Say hello to the super-speedy 27-inch UltraGear GX7.
What’s the point if the human eye can’t see beyond 30fps?
It’s okay, I understood your comment without you needing to put that stupid “/s” in
I thought the joke was obvious but the number of downvotes says otherwise.
It was obvious to me!
Dont display downvotes, save that cortisol
That’s not entirely correct. Have you tried using a 60hz and 165hz monitor? The difference is not slight.
Number go up
presenting that human eye with the most up to date graphical developments provide a (however slight but still measurable) performance edge over slower refresh rates.
I wonder how many people can even tell the difference between 144Hz and 480Hz apart from the extra heat and screaming GPU fans.
It’s actually very simple, just activate the FPS counter and it will display the frame rate for you. (/s)
Literally zero, but they’ll constantly tell you how amazing the difference is.
I definitely can’t tell the difference for anything above 120hz or so, but I recall reading an article about counter strike several years ago, which showed that pro players can see an increase in performance with higher refresh rates up to about 300 or 350 hz (as long as you have the fps to match it, lol).
At that point, was it really the rendering speed, or just the finer game engine granularity that made a difference?
What is “game engine granularity” supposed to mean?
Unless they fucked up the test, the only difference is how fast pictures arrive on the screen. If the test showed that pro players were able to tell a difference, it’s reasonable to assume that this is actually the case, unless you can show a flaw in their test setup.
A frame is not just the picture arriving to the screen, it’s everything from input processing to game logic to rendering to picture arriving at the screen. What the other commenter was saying is that things like input lag and game logic smoothness should affect player performance as well. In fact, you can isolate for those variables with an unlocked frame rate, where you can get a frame rate in the 250s on a 144Hz monitor, and pros still see an improvement in that case because those hidden subcycles are smoothing out the non-visual calculations.
Sure, but why do you expect the input lag to be different for the different monitors that were tested? If that’s the case, we should be able to point at those differences in the test setup, instead of saying “yeah, they were probably just too dumb”.
The game logic also shouldn’t be different, as CS logic hasn’t been reliant on frame rates for a long time (if ever).
I can’t run most games much above 100Hz with a 3090.
I’ve got the 45" ultrawide 240hz OLED that LG make. That’s plenty fast enough.
