The most obvious difference for most people is to how readable text is while it is moving, and how fast it can move while still being readable. For touch interf

The most obvious difference for most people is to how readable text is while it is moving, and how fast it can move while still being readable. For touch interfaces, this is important, as people do read while pushing things around. In essence, anything above a pixel per frame is not very readable. So at 30fps, text is only readable when moving at less than 30 pixels per second (60 for hi-DPI). At 120fps, you can move everything four times faster and still have it look sharp. You could expand your knowledge greatly by visiting blur busters [1]. It is trivial for humans and cameras to see the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz motion [2], especially when tracking motion. When we were all on CRTs, the difference was much less noticeable, give or take flicker sensitivity, because they display things in pulses. Most modern displays will hold the image until it changes, which any tracking visual system (eyes or camera) will see as smearing. You can see images of this at blur busters. A lot of often-cited sufficient-for-everything frame rates are incorrect. 24fps is claimed to be sufficient for motion for cinemas, but it only works with heavy motion blur and a lack of fast camera sweeps. 30fps is claimed to be sufficient for games, but it impacts reaction times, input lag and blur in motion. 60fps is claimed to be sufficient for games, next, but it stopped being so when we stopped using CRTs (visit blur busters for more detail). We're now at 120fps for many things and it's almost good enough. [1] https://www.blurbusters.com/ https://www.blurbusters.com/ [2] https://www.blurbusters.com/faq/60vs120vslb/ https://www.blurbusters.com/faq/60vs120vslb/