rate monitor was massive for me. It makes such a big difference and actually helped reduce the intensity and frequency of my headaches.
Whip the mouse back and forth quickly, it’s the only time it’s visible really.
Also gaming…
I am totally with you. I have had a 144Hz monitor for 2 years now. I am 100% sure that everything was configured correctly and I could spot some small differences in the UFO test. But other than that I do not feel any differences in day-to-day activities or games. Windows reset my frequency settings occasionally, but I never noticed it.
I have used github.com/Nixola/VRRTest before to check the refresh frequency. I use X11 and wanted to check if my 144Hz monitors work with my older 60Hz one. Set the test mode to squares and the frame rate to twice your monitor’s refresh rate. You should see every second square light up. If this is not the case, play around with the frame rate in the program until every second square lights up.
I can’t see the difference either though. Yes, the mouse moves a bit quicker if I pay attention to it. But I do not care or notice, to be honest.
If you have a phone that does high rate slo-mo you can video record the screen when you switch modes and see if the rate is actually changing or not. Have an object moving around the screen while you're recording the switch. Note that I've not tried this myself, I'm just working off of theory.
I’m also unable to see the difference directly, but everything just feels more snappy. If you can’t feel it, maybe you have some extra latency from somewhere else
Check your mouse cursor by moving fastly left to right and back and again. With 60 Hz you’ll see 5-6 cursor renders (depending on your distance obviously) and with 100 Hz it should be double that. 144hz a lot more cursor renders appear. White cursor, black background or inverted for better visibility. Thats my fast check to see if the settings are correctly set.
My experience of 144hz is that in terms of seeing a difference, it's not much. I mostly see it when looking around a scene and the movement is more fluid. However, what you can notice isn't as much as what makes a difference in games.
I tried the dust2 awp test map on 60hz and 144hz. The difference with how many I could hit with 144hz was not down to chance and was quite repeatable. I think (and it's just a layman theorizing here) that unconsciously our muscle memory, or hand/eye co-ordination are working on cues beyond what we consciously see. And this is why it helps for split second game decisions like this.
My opinion is, if you cannot see the difference consciously and you don't play FPS then maybe you should de-prioritize refresh rates over other monitor features. There's nothing wrong with that.
Yeah, back when I played valorant I thought I played better, my theory is that I just got a really shitty panel and that’s why i can barely tell
Me being super jealous of everyone here going to 144 or 165 when I just upgraded my pc a few months ago to finally use 120 on my current ultrawide monitor.
All I can say is even 120 from 60 was amazing and very obvious. As someone else said the biggest wow moment was just moving desktop items around and it being super smooth.
I do know there are a bunch of settings you may need to change to make sure your using the correct settings above 60. Check the advanced display settings which should list out all resolutions with refresh rate to pick. Sometimes monitors need to be set. Sometimes the driver software for the GPU has options for it listed. I know on mine I had to have freesync enabled as well. Lots of variables that may keep it from being set correctly to check. I remember setting up my audio equipment and you think your using everything correctly then realize your advanced settings had an option set to like 44 bit rate instead of at least something more reasonable like 192.
Me being super jealous of everyone here going to 144 or 165 when I just upgraded my pc a few months ago to finally use 120 on my current ultrawide monitor.
No need to be jealous, the gain from 120 to 144/165 is significantly less than from 60 to 120.
60 to 120 is like a night and day difference, even for desktop usage.
I use Linux so its just the one toggle in is settings, but you’re right, I might have to double check my monitor settings
If you’re using x11 and have another 60hz monitor it may be an issue with vsync. Wayland shouldn’t have this issue.
Personally I don’t notice 75 vs 144 unless I’m playing a first person game with a lot of quick movement.
Surprised I haven’t seen this, but have you tried a different cable? Display port? Could be worth a shot.
I usually can’t even tell the difference between 30 and 60; anything more is a waste.
Depends on the game as to whether it will be noticeable. If you aren't looking quickly in multiple directions like in a first person shooter then it is not nearly as noticeable as a slow scan at 60 generally looks pretty good.
It also matters how well your video card matches up to the monitor refresh rate because otherwise you might end up with a frame being displayed twice.
Toes@ani.social 11 months ago
Try the UFO test. www.testufo.com
If you still can’t see the difference there may be a setting on the monitor or PC preventing you from seeing it.
tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk 11 months 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.
Vlyn@lemmy.zip 11 months 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.
andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 11 months 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.
Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 11 months 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.
Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
You’re either trolling or you have a 60hz monitor lawl
MustrumR@kbin.social 11 months ago
Do you have elite enabled in Windows tho?
FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Cool, I’ve never seen this before. Thanks!