>imagine buying any monitor above 60 fps when our eyes can't see over 30-60 fps
Lmao honestly respect to the big companies who make us believe we perform better at 240 fps or whatever they're peddling these days when humans are literally physically incapable of accepting input higher than 60 fps
healthline.com
monitors have nothing to do with how many fps your computer produces, son
it's all handled and done by the GPU
Meds. Now.
>hourly poorfag cope thread
Cope. Seethe. Dilate.
>have 120Hz monitor
>24, 30, and 60Hz content all works flawlessly with no need for 3:2 pulldown or changing the monitor's framerate
Ur incapable
I been reading a ton about displays last couple years. With current technology for one it's just not the same but you need way more fps and resolution to get similar motion clarity. Because it is sample and hold vs a pulse, our eyes be like yo this is stuttery. I have a 144hz gaming monitor with no strobe mode. It's smoother than 60 for sure but all you have to do is move left or right quickly one time to see it still breaks up into pictures. Our eyes can easily see up to like 300fps or more. If you move your mouse and see more than one mouse, it's because the fps isn't fast enough.
If you've ever heard someone say they heard someone say they only play cs go on crt at super low res it's because the cr gun can only spit out so many pixels. But so if you really lower the resolution you can overclock the fps and 300fps crt is like 1000fps lcd in terms of motion clarity
Shut the FUCK up we literally physically can not watch anything above 60 fps keep your pseudo science to yourself
>Some experts will tell you
Weasel words. If you believe that, you're certainly not an "expert" in display technology.
I wonder what the goal of the morons who write these retarded popsci articles is. Professor of psychology? Oh yeah, certainly an authority on optometry.
Kek we cannot watch yes it's against the law. Wave your hand around in natural light. Did it strobe? No. Do it under artificial light. You see multiple hands. You don't have to 'see' beyond 60fps to see the problem. It's either fluid or it isn't and at low fps an object can only move across the screen so fast without it becoming a bunch of individual pictures.
very weak b8 try harder m8
I mean you're retarded and poor but ok. Just imagine, 10 years from now, idiots like you will be saying 144 is enough because that will be the budget option.
144 is already the budget option. I just can't wait for 60Hz panels to go out of production.
imagine having persistence of vision so fucked because you smoked too much weed as a teen and got dropped on the head as a baby that you can't even see the diff between 60 and 120 lmao
>we
Speak for yourself, subhuman. Do humanity a favor and don't breed so that your unevolved eyesight isn't passed down
1080/144 sure, I'm sitting on 4k/144 myself and it's bliss with a 3090.
It's only NOT the budget option in 4K. It's actually cheaper than 60Hz most of the time.
Windows terminal runs at 2fps
Yep, we're starting to see 4k/240, but until qd-oled monitors are available at 32in 4k/240, probably not worth upgrading. Oleds running at 120+ will be a great jump for most people once it's saturated.
Do you guys notice a difference after 144hz? Going from 60hz to 144hz makes a very noticeable difference, but after that it's hard for me to tell.