Who plays at what Hz?

[pauldiazberrio]

I've mentioned that my preferred frame rate is as close to 125 as I can get it. I understand that the higher the frame rate, the smoother the image. I also understand that response times and mouse movements are far superior, allowing players to react better to dynamic situations.

Now, for a long time, 60 Hz was the norm. Nowadays, the highest possible are the better. Competitive players aim for 120-144hz. I am one of them, having realized my gaming experiences are better at 125 FPS, or as close as I get get to it. If I can play at 144 with classic games, I aim for it, too.

With that in mind, please enlighten me a little. What kind of gamers play at the following fps...

60
75
85
90
100

[Nabster]

I upgraded my 60hz monitor to 144hz a few months ago, can't feel much difference. But I don't play competitive or first person shooter.

[UserNotFound]

Nguyên văn bởi Fuzzy_Dunlop:

Instead of counting your rigs and telling your specs (which btw has nothing to do with the topic or OP's question lol) could you at least tell us if you see andy difference between 100hz, 75hz and 60hz and which games you prefer on higher framerates ?

You referring to me? I did say "has no issue with tearing or any visually related issues related to high framerate on 60Hz TV". Needless to say I don't see any visual tearing or artifacts on my main and 2nd rigs eiether.

I must add, back when I was using 3x 1920x1200 60Hz monitor for Eyefinity gaming, I did not see any visual defects either, hence I often scratch my head when peeps talk about such visual artifacts as I don't recall seeing any...even when I was using 60Hz monitors.

[Out Of Bubblegum]

Nguyên văn bởi Fuzzy_Dunlop:

Instead of counting your rigs and telling your specs (which btw has nothing to do with the topic or OP's question lol) could you at least tell us if you see andy difference between 100hz, 75hz and 60hz and which games you prefer on higher framerates ?

I have a newer monitor and I can do 144. I have it set to 120 now. I see no improvement so far. I do see an improvement when dragging around windows on the desktop. But I don't do that much and I don't care at all if the Windows stutter when you move them at 60. I am playing the old game Borderlands 2 right now.

[76561198343548661]

My monitor is 60Hz - no tearing . our TV is 60Hz - no tearing . But tests shows that after 75Hz , human eye cant catch any difference . So , 75Hz is enough . For instance , 240Hz is of no use ! So , 75-144Hz is great for gaming

[UserNotFound]

Actually, a lot depends on hardware, that is the GPU and CPU as well. No point having a 260Hz monitor when your hardware can't keep pace. So, no use just saying I play on a 144Hz monitor without stating the GPU and, perhaps, the CPU as well.

And I agree with those who've said they see no visual artifacts even at 60Hz. I mean, I played UT3 and Serious Sam TFE and TSE and netted well over 60fps on 60Hz monitors without issue. Even now, I can't perceive any gaming visual difference between my 144Hz and 75Hz monitor (other than res and size ofc)

[76561198343548661]

Now i am playing Assassins Creed Valhalla on 60Hz monitor with 5ms (GTG) response time - no issue , no tearing !

But i agree on 75Hz

[Illusion of Progress]

Nguyên văn bởi littlecat20160:

But tests shows that after 75Hz , human eye cant catch any difference

That's not true, and tests have also suggested the opposite.

Our eyes do not work in frames. They work by continuously taking in light. While there is probably a lower floor as to what we won't perceive a difference below, this floor will vary depending on other criteria, and it is typically far smaller than 1/75th of a second.

[Out Of Bubblegum]

Nguyên văn bởi Illusion of Progress:

Nguyên văn bởi littlecat20160:

But tests shows that after 75Hz , human eye cant catch any difference

That's not true, and tests have also suggested the opposite.

Our eyes do not work in frames. They work by continuously taking in light. While there is probably a lower floor as to what we won't perceive a difference below, this floor will vary depending on other criteria, and it is typically far smaller than 1/75th of a second.

Here is a test. You can blink an led. Below 30 Hz, you can see the blinks. At about 30, it looks like a continuous glow. Film movies were filmed at 24 Hz. Streaming movies and video is often 25 Hz. That is the lower limit. Now miss a blink on that led. You can see that there was a missing blink up to around 60 Hz. Above that and you don't notice.

[Viking2121]

When I was competitive, I had a 165hz monitor that I got 180hz out of, Im on a ultra wide now at 144hz. to me as long as its 100hz or higher im good with it, I don't like sitting in front of a 60hz screen long anymore.

[Illusion of Progress]

Nguyên văn bởi Out Of Bubblegum:

Nguyên văn bởi Illusion of Progress:

That's not true, and tests have also suggested the opposite.

Our eyes do not work in frames. They work by continuously taking in light. While there is probably a lower floor as to what we won't perceive a difference below, this floor will vary depending on other criteria, and it is typically far smaller than 1/75th of a second.

Here is a test. You can blink an led. Below 30 Hz, you can see the blinks. At about 30, it looks like a continuous glow. Film movies were filmed at 24 Hz. Streaming movies and video is often 25 Hz. That is the lower limit. Now miss a blink on that led. You can see that there was a missing blink up to around 60 Hz. Above that and you don't notice.

That test is anything but solely conclusive that human eyes can't perceive differences lower than 1/60th of a second.

Having 60 Hz on a given LED and not seeing a change at a more rapid refresh on that LED does not mean we can't see less than 1/60th of a second of change for a number of reasons. For one, if that LED is lit for 59/60th of a second, and not lit for 1/60th of a second, does it respond fast enough to actually have exactly 1/60th of a second be entirely absent of light (and the other 59th of a second entirely filled with the proper amount of light)? I'd guess probably not. Also, light overrides darkness anyway. Our eyes notice change differently depending on the change in light. So something that is nominally lit but then is briefly not lit might not be as noticed as something that is nominally not lit but then is suddenly briefly lit, even if we're talking the same time frame for both. These are both factors your example doesn't account for.

Put yourself in a bright room. Imagine looking at an entirely White display. Not imagine, for 1/100th of a second, that the display is changed to show a single frame with a value of 254, 254, 254 (very so subtly less White) instead of the 255, 255, 255 value it was showing for the other 99 frames that second. Do you notice it?

Now imagine that you're in an very dark room, and now the display shows a full White frame for 1/200th of a second. Even though the time is half as long, you probably would notice this, right? In fact, you may notice it depending on how long you've been in said dark room and having had your eyes adjust to it to begin with.

Then there's the fact that we have a higher concentration of rods to the sides, so we may notice changes more in peripheral vision rather than looking straight at it. You may have heard that some people may notice a flicker (such as from fluorescent lights or CRT displays as some examples) more prominently from their peripheral vision.

In other words, there are variables. It's not quite as simple as saying we have a strict frame rate limit. Our eyes just don't work in frames. The limit of what we notice as change also simply varies.

[Decathect]

I currently game on 165hz display, but as long as it’s above 120hz I find it very smooth.

[Out Of Bubblegum]

Nguyên văn bởi Illusion of Progress:

There have been frames replaced in movies by a strange, very different frame. So during one 1/24 of a second interval, a very wrong image was shown. The images change at a 1/24th second interval but they are illuminated for less time than that. Most people notice nothing. Some see an odd "flash". No one can say what that image was. Our eyes are not as responsive as gamers claim they are.

[Illusion of Progress]

Nguyên văn bởi Out Of Bubblegum:

There have been frames replaced in movies by a strange, very different frame. So during one 1/24 of a second interval, a very wrong image was shown. The images change at a 1/24th second interval but they are illuminated for less time than that. Most people notice nothing. Some see an odd "flash". No one can say what that image was.

You don't have further reading on this by chance, I presume?

In any case, that doesn't really provide strong evidence that human sight has some strict limit that low to noticing change of something. Since I already addressed some faults with your prior example where you were suggesting it was higher, I'm surprised you'd try again with a weaker example of the same argument.

If you want anecdotal evidence though...

What about people who notice flickering on fluorescent lights? What about those who notice flicker on CRTs at 60 Hz?

What about the pilots who were shown a frame at 1/220th of a second and not only noticed it, but were able to correctly identify what was shown down to the exact plane?

Again, not that anecdotal evidence is entirely conclusive here, but at the very least, seeing at lower intervals does proves the limit of human sight isn't as low as has been claimed thus far.

Nguyên văn bởi Out Of Bubblegum:

Our eyes are not as responsive as gamers claim they are.

It has nothing to do with tall claims by gamers. It has to do with understanding how both our eyes and the world around us work.

The limit of human eyes noticing change varies so there is no strict number, and the limit varies simply because our eyes work by taking in light, and not in frames to begin with. The less change and/or in a smaller interval, the less noticeable it becomes, until it can't be noticed. What the absolute threshold is isn't so clear, but making a convincing argument that it's so low (like 24 FPS, or even 60 FPS or 75 FPS) that it can be easily shown otherwise would be a challenging argument to prove for sure.

[Wisman]

I have a 170 Hz monitor but games rarely get that high. I'm fine with a stable 30+ fps for the most part, but higher is always better.

[dOBER]

2014 i went from 1080p60hz to 1440p144hz and never looked back. Recently i got a 3440x1440p180hz but the difference compare to 144hz is not visble to me. I never play below 144hz/fps no matter which kind of game.