4 ms·

> Want a high refresh rate screen present in cheap android phones? What is this for? Games? I avoided this to save money the last time I bought a phone. I hone

> Want a high refresh rate screen present in cheap android phones? What is this for? Games? I avoided this to save money the last time I bought a phone. I honestly can't think of use case where a phone display needs to update higher than 60 Hz

user_7832 3y ago
High refresh rates aren't just for games, they make the entire interface smoother. Things like frame rate or latency are quality of life things that you don't need, but once you upgrade, the difference becomes clear. Sort of like going from a slowly accelerating station wagon to a Porsche/sports car even when (capped by the speed limit) if you've experienced that. Hopefully someone else has a better analogy.
- masklinn 3y ago
  More importantly VFR is not useful for just high refresh rates. I would argue that for most people on a phone it's the least useful part of the thing. Instead VFR allows saving battery by slowing down the refresh rates, down to as low as 1FPS for static or high latency content. That's part of why always on display is only available on the 15 Pro: at 60Hz it's a battery killer. > Sort of like going from a slowly accelerating station wagon to a Porsche/sports car even when (capped by the speed limit) if you've experienced that. So... functionally useless.
  - user_7832 3y ago
    > So... functionally useless. (Disclaimer, I haven't driven a sports car but I have driven cars between "nice" and "struggles to reach the speed limit") While it might appear to be very similar, having a sports car that you're capable of driving well/defensively can literally be a life saver. There was this video from a few years back on reddit of this guy in a 911. Vehicle in front suddenly stops/crashes, he needs to rapidly change lanes at highway speeds. The little 911 unsurprisingly handled it excellently. A slow/heavy car would've very likely spun out and crashed. Having more power if you don't need it doesn't hurt (if you're trained well). Less can hurt.
    - masklinn 3y ago
      > While it might appear to be very similar, having a sports car can literally be a life saver. Or it can be a life ender by planting you into the side of the road, something mustangs and BMWs are well known for, amongst others. > that you're capable of driving well/defensively If you need to be a skilled pilot to face the situation, it's less the car and more the pilot which does the life saving. And even skilled pilots who know their cars well can fuck it up. Rowan Atkinson famously spun his F1 into a tree, after 14 years of ownership, having been racing for 2 if not 3 decades. > There was this video from a few years back on reddit of this guy in a 911. Vehicle in front suddenly stops/crashes, he needs to rapidly change lanes at highway speeds. Something which ends up in a collision as often as not. > The little 911 unsurprisingly handled it excellently. A slow/heavy car would've very likely spun out and crashed. Or not. Or maybe with a less capable machine they'd have driven more prudently and would have kept more space. > Having more power if you don't need it doesn't hurt (if you're trained well). So having more power can literally hurt. And routinely does.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - lukas099 3y ago
        So basically while more sportiness can make you safer in theory, in practice you have a human in the mix who is all but guaranteed to drive less safely. I agree.
- turtlebits 3y ago
  IME, the difference is negligible. I went from a iPhone 12 to a Galaxy S21 Ultra and yes, there is a difference, but it's not something I notice, even when occasionally using my wife's iPhone 12. The bigger difference I notice is in loading times for apps.
  - user_7832 3y ago
    I'm not sure how the Galaxy handles it but if it's similar to the stock android situation, you're likely often only seeing a 60hz screen rate. You can go to developer settings (or perhaps screen settings) and force 90hz or 120hz on. If your eyesight is otherwise good (especially if your younger than 50) you should be able to notice the difference quickly.
  - culturestate 3y ago
    > yes, there is a difference, but it's not something I notice Anecdotally, I use the last gen pre-120hz iPad Pro as my daily driver and I notice the difference immediately when I switch from my phone to the iPad. It’s not annoying enough to force me to upgrade immediately, but it’ll absolutely be a requirement for me going forward.
  - jwells89 3y ago
    For me the difference is visible, but the added smoothness is more of a cherry on top than anything. I switch between 60hz, 120hz, and 240hz panels every day and the 60hz panels don’t bother me a bit. On desktop and laptop displays I’d take integer-scaling-friendly pixel density over high refresh rates any day. Variable refresh rates should be standard across the board however, not restricted to high refresh panels. There’s no more reason for a static screen to be redrawing at 60hz than there is for it to be redrawing at 120hz or 240hz.
- ska 3y ago
  To stick with your car analogy though, with screens it's more like the performance vs. gas mileage trade off. Your sports car will get you the same place at the same time (capped by speed limit) with more fun (if you like that sort of thing) but cost you at the fuel pump. This is fine if you don't care about $/gallon, but sucks if there is gas rationing. This analogy is also flawed, of course.
- willsmith72 3y ago
  sounds like something I'd rather never want to get used to then. More expensive, uses more power so kills battery life faster and worse for the environment. Where's the win?
  - user_7832 3y ago
    > uses more power so kills battery life faster and worse for the environment. Where's the win? Depends on the device, but often the difference is a very minimal few point percent, perhaps 3-5%. I would think it can easily be compensated for by undervolting/powerlimiting on laptops. The win is lesser eye strain/headaches for a lot of people. No harm in turning it off if you don't need it, but many do benefit.
  - tuetuopay 3y ago
    > uses more power so kills battery life faster not necessarily. on promotion iPhones (fancy name for variable refresh rates), the panel is not stuck at 120Hz all the time. it varies from 1Hz when the screen is static up to 120Hz when it's getting animated, down to whatever framerate your content is at (e.g. movies and videos). it actually is a battery saver whenever the phone's screen is static (common on most apps with text) or with <60Hz content (youtube, movies, etc).
varispeed 3y ago
I can certainly see a difference between 60Hz and say 120Hz. The latter is way easier on the eye.
lvncelot 3y ago
I've recently splurged on a new phone (old one was >4 years old and started to run a little slow) and a high refresh screen just adds to the general "snappiness" of everything. I'm also using a high refresh-rate monitor for work and it's always a little weird to go back to a 60hz screen. This is obviously not a critical feature, mind you, but it does add to the experience of using a device, even if it's just productivity-related tasks.

user_7832 3y ago

High refresh rates aren't just for games, they make the entire interface smoother. Things like frame rate or latency are quality of life things that you don't need, but once you upgrade, the difference becomes clear. Sort of like going from a slowly accelerating station wagon to a Porsche/sports car even when (capped by the speed limit) if you've experienced that. Hopefully someone else has a better analogy.

masklinn 3y ago
More importantly VFR is not useful for just high refresh rates. I would argue that for most people on a phone it's the least useful part of the thing. Instead VFR allows saving battery by slowing down the refresh rates, down to as low as 1FPS for static or high latency content. That's part of why always on display is only available on the 15 Pro: at 60Hz it's a battery killer. > Sort of like going from a slowly accelerating station wagon to a Porsche/sports car even when (capped by the speed limit) if you've experienced that. So... functionally useless.
- user_7832 3y ago
  > So... functionally useless. (Disclaimer, I haven't driven a sports car but I have driven cars between "nice" and "struggles to reach the speed limit") While it might appear to be very similar, having a sports car that you're capable of driving well/defensively can literally be a life saver. There was this video from a few years back on reddit of this guy in a 911. Vehicle in front suddenly stops/crashes, he needs to rapidly change lanes at highway speeds. The little 911 unsurprisingly handled it excellently. A slow/heavy car would've very likely spun out and crashed. Having more power if you don't need it doesn't hurt (if you're trained well). Less can hurt.
  - masklinn 3y ago
    > While it might appear to be very similar, having a sports car can literally be a life saver. Or it can be a life ender by planting you into the side of the road, something mustangs and BMWs are well known for, amongst others. > that you're capable of driving well/defensively If you need to be a skilled pilot to face the situation, it's less the car and more the pilot which does the life saving. And even skilled pilots who know their cars well can fuck it up. Rowan Atkinson famously spun his F1 into a tree, after 14 years of ownership, having been racing for 2 if not 3 decades. > There was this video from a few years back on reddit of this guy in a 911. Vehicle in front suddenly stops/crashes, he needs to rapidly change lanes at highway speeds. Something which ends up in a collision as often as not. > The little 911 unsurprisingly handled it excellently. A slow/heavy car would've very likely spun out and crashed. Or not. Or maybe with a less capable machine they'd have driven more prudently and would have kept more space. > Having more power if you don't need it doesn't hurt (if you're trained well). So having more power can literally hurt. And routinely does.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - lukas099 3y ago
      So basically while more sportiness can make you safer in theory, in practice you have a human in the mix who is all but guaranteed to drive less safely. I agree.
turtlebits 3y ago
IME, the difference is negligible. I went from a iPhone 12 to a Galaxy S21 Ultra and yes, there is a difference, but it's not something I notice, even when occasionally using my wife's iPhone 12. The bigger difference I notice is in loading times for apps.
- user_7832 3y ago
  I'm not sure how the Galaxy handles it but if it's similar to the stock android situation, you're likely often only seeing a 60hz screen rate. You can go to developer settings (or perhaps screen settings) and force 90hz or 120hz on. If your eyesight is otherwise good (especially if your younger than 50) you should be able to notice the difference quickly.
- culturestate 3y ago
  > yes, there is a difference, but it's not something I notice Anecdotally, I use the last gen pre-120hz iPad Pro as my daily driver and I notice the difference immediately when I switch from my phone to the iPad. It’s not annoying enough to force me to upgrade immediately, but it’ll absolutely be a requirement for me going forward.
- jwells89 3y ago
  For me the difference is visible, but the added smoothness is more of a cherry on top than anything. I switch between 60hz, 120hz, and 240hz panels every day and the 60hz panels don’t bother me a bit. On desktop and laptop displays I’d take integer-scaling-friendly pixel density over high refresh rates any day. Variable refresh rates should be standard across the board however, not restricted to high refresh panels. There’s no more reason for a static screen to be redrawing at 60hz than there is for it to be redrawing at 120hz or 240hz.
ska 3y ago
To stick with your car analogy though, with screens it's more like the performance vs. gas mileage trade off. Your sports car will get you the same place at the same time (capped by speed limit) with more fun (if you like that sort of thing) but cost you at the fuel pump. This is fine if you don't care about $/gallon, but sucks if there is gas rationing. This analogy is also flawed, of course.
willsmith72 3y ago
sounds like something I'd rather never want to get used to then. More expensive, uses more power so kills battery life faster and worse for the environment. Where's the win?
- user_7832 3y ago
  > uses more power so kills battery life faster and worse for the environment. Where's the win? Depends on the device, but often the difference is a very minimal few point percent, perhaps 3-5%. I would think it can easily be compensated for by undervolting/powerlimiting on laptops. The win is lesser eye strain/headaches for a lot of people. No harm in turning it off if you don't need it, but many do benefit.
- tuetuopay 3y ago
  > uses more power so kills battery life faster not necessarily. on promotion iPhones (fancy name for variable refresh rates), the panel is not stuck at 120Hz all the time. it varies from 1Hz when the screen is static up to 120Hz when it's getting animated, down to whatever framerate your content is at (e.g. movies and videos). it actually is a battery saver whenever the phone's screen is static (common on most apps with text) or with <60Hz content (youtube, movies, etc).

varispeed 3y ago

I can certainly see a difference between 60Hz and say 120Hz. The latter is way easier on the eye.

lvncelot 3y ago

I've recently splurged on a new phone (old one was >4 years old and started to run a little slow) and a high refresh screen just adds to the general "snappiness" of everything. I'm also using a high refresh-rate monitor for work and it's always a little weird to go back to a 60hz screen. This is obviously not a critical feature, mind you, but it does add to the experience of using a device, even if it's just productivity-related tasks.