Untitled

actually there is some truth to this, just believing your monitor is faster helps a lot
i know a retard who bought a 144hz monitor but had it on 60hz all the time without knowing, yet constantly talked about how nice it was

There are also nicer panels. It's possible he bought a nicer panel, with better contrast. Maybe he went from TN to IPS?

Anyway, I've noticed within seconds when my 144hz monitor is running at 60hz (in games, not browsing or programming)

jumping to high refresh rate monitor is like your first SSD, it's so nice but you get use to it really quickly and it becomes the new normal.
then you go back, and it's unbearable

Attached: kanna fast.gif (540x540, 1.75M)

A "placebo effect" would imply the monitors with low frame rates would give this effect. They don't.

Is he stupid?

if its placebo why can I immrdiatly tell the difference playing Doom eternal on a lower hz or fps

Reminder that 60hz CRTs look better than your 240hz gaming monitors.

And of course there's nothing preventing you from running any CRT at 160hz either.

Attached: 1623494967681.jpg (1636x768, 198.98K)

Literally who

its a real tweet by the Google ceo

Not even 120hz OLEDs can compete with CRTs.

It's as if there's more to motion than marketing numbers like refresh rates and response times!

Attached: crtvsoledmotion.png (1725x518, 881.7K)

that tweeter obviously has no idea what a placebo is
well, he is a pajeet so i guess it's only fitting considering that nations relationship with health and hygiene

Dumb H1-B pajeet

Those are obvious baits, but obviously there is an upper limit to how much change the human brain/eye can perceive per second. So no, thinking of it in terms of FPS is not wrong.

>120 - 165 is placebo, yeah.
only if your panel is incapable of the response times to reach 165hz. I will say that between 120hz and 144hz, and between 144hz and 165hz, I would have trouble telling the difference, but the jump from 120hz straight to 165hz is noticeable. My rule for "can I tell the difference" is that every 2ms change in response times is perceptible. So you can tell the difference between 100hz and 120hz (10ms-8ms) and 120hz to 165hz (8ms to 6ms) but it's difficult to tell 6-7-8ms independently.

It also means you have to jump to 240hz for the next jump (4ms) and then 500hz for 2ms. 360hz monitors are only worth looking at over 240hz if response times of the monitor and BFI come into play. Once you have 240hz the actual refresh rate of the montor matters way less than the rest of the panel for blurring does. Here's an example of why 240hz is actually better than 360hz because the blur reduction features of the monitor matter more than the 1ms less theoretical max response time.
youtube.com/watch?v=np--4AZxUBg

On sample&hold monitors the human eye can see a difference to several thousand herz, it's only a matter of the speed of motion you're attempting to track.

The reason you don't see much difference between 120 and 165 is because both are blurry shit.

Attached: motion_blur_from_persistence_on_sample-and-hold-displays.png (640x640, 60.81K)

that's a 13.333ms response time vs a 16.666ms response time. It fits my rule of what refresh rate jumps are worth it.

>Google CEO is a tech retard
doesn't surprise me