3 ms·

I found the flickering at 60HZ unbearable, but at 75HZ it was barely noticeable. My sweet spot wast at 80-85HZ. I tried until 90HZ, but you had to sacrifice re

I found the flickering at 60HZ unbearable, but at 75HZ it was barely noticeable. My sweet spot wast at 80-85HZ. I tried until 90HZ, but you had to sacrifice resolution and past 90HZ, I didn't notice much difference. I think for today's LCD/OLEDs 90-120hz should be the sweet spot, especially for gaming and motion. More than that is a waste of computing. (there are monitors that offer 144-200Hz refresh rates, but that is mostly a waste).

nichch 6y ago
I’ve had a 240hz monitor for a while now and I wouldn’t say 144hz is a waste. I do agree 100-120hz is the sweet spot, good balance of refresh rate and graphical quality. I would not suggest a 240hz monitor if you are not playing competitive shooters a majority of the time.
- ardit33 6y ago
  I agree. By 'a waste', I didn't mean that it is not better, but I meant that it is a diminishing returns curve, and you will end up sacrificing a lot to achieve it (resolution and graphical quality, as computing is not free) and it doesn't feel that much better. Going from 60HZ to 120, or even 90HZ is very noticeable by everyone, even in normal 2D content. Past 120 it is like, eh, just a bit better. Between 120HZ 4k, and 240HZ HD, I'd take the 120HZ 4k Between 120HZ 4k, and 90HZ 4k but with fully Ray Casting, I'd take the 90HZ (unless it is a competitive FPS) etc...
  - fomine3 6y ago
    BlurBusters argues even 1000Hz worth, interesting. https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/ https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-...
bserge 6y ago
But the fundamental difference is that LCDs are static. Like, if you have a static image on screen, it does not refresh. A CRT is always refreshing at x Hz. On LED backlit displays, it's the cheap PWM brightness controllers that can be noticeable. They're supposed to pulse hundreds of times a second to maintain the brightness setting, but as you go lower, it can be noticeable and tiring on the eyes. On LCDs, refresh rates matter only in constantly changing pictures, like movies and games. On a CRT, you're exposed to the constant refresh flicker even if you're editing a file or reading an article. All in all, I'm happy with LCDs. Even in games, they're enough for me, I'm not that competitive.
beagle3 6y ago
An LCD with 20hz won’t give you a headache - an LCD pizel is always on (but only changes on refresh). A crt pixel is on for only a very short time, while picture results from eye’s persistence of vision (which is also why in movies CRT screens flicker)
- ardit33 6y ago
  Any kind of Motion, scrolling, movies, games... etc... refresh rate matters. Sure, cinema movies are 24fps, and they do manage, but you are usually not 2 feet away from the screen.

nichch 6y ago

I’ve had a 240hz monitor for a while now and I wouldn’t say 144hz is a waste. I do agree 100-120hz is the sweet spot, good balance of refresh rate and graphical quality. I would not suggest a 240hz monitor if you are not playing competitive shooters a majority of the time.

ardit33 6y ago
I agree. By 'a waste', I didn't mean that it is not better, but I meant that it is a diminishing returns curve, and you will end up sacrificing a lot to achieve it (resolution and graphical quality, as computing is not free) and it doesn't feel that much better. Going from 60HZ to 120, or even 90HZ is very noticeable by everyone, even in normal 2D content. Past 120 it is like, eh, just a bit better. Between 120HZ 4k, and 240HZ HD, I'd take the 120HZ 4k Between 120HZ 4k, and 90HZ 4k but with fully Ray Casting, I'd take the 90HZ (unless it is a competitive FPS) etc...
- fomine3 6y ago
  BlurBusters argues even 1000Hz worth, interesting. https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/ https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-...

bserge 6y ago

But the fundamental difference is that LCDs are static. Like, if you have a static image on screen, it does not refresh. A CRT is always refreshing at x Hz. On LED backlit displays, it's the cheap PWM brightness controllers that can be noticeable. They're supposed to pulse hundreds of times a second to maintain the brightness setting, but as you go lower, it can be noticeable and tiring on the eyes. On LCDs, refresh rates matter only in constantly changing pictures, like movies and games. On a CRT, you're exposed to the constant refresh flicker even if you're editing a file or reading an article. All in all, I'm happy with LCDs. Even in games, they're enough for me, I'm not that competitive.

beagle3 6y ago

An LCD with 20hz won’t give you a headache - an LCD pizel is always on (but only changes on refresh). A crt pixel is on for only a very short time, while picture results from eye’s persistence of vision (which is also why in movies CRT screens flicker)

ardit33 6y ago
Any kind of Motion, scrolling, movies, games... etc... refresh rate matters. Sure, cinema movies are 24fps, and they do manage, but you are usually not 2 feet away from the screen.