Yiming Wu exactly my thought, nvidia’s 20 series didnt sell as well as they would have hoped, i guess thats what happens when performances stay the same while pricing goes up, i remember look at the benchmarks for the 2080 when it came out and cringe so hard
I remember when that chart first appeared all the tech youtubers called out its bullshit. Shame 3klik tries to awkwardly spin the narrative and fail. At least he’s getting paid and I would do the same. But then the other day he made a video about how principled he is and never accepted unethical sponsorships
@@abigit735 Well, for example, the people who have higher refresh rates are just going to be the people who tend to be better. you wouldn't spend a lot of money on something you aren't at least pretty good at. This just angered me so much from a stats point of view so i had to get that out sorry carry on.
Amen to that. Not because I'm poor or anything,they just mock your setup all the time even if it's brand new and force you to spend even more money on their stuff. I guess greed really is the name of the game.
Looking at the graphs, I don't figure having good fps makes you a better player- but rather the better player probably purchases better equipment. It hurts to see 3kliks not mention it.
Interestingly enough, since getting a 144Hz monitor, my rank in CS:GO has gone down! So there is clearly more to how well you do than just how many FPS you have. I'd say the correlation is more likely to do with the fact that if you are buying expensive PC hardware, you're also probably not a casual gamer.
More importantly, KD isn't a good indicator of skill anyways. 3 kd at silver rank is much worse than 1 kd at global elite rank. And even if two players of the same rank have a huge difference in kd, does it tell us anything? If one is better than the other, then why is he the same rank?
@@DommHavai what you jst said makes only a smidgen of sense. Generally speaking the better the kd the better the individual player. Also it would only make sense if Nvidia used average kd over many games of many different players as their results, meaning their results are accurate.
@@chadfield6552 These ads-sorry, "studies" were sponsored by the company that would heavily benefit from those results. Those studies are complete and utter bullshit.
@@rush-zh5dc right. I have thousands of hours and on a competitive team for tf2, a game which people infamously say is horrible is 60hz. The only reason I don't have anything above 59hz is because I cannot afford it.
@@Scaramouche122 I am not rich, and bought a 144hz monitor for 150€. How does buying a high refresh rate monitor make you rich? When 60hz monitors cost around 90-110€ new?
@@Scaramouche122 Yeah what about me being german? They're not expensive at all dude. And I don't know why you need to mention that I live in germany right now. (Btw did you actually look at my channel and tried to find out where I come from? Wtf dude.)
I once saw someone get turned off from high refresh rate monitors while at a shop: the person previewing the monitors claimed to not see any difference from the other, lower refresh rate monitors on display. I checked the monitor's settings after they had finished and figured out the store's staff hadn't even set it to be 144hz so the monitor was only displaying at 60. Really showing your skills off there, tech section guys. I wonder if their viewpoint of high refresh rates are now permanently skewed...
I told someone that their might be something wrong with their set making their monitor not run at 144hz. According to them I was being incredibly rude and was trying to "invalidated their experiences". I quickly flipped it back on them by saying they might have some kind of visual impairment.
Sure, but trust me when i say it is a huge competitive advantage. Nvidia aren't the only one's who claim stuff like this and i can tell you it really does make a noticeable difference.
Considering Nvidia is sponsoring this video, sure it is. But what they said does correlate with other high refresh rate monitor owners. I can tell you as a triple screen user, that my middle 144Hz monitor feels way better than my side 60Hz one in all applications. Seeing the difference side by side is like night and day.
yes but higher refresh rate doesn't mean more k/d/a that is just bogged. Higher means u can see urself die more ( because more pictures ) if u are bad, people who are already good buy better equipment. My friend who used to play with me was the same rank as me in CSGO and then he bought a monster pc , for as long as I played with him his rank didn't shoot up immediately but after I left, because the newer update brought my fps below 40 fps he started to climb ranks. NOT BECAUSE HE HAD BETTER PC , but because he played consistently and the pc allowed him to play consistently. He is 4 ranks ahead of me now and it is because of his pc and also because he played extremely consistently. He also played more than before thus it helped in his aim. ( He is DMG now )
@GuiltyKing27 a competitive advantage to players who are playing competitively is not a generalisation. We are taking about every player here. Silver to ge. A G.E will already have a 144hz pc and a silver or gn would not mind lower end. Having a better pc that runs above 60 fps won't make u DESTROY OTHER PLAYERS. Ur play will not improve with a leap. If u think this is true then it is worthless to argue.
He's on an adventure to become the first ever monitor scalping millionaire. Put your guesses in the comments for how much profit or loss he'll end up with for a chance to win coveted klikpoints.
@Source Dasher Fact is I got a 144hz monitor and going back to 60hz hurts sooo much... Haven't tried a monitor above 144hz and the diminishing return as you say it is probably very high once you reach 200+ frames but from 60 to 144 there is a whole world.
They could've just cleaned it up to remove any data that seemed unnecessary or didn't add anything. It doesnt make it fake if they remove information that isnt helpful.
@@TheAbbeyoftheEveryman you have literally no idea if this is his graph or nvidia's I would probably believe in Philip since he's a genuine person and I doubt he would shill since he's gone on length with how he refuses to accept sponsors from things he doesnt agree with.
Those graphs seems more like BS, of course somebody who takes gaming very serious bought the 1080TI. So really wants to improve and probably have alot of prior experience. Someone who cares less doesn't care it's not at 100+ fps, doesn't care about improving as much.. going from a HD6850 on 60hz to a R9 290 on 144hz didn't almost double my "K/D". :-P
Counterargument. People who buy a 1080ti are wealthier than those who got cheaper cards (aka kids). Kids have better reaction times than adults, skewing the cheaper cars as performing better in KD, even though they're harder to play on.
@@fdsage Well, most kids nowadays are actually better than adults. Professional players don't count. I can play PUBG and CSGO just fine and dandy but I still haven't won solo on Fortnite at all.
@@MNB730 what age does someone go from being a "kid" to being an "adult"? Talking about my own experiences in CS:GO matchmaking I rarely meet someone I consider as a "kid" who plays better than the adults.
I won't be satisfied until the 17000hz displays come out and you physically won't possibly be able to move the mouse fast enough to see the judders between frames, it'll just be like cream smeared across the screen with how many frames there will be
The evidence of frames per second affecting kd has is purely circumstantial. Its likely that the people that shell out for high refresh rate monitors are also the type of people that play games competitively. Where as someone who is fine with a 60hz refresh rate probably isnt as worried about high levels of play
There is a difference between "there might be other factors at play" and "there is no causal link." There very well might be other factors, but I think it's obvious why a higher refresh rate would make people play better.
If your pc can run CS:GO at 240FPS and your monitor is only 60HZ you still have a better experience than with a 60FPS computer because you get newer images from the GPU.
And if you're on 60hz it's good to cap your fps in games, cap it at the highest number that you hit consistently.. For example 200fps cap in csgo will feel very consistent, smoother than if your fps is going up and down from 200 to 400 or whatever.. On 60hz it's all about how your feel, you can't rely on visuals..
How can you get the newer images if your monitor is only 60hz?Your eyes will see only 60 images per second,and it doesnt matter can your computer run CS:GO at 60fps or at 9999fps.
I still find it insanely stupid consoles are still stuck at the 30fps barrier not because of the limited hardware, but because they focus on the pretty graphics instead of the frame rate.
And the graphics are still locked lower than what pc players can turn up to. Consoles are just pointless to me unless you don't do any work and have a minuscule budget.
whats sad is a lot of older console games actually did prioritize framerate, a large amount of nintendo's first party games have run at 60fps since the gamecube. all the kingdom hearts games on playstation ran at 60fps, meanwhile bloodborne runs at like 22fps average on the ps4 and kingdom hearts 3 tries to run at 60 but struggles sometimes.
My cousin (console only player) was one of the people that said "30fps is enough". Recently when he visited I was playing Borderlands 3 and when a cutscene was played he said "yo why is it so choppy now"... Well my friend the cutscenes play in 30fps (for whatever reason, I mean the game is big enough as it is, I can download a few more pixels). I think it's hard to notice a difference if you can't compare. It's a "if you see it you shit bricks" situation
Ps5 and xbox series x are said to support 120 hz and they have a lot better hardware compared to pc counterparts compared to previous ones. Though the probably run 60 fps cap if the graphics are set way too high again. But they are definitely pushing for higher frame rates since many have changed to pc for that exact reason.
Don't want to flex but i bought a 400€ library pc back in 2016 and i could play csgo at THE HIGH SPEEDS of 40 fps on a very good day on lowest settings.
I don't like this video, it just doesnt feel like the usual kliksphilip style, it genuinely feels like you were paid to read lines and made some edits here and there. If the video is making the argument that it feels better and is smoother, I'd be ok, but suggesting that higher fps means better performance in games (guaranteed) is scummy, I don't believe that to be true and the data has been influenced by other factors. This feels like an ad throughout the entire video and I just don't like it.
I don’t think the message is that it makes you instantly better if you buy the absolute top tier technology. He literally said if you’re bad, you won’t be good as soon as you upgrade.
@@default0467 I don't know where in the video that is, do id like a time stamp but at 2:10 you get "and guess what, it seems that the more frames per second they have, the better they play" I don't like this line as it says what I don't like that better fps = better gameplay, I'd argue a consistent framerate is the most important, but that's not related here.
@@altzu yeah, while going on about how even people who play similar amounts of time, one with the better graphics card plays better. It's like (for example of course) saying racist things like the 13% thing and constantly saying these things, and then going "correlation doesn't equal causation... BUT!" You can't just insist on something being true and then just throw in "correlation doesn't equal causation" and suddenly your unbiased (I'm not calling kliksphilip racist it's just the first example that came to mind)
>you're at a serious disadvantage if you play on 60hz versus 144hz not really? majority gamers are fine at 60 becuase they aren't the top 1% that use literal frames to react to stuff, I get that this is an ad but saying stuff like this is kinda disingenuous
Yeah he immediately started out with his 'almost everyone uses 144Hz by now, and if you don't you're at a serious disadvantage'. Honestly except for like 5 people everyone I know uses 60Hz.
i switched to 144 hz from 60. I can tell you that it makes a ton of difference. The first few deathmatch on 144hz i played on CS:GO , I consistently got 60+ kills. Everything is smoooooth. (and i'm not sponsored by nvidia!).
Its disingenious to assume that it takes a professional to get any real advantage from a higher refresh rate monitor. Find something valid to critique.
I mean love the vid but I don't like the sponsor in this case, it may influence your conclusions. Feels like studies funded by companies to subtly support their products (e.g. a television network funding a study on the effects of TV on kids). I trust your judgement, but still, doesn't sit right edit: or of course NVIDIA funding studies on how the specs they sell improve gameplay, that sorta thing
@@nobodyfour1686I don't think your argument is correct, a more accurate example is "A television network funding a study of a high-fidelity televisions on kids. Besides the sponsorship, the core of this video is introducing the concept of high refresh rate monitors and their benefits, which have been backed by numerous sources by now. Nvidia do not directly manufacture or sell high refresh rate monitors. Sure the connection is that Nvidia makes graphics cards which heavily affect gaming FPS, but their competition can be just as viable for use with such monitors. Nvidia is not saying that "buying their 1660ti for example will double your KDA", simply provided a chart for how well their video card lines can drive refresh rates at specific resolutions. Yes it is an advertisement of their cards but I do not see any bias here?
While I recognize that the Nvidia's charts might not be the most accurate ones, the point they are making is still true. Also higher refresh monitors can reduce eye strain as you observe less flickering. Tearing is also far less noticeable on higher refresh rate monitors if you can even notice it. Even when they are marketed as gaming monitors you might find them useful even if you are a casual user. Just remember to enable the higher refresh rate on windows or whatever you use.
@@gale7682 I agree, I switched to a higher refresh rate and I noticeably improved. I'm not arguing against that, just the practice of a company sponsoring content in its favour that is supposed to be subjective
Human reaction time averages around 25ms and has a standard deviation of about 2ms. The difference between playing at 60 fps and at 144 fps is equivalent to having a human reaction time 5 standard deviations above your opponent. To put that into perspective, that is the equivalent of going from being some average joe to among the fastest reaction times ever recorded. I did my second thesis in high school covering this exact topic, but also going into greater detail as to how the latency improvements compare to the human reaction time and how a CRT monitor manages to outperform LED monitors in frame rates at a technical level. It is interesting to see more discussion on the topic and that people are more or less going in the same directions with the discussion as I did 4 years ago.
I haven't looked at my research in 4 years. Apologies if what of it I do remember off the top of my head was wrong. I just want to point out the signifigance of increased monitor refresh rate when compared to the natural variation in human reaction time to accentuate how much of an advantage your hardware can provide you.
@@cydonia9342 That is an outright lie, sorry :D Human reaction time is about 170ms for an audio stimulus and that is about as low as it's gonna get. The usual tests don't even list values below 150ms, outside of showing margin for error. This is part of how humans are built and has less to do with your specific genetic code and more to do with the travel time it takes signals to arrive at your brain as well as the processing required to trigger an impulse, with complex stimuli or expected reaction increasing the time until reaction even further. We commonly say average human reaction time is about 200ms as visual stimuli take longer to process (about 250ms, as noted above). You _can_ shortcut certain reactions if you train them long enough, though the benefits at this end of the spectrum are in the single digits. Guides and tutorials offering training on how to improve your reaction time are generally more about skipping the additional penalty on your reactions imparted by lack of sleep, poor nutrition, lack of physical exercise, etc. To the original point: The difference between a 60Hz monitor and a 144Hz monitor is roughly 10ms at worst, or about 1/25 of human reaction time to visual stimuli. I believe that high refresh rate monitors are definitely better for gaming, especially the increase of information per second as well as the smoother rendering should help drastically, but I don't think those 10ms do much for your reaction time if you're not already good at what you're doing.
Hello Mr. Philip First of all: thanks for answering! Yeah, I watched the video :) What I tried to say in my first comment is: Someone buying a high-refresh rate monitor should be aware that even if he cant get more than 144/240 Hz in a game, he can use variable refresh rate (as you said). To get a consistent experience, one should also try to get consistent frame times, so the input always feels reliable.
I highly recommend using that 120hz vs 60hz you captured with a high speed camera. That was much better than any other representation. People just talk about it, but the high speed camera was better.
Oh Yes, when I changed my monitor from 60 to 120 I was so much astonished, that the difference is so significant. Before this change I had been thinking like "it won't change much". Even moving the coursor is different
I remember testing my friends 144 hz monitor for the first time in 2014, bought my own next week. I think most of the people who didn't notice any difference are those who didn't know you might have to manually select 144 hz instead of 60 hz in the settings (heard that story too many times).
People talking about 4k 60fps while i spend hours to find the perfect graphics settings to approach 144 fps in games with my rx580 while still being able to tell the difference between a tree and a car
@@H8M0ndays or dislikes the pathetic advertisement that's pretending it's an accurate and valid analysis. it's saying 'our product is scientifically proven to make you better at playing vidyo games, please buy our product' whilst cherrypicking data to support that conclusion.
I visited a friend last week, he has a 144hz monitor and i a 75hz one. We played a bunch of games and when i went back home and fired up my rig, i thought my eyes were gonna pop out of my head. I absolutely couldn't get used back to 75hz. I literally couldn't play any games i have. So i went and bought a 144hz. I must say it's COMPLETLY something different. It made me play so good i actually felt like i was cheating and kinda also felt bad. It's probably different from person to person but, im gonna say, if you have the money, ABSOLUTELY get one of these bad bois.
My experience was that I noticed the increase in refresh rate (and resolution) but rather quickly forgot about it and almost felt like I perhaps imagined the improvement for the most part. Until I tried a friends PC running at 60hz again, at which point I realised 60hz now felt sluggish and laggy, almost unbearable. I'm not particularly competitive or skilled either but I love high refresh now and going back would be horrible. Oh and I should add that I was getting eye strain with long gaming sessions on 60hz that I don't get at 144hz
NVIDIA: ok can you make a very informative video on why good monitors are worth it so they buy them from us? Phillip: okay let me make this very informative graph 1:47
They're not wrong, I think we see at 18fps(?) but not synced with the screen, so a higher refresh rate means more chance of lining up with your eye. (More fps is noticable and is better because of this.)
@@cydonia9342 They are wrong. There is no such thing as fps in the human eye. We perceive the frames as fluid motion in about 20fps, but it doesn't mean the human eye sees in those 20 fps. For example, there was a study about pilots that could describe the exact type of a fighter from a picture they saw for 1/500 of a second. Also on the console, you don't need that many FPS because you don't feel the responsiveness through the controller at all. Also, there is often blur on. ON PC you feel through the mouse any latency in the movement, and many PC gamers hate blur, so they turn it off. (Blur helps to perceive the frames as fluid, but I personally hate it...)
4:30 I have had 2 144hz monitors for over half a year now. And they were both set at 60hz... I never knew... Thanks Philip. The difference is really noticable.
While im glad you got sponsored and made a good video on this- a lot of what you’ve said is going to be thrown into dispute because of the fact it is sponsored- it makes it seem kinda forced to prove the point for obvious reasons but for things like the KDR graph is completely irrelevant especially since people playing games at higher competitive levels will likely invest more resources into their system to reduce any non-skill bottlenecks There’s also the point like you said where for a lot of people- either on console or with medium to lower end hardware that wouldn’t even be able to make use of a higher refresh rate monitor
Asus 27" VG279Q . I used a 60Hz monitor for so long and when i switched it was literally like night and day. It's a relatively cheap monitor (at least in norway) for 1920x1080 IPS, 144Hz. Can wholeheartedly recommend.
@@jgangx That monitor has a pretty good value for competitive gaming. Minimal delays and no problems with ghosting. BUT I gotta say that the image quality is not up to par. It's not terrible or anything but it is certainly not beautiful. Still...if you are on a budget and your main goal is a really responsive and competitive setup this monitor is a good choice.
I'm glad you got sponsored, nice job sir philip! I'm a little concerned that this sponsorship leans into a biased video but at least nothing was held back, but you were completely transparent about the sponsorship and used plenty of nvidia's media to reinforce that you're saying what they're paying you to say. I have no issue with you getting paid, you deserve it! I hope it's clear to the viewers (as it is to me) to take everything in the video with a grain of salt. I understand that you would not deliberate mislead us or give us the wrong information, and I appreciate that money is not above your ethics as a content creator. I hope you continue being transparent about these sponsorships so we are fully informed of the context of your video :)
I've got big issues with correlation vs causation when it comes to that NVIDIA study. You could argue that new PC players are also less likely to spend more money on a high end system that would give them higher frames. Versus someone who has been gaming for a while (who would then be better since more practice has been had) and upgrades their PC to a higher quality.
the "limit" for improvements related to Hz and FPS, is actually 1ms (1000fps), Peripherals can't run above 1000Hz, so if you have more than both FPS and Hz, there will be frames that are exactly the same, even if you are moving your mouse
The jump from 144 to 240 seems to be the last jump that makes any difference. Any higher than 240hz and there will be resolution/colour/price/longevity sacrifices that make more difference.
Big Mac I own a 240Hz and I can confidently say I notice the difference when setting it to 144Hz. 240Hz is buttery smooth and everything feels instant, 144Hz is mostly the same but you do notice a difference, and 60Hz is laggy, ugly and unplayable :)
I checked the Specialist website and I'm genuinely impressed to find that I could have saved a not-insignificant amount of money if I had bought my current system from them instead of using a building service in my own country. We're talking almost saving half of a 5700 XT (keep in mind this is comparing a H500 B450 2600x + coolermaster aircooler with a H511 X570 3600x + noctua aircooler And 16GB of g.skill vs 16GB vengence) All that while still giving options for wireless cards, discdrives and a recovery USB for basically peanuts (Cheap enough where it barely makes sense not to add them in) I can't say anything for thier actual build quality, since I haven't bought one. But thier pricing is absolutely one of the best I have seen. * This was all done in the Overclocked PC configurer
Tons of people are nitpicking the Nvidia study due to (obvious) self interest, and whilst it is likely that 180 hz won't double your k/d ratio, it will make it easier to play better. We didn't need 50 separate comments telling us that a graph should be taken for a mountain of salt when the point here is that there is a substantial difference in performance between a 60hz monitor and a higher one. Anyone who has actually bought a high refresh rate monitor can vouch for this.
Can someone explain me: If servers are 64 tick and I have 240 fps, even if a 240 Hz improve my reaction time, doesn't the server response time ruin the ms that I gained from a better screen? I get that would be easier to aim in 240Hz but if the server still 64 ticks would be still worth?
Eddy The tickrate is speed at wich the server communicates with the client. A higher tickrate just means the game feels less laggy. Your monitors refresh rate and the server tickrate don’t really affect each other.
The graph at 2:29 is very troubling. I have a 1050Ti. Jokes aside a 100% increase in KD ratio after switching to a 1080 implies with a KD ratio of 0.97 and 15 frags a game, I'd get a KD ratio of 1.94 and drop a 30 bomb every game. Press X to doubt.
i bought my first 144hz monitor a couple months back, the difference between that and 60hz is so huge. but if i drop to like 90-100 fps in game with the new monitor it is very noticeable. u can get 144hz monitors for pretty cheap so i would definitely recommend it
i play 240hz and 144hz is noticeably choppy to me, not as much as the jump from 60 to 144, but i still notice 144hz so id deffo find 90 bad, i played red dead at around 90fps at lower hz and it was rough
No there is a huge gap between 144 and 90, 54hz difference. You will most definitely be able to tell a difference. I even put my 144hz to 90hz and felt a huge difference
144hz is the standard monitor but if you're on a budget and still somehow can't find a cheap 144hz monitor, get a 75hz one, it is honestly very noticeable and it feels a lot smoother than 60hz
Well good news and bad news... Good news! I learned that a good computer equals better gameplay! Bad News... My laptop runs competitive games at 24 fps
i dont like how you made the correlation that higher refresh rate leads to higher kd, simply because the better players and pro players are going to be the ones with the more expensive monitors, while casual gamers will have 60hz
He didn't though. He specifically said that correlation is not causation, that high refresh rate is just a lesser hindrance than 60 and that high refresh won't turn a bad player into a good one.
People on average with higher specs are better, there Def are alot of people that are extremely good on low end setups but the better performing setups allow you to be more consistent and do give u an advantage when seeing people peaking corners for example you will see them on a 240hz before you would see them on a 60hz. Having this extra overhead of performance allows you to be better cause the game responds quicker and more consistent visuals and feel to the game, won't make you better but is an advantage and when trying to improve your skills it's a much better fou dation to work from.
I study medical engineering and we are taught a lot about CNS and other systems of human body. I really dislike the statement that eye can see 60 or 30 FPS or whatever around that. But i´ve been taught that eye (photoreceptor cells) just "sends" countinous stream of informations through optic nerve into brain, whitch builds picture from it and missing parts just makes up. So thats why its just higher framerate results into more pictures on screen at one time and refreshrate is just monitor trying to keep up with FPS that GPU spits out. Am i wrong or its just bad group understandig of FPS, refreshrate and eye-brain comunications??
I'm no biologist but have a little bit of game development knowledge and as far as I am concerned it basically acts like a sample, so a small sample (small fps) will give you results but in noticable stutters, while the larger sample with give you a much smoother line comparitively and thus smoother framerate. The eye in this analogy is just the observed line of best fit through the data, you can see the line at both high and low sample sizes but the individual smoothness changes. Altho you are right with your comment about the monitor catching up with the gpu as the gpu will perform calculations at a rate defined by the fps which is how many updates the gpu can send to your moniter per second, and the monitor will refresh at the selected rate (Say 60) and it will match the recieved gpu update to the monitor frame at that time. I may be wrong and have gone on a rant but pretty sure that is what you were on about
It's not always better. Higher refresh monitors usually have uglier colors and worse contrast. Some people value image quality more than just refresh rate.
Tickrate doesn't necessarily affect the time when you see the enemy at all. For example if enemy is standing still holding a corner and you peek. The enemy is standing still so there is nothing to update as the player position is same for multiple ticks. When you peek there is client side prediction so tickrate doesn't affect what you are seeing on your monitor, you still see 180 fps even if the server only registers 64 fps of what you are doing so you see the enemy on your screen earlier even if the server doesn't recognize you saw him earlier. This is pretty common situation on csgo but of course the more players move more the tickrate affects.
@@gale7682 so then the question becomes does it matter because the human reaction time for visual stimuli(like seeing the enemy) takes a quarter of a second. Google it.
@@Wheagg It definitely can matter as it's extra time on the top of you reaction time. It mostly matters if the players are evenly skilled (good vs good or bad vs bad) like in a competitive game. But seeing enemies 5% earlier in some situations is not probably a game changer for most.
I clicked on this video largely because I expected a lot of obsessively ignorant comments yet I'm still impressed by the dedication to obtuseness. "high refresh rates and FPS make no difference!" let me guess... "they're all just cheating!" right? seriously. minimizing lag and maximizing available information is critical for competitive gaming. arguing otherwise is like saying that starting a bike race with a rusty chain and flat tires cannot be a problem...
Exactly, and like you said, minimizing lag is so important. Not only framelag, but also input lag. 60Hz is way too slow if you really want to get good at a game, the display just doesn’t follow your movement fast enough which is something you notice after getting a higher refresh rate. I owned a 144Hz, it had a dead pixel and I returned it while I could so that forced me to go back to 60Hz for a week or two. My brain wanted to commit suicide, it was so choppy, so slow, so much input lag. Now own a top-of-the-line monitor (240Hz) and can never go back. Its so much better.
Thanks philip, now I realise that I have been playing on a 144Hz monitor, with a 60Hz setting. I thought adjusting it in Nvidea Control panel was sufficient. Apparently not.
My Mom's a photographer (probably unrelated) and can't tell the difference between 30 Hz and 144 Hz. She can't see me justifying my 144 Hz monitor purchase lol
I think the graphs in this have been selected by your sponsors because they are deliberately misleading. If the correlation was so great why not abx the same subject with different graphics cards? This would be cheap to test, and the results would be such good marketing, it's hard to believe they haven't already done so. Presumably the results are unimpressive. Why use graphics card tiers instead of framerates, especially as the metric we are supposed to be measuring is infact framerates? Perhaps the percentage increases between cards is so small as to immediately lead to questions in the methodolgy. Perhaps the cost in card reflects a a longer history of gaming for the subject and therefore an increased willingness to pay more - but the skill difference is based on long term experience. Perhaps it is related to age and purchasing power. Infact Fortnite is quite a young game - perhaps if you measured Quake, the expense of a 1080ti would correlate to a much older audience and much slower reaction times and lower kd ratios. I think the graphs are very persuasive but utterly misrepresentative. I'm worried people might actually buy into it, especially as your videos often promote interesting challenges to conventional wisdom (like the 4k on budget card video). I'm worried people will take an absense of criticality as evidence that no serious challenges are worth mentioning. I really like your videos and I don't automatically think your sponsored work should not exist... I just worry some parts of this are misleading.
For well over 3 years I had two 144Hz displays. Apparently I had been running them both on 60Hz without knowing until I got curious and checked because of this video.
I recently got my hands on 240 Hz monitor. From what I can tell, anything above ~120 Hz hardly changes the experience. Moving pictures are indeed clearer at 120 Hz then they are at 60 Hz. 240 Hz, however, only makes a difference if objects are moving so incredibly fast that I can't distinguish them anyways and all I get is differently looking blobs. I also haven't experienced any discomfort from switching back and forth between 60 and 240 (yes, your mouse movement does not feel the same, but both ways are perfectly serviceable). 240 Hz might be worth it if your are professional first person shooter player but otherwise it's purely bragging rights, if you ask me.
Play on 240hz only for like 3 months then try 120hz again, u will see and feel the difference, going up isn't that big to most people but going down is more noticeable
There is a huge difference playing on 60hz with 60fps(continuous) and on 60hz with 240/300fps. In the second situation you are getting sooner the most recent frame. P.S. I think that in competitive frame rate and refresh rate for all should be fixed, in this way all should have equal chance except monitor input lag and panel response time. There in no competition playing against someone heaving significant slower PC.
Meh the reason the high refresh monitors show an average higher kd is because people who are willing to spend more money on a better monitor or pc will usually be more dedicated to gaming
I really don't feel a difference. My brother let me use his 144hz display a little while back, and it felt exactly the same as my 75hz monitor. Granted, I didn't use it very extensively - I think I just noodled around in Windows for a minute or so - but nevertheless it feels like beyond 60hz the changes are too subtle to conciously appreciate while gaming, like using resolutions higher than 1080p. Maybe I'm just used to this stuff, or tolerant of low-quality gear. I do sometimes watch RUclips in 480p... Or maybe it's entirely subconcious, and I'm missing the point.
@@cykablyat6348 it's obvious when you compare them in shop, but in daily use it can be not that obvious for some people. For me even difference between 60Hz and 65Hz is noticeable.
Got tripped up on a wire and accidentally and my BenQ Zowie hit the floor hard. Had to switch back to a 60 hz and I thought my gpu was malfunctioning from how sluggish everything looked. There is noticeable difference when you upgrade but when you downgrade after playing a while on high frequency, the mountainous difference makes you truly understand the difference
I'm really happy that you found a fitting sponsor for an interesting video. At first I was a bit dissapointed when I bought my 144 Hz monitor, but when I visited a friend and played on his 60 Hz monitor I began to appreciate it. It is a worthwhile investement if you want to play a lot of CS or racing games. Ist stepping up to 240 or 360 Hz the same as stepping from 30/60 to 120/144? I don't think so but I can't say for sure becaue I never played on one. And the studies shown are, ofcourse, not bulletproof. But it is kinda true. If you are a decent player switching to a high refreshrate monitor will step up your game but I agree that it is propably not 70%. But the numbers are taken from PUBG, K/D in PUBG or CS:GO are something completely different. Keep that in mind. But still, correlation is not causality. It is true that people that are really good are willing to invest more into their setup than a casual gamer just playing for fun.
High fps is beneficial even without a monitor for it, as response time is improved. I play CS on a normal 60hz monitor but there's a significant difference in the feel of the game at 60fps and 200fps, where the latter is much more responsive.
I wish videos like these about high refresh rates would discuss BFI (black frame insertion), aka ULMB or ELMB. You mentioned desiring an image like a CRT monitor. Well, with BFI and high refresh rates, you can get that. Basically, it inserts a black frame every other frame to trick your brain to seeing moving images more clearly. It can almost entirely remove motion blur. Easiest test is to move a folder's window on the desktop. Can you read the text while moving it? No? Even on a 240 Hz monitor? Well, that's because you're not using BFI. If you did the same test on a 60 Hz CRT, you can read the text! That's because the way CRT monitors refresh natively cause this effect to happen because they scan. LCD-style monitors do not do this. So, if you want the clearest motion (which makes a huge difference in competitive gaming), try out the BFI (or ULMB/ELMB) option in your monitor. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
Sponsored video by corporations benefitting from people wanting to buy the reviewed products based on results of a study from other corporations that benefit from the results. Great. Just call it an "Ad" next time.
in my opinion 60Hz is perfectly fine, its more than playable as long as ur getting that constant 60 or 60+ frames high refresh rates are obviously better but you have to a pretty good reaction time to even make use of that better refresh rate
I've been down that road too my friend,I got lucky when I bought my newer PC two years ago because I got it just before the great devaluation of Turkish Lira and the skyrocketing of both US Dollars and Euro. Inflation spiked up as well,I hope you can find a good one before Covid increases everything's price even more. Best of luck.
Meanwhile I played CSGO on my 2014 MacBook at ~50 FPS for a year (2016-17) and managed to hit LE. But my playstyle was more flicky headshot than spray control because I had to hit the head or just lose miserably. My friends when spectating people watching me play would say that I preaim really weird. Now I have a PC I built with a 145Hz monitor and I have yet to start up CSGO again
I guess. Idk it's been a couple months since I needed to buy one. Before all this covid stuff. And new at least the prices weren't too different like an extra 20 or 40$ for a 144hz to a 60hz. Thought the prices would've went down by then but they're probably higher now.
Nvidia is putting some serious money on marketing. This exact ad is everywhere.
I think they might be on the way to clear all the leftover 20 series cards before the announcement of the 30 series.
Yiming Wu exactly my thought, nvidia’s 20 series didnt sell as well as they would have hoped, i guess thats what happens when performances stay the same while pricing goes up, i remember look at the benchmarks for the 2080 when it came out and cringe so hard
Although I do trust 3kliksphilip to be trustworthy on this video so at least there is At least good amount of trust
hopefully amd will beat them like they did to intel.
@@aniqshardin amd has already beat them lol some people are just too blind to see it
Statistics by a graphics card company showing that more expensive graphic cards make people play better. *Surprised pikachu face*
I know it's marketin and you're joking but most of the time that's sadly true.
I remember when that chart first appeared all the tech youtubers called out its bullshit. Shame 3klik tries to awkwardly spin the narrative and fail. At least he’s getting paid and I would do the same. But then the other day he made a video about how principled he is and never accepted unethical sponsorships
Even if you don't believe in the data, the logical explanation is pretty simple and conclusive
@@abigit735 Well, for example, the people who have higher refresh rates are just going to be the people who tend to be better. you wouldn't spend a lot of money on something you aren't at least pretty good at. This just angered me so much from a stats point of view so i had to get that out sorry carry on.
no way!! more rgb, more better gameplay
Statistics and studies published by a corporation looking to gain from certain results should be taken with a bucket of salt.
if you need some, TeoX just poured some in Tedious' wounds..
Amen to that. Not because I'm poor or anything,they just mock your setup all the time even if it's brand new and force you to spend even more money on their stuff. I guess greed really is the name of the game.
Looking at the graphs, I don't figure having good fps makes you a better player- but rather the better player probably purchases better equipment. It hurts to see 3kliks not mention it.
on top of that, statistics are easy to fake..
Interestingly enough, since getting a 144Hz monitor, my rank in CS:GO has gone down!
So there is clearly more to how well you do than just how many FPS you have.
I'd say the correlation is more likely to do with the fact that if you are buying expensive PC hardware, you're also probably not a casual gamer.
I think possibly its that people with better monitors are more invested in gaming? ( for the graphs )
More importantly, KD isn't a good indicator of skill anyways. 3 kd at silver rank is much worse than 1 kd at global elite rank. And even if two players of the same rank have a huge difference in kd, does it tell us anything? If one is better than the other, then why is he the same rank?
@@DommHavai what you jst said makes only a smidgen of sense. Generally speaking the better the kd the better the individual player. Also it would only make sense if Nvidia used average kd over many games of many different players as their results, meaning their results are accurate.
@@chadfield6552 These ads-sorry, "studies" were sponsored by the company that would heavily benefit from those results. Those studies are complete and utter bullshit.
They just have more money
I think he knows but the sponsor told him not to include it
Take the studies with a massive mountain of salt. People who own high refresh rate screens are more serious players already
Soo true
@@rush-zh5dc right. I have thousands of hours and on a competitive team for tf2, a game which people infamously say is horrible is 60hz. The only reason I don't have anything above 59hz is because I cannot afford it.
@@Scaramouche122 I am not rich, and bought a 144hz monitor for 150€. How does buying a high refresh rate monitor make you rich? When 60hz monitors cost around 90-110€ new?
@@Scaramouche122 Yeah what about me being german? They're not expensive at all dude. And I don't know why you need to mention that I live in germany right now.
(Btw did you actually look at my channel and tried to find out where I come from? Wtf dude.)
@@Scaramouche122 Bro black friday is literally just a day where nearly everything is on sale what's so hard to understand about that...
when you said "stuttering and lagging" at 4:20 my pc actually lagged and had to replay and realize it wasn't an easter egg ,fml
F
lol
@@teox5951 bro you just poured salt into my wounds
@@SteveOnlin lool
you are watching on an other level, you can actually feel the words
I once saw someone get turned off from high refresh rate monitors while at a shop: the person previewing the monitors claimed to not see any difference from the other, lower refresh rate monitors on display. I checked the monitor's settings after they had finished and figured out the store's staff hadn't even set it to be 144hz so the monitor was only displaying at 60.
Really showing your skills off there, tech section guys. I wonder if their viewpoint of high refresh rates are now permanently skewed...
Maybe these guys previously worked at Apple Genius Bar.
I told someone that their might be something wrong with their set making their monitor not run at 144hz. According to them I was being incredibly rude and was trying to "invalidated their experiences". I quickly flipped it back on them by saying they might have some kind of visual impairment.
This is a well-made video, but I can't help thinking that this message is a bit biased. Don't all the results seem a little skewed towards nvidia?
Sure, but trust me when i say it is a huge competitive advantage. Nvidia aren't the only one's who claim stuff like this and i can tell you it really does make a noticeable difference.
Considering Nvidia is sponsoring this video, sure it is. But what they said does correlate with other high refresh rate monitor owners. I can tell you as a triple screen user, that my middle 144Hz monitor feels way better than my side 60Hz one in all applications. Seeing the difference side by side is like night and day.
I mean, it's a sponsor, what are you expecting? But shhhhh....
yes but higher refresh rate doesn't mean more k/d/a that is just bogged. Higher means u can see urself die more ( because more pictures ) if u are bad, people who are already good buy better equipment.
My friend who used to play with me was the same rank as me in CSGO and then he bought a monster pc , for as long as I played with him his rank didn't shoot up immediately but after I left, because the newer update brought my fps below 40 fps he started to climb ranks. NOT BECAUSE HE HAD BETTER PC , but because he played consistently and the pc allowed him to play consistently. He is 4 ranks ahead of me now and it is because of his pc and also because he played extremely consistently. He also played more than before thus it helped in his aim. ( He is DMG now )
@GuiltyKing27 a competitive advantage to players who are playing competitively is not a generalisation. We are taking about every player here. Silver to ge. A G.E will already have a 144hz pc and a silver or gn would not mind lower end. Having a better pc that runs above 60 fps won't make u DESTROY OTHER PLAYERS. Ur play will not improve with a leap. If u think this is true then it is worthless to argue.
and this is how and when 3kliksphilip broke the price of high refresh monitors and making the price inflate by 50%
already inflated by 20%ish since lockdown lol
@@Kenny-hm1jb good point
He's on an adventure to become the first ever monitor scalping millionaire.
Put your guesses in the comments for how much profit or loss he'll end up with for a chance to win coveted klikpoints.
@Source Dasher ok mr essay
@Source Dasher Fact is I got a 144hz monitor and going back to 60hz hurts sooo much... Haven't tried a monitor above 144hz and the diminishing return as you say it is probably very high once you reach 200+ frames but from 60 to 144 there is a whole world.
2:30 is the fakest thing I've ever seen. No real dataset is that noise-free.
They could've just cleaned it up to remove any data that seemed unnecessary or didn't add anything. It doesnt make it fake if they remove information that isnt helpful.
I feel like on the graph the more that hours/week increases, the more consistent the data would be, not the other way around
Yeah love this guy's videos, been watching for years but this bullshit kinda making me want to unsub
@@TheAbbeyoftheEveryman you have literally no idea if this is his graph or nvidia's I would probably believe in Philip since he's a genuine person and I doubt he would shill since he's gone on length with how he refuses to accept sponsors from things he doesnt agree with.
xElectrix_ This is the most obvious sellout to nvidia lmao
Get that sponsored bread, philip!
what is wrong with regular bread?
ok mark
Thank God he isn't sponsored by those fake gambling sites
*NVIDIA BREAD*
@@user-rm4wf6vr2g This is actually worse in my opinion, that KD graph is such a blatant lie that it disgustes me
Those graphs seems more like BS, of course somebody who takes gaming very serious bought the 1080TI. So really wants to improve and probably have alot of prior experience. Someone who cares less doesn't care it's not at 100+ fps, doesn't care about improving as much..
going from a HD6850 on 60hz to a R9 290 on 144hz didn't almost double my "K/D". :-P
Counterargument. People who buy a 1080ti are wealthier than those who got cheaper cards (aka kids). Kids have better reaction times than adults, skewing the cheaper cars as performing better in KD, even though they're harder to play on.
@@billybobjoe198 so you think that kids are better players than adults? lol
@@fdsage o ya. When I was a kid I was great at CS. Now as an adult, not so much.
@@fdsage Well, most kids nowadays are actually better than adults. Professional players don't count.
I can play PUBG and CSGO just fine and dandy but I still haven't won solo on Fortnite at all.
@@MNB730 what age does someone go from being a "kid" to being an "adult"?
Talking about my own experiences in CS:GO matchmaking I rarely meet someone I consider as a "kid" who plays better than the adults.
I won't be satisfied until the 17000hz displays come out and you physically won't possibly be able to move the mouse fast enough to see the judders between frames, it'll just be like cream smeared across the screen with how many frames there will be
Only 17000hz? Gonna need to pump up those numbers rookie
The evidence of frames per second affecting kd has is purely circumstantial. Its likely that the people that shell out for high refresh rate monitors are also the type of people that play games competitively. Where as someone who is fine with a 60hz refresh rate probably isnt as worried about high levels of play
I agree.
There is a difference between "there might be other factors at play" and "there is no causal link." There very well might be other factors, but I think it's obvious why a higher refresh rate would make people play better.
Steve Larry Going from 60 to 240 Hz is not gonna turn your KD from 1.0 to 1.9, the graph is complete BS. Maybe 20% improvement
I completely agree. Correlation isn't causation.
Phil is a bit dumb tho. You should know this by now
If your pc can run CS:GO at 240FPS and your monitor is only 60HZ you still have a better experience than with a 60FPS computer because you get newer images from the GPU.
thats true, if you cap to 60fps and unlock it to lets say 300 you will actually see a big improvement
And if you're on 60hz it's good to cap your fps in games, cap it at the highest number that you hit consistently.. For example 200fps cap in csgo will feel very consistent, smoother than if your fps is going up and down from 200 to 400 or whatever..
On 60hz it's all about how your feel, you can't rely on visuals..
How can you get the newer images if your monitor is only 60hz?Your eyes will see only 60 images per second,and it doesnt matter can your computer run CS:GO at 60fps or at 9999fps.
@@ГЕОРГК-ж1б it will still feel smoother, FPS generated still directly affects the tickrate of the mouse
@@ГЕОРГК-ж1б yeah and inputlag is smaller, its been proven
Im happy seeing Philip getting sponsored! Keep it up mate
Stefan Savić i agree
I was one of those dudes who said "eh, 60 is fine" for years. Just recently got a 165 hz monitor and yeah I was an idiot.
59 is fine for me cause I can't afford anything above that.
you still are, sheep
NYN MOUSE FAN get a job lol
No, it is placebo effect, 60fps i v.good, higher resolution better
@@rush-zh5dc You didn't even need to do that my guy, most 60Hz monitors are overclockable to 75 :)
"watch this video at 720p or higher"
Well, you know it's not possible being this early
I still find it insanely stupid consoles are still stuck at the 30fps barrier not because of the limited hardware, but because they focus on the pretty graphics instead of the frame rate.
And the graphics are still locked lower than what pc players can turn up to. Consoles are just pointless to me unless you don't do any work and have a minuscule budget.
Nope. Console games all run on LOWEST settings and 30fps. The 1 TFLOPS graphics card in PS4 XB1 is basically worse than an iPhone 11
whats sad is a lot of older console games actually did prioritize framerate, a large amount of nintendo's first party games have run at 60fps since the gamecube. all the kingdom hearts games on playstation ran at 60fps, meanwhile bloodborne runs at like 22fps average on the ps4 and kingdom hearts 3 tries to run at 60 but struggles sometimes.
My cousin (console only player) was one of the people that said "30fps is enough". Recently when he visited I was playing Borderlands 3 and when a cutscene was played he said "yo why is it so choppy now"... Well my friend the cutscenes play in 30fps (for whatever reason, I mean the game is big enough as it is, I can download a few more pixels). I think it's hard to notice a difference if you can't compare. It's a "if you see it you shit bricks" situation
Ps5 and xbox series x are said to support 120 hz and they have a lot better hardware compared to pc counterparts compared to previous ones. Though the probably run 60 fps cap if the graphics are set way too high again. But they are definitely pushing for higher frame rates since many have changed to pc for that exact reason.
Imagine not getting a headache after playing for more than an hour.
This post was made by 2015 $300 laptop gang
20fps gang
the drivers on mine are so out of date that I can’t even change the screen brightness, what’s worse is that it’s stuck on max brightness.
@@professionalbusinessman2903 as someone who always wants the most brightness possible (within reason) I feel it would be worse to have it too dark
@@rootbeeeeer yup
your not alone
Don't want to flex but i bought a 400€ library pc back in 2016 and i could play csgo at THE HIGH SPEEDS of 40 fps on a very good day on lowest settings.
I just like how my "Up Next" video was the 'Nvidia, stop being a D!CK" one
I don't like this video, it just doesnt feel like the usual kliksphilip style, it genuinely feels like you were paid to read lines and made some edits here and there. If the video is making the argument that it feels better and is smoother, I'd be ok, but suggesting that higher fps means better performance in games (guaranteed) is scummy, I don't believe that to be true and the data has been influenced by other factors. This feels like an ad throughout the entire video and I just don't like it.
I don’t think the message is that it makes you instantly better if you buy the absolute top tier technology. He literally said if you’re bad, you won’t be good as soon as you upgrade.
@@default0467 I don't know where in the video that is, do id like a time stamp but at 2:10 you get "and guess what, it seems that the more frames per second they have, the better they play" I don't like this line as it says what I don't like that better fps = better gameplay, I'd argue a consistent framerate is the most important, but that's not related here.
@@altzu yeah, while going on about how even people who play similar amounts of time, one with the better graphics card plays better. It's like (for example of course) saying racist things like the 13% thing and constantly saying these things, and then going "correlation doesn't equal causation... BUT!" You can't just insist on something being true and then just throw in "correlation doesn't equal causation" and suddenly your unbiased (I'm not calling kliksphilip racist it's just the first example that came to mind)
>you're at a serious disadvantage if you play on 60hz versus 144hz
not really? majority gamers are fine at 60 becuase they aren't the top 1% that use literal frames to react to stuff, I get that this is an ad but saying stuff like this is kinda disingenuous
I succ at games but I've gotten used to 144hz. 60fps just feels weird and input laggy.
Yeah he immediately started out with his 'almost everyone uses 144Hz by now, and if you don't you're at a serious disadvantage'. Honestly except for like 5 people everyone I know uses 60Hz.
i switched to 144 hz from 60. I can tell you that it makes a ton of difference. The first few deathmatch on 144hz i played on CS:GO , I consistently got 60+ kills. Everything is smoooooth. (and i'm not sponsored by nvidia!).
Its disingenious to assume that it takes a professional to get any real advantage from a higher refresh rate monitor. Find something valid to critique.
Vibing with 75 fps
Zen
I mean love the vid but I don't like the sponsor in this case, it may influence your conclusions. Feels like studies funded by companies to subtly support their products (e.g. a television network funding a study on the effects of TV on kids).
I trust your judgement, but still, doesn't sit right
edit: or of course NVIDIA funding studies on how the specs they sell improve gameplay, that sorta thing
Linus did a video on it with a bunch of streamers and youtubers, shroud etc. You should watch it
@@nobodyfour1686I don't think your argument is correct, a more accurate example is "A television network funding a study of a high-fidelity televisions on kids. Besides the sponsorship, the core of this video is introducing the concept of high refresh rate monitors and their benefits, which have been backed by numerous sources by now.
Nvidia do not directly manufacture or sell high refresh rate monitors. Sure the connection is that Nvidia makes graphics cards which heavily affect gaming FPS, but their competition can be just as viable for use with such monitors. Nvidia is not saying that "buying their 1660ti for example will double your KDA", simply provided a chart for how well their video card lines can drive refresh rates at specific resolutions. Yes it is an advertisement of their cards but I do not see any bias here?
While I recognize that the Nvidia's charts might not be the most accurate ones, the point they are making is still true. Also higher refresh monitors can reduce eye strain as you observe less flickering. Tearing is also far less noticeable on higher refresh rate monitors if you can even notice it. Even when they are marketed as gaming monitors you might find them useful even if you are a casual user. Just remember to enable the higher refresh rate on windows or whatever you use.
@@gale7682 I agree, I switched to a higher refresh rate and I noticeably improved. I'm not arguing against that, just the practice of a company sponsoring content in its favour that is supposed to be subjective
Human reaction time averages around 25ms and has a standard deviation of about 2ms. The difference between playing at 60 fps and at 144 fps is equivalent to having a human reaction time 5 standard deviations above your opponent. To put that into perspective, that is the equivalent of going from being some average joe to among the fastest reaction times ever recorded. I did my second thesis in high school covering this exact topic, but also going into greater detail as to how the latency improvements compare to the human reaction time and how a CRT monitor manages to outperform LED monitors in frame rates at a technical level. It is interesting to see more discussion on the topic and that people are more or less going in the same directions with the discussion as I did 4 years ago.
Human reaction time is 250ms for an average person (0.25 seconds)*
''thesis'' ''high school'' get the fuck out
I haven't looked at my research in 4 years. Apologies if what of it I do remember off the top of my head was wrong. I just want to point out the signifigance of increased monitor refresh rate when compared to the natural variation in human reaction time to accentuate how much of an advantage your hardware can provide you.
@@bodaciouschad Oh yeah 100% agree, wish we all had 25ms reaction time lmao (I'm in the very low 100s so not too bad I guess)
@@cydonia9342 That is an outright lie, sorry :D Human reaction time is about 170ms for an audio stimulus and that is about as low as it's gonna get. The usual tests don't even list values below 150ms, outside of showing margin for error. This is part of how humans are built and has less to do with your specific genetic code and more to do with the travel time it takes signals to arrive at your brain as well as the processing required to trigger an impulse, with complex stimuli or expected reaction increasing the time until reaction even further. We commonly say average human reaction time is about 200ms as visual stimuli take longer to process (about 250ms, as noted above).
You _can_ shortcut certain reactions if you train them long enough, though the benefits at this end of the spectrum are in the single digits. Guides and tutorials offering training on how to improve your reaction time are generally more about skipping the additional penalty on your reactions imparted by lack of sleep, poor nutrition, lack of physical exercise, etc.
To the original point: The difference between a 60Hz monitor and a 144Hz monitor is roughly 10ms at worst, or about 1/25 of human reaction time to visual stimuli. I believe that high refresh rate monitors are definitely better for gaming, especially the increase of information per second as well as the smoother rendering should help drastically, but I don't think those 10ms do much for your reaction time if you're not already good at what you're doing.
"Returning to 60 fps again, it's immediately noticeable how much more responsive it feels"
Me: "When does he show the return"
"This is a sponsored video for Nvidia" up next: "Nvidia, stop being a DICK"
"Ironic"
One big thing was missing from this video: consistent frame times
no 240hz display can help when your frame times are all over the place.
Very true but consider his based around counter strike it doesn't take much to be above 240fps consistently
Hello Mr. Philip
First of all: thanks for answering!
Yeah, I watched the video :)
What I tried to say in my first comment is:
Someone buying a high-refresh rate monitor should be aware that even if he cant get more than 144/240 Hz in a game, he can use variable refresh rate (as you said). To get a consistent experience, one should also try to get consistent frame times, so the input always feels reliable.
I highly recommend using that 120hz vs 60hz you captured with a high speed camera. That was much better than any other representation. People just talk about it, but the high speed camera was better.
Oh Yes, when I changed my monitor from 60 to 120 I was so much astonished, that the difference is so significant. Before this change I had been thinking like "it won't change much". Even moving the coursor is different
I remember testing my friends 144 hz monitor for the first time in 2014, bought my own next week. I think most of the people who didn't notice any difference are those who didn't know you might have to manually select 144 hz instead of 60 hz in the settings (heard that story too many times).
People talking about 4k 60fps while i spend hours to find the perfect graphics settings to approach 144 fps in games with my rx580 while still being able to tell the difference between a tree and a car
You should remake that video without influence of NVIDIA
of course. but with AMD 🤣
@@H8M0ndays or dislikes the pathetic advertisement that's pretending it's an accurate and valid analysis. it's saying 'our product is scientifically proven to make you better at playing vidyo games, please buy our product' whilst cherrypicking data to support that conclusion.
Congrats Philip 1 million is right around the corner
BEST CSGO CHANNEL!!!!
I visited a friend last week, he has a 144hz monitor and i a 75hz one. We played a bunch of games and when i went back home and fired up my rig, i thought my eyes were gonna pop out of my head. I absolutely couldn't get used back to 75hz. I literally couldn't play any games i have. So i went and bought a 144hz. I must say it's COMPLETLY something different. It made me play so good i actually felt like i was cheating and kinda also felt bad. It's probably different from person to person but, im gonna say, if you have the money, ABSOLUTELY get one of these bad bois.
Glad that you managed to get to do some more sponsored content. I'm sure that it will be good for your channel
My experience was that I noticed the increase in refresh rate (and resolution) but rather quickly forgot about it and almost felt like I perhaps imagined the improvement for the most part.
Until I tried a friends PC running at 60hz again, at which point I realised 60hz now felt sluggish and laggy, almost unbearable.
I'm not particularly competitive or skilled either but I love high refresh now and going back would be horrible. Oh and I should add that I was getting eye strain with long gaming sessions on 60hz that I don't get at 144hz
Same dude, I can play way longer on 144hz compared to 60, before I switched my eyes always hurt.
NVIDIA: ok can you make a very informative video on why good monitors are worth it so they buy them from us?
Phillip: okay let me make this very informative graph 1:47
Console players: "But the human eye can't see more than 60 fps"
just need a brain implant to sync it with your monitor/gpu
They're not wrong, I think we see at 18fps(?) but not synced with the screen, so a higher refresh rate means more chance of lining up with your eye. (More fps is noticable and is better because of this.)
@@cydonia9342 24 FPS is the lowest amount of frames needed to create a illusion of moviment.
@@cydonia9342 um what
@@cydonia9342 They are wrong. There is no such thing as fps in the human eye. We perceive the frames as fluid motion in about 20fps, but it doesn't mean the human eye sees in those 20 fps. For example, there was a study about pilots that could describe the exact type of a fighter from a picture they saw for 1/500 of a second.
Also on the console, you don't need that many FPS because you don't feel the responsiveness through the controller at all. Also, there is often blur on. ON PC you feel through the mouse any latency in the movement, and many PC gamers hate blur, so they turn it off. (Blur helps to perceive the frames as fluid, but I personally hate it...)
4:30
I have had 2 144hz monitors for over half a year now. And they were both set at 60hz... I never knew... Thanks Philip. The difference is really noticable.
While im glad you got sponsored and made a good video on this- a lot of what you’ve said is going to be thrown into dispute because of the fact it is sponsored- it makes it seem kinda forced to prove the point for obvious reasons but for things like the KDR graph is completely irrelevant especially since people playing games at higher competitive levels will likely invest more resources into their system to reduce any non-skill bottlenecks
There’s also the point like you said where for a lot of people- either on console or with medium to lower end hardware that wouldn’t even be able to make use of a higher refresh rate monitor
His opinion has been pretty consistant on this though, he has made fps/refresh rate videos before and he always has said higher=better
3kiksphilip: watch in 720p
Me:cries in 360p
Im actually looking at getting a 1080p 144hz monitor, any recommendations anyone?
MSI is pretty good
I use aoc 24g1, it's very good for its price, can recommend if you can't afford high tier monitors or don't want to spend much.
ive been using ASUS VG248QE for 2 years now. zero issues, asus all the way. plus its £190 which is a very nice price!
Asus 27" VG279Q .
I used a 60Hz monitor for so long and when i switched it was literally like night and day.
It's a relatively cheap monitor (at least in norway) for 1920x1080 IPS, 144Hz.
Can wholeheartedly recommend.
@@jgangx That monitor has a pretty good value for competitive gaming. Minimal delays and no problems with ghosting. BUT I gotta say that the image quality is not up to par. It's not terrible or anything but it is certainly not beautiful. Still...if you are on a budget and your main goal is a really responsive and competitive setup this monitor is a good choice.
I'm glad you got sponsored, nice job sir philip! I'm a little concerned that this sponsorship leans into a biased video but at least nothing was held back, but you were completely transparent about the sponsorship and used plenty of nvidia's media to reinforce that you're saying what they're paying you to say. I have no issue with you getting paid, you deserve it! I hope it's clear to the viewers (as it is to me) to take everything in the video with a grain of salt. I understand that you would not deliberate mislead us or give us the wrong information, and I appreciate that money is not above your ethics as a content creator. I hope you continue being transparent about these sponsorships so we are fully informed of the context of your video :)
I've got big issues with correlation vs causation when it comes to that NVIDIA study.
You could argue that new PC players are also less likely to spend more money on a high end system that would give them higher frames. Versus someone who has been gaming for a while (who would then be better since more practice has been had) and upgrades their PC to a higher quality.
the "limit" for improvements related to Hz and FPS, is actually 1ms (1000fps), Peripherals can't run above 1000Hz, so if you have more than both FPS and Hz, there will be frames that are exactly the same, even if you are moving your mouse
The jump from 144 to 240 seems to be the last jump that makes any difference. Any higher than 240hz and there will be resolution/colour/price/longevity sacrifices that make more difference.
Big Mac I own a 240Hz and I can confidently say I notice the difference when setting it to 144Hz. 240Hz is buttery smooth and everything feels instant, 144Hz is mostly the same but you do notice a difference, and 60Hz is laggy, ugly and unplayable :)
pog
Congrats first commenter
Congratulations on the shiny sponsorship. I would love you took a look at input lag on your channel. Anyways keep up the good work
Me watching on 60Hz screen.
*They're the same mate*
I checked the Specialist website and I'm genuinely impressed to find that I could have saved a not-insignificant amount of money if I had bought my current system from them instead of using a building service in my own country.
We're talking almost saving half of a 5700 XT
(keep in mind this is comparing a H500 B450 2600x + coolermaster aircooler with a H511 X570 3600x + noctua aircooler
And 16GB of g.skill vs 16GB vengence)
All that while still giving options for wireless cards, discdrives and a recovery USB for basically peanuts (Cheap enough where it barely makes sense not to add them in)
I can't say anything for thier actual build quality, since I haven't bought one. But thier pricing is absolutely one of the best I have seen.
* This was all done in the Overclocked PC configurer
It's pay to win all along?
It's always been...
happy to see you getting sponsored by proper sponsors. you deserve it!
Didn't you make something like this already?
spon sored
Yes
@@baldoggie Spoon is Sored
Tons of people are nitpicking the Nvidia study due to (obvious) self interest, and whilst it is likely that 180 hz won't double your k/d ratio, it will make it easier to play better. We didn't need 50 separate comments telling us that a graph should be taken for a mountain of salt when the point here is that there is a substantial difference in performance between a 60hz monitor and a higher one.
Anyone who has actually bought a high refresh rate monitor can vouch for this.
Can someone explain me: If servers are 64 tick and I have 240 fps, even if a 240 Hz improve my reaction time, doesn't the server response time ruin the ms that I gained from a better screen? I get that would be easier to aim in 240Hz but if the server still 64 ticks would be still worth?
no, thats not how the tickrate works
Good question! ^ useless answer
@@OriginalCatfish42 thanks. spent a lot of time and thought answering
The time in between the ticks get interpolated
Eddy
The tickrate is speed at wich the server communicates with the client. A higher tickrate just means the game feels less laggy. Your monitors refresh rate and the server tickrate don’t really affect each other.
The graph at 2:29 is very troubling. I have a 1050Ti. Jokes aside a 100% increase in KD ratio after switching to a 1080 implies with a KD ratio of 0.97 and 15 frags a game, I'd get a KD ratio of 1.94 and drop a 30 bomb every game. Press X to doubt.
is 90hz enough cause i can feel the smoothness between 60 and 75, 60 feels choppy so 90 would be like double the smoothness of 75
It wouldn't necessarily be double because the rate of growth for how much smoother higher refresh rate feels is exponential.
i bought my first 144hz monitor a couple months back, the difference between that and 60hz is so huge. but if i drop to like 90-100 fps in game with the new monitor it is very noticeable. u can get 144hz monitors for pretty cheap so i would definitely recommend it
I used a 85hz crt and could not use a 1080p 60hz lcd monitor, so sluggish lol.
i play 240hz and 144hz is noticeably choppy to me, not as much as the jump from 60 to 144, but i still notice 144hz so id deffo find 90 bad, i played red dead at around 90fps at lower hz and it was rough
No there is a huge gap between 144 and 90, 54hz difference. You will most definitely be able to tell a difference. I even put my 144hz to 90hz and felt a huge difference
144hz is the standard monitor but if you're on a budget and still somehow can't find a cheap 144hz monitor, get a 75hz one, it is honestly very noticeable and it feels a lot smoother than 60hz
Imagine spending real money on more pixels
This comment was made by Overclock Gangs
Me with my intel 4000 laptop: Yes, I too want a high refresh rate monitor.
Well good news and bad news...
Good news! I learned that a good computer equals better gameplay!
Bad News...
My laptop runs competitive games at 24 fps
Once you get 144hz monitor you can never go back to 60
i dont like how you made the correlation that higher refresh rate leads to higher kd, simply because the better players and pro players are going to be the ones with the more expensive monitors, while casual gamers will have 60hz
That's for a reason, though.
He didn't though. He specifically said that correlation is not causation, that high refresh rate is just a lesser hindrance than 60 and that high refresh won't turn a bad player into a good one.
@@HeretixAevum that doesnt change the fact that the nvidia graphs are clearly misleading, to sell more monitors
People on average with higher specs are better, there Def are alot of people that are extremely good on low end setups but the better performing setups allow you to be more consistent and do give u an advantage when seeing people peaking corners for example you will see them on a 240hz before you would see them on a 60hz. Having this extra overhead of performance allows you to be better cause the game responds quicker and more consistent visuals and feel to the game, won't make you better but is an advantage and when trying to improve your skills it's a much better fou dation to work from.
I study medical engineering and we are taught a lot about CNS and other systems of human body. I really dislike the statement that eye can see 60 or 30 FPS or whatever around that. But i´ve been taught that eye (photoreceptor cells) just "sends" countinous stream of informations through optic nerve into brain, whitch builds picture from it and missing parts just makes up. So thats why its just higher framerate results into more pictures on screen at one time and refreshrate is just monitor trying to keep up with FPS that GPU spits out. Am i wrong or its just bad group understandig of FPS, refreshrate and eye-brain comunications??
I'm no biologist but have a little bit of game development knowledge and as far as I am concerned it basically acts like a sample, so a small sample (small fps) will give you results but in noticable stutters, while the larger sample with give you a much smoother line comparitively and thus smoother framerate. The eye in this analogy is just the observed line of best fit through the data, you can see the line at both high and low sample sizes but the individual smoothness changes. Altho you are right with your comment about the monitor catching up with the gpu as the gpu will perform calculations at a rate defined by the fps which is how many updates the gpu can send to your moniter per second, and the monitor will refresh at the selected rate (Say 60) and it will match the recieved gpu update to the monitor frame at that time. I may be wrong and have gone on a rant but pretty sure that is what you were on about
Notification squad rise up!
Going from a 60hz monitor to a 240hz monitor is a game changer. I highly recommend it.
The only obstacles are money and the ability of the computer. Example me: I don't have a money for a high refresh rate and my pc's maximum is 100fps
@@conlage That's true. I saved enough money to buy better PC parts so my PC can handle high refresh rates.
It's not always better. Higher refresh monitors usually have uglier colors and worse contrast. Some people value image quality more than just refresh rate.
@@hazzmati It is better for me. I care more high refresh rate than color accuracy.
what do I do if I still want 1440p? I've been debating on 1440p 165hz or 1080p 240hz for the past months
Sponsored = biased video
It sucks that hardware gives people advantages. In an ideal world it'd all be skill-based.
Haha, I edited the comment and you will never understand why i got 4 likes >¦)
Why should I trust the statistics of a company trying to sell me their stuff?
"You'd see enemies sooner on a 180hz"
The game has a 64Hz tickrate so any effect would be minimal. I think that's why Valve sticks to that.
Tickrate doesn't necessarily affect the time when you see the enemy at all. For example if enemy is standing still holding a corner and you peek. The enemy is standing still so there is nothing to update as the player position is same for multiple ticks. When you peek there is client side prediction so tickrate doesn't affect what you are seeing on your monitor, you still see 180 fps even if the server only registers 64 fps of what you are doing so you see the enemy on your screen earlier even if the server doesn't recognize you saw him earlier. This is pretty common situation on csgo but of course the more players move more the tickrate affects.
@@gale7682 so then the question becomes does it matter because the human reaction time for visual stimuli(like seeing the enemy) takes a quarter of a second. Google it.
@@Wheagg It definitely can matter as it's extra time on the top of you reaction time. It mostly matters if the players are evenly skilled (good vs good or bad vs bad) like in a competitive game. But seeing enemies 5% earlier in some situations is not probably a game changer for most.
@@gale7682 yea most monitors add ~15 ms but that's pretty minimal when reaction times reach 200 ms
I clicked on this video largely because I expected a lot of obsessively ignorant comments yet I'm still impressed by the dedication to obtuseness.
"high refresh rates and FPS make no difference!" let me guess... "they're all just cheating!" right?
seriously. minimizing lag and maximizing available information is critical for competitive gaming. arguing otherwise is like saying that starting a bike race with a rusty chain and flat tires cannot be a problem...
Exactly, and like you said, minimizing lag is so important. Not only framelag, but also input lag. 60Hz is way too slow if you really want to get good at a game, the display just doesn’t follow your movement fast enough which is something you notice after getting a higher refresh rate. I owned a 144Hz, it had a dead pixel and I returned it while I could so that forced me to go back to 60Hz for a week or two. My brain wanted to commit suicide, it was so choppy, so slow, so much input lag. Now own a top-of-the-line monitor (240Hz) and can never go back. Its so much better.
I got a 144 hertz IPS monitor and yeah, it’s great and not just for gaming. I love it and I’d never wanna go back.
Thanks philip, now I realise that I have been playing on a 144Hz monitor, with a 60Hz setting. I thought adjusting it in Nvidea Control panel was sufficient. Apparently not.
When you realise that 4klikphilip channel exist and it has 5k subscribers without any content. .
My Mom's a photographer (probably unrelated) and can't tell the difference between 30 Hz and 144 Hz. She can't see me justifying my 144 Hz monitor purchase lol
WHY DAFAQ I GOT NOTIFICATION, I WATCHED BEFORE LIKE 4 DAYS
I think the graphs in this have been selected by your sponsors because they are deliberately misleading.
If the correlation was so great why not abx the same subject with different graphics cards? This would be cheap to test, and the results would be such good marketing, it's hard to believe they haven't already done so. Presumably the results are unimpressive.
Why use graphics card tiers instead of framerates, especially as the metric we are supposed to be measuring is infact framerates? Perhaps the percentage increases between cards is so small as to immediately lead to questions in the methodolgy.
Perhaps the cost in card reflects a a longer history of gaming for the subject and therefore an increased willingness to pay more - but the skill difference is based on long term experience.
Perhaps it is related to age and purchasing power. Infact Fortnite is quite a young game - perhaps if you measured Quake, the expense of a 1080ti would correlate to a much older audience and much slower reaction times and lower kd ratios.
I think the graphs are very persuasive but utterly misrepresentative. I'm worried people might actually buy into it, especially as your videos often promote interesting challenges to conventional wisdom (like the 4k on budget card video). I'm worried people will take an absense of criticality as evidence that no serious challenges are worth mentioning.
I really like your videos and I don't automatically think your sponsored work should not exist... I just worry some parts of this are misleading.
just saw this in my sub feed while looking at my phone waiting for Newegg to load the monitor. Thanks. Good Timing.
For well over 3 years I had two 144Hz displays. Apparently I had been running them both on 60Hz without knowing until I got curious and checked because of this video.
4:34 missed opportunity to show the greatest greekgodx clip of all time...
cs doesnt give a fck about your gpu, its cpu all the way in this game
I recently got my hands on 240 Hz monitor. From what I can tell, anything above ~120 Hz hardly changes the experience. Moving pictures are indeed clearer at 120 Hz then they are at 60 Hz. 240 Hz, however, only makes a difference if objects are moving so incredibly fast that I can't distinguish them anyways and all I get is differently looking blobs. I also haven't experienced any discomfort from switching back and forth between 60 and 240 (yes, your mouse movement does not feel the same, but both ways are perfectly serviceable). 240 Hz might be worth it if your are professional first person shooter player but otherwise it's purely bragging rights, if you ask me.
Play on 240hz only for like 3 months then try 120hz again, u will see and feel the difference, going up isn't that big to most people but going down is more noticeable
There is a huge difference playing on 60hz with 60fps(continuous) and on 60hz with 240/300fps. In the second situation you are getting sooner the most recent frame. P.S. I think that in competitive frame rate and refresh rate for all should be fixed, in this way all should have equal chance except monitor input lag and panel response time. There in no competition playing against someone heaving significant slower PC.
Meh the reason the high refresh monitors show an average higher kd is because people who are willing to spend more money on a better monitor or pc will usually be more dedicated to gaming
I really don't feel a difference. My brother let me use his 144hz display a little while back, and it felt exactly the same as my 75hz monitor. Granted, I didn't use it very extensively - I think I just noodled around in Windows for a minute or so - but nevertheless it feels like beyond 60hz the changes are too subtle to conciously appreciate while gaming, like using resolutions higher than 1080p. Maybe I'm just used to this stuff, or tolerant of low-quality gear. I do sometimes watch RUclips in 480p...
Or maybe it's entirely subconcious, and I'm missing the point.
You need at least two weeks to get used to it. Once you get used, you'll notice the difference between 85, 100, 120 and 144.
@@korosoid took me two minutes in a shop that lets you try monitors, 144hz was very smooth
@@cykablyat6348 it's obvious when you compare them in shop, but in daily use it can be not that obvious for some people. For me even difference between 60Hz and 65Hz is noticeable.
Got tripped up on a wire and accidentally and my BenQ Zowie hit the floor hard. Had to switch back to a 60 hz and I thought my gpu was malfunctioning from how sluggish everything looked. There is noticeable difference when you upgrade but when you downgrade after playing a while on high frequency, the mountainous difference makes you truly understand the difference
>Nvidia studies "proving" that you need expensive Nvidia shit
Lol.
Happy that you are getting big sponsors Philip.
3klickphilip is the guy I trust most of youtube so this helps a ton
I'm really happy that you found a fitting sponsor for an interesting video.
At first I was a bit dissapointed when I bought my 144 Hz monitor, but when I visited a friend and played on his 60 Hz monitor I began to appreciate it. It is a worthwhile investement if you want to play a lot of CS or racing games.
Ist stepping up to 240 or 360 Hz the same as stepping from 30/60 to 120/144? I don't think so but I can't say for sure becaue I never played on one.
And the studies shown are, ofcourse, not bulletproof. But it is kinda true. If you are a decent player switching to a high refreshrate monitor will step up your game but I agree that it is propably not 70%. But the numbers are taken from PUBG, K/D in PUBG or CS:GO are something completely different. Keep that in mind. But still, correlation is not causality. It is true that people that are really good are willing to invest more into their setup than a casual gamer just playing for fun.
High fps is beneficial even without a monitor for it, as response time is improved. I play CS on a normal 60hz monitor but there's a significant difference in the feel of the game at 60fps and 200fps, where the latter is much more responsive.
I wish videos like these about high refresh rates would discuss BFI (black frame insertion), aka ULMB or ELMB. You mentioned desiring an image like a CRT monitor. Well, with BFI and high refresh rates, you can get that. Basically, it inserts a black frame every other frame to trick your brain to seeing moving images more clearly. It can almost entirely remove motion blur. Easiest test is to move a folder's window on the desktop. Can you read the text while moving it? No? Even on a 240 Hz monitor? Well, that's because you're not using BFI. If you did the same test on a 60 Hz CRT, you can read the text! That's because the way CRT monitors refresh natively cause this effect to happen because they scan. LCD-style monitors do not do this. So, if you want the clearest motion (which makes a huge difference in competitive gaming), try out the BFI (or ULMB/ELMB) option in your monitor. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
Sponsored video by corporations benefitting from people wanting to buy the reviewed products based on results of a study from other corporations that benefit from the results. Great.
Just call it an "Ad" next time.
in my opinion 60Hz is perfectly fine, its more than playable as long as ur getting that constant 60 or 60+ frames high refresh rates are obviously better but you have to a pretty good reaction time to even make use of that better refresh rate
It was kinda strange to not hear the usual Philip's music but at least was at the end
My 7 year old laptop started ascending to heaven just by watching this video.
I've been down that road too my friend,I got lucky when I bought my newer PC two years ago because I got it just before the great devaluation of Turkish Lira and the skyrocketing of both US Dollars and Euro. Inflation spiked up as well,I hope you can find a good one before Covid increases everything's price even more. Best of luck.
@@mehmeteminsavas6555 that was really wholesome. Thank u 🥺
I used to be rocking a 1024×768 75hz monitor back in the Windows XP days, I was overpowered.
Meanwhile I played CSGO on my 2014 MacBook at ~50 FPS for a year (2016-17) and managed to hit LE. But my playstyle was more flicky headshot than spray control because I had to hit the head or just lose miserably. My friends when spectating people watching me play would say that I preaim really weird.
Now I have a PC I built with a 145Hz monitor and I have yet to start up CSGO again
It sucks when shopping for just a cheap 60hz monitor only to find them be nearly the same price as some 120-144hz monitors.
Buy the 60 hz ones used, they can be found for cheap
I guess. Idk it's been a couple months since I needed to buy one. Before all this covid stuff. And new at least the prices weren't too different like an extra 20 or 40$ for a 144hz to a 60hz. Thought the prices would've went down by then but they're probably higher now.