I found it interesting to see the technical differences and semi-scientific experiments, since I regarded anything over 100Hz as snake oil.
There are still many remarks to be made about the test setup so I do not see this as entirely conclusive, but the results are pretty convincing in that 144+ is clearly distinct from 60. If I remember correctly, there was some research where participants couldn't even tell there was a flash of light in a dark room when it was <100th of a second, so I am fairly surprised that it makes such a big difference in gaming.
Then again, this is not a pure monitors' test, this is about computer speed as well. I definitely noticed the difference when playing OpenArena on 125fps vs 60fps (125 specifically had some physics advantages, hence that number), even though both were displayed on a 60Hz monitor. I wonder if the results still hold up when only the monitor refresh rate changes, it is a proper double-blind test, and the participants are not already used (over thousands of game hours) to certain frame rates.
1 comment
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 10.2 ms ] threadThere are still many remarks to be made about the test setup so I do not see this as entirely conclusive, but the results are pretty convincing in that 144+ is clearly distinct from 60. If I remember correctly, there was some research where participants couldn't even tell there was a flash of light in a dark room when it was <100th of a second, so I am fairly surprised that it makes such a big difference in gaming.
Then again, this is not a pure monitors' test, this is about computer speed as well. I definitely noticed the difference when playing OpenArena on 125fps vs 60fps (125 specifically had some physics advantages, hence that number), even though both were displayed on a 60Hz monitor. I wonder if the results still hold up when only the monitor refresh rate changes, it is a proper double-blind test, and the participants are not already used (over thousands of game hours) to certain frame rates.