why 60 hz feels so bad after playing at 165 hz?

[Sly]

So my 165 hz gaming monitor has some issues, so i sent it to service center and currently waiting for replacement. on the time being, i connected to my old 60 hz monitor and tried gaming on it. My god, it feels so horrible that i feel like not even trying to play lol. is it normal to feel this bad when u go back to 60 hz from higher refresh rates? is it similar to how u dont wanna go back to hdd after using ssd?

[Dutchgamer1982]

r.linder a écrit :

Missing the point, you cannot quantify what the human eye can perceive as a numerical value, it's completely pointless and utter hogwash to suggest otherwise

you can do tests.. one where the person is shown a constant white screen.. with with a black screen or flicker.. popping up with ever shorter duration.

and a button if they spot it.. after a while people won't be able to press the button/spot it.

than you repeat it but instead of the whole screen turning off for a short duration.. it becomes a dot or object.. in a random spot on the screen.. that you can ever decrease in size

reducing contrast.. aka instead of black to wite.. do this with 2 different colours.. or 2 tints of the same colour...

adding movement.. have people watch at dot on a background.. and press button as it moves...

adding chance in movement.. have dots move at equal distances frame by frame.. but sometimes a bit more and less.. and have them press the button when they spot it..

and those are just one of many tests one can do..

[r.linder]

You can do tests on a lot of things, doesn't necessarily mean that it's accurate

People can discern the difference from typical refresh rates like 144 and absurdly high ones like 240, 360, etc. which is the point of the thread topic

Once you experience lower response times and frametimes, it's harder to adjust back to obsolete display specifications, we're not hear to unravel the mysteries of the universe and make misguided judgements on what the human eye and brain can perceive based on inherently flawed and constantly improving technology and test methodology

[Dutchgamer1982]

r.linder a écrit :

You can do tests on a lot of things, doesn't necessarily mean that it's accurate

People can discern the difference from typical refresh rates like 144 and absurdly high ones like 240, 360, etc. which is the point of the thread topic

Once you experience lower response times and frametimes, it's harder to adjust back to obsolete display specifications, we're not hear to unravel the mysteries of the universe and make misguided judgements on what the human eye and brain can perceive based on inherently flawed and constantly improving technology and test methodology

when I watch the same game rendered at 300+ fps (old game) in 1440p on same screen size and screen quality..

only altering the hz rate of the screens.

than shuffle them and ask to point out the "better image"

I can personally very much notice anything under 60hz.. and still between 60 and 100 hz.. and even upto 120 hz..

but when putting side by side 120hz, 144hz.. 160hz 240hz 360hz and 480hz monitors.. all displaying that same 300+fps rendered game... I see NO difference I can really not see the difference at all..

when I replace that game for a 80fps rendered game.. I tend to be able to see the difference between the screens 160hz.. SOMETIMES.. 240hz.. but beyond that it gets.. difficult...

what I do notice a lot more (and will push this hz limit up quite a lot) is when you turn sync off..)

ofcourse thats my personal experience.. there may be users who are able to percieve more..
but it may be a case of people thinking coca cola tastes better but not able to detect it when put in a blind test.

ofcourse I am alredy 40+ and don't play shooters but strategy.. so my responce time is not as hyperfast as those competitive 16yo competitive shooter players... which claim that having 1080p 480hz screen means they get the kill just a bit more often..

this slower responce due age.. also likely would translate in real life things like driving a car..

and add to that i am male.. in certain cases.. woman have much faster responcetime..
like a man and woman are watching their kid play.. when the kid falls (towards a sharp edge.. into a pool.. on a road.. off a bridge.. you name it..)
it is quite common for the woman to already have catched the child before the man even is standing..
and were not talking "the man is just not paying attention" we are talking here both are in full attention.. woman somehow just are so much faster in responding (and observing??) when their child gets in danger than man.

[r.linder]

Dutchgamer1982 a écrit :

ofcourse I am alredy 40+ and don't play shooters but strategy.. so my responce time is not as hyperfast as those competitive 16yo competitive shooter players... which claim that having 1080p 480hz screen means they get the kill just a bit more often..

They're paying more to eliminate every last bit of input lag they can be rid of, that's the whole point of things like 360+ Hz 1080p monitors and 8k polling rates

Every fraction of a millisecond matters to them, don't need to judge them for it because you're older and have a different opinion

Rest of what you said just proves the point that you can't accurately measure perception even as an average, human anatomy is far too complex to fully understand at our current level of technology

[Dutchgamer1982]

r.linder a écrit :

Dutchgamer1982 a écrit :

ofcourse I am alredy 40+ and don't play shooters but strategy.. so my responce time is not as hyperfast as those competitive 16yo competitive shooter players... which claim that having 1080p 480hz screen means they get the kill just a bit more often..

They're paying more to eliminate every last bit of input lag they can be rid of, that's the whole point of things like 360+ Hz 1080p monitors and 8k polling rates

Every fraction of a millisecond matters to them, don't need to judge them for it because you're older and have a different opinion

Rest of what you said just proves the point that you can't accurately measure perception even as an average, human anatomy is far too complex to fully understand at our current level of technology

I agree.. but still I wonder.. do they really see it?
or is it like that coke..

as in if you would put them before identical looking monitors without telling them which is which.. only that one has 120, one has 240, one has 360 and one has 460 hz..

the pc linked to that is the same.. they just can see whats rendered on any of these screens

would they just by whats on screen alone.. be able to put them in order from lowest to highest...?

I bet a that a lot of those who buy those 480hz monitors would not even be able to differentiate 120 and 240.. much less beyond that point...

but when you do it with a 60hz and a 120 hz monitor I have no doubt most would easly be able to spot the difference.

[A&A]

Dutchgamer1982 a écrit :

r.linder a écrit :

Missing the point, you cannot quantify what the human eye can perceive as a numerical value, it's completely pointless and utter hogwash to suggest otherwise

you can do tests.. one where the person is shown a constant white screen.. with with a black screen or flicker.. popping up with ever shorter duration.

and a button if they spot it.. after a while people won't be able to press the button/spot it.

than you repeat it but instead of the whole screen turning off for a short duration.. it becomes a dot or object.. in a random spot on the screen.. that you can ever decrease in size

reducing contrast.. aka instead of black to wite.. do this with 2 different colours.. or 2 tints of the same colour...

adding movement.. have people watch at dot on a background.. and press button as it moves...

adding chance in movement.. have dots move at equal distances frame by frame.. but sometimes a bit more and less.. and have them press the button when they spot it..

and those are just one of many tests one can do..

It's like putting a camera facing the screen and the autofocus going crazy because of the varying amount of brightness changes. The distance between the lens and the camera sensor, as well as the open position of the shutter and its shutter speed, all have an effect, and that's why the photo may look blurry or something may be wrong with the brightness. It is in a similar way with the human eye.

So
"

Dutchgamer1982 a écrit :

your brain "renders" an image.. from the signals send by your eyes.. and while true.. it's not fully doing that (for example.. it may vary the focus on certain things you see.. so it not so much renders the full vieuw.. in one hz.. as individual objects with various degrees of hz.. with a lot of "filler" in between.. where this focus can also shift constantly..

I find it somewhat BS. It is not because of your brain, but your eyes and environment.

[Dutchgamer1982]

A&A a écrit :

Dutchgamer1982 a écrit :

you can do tests.. one where the person is shown a constant white screen.. with with a black screen or flicker.. popping up with ever shorter duration.

and a button if they spot it.. after a while people won't be able to press the button/spot it.

than you repeat it but instead of the whole screen turning off for a short duration.. it becomes a dot or object.. in a random spot on the screen.. that you can ever decrease in size

reducing contrast.. aka instead of black to wite.. do this with 2 different colours.. or 2 tints of the same colour...

adding movement.. have people watch at dot on a background.. and press button as it moves...

adding chance in movement.. have dots move at equal distances frame by frame.. but sometimes a bit more and less.. and have them press the button when they spot it..

and those are just one of many tests one can do..

It's like putting a camera facing the screen and the autofocus going crazy because of the varying amount of brightness changes. The distance between the lens and the camera sensor, as well as the open position of the shutter and its shutter speed, all have an effect, and that's why the photo may look blurry or something may be wrong with the brightness. It is in a similar way with the human eye.

So
"

Dutchgamer1982 a écrit :

your brain "renders" an image.. from the signals send by your eyes.. and while true.. it's not fully doing that (for example.. it may vary the focus on certain things you see.. so it not so much renders the full vieuw.. in one hz.. as individual objects with various degrees of hz.. with a lot of "filler" in between.. where this focus can also shift constantly..

I find it somewhat BS. It is not because of your brain, but your eyes and environment.

in fact it is not your eyes that see.. it is your brain.
your eyes create a signal.. thats in your brain processed in an immage.. and in doing so the brain does fill in "gaps" in the signal it gets to a degree..
if you don't have this center in your brain.. but perfect eyes you cannot see...

but if you had a device that would send these signals virually even if from a recording.. your brain would make you see..

[Skkooomer Lord]

It's not bad, you just think it is.

[A&A]

Dutchgamer1982 a écrit :

in fact it is not your eyes that see.. it is your brain.
your eyes create a signal.. thats in your brain processed in an immage.. and in doing so the brain does fill in "gaps" in the signal it gets to a degree..
if you don't have this center in your brain.. but perfect eyes you cannot see...

but if you had a device that would send these signals virually even if from a recording.. your brain would make you see..

Okay, the eyes only create the impulses and the brain processes them, but you can't see anything without eyes either. You are missing the source. Color blindness is not caused by the brain, but by the lack of opsins. Myopia and hyperopia are due to the structure of the eyes, not the brain.

"if you had a device to send these signals" yada yada
At that point, not only you will have artificially created eyes or whatever, then you also should have an artificially working brain. What's the point of that statement? I don't know.

[ˢᵈˣ FatCat]

just dont follow all corporate lies, we dont need more than 60Fps, be free from them grasp
everything is a gimmick to boost our sales

[r.linder]

ˢᵈˣ FatCat a écrit :

just dont follow all corporate lies, we dont need more than 60Fps, be free from them grasp
everything is a gimmick to boost our sales

It's never been about need, you don't even need to play video games on a computer to begin with, you don't get to talk about "need" for any of this, it's about doing what we want

In a more recent modern system, 60 FPS is a waste of money because hardware can handle so much more than that in the vast majority of instances, and there's no reason to not go above 60 if your entire setup can do it without drawbacks

There are clear differences and benefits to going above 60 FPS, it's not marketing or a gimmick, it's just people like you choosing to be ignorant to the facts right in front of your faces, have fun having ~16.6ms frametimes and higher latency while everyone else is enjoying less than half that

[smokerob79]

I dont have issues....i have a 165hz monitor and still cap games at 60......the biggest reason for me is the heat....my PC is in a none AC controlled garage in Florida where we see 95F temps(35C)......

i play single player stuff in the day time and then at night when it cooler i run 165 to play online FPS games......its easy to set up each game to a default refresh rate for just that game.....

also played around with things for a couple of months and even used a KILL-A-WATT meter on the PC in the time frame.....capping frame rates to 60 saves me about 30 bucks a month in power bills.....capping at 120 frames saved me about 15 dollars......

[ˢᵈˣ FatCat]

smokerob79 a écrit :

I dont have issues....i have a 165hz monitor and still cap games at 60......the biggest reason for me is the heat....my PC is in a none AC controlled garage in Florida where we see 95F temps(35C)......

i play single player stuff in the day time and then at night when it cooler i run 165 to play online FPS games......its easy to set up each game to a default refresh rate for just that game.....

also played around with things for a couple of months and even used a KILL-A-WATT meter on the PC in the time frame.....capping frame rates to 60 saves me about 30 bucks a month in power bills.....capping at 120 frames saved me about 15 dollars......

he know what is up, man of culture

[ˢᵈˣ FatCat]

and never trust youtuber, or influencer, they are in bed with those big corporate, they always sell you fears, before guys with somthing to compensate keep sending me jester iam outta here this slums, see nerds


and yes my PC can play 165hz