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?

[A&A]

Yes it is.
Well, it also depends on the FPS and resolution you are playing.

[Illusion of Progress]

Because humans are adaptable, one way or another. In the short interim though, something way different can feel "off" to what we expect.

Once you become used to a much higher frame rate rate, the immediate and initial reaction to one that is less than half is of course going to be that it "feels bad".

[Sigma957]

I now have an 27" 100hz IPS panel monitor. Huge difference in movement of everything. It's not 1440p or 2160p just FHD but it will do for now. I can get more accurate reading of my photographs on this thing (I'm available for weddings, concerts, graduations etc).

[r.linder]

Your eyes adjusted to the higher framerate and lower frametimes of a 120Hz+ display, it just exposes how obsolete 60Hz really is as a refresh rate

[ˢᵈˣ FatCat]

what do you mean Why?, it's pretty obvious, is this tlike hose humble bragging like on facebook

[|LP| Doutor DK]

Sly původně napsal:

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?

yes, is normal. i have 165hz gaming monitor at home, in my work i have 60hz monitor, and jesus christ, if is slow on windows i don't even imagin in game

[Rod]

Mouse makes it harder. I use 280hz ips but i can tolerate the Switch OLED 60fps shooters with the controller. But a mouse and 60hz? It should be illegal!

[THE LORD]

After driving a porsche it's normal to feel a honda civic is bad.

[Andrius227]

Normal. I really don’t like 60hz, but i find that literally anything above 60hz is fine. Sometimes during summer i drop down to 75hz to reduce heat and it feels fine, doesn’t bother me at all.

[Norman Schwarzkopf Jr.]

60hz looks and feels alright, even after playing on 5.000.000hz.
60FPS on 60hz display will always feel worse than 60FPS on a 144hz display.

I'm playing many games on 60 to 80 FPS on a 240hz display and it feels totally fine and natural.

[Haruspex]

It's kind of tough to go back to 60hz after you've gone a while enjoying higher refresh rates.

However, I've found that it really doesn't take too long to adapt. There's the initial shock, but after a few minutes you acclimate easily.

[Dutchgamer1982]

the human eye (or mind actually) does percieve the world not as a constant moving image.. but in frames too.
this is why we percieve a movie made of pictures.. as a moving thing..

the frequency of this percieved framerate differs person to person.
below 60fps is about the limit where most humans start to notice something is off..
but some humans can spot things well above that rate..

many humans can notice upto 100fps.. and some rare individuals even 120fps..
but thats basicly the upper limit of human visual capability.

but thats not the whole story... for this presumes these rates are served at us at a constant intervall.. when the gap between frames fluctuates than that that is far more observable to humans (maybe not consient.. but we will be more tired watching it.. and percieve it as lower quality)

a game is rendered.. and the time needed per rendered frame varies.. so even 100fps.. will not be rendered with equal intervals..

syncing helps smoothing this out a bit.. but not fully.. after all.. if I take a string of pictures of a moving train with different intervals than play them off at equal intervals.. that still means the percieved speed of the train moving changes between each frame...

this effect cannot be changed.. but it explain why some love 200+ fps in their games.. no human eye can see that much fps.. but it may be due it smoothing out this effect feeling like the train moves at a more even speed.. aka it being smoother percieved...

add to this your monitor...there still always is the issue of the frames rendered by your gpu never aligning properly with your monitor.

if you render more frames than your monitor has.. frames will be dropped aka not shown to you.. and this may not always happen in the smoothest way..

if you render less frames than your monitor has.. your monitor can not make the gaps between each individual frame a little longer.. it has basicly to show some frames for 2 cycles..

the higher the framerate of your monitor.. relative to your rendered frames the easier it is to come to a more evenly spread distribution of frames,, aka the smoother the percieved image is.

[r.linder]

You are not perceiving frames per second, what you're seeing is the difference is a reduction in latency between frames which is an average that is reduced the higher the counter goes, if the frametimes weren't changed regardless of how high you went then there would be no noticeable benefit and the image would actually look worse the higher your FPS went

This is also why even though film standard is 24, it still looks smooth, because it's been doctored enough that it isn't completely screwed by the high latency that you would see if it was a game being rendered in real time

Always a good laugh when people that aren't qualified to say a damn thing about it go on about how the "standard" of vision is somewhere around 60 FPS, your eyes can't be measured by a completely made up unit

[Dutchgamer1982]

r.linder původně napsal:

You are not perceiving frames per second, what you're seeing is the difference is a reduction in latency between frames which is an average that is reduced the higher the counter goes, if the frametimes weren't changed regardless of how high you went then there would be no noticeable benefit and the image would actually look worse the higher your FPS went

This is also why even though film standard is 24, it still looks smooth, because it's been doctored enough that it isn't completely screwed by the high latency that you would see if it was a game being rendered in real time

Always a good laugh when people that aren't qualified to say a damn thing about it go on about how the "standard" of vision is somewhere around 60 FPS, your eyes can't be measured by a completely made up unit

the correct term is ofcourse the human eye percieves the world above 60hz-120hz not fps.
my bad.

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..

so it IS more complex indeed..

but basicly if you have a movie with all frames shot at exacly 8ms intervals and play it it off as a movie with exact 8ms intervalls on a 125hz monitor.. it will be percieved by humans as smooth as the real world..

ofcourse rendered images aka fps.. even when 125fps.. have all kind of delays in them never make them have as smooth intervalls.. nor will they align as perfectly with the intervall of the monitor displaying them as a movie will..

yanking up both the monitors hz rating and boosting the fps renderd.. will smoothen those intervalls out better but ofcourse it never be as smooth as our hypothetical movie or the real world..

[r.linder]

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