Comment by IlikeKitties

Comment by IlikeKitties 3 days ago

> Im still watching 720p movirs, video games.

There's a noticeable and obvious improvement from 720 to 1080p to 4k (depending on the screen size). While there are diminishing gains, up to at least 1440p there's still a very noticeable difference.

> Somewhere between 60 hz and 240hz, theres zero fundamental benefits. Same for resolution.

Also not true. While the difference between 40fps and 60fps is more noticeable than say from 60 to 100fps, the difference is still noticeable enough. Add the reduction in latency that's also very noticeable.

saulpw 3 days ago

Is the difference between 100fps and 240fps noticeable though? The OP said "somewhere between 60hz and 240hz" and I agree.

Reply View 7 replies

unethical_ban 3 days ago

Somewhere between a shoulder tap and a 30-06 there is a painful sensation.
The difference between 60 and 120hz is huge to me. I havent had a lot of experience above 140.
Likewise, 4k is a huge difference in font rendering, and 1080->1440 is big in gaming.

Reply View | 1 reply
- drawfloat 3 days ago
  
  4K is big but certainly was not as big a leap forward as SD to HD
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
IlikeKitties 3 days ago

That would be very obvious and immediately noticeable difference but you need enough FPS rendered (natively not with latency increasing frame generation) and a display that can actually do 240hz without becoming a smeary mess.
If you have this combination and you play with it for an hour and you go back to a locked 100hz Game you would never want to go back. It's rather annoying in that regard actually.

Reply View | 1 reply
- oivey 3 days ago
  
  Even with frame generation it is incredibly obvious. The latency for sure is a downside, but 100 FPS vs 240 FPS is extremely evident to the human visual system.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
theshackleford 3 days ago

> Is the difference between 100fps and 240fps noticeable though?
Yes.
> The OP said "somewhere between 60hz and 240hz" and I agree.
Plenty of us dont. A 240hz OLED still provides a signifacntly blurrier image in motion than my 20+ year old CRT.

Reply View | 2 replies
- drougge 2 days ago
  
  Surely that 20+ year old CRT didn't run at more than 240Hz? Something other than framerate is at play here.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  theshackleford 2 days ago
  
  > Surely that 20+ year old CRT didn't run at more than 240Hz?
  It didnt have too.
  > Something other than framerate is at play here.
  Yes, sample and hold motion blur, inherent to all modern display types commonly in use for the most part.
  Even at 240hz, modern displays can not match CRT for motion quality.
  https://blurbusters.com/faq/oled-motion-blur/
  
  Reply View | 0 replies