11 ms·

Anyone that has used a 120Hz+ display will immediately notice that everything feels more responsive even with simple things like moving your mouse and scrolling

by Jonnax 6y ago

Anyone that has used a 120Hz+ display will immediately notice that everything feels more responsive even with simple things like moving your mouse and scrolling. I also find the responsiveness noticeable when typing. You'll be able to tell that the text appears faster on the screen. I wouldn't say it's a requirement. But it does make the user experience nicer.

nsxwolf 6y ago
But the text isn't making it from your keyboard through the machine and to the monitor any faster. Seems like at 120hz you're just maybe going to catch it a frame earlier when it shows up.
- Jonnax 6y ago
  I guess so, the difference between 8ms vs 16ms is not much for 1 frame. Though in my totally subjective experience it feels better. Interestingly the person who did this latency test also did a keyboard latency test: https://danluu.com/keyboard-latency/ https://danluu.com/keyboard-latency/ Compared to the slowest keyboard measured it's possible to shave 45ms which if you were latency sensitive would be the biggest reduction.
  - dsissitka 6y ago
    > A major source of latency is key travel time. It’s not a coincidence that the quickest keyboard measured also has the shortest key travel distance by a large margin. ... Note that, unlike the other measurement I was able to find online, this measurement was from the start of the keypress instead of the switch activation. That's disappointing. He isn't measuring latency nearly as much as he's measuring point of actuation.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Well, thats a reasonable point of reference: for a user, his starting point is clicking the button, the rest is not under his control
      - fomine3 6y ago
        Personally I don't think start clicking as click action is done. If I want to minimumize the gap, I'll use speed switches or thin keyboards.
      - dsissitka 6y ago
        I don't think it is. With a clicky switch I expect it to actuate when I hear it. With a tactile switch I expect it to actuate when I feel it. With a linear switch it depends on the switch. You can get linear switches that actuate as soon as you'd like. The more I think about this the more useless it seems. Several of the keyboards he tested come with your choice of switch, different switches with different actuation points, and so you can't just say Keyboard X has a latency of Y without mentioning what switch you were using if you're going to measure from the beginning of the keypress.
- formerly_proven 6y ago
  It is, because there may be multiple things synchronizing their inputs and outputs to the refresh, which causes the refresh-related latency to be a number of frames. E.g. in some Linux compositors inputs are latched with the refresh, apps themselves may render in sync, and the compositor also draws in sync; the GPU driver would also introduce at least a frame of latency typically. Another factor is that some (many?) 60 Hz displays buffer a whole frame themselves, and often don't have quick response times. If you go from a 10 ms response time IPS screen with a frame buffer to a 120 Hz gaming screen with 2-3 ms response time, you already got a difference of about 25 ms just in the screen itself. 8 ms is hard to notice. 50 ms less so. The difference is pretty huge, even on systems that are much better tuned than Linux desktops (e.g. Windows 10). That being said, while it is very nice and feels nice, it's not necessary for development work; I spend most of my days developing on a system over a VNC connection through a VPN, so the basic input lag of that setup is around 200-300 ms. Gnarly yes, but not particularly bad for text input. You get used to just do everything very slowly with the mouse.
  - 1996 6y ago
    > The difference is pretty huge, even on systems that are much better tuned than Linux desktops (e.g. Windows 10). What would you suggest, or either Windows 10 or Linux, to get the lowest latency in a terminal?
    - toast0 6y ago
      If you want the lowest latency in a terminal, use a vga textmode console with a ps/2 keyboard. That's pretty hard to get on windows 10, so I'd go with Linux.
      - copperx 6y ago
        I agree. Make sure it's not a framebuffer, because it also adds latency.
        1996 6y ago
- gameswithgo 6y ago
  yes, shaving ~8ms
- hmage 6y ago
  In the article: > We get a 90 ms improvement from going from 24 Hz to 165 Hz. As per the linked article, the observed delay improvement isn't one frame, more like ~3 frames. It doesn't go up from 1/24 to 1/165, it goes from 2.5/24 to 2.5/165. Computer software waits a lot more than it did in 1977. That's why 240hz displays feel much more snappier even if it's supposed to be less noticeable -- you're waiting for same 3 frames, but they pass by much faster.
westwing 6y ago
Scrolling, yes. Mouse, absolutely. Typing? Not really. I have tested this side-by-side.
- gameswithgo 6y ago
  You may not notice, that doesn't mean nobody does. Also it can depend on your operating system. Windows 10 (maybe everything now?) forces you to be in vsync, so increasing refresh rate has a non trivial improvement on the # of ms for a keypress response. Now whether you will notice that can depend what environment you are in. If your editor already has an input latency of 100ms then shaving 8 off probably is not noticeable. But going from 20 to 12 might be.
  - westwing 6y ago
    On Windows 10, and I have tested various text input boxes. There's no way latency is anywhere near 100ms, I would notice that. Generally, from the tests I've seen, input latency is 30-40ms on a wired keyboard on Windows.
    - VRay 6y ago
      you can just point a phone camera at the keyboard and screen, record a video clip, blow it up into stills with ffmpeg, and then count frames Even at 60fps, you should be able to see the difference between 30ms and 100ms. Newer phone cameras often have a "slow motion" mode that'll give you 120+ fps video, too SOME people can see the difference between 30ms and 100ms, but it's almost impossible to actually see it. You'll mostly end up feeling that everything sucks and not knowing how or why.
  - folmar 6y ago
    Definitely not everything. Non-compositing window managers on Linux (non-wayland of course) work in the old way.
api 6y ago
Some recent PC/laptop displays can do 100hz and I even feel a difference between that and the long-standard 60hz. It's a small effect but it's noticeable and it looks a bit smoother and better.
corytheboyd 6y ago
Maybe there is something there about IDE hints and whatnot too rendering faster, but those are usually bottlenecked by some async background work (language servers, linters, etc.) anyway which would negate the benefit of the screen refresh rate being faster
m45t3r 6y ago
Yeah, this is my favorite gimmick of my Samsung Galaxy S20. 120Hz display+240Hz touch sensor makes everything feels so fast and responsive, this is the first Android device that feels faster than my iPad.
- andai 6y ago
  Does a 240hz sensor help when the display responds at half that rate? I guess it's because the latencies stack on top of each other?
  - kllrnohj 6y ago
    It's quite common for the touch panel to run at 2x the display refresh rate. Eg, 120hz touch panels have been quite common for years on phones despite the 60hz disply. It helps both slightly with latency directly, but it also gives you more points to sample from for input prediction which then helps with latency even more. Or for things like drawing applications it'll give you smoother curves assuming the drawing app looks at all intermediate touch samples.
- setpatchaddress 6y ago
  out of curiosity, which iPad?
  - m45t3r 6y ago
    It on iPad 6. I think if I had an iPad Pro (that also has a 120Hz screen I think?) it would be the same.
bonoboTP 6y ago
And on the other side: I very much notice the difference between a corded mouse and a Bluetooth mouse (not a cheap one). It's not unusable, but frustrating enough that I prefer the corded ones. And I'm not a gamer, just doing office stuff, browsing and programming.
- tuatoru 6y ago
  If you haven't already, get a high refresh rate monitor and a 1000 reports/sec "gaming" mouse. The Razer Viper Mini is light, which adds to the feeling of responsiveness. I've bought a couple for other people and they love them. I recently got a 165 Hz monitor for my decade-old PC (Sandy Bridge era) and with my (now old) G302 mouse, it's like having a new, much faster PC.
- ragnese 6y ago
  Wireless devices are still hit-or-miss for me. I've also found that my wireless keyboard and mouse actually perform worse if I have WiFi enabled. -_-
  - cozzyd 6y ago
    Are you using 2.4 GHz wifi?
    - ragnese 6y ago
      Yes. This is at my office, so I'm assuming there's good reason for 2.4 GHz. Maybe just range?
      - cozzyd 6y ago
        Bluetooth is pretty close in frequency to 2.4 GHz wifi, so could imagine some interference there!
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  I have tried like 5 Bluetooth mice, since BL4.0 the latency has improved from 'terrible' to 'tolerable'. It might be something to do with the windows bluetooth stack, as i noticed the respobce was more sluggish during high CPU use, while USB mice seem unaffected. The same logitech mouse performs much faster through their universal wireless adapter than trhough bluetooth (it has 2 modes), they also have lightspeed adapter, but I haven't noticed much difference.
rsanheim 6y ago
Now if only someone made a 34” ultra wide with 120Hz+. In particular one with 5120 x 2160 resolution. Maybe in 2022 at the rate high hertz monitors are coming for non-gaming uses...
- ezluckyfree 6y ago
  I agree. I'd rather hi-dpi 32"+ monitors first though. Hidpi displays are becoming standard on top-end laptops but on desktop you're almost out of luck. It's wild that the only hidpi 32" monitor is ~$5000, and it was released a few years ago now. My eyeballs need that sweet crisp text.
  - kllrnohj 6y ago
    What are you calling "hi-dpi"? There's a ton of 4k monitors in the 27" to 32" range, which are definitely higher DPI than typical. And for a lot less than $5000.
    - ezluckyfree 6y ago
      I'm typing this on a 4k, 32" monitor, which is 137.68 DPI, but I also have a Dell XPS 15, which is 4K and 15", 293.72 DPI, and the difference in sharpness is astounding. The other problem with hidpi scaling (200%) at 4k 32", is that everything is huge, and you lose a lot of screen real estate. Honestly I think 8k 36" is the sweet spot.
      - turtlebits 6y ago
        I have the same displays as you- Dell 4k @ 15" and currently using a 32" 4k (I sit 2ft away from it). I also have a Macbook Pro 16 (3072×1920). I honestly don't see a substantial difference between any of them, and I'm generally pretty picky about resolution.
        ezluckyfree 6y ago
        Right but if you scale the 32" so you get the hidpi sharpness (and put it far away), you lose the real-estate that you could have on a 32" screen.
randogogogo 6y ago
This is also can be enhanced by tweaking up your mouse sample rates and whatnot. I used to do a lot of setting PS/2 mouse sample rates at 80Hz or more in late 90s that made Windows machines feel almost as nice to use as a Mac.
- 0-_-0 6y ago
  Isn't PS/2 interrupt based, therefore instantaneous? I think USB has 125 Hz polling rate by default which can be increased to 1000 Hz.
  - tuatoru 6y ago
    From Wikipedia: - > The interface has two main signal lines, Data and Clock. ... To transmit a byte, the device simply outputs a serial frame of data (including 8 bits of data and a parity bit) on the Data line serially as it toggles the Clock line once for each bit. Increasing the clock rate absolutely does reduce latency on a PS/2 port. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS/2_port https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS/2_port
867-5309 6y ago
the rate of persistence of the human eye is around 25Hz, hence PAL and NTSC framerates. the upper bound for those hypersensitive is around 50Hz, hence the later generation monitors. anything above this is nothing more than marketing hype. it seeming smoother is merely a placebo to justify the extra cost
- sirsar 6y ago
  Are you claiming humans would fail an ABX test between a 60Hz and a 120Hz monitor? That sounds like a pretty extraordinary claim.
- genericone 6y ago
  So does it seem smoother or does it not? I definitely notice the difference with 60fps video and 120Hz+ monitors. Additionally, another thing I've noticed in the last decade is the very badly PWM-frequency-tuned LED headlights on some cars. Those engineers selected the wrong LED brightness and tuned it to terrible frequencies which leave flicker-trails when you look at or away from them. Get those PWM frequencies above 500Hz please! Especially get above 200Hz with your LED frequencies at the very least.
- outworlder 6y ago
  This is not correct. Let's not dispute and go with your claim of 25Hz. Even then, the problem is that eyes don't work like cameras or monitors. Our eyes don't work with "frames". Each receptor updates on its own time. It's easy to see that, if the updates are staggered, multiple sensors could perceive higher frame-rates, even if they can't individually. However, there's another angle to this. Disregarding input lag, which is a very real phenomenon and is greatly shortened by higher refresh, higher refresh rate monitors are able to show more 'discrete' steps for anything that's in motion. Our eyes (and brains) perceive this as movement 'smoothness', even if they can't quite make out every single frame that's displayed. You should try that yourself. Do a blind test.
- yathern 6y ago
  This is very incorrect. With video, every person can tell the difference between 30hz and 60hz, if they at least know what to look for. The easiest way to show this is by wiggling your mouse around quickly on a computer screen. At 30hz - you'll see the mouse teleporting around - hopping from spot to spot, but not moving. For example, if you stare in the middle, and jerk the mouse quickly to the right, you'll see the 4 or 5 spots where it rendered. With 60hz, you'll see the 9 or 10 spots - and have a stronger illusion of movement. With 120hz, it might even look as smooth as a real object flying across your screen.
Baeocystin 6y ago
I bought a 165Hz gsync screen years ago for gaming. I bought all of my other high-refresh screens because wow computing feels so much better in the day-to-day desktop because of it! Not joking in the least.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  My brother swears by his 140hz display, I have used it for a bit and came away feeling underwhelmed - I prefer my 4K 10bit 60hz display
  - Baeocystin 6y ago
    I can understand if you need the pixels and bit depth for color work. I just work with sRGB, and the panel I have is fine for that. I really do like the speed, though.

by Jonnax 6y ago

nsxwolf 6y ago

But the text isn't making it from your keyboard through the machine and to the monitor any faster. Seems like at 120hz you're just maybe going to catch it a frame earlier when it shows up.

Jonnax 6y ago
I guess so, the difference between 8ms vs 16ms is not much for 1 frame. Though in my totally subjective experience it feels better. Interestingly the person who did this latency test also did a keyboard latency test: https://danluu.com/keyboard-latency/ https://danluu.com/keyboard-latency/ Compared to the slowest keyboard measured it's possible to shave 45ms which if you were latency sensitive would be the biggest reduction.
- dsissitka 6y ago
  > A major source of latency is key travel time. It’s not a coincidence that the quickest keyboard measured also has the shortest key travel distance by a large margin. ... Note that, unlike the other measurement I was able to find online, this measurement was from the start of the keypress instead of the switch activation. That's disappointing. He isn't measuring latency nearly as much as he's measuring point of actuation.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Well, thats a reasonable point of reference: for a user, his starting point is clicking the button, the rest is not under his control
    - fomine3 6y ago
      Personally I don't think start clicking as click action is done. If I want to minimumize the gap, I'll use speed switches or thin keyboards.
    - dsissitka 6y ago
      I don't think it is. With a clicky switch I expect it to actuate when I hear it. With a tactile switch I expect it to actuate when I feel it. With a linear switch it depends on the switch. You can get linear switches that actuate as soon as you'd like. The more I think about this the more useless it seems. Several of the keyboards he tested come with your choice of switch, different switches with different actuation points, and so you can't just say Keyboard X has a latency of Y without mentioning what switch you were using if you're going to measure from the beginning of the keypress.
formerly_proven 6y ago
It is, because there may be multiple things synchronizing their inputs and outputs to the refresh, which causes the refresh-related latency to be a number of frames. E.g. in some Linux compositors inputs are latched with the refresh, apps themselves may render in sync, and the compositor also draws in sync; the GPU driver would also introduce at least a frame of latency typically. Another factor is that some (many?) 60 Hz displays buffer a whole frame themselves, and often don't have quick response times. If you go from a 10 ms response time IPS screen with a frame buffer to a 120 Hz gaming screen with 2-3 ms response time, you already got a difference of about 25 ms just in the screen itself. 8 ms is hard to notice. 50 ms less so. The difference is pretty huge, even on systems that are much better tuned than Linux desktops (e.g. Windows 10). That being said, while it is very nice and feels nice, it's not necessary for development work; I spend most of my days developing on a system over a VNC connection through a VPN, so the basic input lag of that setup is around 200-300 ms. Gnarly yes, but not particularly bad for text input. You get used to just do everything very slowly with the mouse.
- 1996 6y ago
  > The difference is pretty huge, even on systems that are much better tuned than Linux desktops (e.g. Windows 10). What would you suggest, or either Windows 10 or Linux, to get the lowest latency in a terminal?
  - toast0 6y ago
    If you want the lowest latency in a terminal, use a vga textmode console with a ps/2 keyboard. That's pretty hard to get on windows 10, so I'd go with Linux.
    - copperx 6y ago
      I agree. Make sure it's not a framebuffer, because it also adds latency.
      - 1996 6y ago
gameswithgo 6y ago
yes, shaving ~8ms
hmage 6y ago
In the article: > We get a 90 ms improvement from going from 24 Hz to 165 Hz. As per the linked article, the observed delay improvement isn't one frame, more like ~3 frames. It doesn't go up from 1/24 to 1/165, it goes from 2.5/24 to 2.5/165. Computer software waits a lot more than it did in 1977. That's why 240hz displays feel much more snappier even if it's supposed to be less noticeable -- you're waiting for same 3 frames, but they pass by much faster.

westwing 6y ago

Scrolling, yes. Mouse, absolutely. Typing? Not really. I have tested this side-by-side.

gameswithgo 6y ago
You may not notice, that doesn't mean nobody does. Also it can depend on your operating system. Windows 10 (maybe everything now?) forces you to be in vsync, so increasing refresh rate has a non trivial improvement on the # of ms for a keypress response. Now whether you will notice that can depend what environment you are in. If your editor already has an input latency of 100ms then shaving 8 off probably is not noticeable. But going from 20 to 12 might be.
- westwing 6y ago
  On Windows 10, and I have tested various text input boxes. There's no way latency is anywhere near 100ms, I would notice that. Generally, from the tests I've seen, input latency is 30-40ms on a wired keyboard on Windows.
  - VRay 6y ago
    you can just point a phone camera at the keyboard and screen, record a video clip, blow it up into stills with ffmpeg, and then count frames Even at 60fps, you should be able to see the difference between 30ms and 100ms. Newer phone cameras often have a "slow motion" mode that'll give you 120+ fps video, too SOME people can see the difference between 30ms and 100ms, but it's almost impossible to actually see it. You'll mostly end up feeling that everything sucks and not knowing how or why.
- folmar 6y ago
  Definitely not everything. Non-compositing window managers on Linux (non-wayland of course) work in the old way.

api 6y ago

Some recent PC/laptop displays can do 100hz and I even feel a difference between that and the long-standard 60hz. It's a small effect but it's noticeable and it looks a bit smoother and better.

corytheboyd 6y ago

Maybe there is something there about IDE hints and whatnot too rendering faster, but those are usually bottlenecked by some async background work (language servers, linters, etc.) anyway which would negate the benefit of the screen refresh rate being faster

m45t3r 6y ago

Yeah, this is my favorite gimmick of my Samsung Galaxy S20. 120Hz display+240Hz touch sensor makes everything feels so fast and responsive, this is the first Android device that feels faster than my iPad.

andai 6y ago
Does a 240hz sensor help when the display responds at half that rate? I guess it's because the latencies stack on top of each other?
- kllrnohj 6y ago
  It's quite common for the touch panel to run at 2x the display refresh rate. Eg, 120hz touch panels have been quite common for years on phones despite the 60hz disply. It helps both slightly with latency directly, but it also gives you more points to sample from for input prediction which then helps with latency even more. Or for things like drawing applications it'll give you smoother curves assuming the drawing app looks at all intermediate touch samples.
setpatchaddress 6y ago
out of curiosity, which iPad?
- m45t3r 6y ago
  It on iPad 6. I think if I had an iPad Pro (that also has a 120Hz screen I think?) it would be the same.

bonoboTP 6y ago

And on the other side: I very much notice the difference between a corded mouse and a Bluetooth mouse (not a cheap one). It's not unusable, but frustrating enough that I prefer the corded ones. And I'm not a gamer, just doing office stuff, browsing and programming.

tuatoru 6y ago
If you haven't already, get a high refresh rate monitor and a 1000 reports/sec "gaming" mouse. The Razer Viper Mini is light, which adds to the feeling of responsiveness. I've bought a couple for other people and they love them. I recently got a 165 Hz monitor for my decade-old PC (Sandy Bridge era) and with my (now old) G302 mouse, it's like having a new, much faster PC.
ragnese 6y ago
Wireless devices are still hit-or-miss for me. I've also found that my wireless keyboard and mouse actually perform worse if I have WiFi enabled. -_-
- cozzyd 6y ago
  Are you using 2.4 GHz wifi?
  - ragnese 6y ago
    Yes. This is at my office, so I'm assuming there's good reason for 2.4 GHz. Maybe just range?
    - cozzyd 6y ago
      Bluetooth is pretty close in frequency to 2.4 GHz wifi, so could imagine some interference there!
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
I have tried like 5 Bluetooth mice, since BL4.0 the latency has improved from 'terrible' to 'tolerable'. It might be something to do with the windows bluetooth stack, as i noticed the respobce was more sluggish during high CPU use, while USB mice seem unaffected. The same logitech mouse performs much faster through their universal wireless adapter than trhough bluetooth (it has 2 modes), they also have lightspeed adapter, but I haven't noticed much difference.

rsanheim 6y ago

Now if only someone made a 34” ultra wide with 120Hz+. In particular one with 5120 x 2160 resolution. Maybe in 2022 at the rate high hertz monitors are coming for non-gaming uses...

ezluckyfree 6y ago
I agree. I'd rather hi-dpi 32"+ monitors first though. Hidpi displays are becoming standard on top-end laptops but on desktop you're almost out of luck. It's wild that the only hidpi 32" monitor is ~$5000, and it was released a few years ago now. My eyeballs need that sweet crisp text.
- kllrnohj 6y ago
  What are you calling "hi-dpi"? There's a ton of 4k monitors in the 27" to 32" range, which are definitely higher DPI than typical. And for a lot less than $5000.
  - ezluckyfree 6y ago
    I'm typing this on a 4k, 32" monitor, which is 137.68 DPI, but I also have a Dell XPS 15, which is 4K and 15", 293.72 DPI, and the difference in sharpness is astounding. The other problem with hidpi scaling (200%) at 4k 32", is that everything is huge, and you lose a lot of screen real estate. Honestly I think 8k 36" is the sweet spot.
    - turtlebits 6y ago
      I have the same displays as you- Dell 4k @ 15" and currently using a 32" 4k (I sit 2ft away from it). I also have a Macbook Pro 16 (3072×1920). I honestly don't see a substantial difference between any of them, and I'm generally pretty picky about resolution.
      - ezluckyfree 6y ago
        Right but if you scale the 32" so you get the hidpi sharpness (and put it far away), you lose the real-estate that you could have on a 32" screen.

randogogogo 6y ago

This is also can be enhanced by tweaking up your mouse sample rates and whatnot. I used to do a lot of setting PS/2 mouse sample rates at 80Hz or more in late 90s that made Windows machines feel almost as nice to use as a Mac.

0-_-0 6y ago
Isn't PS/2 interrupt based, therefore instantaneous? I think USB has 125 Hz polling rate by default which can be increased to 1000 Hz.
- tuatoru 6y ago
  From Wikipedia: - > The interface has two main signal lines, Data and Clock. ... To transmit a byte, the device simply outputs a serial frame of data (including 8 bits of data and a parity bit) on the Data line serially as it toggles the Clock line once for each bit. Increasing the clock rate absolutely does reduce latency on a PS/2 port. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS/2_port https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS/2_port

867-5309 6y ago

the rate of persistence of the human eye is around 25Hz, hence PAL and NTSC framerates. the upper bound for those hypersensitive is around 50Hz, hence the later generation monitors. anything above this is nothing more than marketing hype. it seeming smoother is merely a placebo to justify the extra cost

sirsar 6y ago
Are you claiming humans would fail an ABX test between a 60Hz and a 120Hz monitor? That sounds like a pretty extraordinary claim.
genericone 6y ago
So does it seem smoother or does it not? I definitely notice the difference with 60fps video and 120Hz+ monitors. Additionally, another thing I've noticed in the last decade is the very badly PWM-frequency-tuned LED headlights on some cars. Those engineers selected the wrong LED brightness and tuned it to terrible frequencies which leave flicker-trails when you look at or away from them. Get those PWM frequencies above 500Hz please! Especially get above 200Hz with your LED frequencies at the very least.
outworlder 6y ago
This is not correct. Let's not dispute and go with your claim of 25Hz. Even then, the problem is that eyes don't work like cameras or monitors. Our eyes don't work with "frames". Each receptor updates on its own time. It's easy to see that, if the updates are staggered, multiple sensors could perceive higher frame-rates, even if they can't individually. However, there's another angle to this. Disregarding input lag, which is a very real phenomenon and is greatly shortened by higher refresh, higher refresh rate monitors are able to show more 'discrete' steps for anything that's in motion. Our eyes (and brains) perceive this as movement 'smoothness', even if they can't quite make out every single frame that's displayed. You should try that yourself. Do a blind test.
yathern 6y ago
This is very incorrect. With video, every person can tell the difference between 30hz and 60hz, if they at least know what to look for. The easiest way to show this is by wiggling your mouse around quickly on a computer screen. At 30hz - you'll see the mouse teleporting around - hopping from spot to spot, but not moving. For example, if you stare in the middle, and jerk the mouse quickly to the right, you'll see the 4 or 5 spots where it rendered. With 60hz, you'll see the 9 or 10 spots - and have a stronger illusion of movement. With 120hz, it might even look as smooth as a real object flying across your screen.

Baeocystin 6y ago

I bought a 165Hz gsync screen years ago for gaming. I bought all of my other high-refresh screens because wow computing feels so much better in the day-to-day desktop because of it! Not joking in the least.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
My brother swears by his 140hz display, I have used it for a bit and came away feeling underwhelmed - I prefer my 4K 10bit 60hz display
- Baeocystin 6y ago
  I can understand if you need the pixels and bit depth for color work. I just work with sRGB, and the panel I have is fine for that. I really do like the speed, though.