4 ms·
Your mouse cursor aliasing test is sort of the tell here. Normal human beings are very hard put to be able to even detect the difference between a 60 Hz and 12
by ajross 3y ago
Your mouse cursor aliasing test is sort of the tell here. Normal human beings are very hard put to be able to even detect the difference between a 60 Hz and 120 Hz display, and have to resort, as you do, to trickery and artifacts to measure it. And the use case at hand is text editting!
As far as 4k, not sure I understand? It's not a nonsense retina tablet or whatever, it's a 42" television with 100 DPI pixels I can see with my own eyes (well, when I put my reading glasses on -- presbyopia comes for us all). I bought it because it's cheap and it subtends 60 degrees of pixels small enough to be unresolvable, and sits farther than an arms length from my eyes (presbyopia again).
- Dylan16807 3y agoIt's hard to tell the difference with smooth motion. With rendered frames, the stuttering makes it meaningfully harder to click on fast moving things. > And the use case at hand is text editting! People were being dismissive about frame rates in general, so I gave an example that wasn't test editing. The benefit for text editing is much smaller, but also if you're text editing then you don't need significant amounts of compute power to do text at 120. One big criticism disappears. You need that power for games, which actually benefit. I've used 4k at 30Hz before, but I switched it to 60Hz with chroma subsampling for faster things. > As far as 4k, not sure I understand? They're both good but not necessary, and partly situational. But you're choosing to ignore the benefits of one. A curmudgeon should dismiss both, and most people should want both.