Comment by jeroenhd

Comment by jeroenhd 5 days ago

I enjoy working on my computer more at 144Hz than 60Hz. Even on my phone, the switch from 60Hz to a higher frame rate is quite obvious. It makes the entire system feel more responsive and less glitchy. VRR also helps a lot in cases where the system is under load.

60Hz is actually a downgrade from what people were used to. Sure, games and such struggled to get that kind of performance, but CRT screens did 75Hz/85Hz/100Hz quite well (perhaps at lower resolutions, because full-res 1200p sometimes made text difficult to read on a 21 inch CRT, with little benefit from the added smoothness as CRTs have a natural fuzzy edge around their straight lines anyway).

There's nothing about programming or word processing that requires more than maybe 5 or 6 fps (very few people type more than 300 characters per minute anyway) but I feel much better working on a 60 fps screen than I do a 30 fps one.

Everyone has different preferences, though. You can extend your laptop's battery life by quite a bit by reducing the refresh rate to 30Hz. If you're someone who doesn't really mind the frame rate of their computer, it may be worth trying!

rabf 5 days ago

CRT screens did 75Hz/85Hz/100Hz quite well, but rendered only one pixel/dot at a time. This is in no way equivalent to 60Hz on a flat panel!

Reply View 2 replies

scheeseman486 5 days ago

It isn't equivelent in the sense that the progressive scanout on CRTs resulted in near-zero latency and with minimal image persistance, versus flat panels which are global refresh adding latency and worsening motion clarity. So it isn't really a "but", it's a "made even better by being rendered only one pixel/dot at a time".

Reply View | 1 reply
- Dylan16807 5 days ago
  
  Motion clarity yes, but it's zero latency in the least useful way possible, only true when you're rendering the top and bottom of the screen at different points in time. And scanout like that isn't unique to CRTs, many flat panels can do it too.
  When rendering a full frame at once and then displaying it, a modern screen is not only able to be more consistent in timing, it might be able to display the full frame faster than a CRT. Let's say 60Hz, and the frame is rendered just in time to start displaying. A CRT will take 16 milliseconds to do scanout. But if you get a screen that supports Quick Frame Transport, it might send over the frame data in only 3 milliseconds, and have the entire thing displayed by millisecond 4.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies