I can’t go back to 60…

>>715502474 (OP)
is the difference dramatic?

I can barely tell the difference myself.

>>715502730
I mean it's good but 60 to 120+ is nowhere near as dramatic as the jump from 30 to 60.

t. 175hz monitor owner

women can't go back to shitskin clitties after tasting BWC. same thing

>>715502474 (OP)
I still game on 30 for single player games

>>715502474 (OP)
I play games at whatever framerate my console affords me, idc

>>715502474 (OP)
60fps to 120fps is great, but I legit cant tell any difference at all between 120 and 240 on my new 240hz monitor.
I must be getting old

>>715502474 (OP)
Too bad! Your games breaks above 30 or 60 FPS!

>>715502730
Fuck no. I have C2 and a 4090. Don't waste your money. 4k 120 fps is a side grade compared to 1080 60 fps. Not even worth the money at all despite what ngreedia would want you to believe.

>>715505195
Welp, is this the new "do the math" thing?
from bit > graphic > FPS

>>715503039
I don’t understand the technicals but what exactly happens if I ran a game at 120fps on a 60fps screen.

>>715502474 (OP)
I would play at filmic 24 fps if there was no added latency.

>>715508583
You would not see more fluidity but if you were running games with v-sync off you would see less tearing and feel the lower latency.

>>715508583
game will read your inputs and process everything twice faster than it shows you whats going on
you wont see the difference but if youre fast enough you might feel it

>>715502874
It's diminishing returns except for input latency beyond 90fps.
-t 240hz enjoyer.

>>715502730
Yes, and anyone who tells you otherwise never enabled it and thought it was active.

>>715509310
We are nowhere near diminishing returns. Human perception can notice well beyond 10kHz.

>>715510205
I think anyone that struggles to notice the difference beyond 60 fps either forgot to set the refresh rate in their OS's settings or are playing games with bad frame pacing.

>>715510294
Or it's just /v/ being full of poor faggots convincing themselves that the bare minimum is good.

>>715508583
you lose every second frame rendered
if you are on a laptop you are frying it

>>715502730
Yes and only poorfags disagree. 30 FPS has like 30ms of input lag due to frame times being longer. 100-200 reduces this issue to like 2ms.

>>715502474 (OP)
The rule of law determines
>First person, KB+M, 120 fps
>Third person, gamepad, 60 fps

>>715510382
I mean, 60hz IS good, it's just 30hz is fucking ass and there's no reason to settle for 60hz when we can reasonably go higher and visibly see it.

>>715510632
On a controler you won't even notice.
I have a 4070 and a 144 monitor

>>715502474 (OP)
I got a 165hz monitor recently and I don't notice any significant difference.

>>715502730
going from 60 to 120/144/165 is a noticeable smoothness increase but going back to 60 looks fucking horrendous

>>715511262
60hz is fine. Being an autistic faggot because someone wants to go higher than that is just retarded.

>>715502730

Yes, I jumped from 60 to 165 hz monitor and I can tell the difference

>>715502474 (OP)
Past 90fps i notice nothing.
Tested myself with a friends help

>>715502474 (OP)
the human eye cant see beyond 30hz and 16 bit color

>>715502474 (OP)
Can't go back to 144....
(i can but i notice the difference now)

>>715511679
>I got a 165hz monitor recently and I don't notice any significant difference.
If you went from 120 to 144hz to 165hz and around that range the difference will not be significant, you gotta go up to 240 to see the next noticeable jump.

>>715502730
Maybe for controller polling events, but for actual graphical stuff, not really. I do appreciate when devs optimize their games well enough to achieve it though, so I have no problem with games that do it but 60-75 Hz is more than acceptable and anyone saying otherwise is either a shill or basically experiencing buyer's remorse or a placebo effect.

>>715512096
This but for 240 fps.

>go from 60hz to 360hz
now this is podracing

the human eye can't see more than 10 fps

>>715502730
Massive diminishing returns for far more processing power.

>>715513808
>diminishing returns

>>715502730
60 to 90 is dramatic, 90 to 120 begins to have diminishing returns but it is half the frame time of 60, which is obviously an improvement that can be noticed, well within human perception times. More than that is gravy. 180+ monitors are frame generation fodder for modern games.

>>715514141
>>715513997

>>715502474 (OP)
I shed some tears when I went from 60hz to 120hz, thinking of everything I've missed.

>>715502730
60 to 100-144 is noticeable
Above that, I have a 240hz monitor and I have never noticed the difference
That said, as always, when if you start playing the game at 60 it wont bother you, but the change will fuck you up

It's not that complicated. Human reaction times at the highest level are consciously under 200ms, humans can react faster but they usually won't outside of situations where they've trained themselves to do so. You want your screen to be refreshing as fast as you can react, more is better but not as important.

>>715502730
it's not like from 30 to 60 like poorfags coming from console and having an epiphany when they experience 60fps for the first time in their life's but it's definitely a noticeable step up in smoothness

>>715502474 (OP)
i hope u have 120hz+ monitor

I like 120 because aiming becomes a lot smoother when using gyro controls on my TV.
But I often have to choose between 1080p120 or 4k60, and I generally prefer 4k60. Even if it's upscaled crap.
Games are so fucking blurry nowadays that 1080p is genuinely unplayable for me, even in integer scaling with DLAA.
I should have bought a better gpu than a base 4070 but fuck these prices.

>>715514447
see >>715510205
Reaction times are irrelevant. You are seeing a stream of images, not reacting to one that will pop up. The images you see are processed simultaniously. Your granularity of image processing is well beyond the 10kHz range and the fastest monitors available don't go much further than 600Hz. Diminishing returns are practically nonexistant for current technology.

>>715515304
Fancy words but I'm still keeping my 1080p 75hz
>NOOO I SAID THE BIG WORDS, YOU NEED TO SPEND MONEY NOW
try again maybe it'll work this time

>>715515304
Correct. You can test this yourself with a strobing LED.

>>715502474 (OP)
I can barely notice a difference

>>715514447
Reaction times != perception times
Your visual processing will notice small changes much faster than you can react to. Seeing the stimuli to react to 8-9ms faster means you act 8-9ms faster. There's also the soft mental effect of glossing over and disassociating with a low framerate.

>>715515384
I think that you can get 120hz today for as low as 100 but okay.

>>715502730
30-60 HUGE 60-80 Large 80-100 small 120+ barely noticeable. You get large diminishing returns after 80-100

i have a 144hz monitor and i only play at 120fps never 144. idk why, it's just a better number. and i feel like my gpu has headroom to rest.

>>715516295
You get a $100 120hz monitor it's bound to have a myriad of problems elsewhere, namely pixel density, color banding, those annoying ass white halos at the border and so on.

Get a really high quality monitor, but no more than 1080p.

>>715511564
Of course you will. Sometimes I wonder how many fellow humans are just slightly less hairy apes.

>>715502730
When you first go from 60-120fps the difference is incredibly noticeable when you switch back. Whenever my monitor would fall back to 60hz for whatever reason I would notice immediately.

It's very possible to go back to 60fps though, you just have to put in effort to get used to it again. Eventually your brain remembers that it's still a good and responsive framerate and stops perceiving the choppiness.

i overclock my monitor to 200hz
i can't go back to 180hz

>>715502474 (OP)
120fps for 5 years. If I record while playing or a game cannot do above 60fps it's like living in hell.

>>715514602
are you baiting? there have always been SOME 60fps games on console. frikkin super mario is 60fps.

I have a 180hz display
>180fps
freaking nice as fuck
>120fps
can see it's less than 180, but only if i actually try to notice a difference, otherwise it's just as nice
>90fps
same as above, can see it's less than 120, but yadda yadda
>60fps
perfectly fine for any type of game, a bit jarring for first person games the moment you're switching to it from 120 or above, otherwise(read, if it's already at 60 and you're not switching from higher fps) it's fine for first person games as well
>30fps
still perfectly fine for most games that do not feature extremely fast movement, and even perfectly fine for those fast paced games where the focus of attention is still a relatively still part of the scene and without fast camera movements/rotations

the difference between each are undeniable, and it's also undeniable that more is better, but i can adapt to all of them(and the inbetweens) just fine as long as the framepacing is consistent

i legit feel sorry for those who are bothered, and i dont even mean it in a mean "fucking losers cant stand 30fps" way, i legit feel sorry cause it must suck if you get headhaches from or cant adapt to lower fps without it being an issue

120hz is massively noticeable. 240 from 120 is noticeable, but only worthwhile to strive for in competitive, simple games.