I've been pc gaming on a 60hz monitor up until just recently, when I received a 1080 144hz Asus monitor as a hand me down. After purchasing the proper display port cable, I can honestly attest to the fact higher refresh rates are night and day compared to my old 60hz. All games feel remarkably smoother and in a lot of instances a sharper image. I don't think I can ever go back to lower refresh rates.
Yeah. I went form 1080p60 -> 1080p144 and the change was brutal. After that i went from 1080p144 -> 1440p(ultrawide & HDR)165 and lemme tell you, it's as big, or even bigger of a jump. HRD adds a lot more than i expected. It's not even close.
@@TheHighborn I have a 1080p and 4k monitor. 4k looks nicer but is definitely NOT worth the FPS cost. 540hz 1080p is the best monitor you can buy in my opinion. Better then 4k 144hz or 1440p 240hz oled monitors.
@@lachlanB323 if I played a lot of shooters, I'd 100% agree. But, I personally prefer visuals over frames, and not to mention, hdr is really good for movies etc too. I also don't really play shooters.
It depends entirely on the panel. And software like backlight strobing. Because for the 7:35 area they are using an OLED because of the response times.
I can't speak for all displays of course. But I went from a 1440p 240hz IPS panel to a 1440p 175hz OLED display and the OLED definitely feels smoother.
Old PC demos made for CRTs often used fast scrolling text which is impossible to read on most modern screens. I hadn’t really thought about the problem being your eyes moving, but it explains why the text is perfectly clear with the rapidly flashing CRT.
True, I noticed that on the Amiga emulator and when seeing text scrolling, it looked quite blurry. But I remember there was a mode on Sony tv's you could use that made the scrolling look a lot smoother, but the image was also a lot darker, that's the closes I've seen an LCD display actually look like a CRT display when it comes to smoothness. I don't have a Sony tv at the moment so can't say what that mode is called.
@@paul1979uk2000 Sounds like black frame insertion or backlight strobing. It makes the screen dimmer because you have to flash the screen rapidly. He talks about it at the end of the video and it is a feature on some monitors to get better motion clarity at the cost of brightness.
when lcd tvs first came out, one of the biggest complaints was the ghosting effect. A lot of people thought plasma was going to be the way to go because it had a refresh rate comparable to the CRTs. But its nice we're finally getting higher refresh rates now that are comparable to the older CRTs and Plasmas. Thank god ghosting will be a thing of the past.
Last week I reverted from a 42" C2 OLED @120Hz to an older LG VA 32GK650F @144Hz. In a very easy to run game (WoW Classic) I panned a scene as slowly as my mouse would let me. The trees in view still blurred substantially, even at 144Hz. I suspect that the VA's slower grey-to-grey was the culprit. I think that the speed of the pixel switching is important too.
Yeah, most VAs have very slow pixel response times. That's why I have an ultrawide 165Hz OLED now, because of OLED's near-instant response time. It's so incredibly clear.
yup, u right. And I went from 48"C1 to AW3423DW, so from 4k@120 to 1440p@175Hz. While latest is faster, I noticed I have problems in FPS, as just because of screen size I now see less... so if there will be some 1440p or 4k but 16:9 screen, bigger than 34", I will switch again. I need bigger screen. I am too old now to sit close to screen...
@@Tomiplymy old Alienware 13 r3 OLED has very slow black to gray response which makes darks look kind of purple. Made Watch Dogs a bit hard to play. Gorgeous display otherwise
@@nikilragavDoing some retro gaming on my old AW 13 R3 OLED this morning, yeah it’s old now but still useful and looks great. On my way now to finally pick up an AW3423dwf on a Black Friday sale 😊.
This video proves nothing except ignorance. A bullet traveling at ssy 1,800 miles per hour can not be seen by the human eye, at all! Yet super high speed cameras can indeed capture that same high speed object and in perfect clarity. Even down to the shockwave itself can be seen in the footage when slowed down. Same applies to a much larger object with writing on it like (for example) an airplane. All the human eye will ever see is a very blurry streak with totally unreadable lettering on it that the human eye will miss entirely. Same airplane being captured by a high speed camera, footage when slowed down, the lettering will be crystal clear. Or even say a passenger car traveling at 70mph if you was sitting on the side of a freeway, nothing but a blurry object will be seen with the human eye when it streaks by. This one however, if you track that same vehicle with your eyes, you would be able to pick out some lettering on the side of the vehicle. But not likely be able to pick out all the lettering. Back to the simulated world of games, no matter the refresh rate. It isn't going to make you a better gamer having a higher refresh rate. Super high speed footage is only good for clarity in slow motion footage. lol
@@larrypaul2462dummy. Lower latency means you can react quicker, higher refresh rate means you have more up to date information quicker. Pure idiocracy what you are saying
@@larrypaul2462maybe he meant our eyes can see infinte amount of frames but our brain is locket at a x amount of frames. Anyways he is probally just another braindead gamer who thinks higher refreshrate on a low tickrate game wil give you an advantage.
I mean i switched from 75 to 360 hz and climbed 5 divisions in a month in valo but before i was stuck in silver-gold for 2 years. Also in my OSU! Profile you can clearly see the the performance curve go up at a 40 degree angle instead of falling down. Seems to strong to be a placebo. Definitely going for 540 in a couple of years
@@larrypaul2462 Of course you cannot hope to track a moving bullet with your eyes, or even a car moving by really fast. So this isn’t the kind of motion we are hoping to see more clearly on a high refresh rate monitor. But most movement in real life is trackable, like a slow moving car, people walking, or when you turn your head and your eyes are still able to fixate on a stationary object. This is the kind of motion that is hopelessly blurred on a 60 Hz display, but much clearer on 240Hz. The examples in the video weren’t using a high-speed video camera. It was a regular photograph taken with a regular shutter speed, just tracking the UFO at its exact speed, which is easy to do yourself if you viewed the same demo with your eyes. This video isn’t at all about the refresh rate of your vision. It is only about the blur caused by the sample-and-hold nature of modern displays.
Anyone who's ever watched native 120fps/240fps video on a 120/240hz monitor can attest to how much better of an experience that is. It really is a shame we've been given the short end of the stick with the advent of 60hz only LCD's that replaced the old min 90hz capable CRT's with natively 0 input lag or motion blur.
CRT were a better technology than LCD, just less practical. At least nowaday we're close to having general-purpose OLED that are superior in those aspects, we just need to figure out a way to correctly solve the burn-in issue.
Watch it with a 9+ms refresh rate throughout. Oh, what is that, it means your pixels are not refreshed before they get changed to a different colour, so take time to change and appears more blurry? You, like most, including Timmy here, refuse to accept that it might not be what you want it to be, that it could be about how you display and then shoot on a frame you see, so more frames equals more accurate fire, even if the pixel on your monitor never appears to change.
@@Kazyekcheck rtings’ burn in torture test. Burn in is a problem but so far their tests show pretty favourable results. It takes a while for OLED to burn in. The problem is that the “while” is still not as long as you’d expect a display of its price to be. I’m fine with OLED for now especially on my TV. By the time I’ll want an upgrade microLED will be available for consumers at scale. Every company worth their weight in gold is doing extensive R&D on High refresh, dense, insanely accurate and bright microLED screens.
Very concise video and appreciate you tackling this issue that's generally relegated to the Blurbusters forums. While people might scoff at 1920 rate on UFOtest, that's basically around the same speed as a Genji dash or Tracer dash in Overwatch. This is where stuff like that realllly matter. Hope in the future we see another video taking a look at differences between display technologies as was mentioned. CRT/Plasma/OLED/TN/IPS/VN and tech that can help with them like BFI/ULMB. Having owned a Plasma, even after switching to a OLED, there really is nothing that quite captures pictures the same. Really makes me sad that technology died out in addition to SEDs never making it to production.
BFI doesn't hold a candle to a flagship plasma. It's still OLED, still sample and hold, the image lingers for far too long. My Panasonic TH50PZ850A has the best motion handling I've ever seen, period. Funny because my QD-OLED has 2x the refresh rate, and 2x the motion resolution at 1200 lines. Plasma is dim but when watching at night, especially watching a movie that was shot on film and has night scenes like Batman - The Dark Knight or The Negotiator, it looks bloody incredible.
I've always understood the point of higher refresh = better clarity, but this video helped hammer it in even better with concrete side by side comparisons. Great job!
Great video! The one subject I wish you'd have at least touched on is what benefit is a high refresh rate monitor if your PC is only pushing 60FPS due to hardware limitations (regardless of resolution). That's always been my thinking, that if my PC can only push 60 FPS, what's the point of a high refresh rate monitor showing the same frame 2x in a row if my PC hasn't sent a new one yet? Hearing your take on that would be great.
Anti-Aliasing. If the base picture is 120fps and shows at 60fps, that basically downsampling, which makes anti-aliasing unecessary. Actually, that's pretty much the principle of anti-aliasing. Same goes for say 4K picture downsampled to 1080p. There is a theory "rule" about how that works. You need 2x or more ("bandwidth") for the base picture to what you output to remove artifacts.
@@johnwayne-kd1pnlike with all signal sampling, whether it be audio or image, there are different modes to choose from. Anti aliasing in the temporal domain would be motion blur, and most monitors are not mashing together both frames, they're just showing the most recent one they're getting sent. If vsync is off, then you will get the next frame halfway down. I don't think Nyquist-shannon sampling theory is really applicable here, it's more like, if you wanna show an object flashing at 30hz, you need 60hz display. To answer the OG comment's question, 60hz on a 120hz display (sample and hold) looks basically exactly the same.
Been on a 144hz monitor for years with always the latest and greatest hardware and very few new AAA single player games permit a consistent 144 fps at 4K. 240hz and up we talking about major sacrifices.
I'm a PC gamer who plays using a controller most of the time, regardless if I'm in front of my monitor or TV. I still need high fps while using a controller, otherwise I feel the input lag and weaker motion clarity handicappes me and creates an added barrier between me and the game. My preferred way of playing is at least at 90 (without in-game V-Sync and with RTSS frame limit), but only at or above 120 fps I really start to feel that the input lag no longer has a meaningful effect on my gaming skills. I would still like to play at 240Hz though, but there is no 3840x1600 21:9 monitor with this refresh rate yet, and the newest TVs can only do 240Hz at 1080p.
@@williamthatsmyname That's true, but I prefer to use 21:9 monitors. There will be a 3440x1440 240Hz OLED soon from ASUS, but I'm not sure I'll switch from my LG, since it has a larger screen with more pixels (3840x1600 38" 175Hz). I wish Samsung would just cut down their 32:9 57" Odyssey G9 to a 21:9 size, that would be an incredible monitor.
Love that you included motion blur reasoning in games. Though most games have a very terrible implementation of motion blur, making you feel sick and uneasy, some games are massively upgraded because of it, but most dont utilize it. BF2042 for one is good, definitely enhances your smooth experience. COD never has a good one, though the weapon blur implementation i do use, but its still sub par compared to others, makes the game look smoother in aspects. The Finals needs it tuned, it has good potential, but you will lose important factors with it on for comp gaming. Definitely recommend try in random games, some could be gold for a better experience, you never know
Some cool follow up video ideas: - OLED vs IPS (vs CRT?) at different refresh rates - Explaining how end to end system latency works and anyways for a normal person to affordably calculate it? (Maybe you can even make your own product for this!) - How different fps caps look on a high fps monitor? Does having a non-integer ratio of fps cap to refresh rate affect clarity? (Ex, is 120hz better than 144hz if the game is set to 240 fps?)
Good video! Once asynchronous warp technology is available for standard games you will be able to get the full benefits of your displays hz even if you can't hit that framerate. I have no idea when this is coming but it is according to the blur busters chief.
Yeah asynchronous warp is soo awesome. There's this test application out there and you can basically play games at like 40-50 fps but aiming is still smooth. Crazy stuff
I want to see a comparison video where the game's max fps is stuck at like 80, something realistic for singleplayer titles, and then see if the higher refreshes are actually making a difference. Nothing I'm playing is ever going to reach 500 fps, so anything that's 500fps on 500hz doesn't matter. If low fps games look the same on all higher refresh rates, then there's no point in a monitor faster that the games you're playing.
Yeah, currently there'd be just about zero reason to buy a 500hz monitor. You could only realistically achieve those levels of FPS at 1080p or in really old games. Current PCs/GPUs aren't going to be hitting the 300+ range in most games. You'd benefit far more from jumping up to 1440p than going for 500 FPS. I'd much rather have 1440p at 144hz than 1080p at 540hz.
@@MauroTamm Serious question, would the pixel response on a 540 Hz monitor be quicker at 120 Hz than a 120 Hz native monitor if you're using VRR to avoid tearing?
@@PREDATEURLT people aren't buying 540hz to play single player games dumbass, There's a reason it's 1080p, it's meant for competitive games that people run at the lowest settings and sometimes even lower resolutions than 1080p....
What if your monitor is 144Hz or above but the games you play, due to hardware, hardly ever hit 80fps or above. Will a high refresh rate monitor still be better?
This is the most common questions asked by everyone but it seems like Tim always avoid to answer this. I know he will say diff brand tech comes with diff panel and response time is diff but seriously how worse it is if the fps drop below the max refresh rate
@@TheAscendedHuman according to the world tech n price now. Even VA can do 240hz and its even cheaper alot than IPS 165hz or even some "180hz". So why not ? If u talking about wasting Hz then how bout those people who play Alan Wake 2 ? U think they really wanna waste those Hz and play Alan wake 2 in a very low graphical settings ? Plus if Remedy can screw up those old gpu with only Alan Wake 2 , im definitely confirm other developers are following their steps now
@@TheAscendedHuman please read carefully about what i type i did not mention about throwing money away. it seems like you know one to two things, so share with us. How does a 45 - 100 fps game perform in a 240hz monitor with and without VRR ? all of us are curious about this, mayb you can tell us or share with us
in 5 or 10 years from now, the standard will be 540hz, and the top end will be 1024hz. thats for monitors lol For mouses, the Pooling rate might increase to 16khz or even 32khz ( right now there are 8k ) and the norm of gaming will be 4k/240hz for story games and 2048fps for fps games
IMO refresh rate matters up to a point. If pixel response time cannot keep up then we still get a blurry image. Refresh rate and pixel response times should go hand in hand as we push closer and closer to 1000Hz
Yea that’s why OLED or better technology has to be the future imo. Trying to get more out of these lcd panels hopefully is at a stopping point with 540hz. I just don’t see the benefits of going in this direction and they might hit a wall anyways with what you’re talking about. I guess it does help people that have a fear of burn in which I get. But we need the best technology for past 540 hz to matter and I’m not even convinced it does.
@@Ray-dl5mpOLED isn't for everyone. There are many people that have some trouble with it. I really prefer my M32U and Acer Predator XB283K compared to the C2 unit I had. I had the pleasure and could configurate my mothers 83 inch C3 OLED and there is definitely something with it my eyes don't like even though the HDR was incredible and the overall image. To OP: I think 60 - 120 fps is alright everything else isn't important unless your a pro player in 1st person games.
Oh, they already know. That's why it's part of their monitor testing methodology. It's called the deviation metric, measuring how much of a panel's pixel response can keep up with the panel's advertised refresh rate.
@@escape209 for 144 hz, Gigabyte M32U and Acer Predator XB283K is great. The Acer is maybe the best 28 inch 4k monitor If you don't care for HDR. OLED is not for me sadly. I tried a C2 and could configurate my mothers 83 inch C3 with awesome image and HDR but OLED makes something with my eyes that other displays don't do.
Looking at the 540Hz examples with fast motion shows that we are a long way to go to get perfect smoothness. Arguing against the benefits of fast refresh at this point is just being ignorant.
One benefit of a higher refresh rate with VRR: if you are using VRR and your FPS spikes to exceed your max refresh rate, then you generally get tearing. This can be worked around by setting a max FPS, but this is a manual step which doesn't always work perfectly and can introduce additional latency or stuttering in poorly implemented games. If your max refresh rate is high enough, you generally don't need to worry about this since you'll never have enough FPS for it to be a problem. I have especially noticed this in Rocket League on my 165Hz monitor since it can have huge 100 FPS swings that aren't always within my monitor's range. G-Sync at 60 FPS feels bad to me and so I like to keep to at least 100 FPS, giving me a 65Hz sweet spot which games are bad at staying in.
It's always better to have uncapped frames especially if you are overshooting the monitors refresh rate.. I've never experienced tearing and I play rocket league between 500-1100 FPS haha. But anyways VRR of any kind introduces latency and capping your frame rate is increasing input latency in the moments that you would be overshooting your cap. Check Optimum tech's content on input lag and latency.
Nothing beats CRT display when it comes motion clarity, input lag and response time. I played on CRT monitor since age of 7 to 18 now I'm 28 and using BenQ xl2566k it's little bit close to CRT but not there
CRT motion clarity is amazing but input lags are still limited by the framerate the game runs at. I've never seen a CRT run at 540Hz but that's where we're at with flat panels now.
@@dfcx1Yes, but to actually get the latency and clarity benefits of a 360-540 Hz display requires you to somehow run your games at 360-540 fps, which in most modern games seems... unlikely. CRTs offer a significant latency advantage at any given fps, by virtue of having "processing" lag on the order of microseconds. So, a 160 Hz CRT may net you an experience that's largely similar to (and in some ways better than) a 360 Hz LCD, all the while only having to run your game at just 160 fps.
I agree and love CRTs too, but the counterpoint when it comes to input lag is that you should include the beam reaching the bottom of the screen as processing delay on the CRT since before that you don't have the full image. At similar refresh rates obviously the CRT is better, but when flat panels start to have refresh rates multiple times as fast the time to draw the whole image becomes a bottleneck. If you're playing something like RetroArch and really dial in your latency settings, a CRT's draw time can become a noticeably limiting factor even with a 60fps game. Running at 120Hz fixes it but introduces a double image. I could never get black frames to work in RetroArch so I just run the CRT at 60Hz for games where double frames are noticeable.
I admire the patience you have to teach about this matter, even though it makes as all laugh when someone thinks it has all the right saying "oh I never had the opportunity to test high refresh rate myself and for that it just doesnt matter, no difference at all" of course not with all this transparency but its really what they re trully thinking. Thank you for all your efforts in educating these folks. May they have the opportunity to own a high refresh monitor soon!
There is so much mind candy in this video and I love it. The sections where there are 3 ufo's scrolling horizontally at different speeds to simulate refresh rate differences are great examples, but unfortunately suffer from occasional blips in their consistency when I'm watching this video on a phone. I've got the impression that these frame timing issues will happen while watching this video on any device or PC. Hiccup. Still, this video said a lot of things I wanted to hear.
I hope someone solves VRR + BFI or backlight strobing. This improves motion clarity soo much that I'm saddened that my C2 can only use BFI at a fixed 60 Hz. Like, the motion clarity is so much better that you can even make out the chrominance overshoot artifacts of WOLED
This is the only true way to display the differences between these refreshes. Some videos just show side by side Footage which is completely dumb because youtube cant show more than 60fps and some slow the footage doen which also makes no sense because you are essentially just comparing other refreshes Lets say 60hz vs 144hz but at half speed so you would Compare 30hz to 72hz.
You have done the biggest service for the tech community and consumers as a whole. There is finally a video that shows exactly why it is so important and why it matters. Hopefully this will help end misinformation about refresh rate and help people better understand why it's important we keep pushing for higher refresh rates. I had the lg gp950 4k 144hz monitor thinking I preferred having the sharper imagine. I decided to ,what I though was maybe a side grade, switch to the lg 27gr95qe 1440p 240hz oled and it was the best monitor decision I have ever made just refresh rate wise, not including the benefits of oled such as hdr and better pixel response times. I thought I would be disgusted with lowering the resolution back to 1440p witch I used before owning the 4k monitor but due to the refresh rate it is so much sharper than my old 1440p monitor and doesn't feel like as much of a resolution downgrade, especially in games.
I haven't visited the UFO test in a while and holy moly I forgot how much of a cheat BFI truly is. I 100% agree with you there. Even on my 7 year old Zowie 144Hz TN panel I get a perfectly clear picture up to 1440p/sec. At 1920 I can't make out the individual 3 white lines in the UFO anymore but even the pupils of the alien are still visible. Now I remember why I didn't bother upgrading for so long.
Yeah, but in return, you're looking at a TN panel with it's horribly lacking viewing angles and gamma and color inconsistency. That's a harsh tradeoff. (But more power to you if you don't mind that, I guess.)
@@Case_ No you're absolutely right. But back then 144Hz IPS panels were too expensive to consider for me. I got a 1440p IPS as a second monitor and that takes care of my other gaming needs.
I’d be interested to see a follow up video that delves more into comparing graphics quality vs FPS and finding the optimal balance. I know it’s subjective, but would still find the discussion interesting. You’ve convinced me that high FPS is desirable, but for us plebs who do not have 4090s we will have to make some compromises to reach high FPS, and so the question becomes at what point does lowering quality settings to increase FPS a bit more become counterproductive?
I tend to limit my games at 90 fps with my 3070. I would go to 120 in certain games if my hardware can manage, because that's what I consider a reasonable limit beyond which the gains are becoming quite marginal, but 90 is a great compromise for me. And around 75 if I want a higher level of detail or if I'm running a more demanding title - somehow 60 is still not enough, but going just slightly above that does improve smoothness a fair bit.
Yep you have to compromise on rt, hdr resolutionreal-estate, and higher quality settings as well as the cost/resources/power usage to achieve 500 fps. The same company pushing for 500hz is also pushing for smoke and mirrors frame generation/upscaling techniques that compromises image quality. 🤪. I say ef the hype and find your own threshold balance.
Graphical settings are often unoptimised or out of proportion. You have to find the best cost/look settings for each game and use that. For single player games 40-45 FPS (or even lower) is playable on weak GPU and pleasing visuals if you have an adaptive sync display.
@videogaminbiker889 The objective lab test done by Blur busters was using real frames. Frame generation introduces artifacts and lowers image quality, so there is that. If an ideal is considered 1000 hz with 1 blurry frame per 1000 frames, what do you think will happen if half those frames are generated in terms of blurry frames? 🤔
Motion blur attempts to solve stroboscopic effect. Strobing attempts to solve persistence blur. Brute force high FPS solves both. But my Skyrim is just now able to get 100fps w/ 13600kf. It'll be a very long time before GPU... and even worse, CPU perf allows me to run 240, 480 960fps etc. I simply can't do it, even if it's the best thing in the world. Real world does not sample and hold.
@@dat_21 I was thinking of the vibrational nature of the universe when I was writing that, which is an even bigger stretch, to be fair. I guess, I was trying to add to your point by saying that everything oscillates anyways but that it's the frequency that matters in most cases. I don't know why I didn't elaborate at all and I'm a bit ashamed of my cryptic-ass comment. I was being overly pedantic while actually being under informed.
This has pretty much sold me my decision between moving up to 1440p or stepping up to 240hz for my next monitor. I can't afford nor can i run them combined, but my desire for visual clarity when in intense multiplayer fights just makes sense to go for higher refresh rate.
Can't wait for a 4K 24.5' 1000 Hz OLED 10 bit HDR 1000 nits monitor to exist, it's the best resolution, best screen size for 4K regarding PPI, readability, clarity, and having a big enough, but not too big of a monitor if you play competitively, 1000 Hz would just fix all of the motion problems and everything would be crystal clear, OLED is just the fastest regarding response time, the color accuracy is near perfect, this would be the best monitor for gaming, content creation, and overall usage. I'd gladly pay 2000€ for a monitor like this if it's also made with a fairly decent heat dissipation to prevent burn-ins in the display, since it's OLED
@@GewelReal for competition anything above 24' gets too big for focusing, specially if you play closely to the monitor for better focus, that's why on tournaments the max size you see is around 24'
@@Androide323 even for competitive experience 24 is too small. It makes you sit TOO CLOSE to the monitor where you have to keep straining your eyes with focus
as much as people hate frame gen, its the only way we are going to get close to 1000hz on modern games any time soon, especially at resolutions higher than 1080p. even if you technically had a gpu powerful enough to run modern games at 4k 1000hz , you would also need a cpu that can keep up with it which frame gen also conveniently sidesteps.
Meanwhile Digital Foundry and the others praising ray tracing and path tracing as the must-have for the visual quality. Who cares that even the 4090 can't deliver 60 FPS at 4K in Cyberpunk and produces a blurry image as a result. And who cares the average viewer of their videos has a 3070 like GPU and can't get even 30 FPS at 1440p with DLSS on. But hey, still image in photo mode looks great, right? I like these guys but the disconnect from the reality is almost tangible.
This is really well presented and really shows how big of a difference higher refresh rates make in regards to image resolution, not even 540Hz give you a fully resolved 4K resolution outside of still/static images, I think it will take 1000-1500Hz to achieve 4K for video games and video content.
Personally, I have found that motion clarity is most important when playing 2D side scrollers, more so than FPS shooters. For example, I've been playing Super Mario Wonder on my LG C1 OLED TV. I can only play the game with BFI (black frame insertion) turned on, otherwise it's just too blurry for my eyes since the switch caps out at 60fps, and as you can see from this video, 60FPS is pretty darned blurry when you scroll content across the entire screen at a constant speed. I really miss my old Panasonic Plasma TV. Even 30FPS content was extremely crisp in motion since it is not a sample and hold display. I would still use it over the OLED for playing switch games if it weren't for the poor input lag.
This makes sense. Motion clarity only matters when you're tracking an object across the screen with your eyes, as you do in sidescrollers. But in fast-paced FPS games, you track objects with your mouse instead.
Never understood the logic when some gamers say playing at lower frame rate like 30fps is better than 60fps, never made any sense to me. For me, 60fps is more than good enough, and even though higher is better, I feel it's really diminished returns, especially for the extra performance needed to run it, but if the hardware can handle it comfortable enough, then great I'll take it, but it's not something I'm going to go out of my way when it comes to buying more expensive hardware to do it, basically, the cost to benefits is too small to care about, but that isn't to say that higher fps isn't better, because it is, but it's not that big of a deal to most of us, especially if the cost to attain those higher frames with games is too high. I do agree about the CRT thing though, you don't realise how smooth it can be until you see it on a CRT, and even I forgot about that until I saw the difference recently on a CRT display over modern displays, and I suspect that most of us have just got used to LCD displays and accepted the setbacks because of the other advantages flat panels offer, much thinner and use far less power. Mind you, i've been hearing some of the newer OLED displays from LG are really close to matching the smoothness of CRT's.
It will not be smoother but it will be less blur, more Hz=more clarity on a single frame no matter the FR. This is why if you CAP FPS it's critical to lock your monitor on the maximum RR u can use.
Depends on what you consider smoother. In terms of animation smoothness 120 FPS on a 120 hz or 360hz monitor of comparable quality should “look” the same The difference would be in responsiveness. As the 360hz monitor pings the GPU at a higher rate, the instant the frame buffer has a new frame it gets plopped in front of your eye balls. A 120hz display would wait for a bit longer before checking the frame buffer.
@@Diabepis If you have 360Hz monitor and play with 120FPS VRR will lock you on 120Hz not 360Hz so VRR is a bad call for lock FPS. VRR have sens only in Variable FR.
My journey of gaming started on 60hz and jumping from 60 to 144 felt amazing, my second leap was from 144 to 240hz, it didn't feel as a high leap but still well worth it for sure. I cant wait to one day try something higher like 540hz.
120 to max 240Hz with proper strobing is be the way to go in the future I think. With higher resolution becoming cheaper and games becoming ever more demanding, getting those FPS's to feed these extremely high refresh rates is not attainable. Proper syncing of the strobing with variable refresh tech with decent control over brightness needs to be researched more. This seems more attainable than 500+ Hertz displays.
There barely is any difference, HUB themselves have reviewed the C1 etc OLEDs and the testufos always look blurry as all hell. Only a CRT is significantly clearer than any of these modern technologies.
"I suspect that an even higher refresh rate, like 1000hz, would provide further benefits" - that was my first thought when I got a 360hz monitor. It was nice, but still nowhere near real life, and I felt it would need more like 3x that refresh rate to match how the real world looks to us.
It'll make a huge difference in VR. Low persistence is non-negotiable or you'll feel sick from all the motion blur. The move towards pancake lenses wastes more light than ever so you'll need more light to begin with. Without varifocal you'll want so much light that your pupils shrink into pinholes to reduce defocus blur. OLEDs need to run full duty cycle to get the maximum amount of light out of them. If you can't improve motion clarity with strobing because that wastes too much light you'll really need to hit those 1kHz refresh rates.
Same here going from 75hz to 240hz, massive jump, still dodnt feel "there". Although I still find it funny how even just for desktop browsing how much better 75hz is than 60hz. 75hz feels slow, 60hz actually feels...jarring? I guess how i'd describe it is 15fps is supposed to be the frame rate where we perceive motion, for me at least, it's around the 75hz mark where I get specifically for when I'm interacting with what is being displayed. Ofc 24,30 or 60 fps are fine with a video or something where I'm not inputting anything.
@@Tomiply Even then though, as the video points out, a OLED without backlight strobing (BFI, ULMB, DyAc and so on) is still sample-and-hold and therefore the amount of blur is directly connected to the refresh rate.
what people need to understand is that you wont benefit from high refresh rates if you cant keep your fps up to the refresh rate. so you think you gonna use a 240hz monitor? you better have the hardware to always maintain that fps and the game is optimized well without any fps drops
Thanks Tim and team for an incredibly useful and informative video. However as one of the people in the "I prefer higher IQ settings than higher FPS settings" I am still not swayed and although you mentioned this mindset at the beginning of the video I don't think this was addressed much afterwards. I guess at the end of the day it remains personal choice and very much depends on the type of game being played, at least now I have a better understanding of the pros and cons.
Yeah the point of this video was to show you the benefits of higher refresh rates to visual quality. There are tradeoffs of course; It probably deserves its own video. Lower settings often means visible pop-in, low-resolution/noisy shadows and reflections, screen-space artefacts, etc. These are undesirable visual effects, just like the blur from lower refresh rates is.
this video is a biased video from the standpoint of someone whose life is reviewing these things, not even playing them. personally, this feels like a sponsored video to me.
@@GraveUypo Nah, I didn't get that sense at all. He is just pointing out lesser-known benefits of higher monitor refresh rates for slower-paced games. But if you want high fps at 4K pushing a high refresh rate monitor, then yes, the hardware manufacturers will make some money off you.
Dogs and cats seem to notice. In the old days they ignored TVs and monitors. Their brains couldn't decode the flickering images. When high-resolution monitors with high refresh rates arrived dogs started growling at dogs on the screen and cats attacked cats on the screen because they were intruders in their house. They even recognise cartoon cats and dogs and attack them.
@user-zn9ke8um8s well, the current 1080p 360hz, I use a 12700k and a 3080 10gb. Everything is tuned manually, including memory (7800mhz @ c36). FPS limiter with RTSS to cap the frame at 360 flat, so as to match my monitor's DyAC+ function. Holds the 360fps consistently in Overwatch which my main competitive game. I'll probably drop in a 14900k and 5090 (when it comes out this year) for 1440p @ 480hz, though I could probably do it with just a better CPU.
@phm04 I was on 60hz till about 2015. Then 1080p 120hz, then 4k 120hz OLED TV in 2020, but went down to 1440p 165hz and now a little over year in 1080 360hz.
This isn't the 'right' takeaway, but it makes me think 120hz is the new 60hz, it's the minimum not the maximum. I think 240 is the next jump for me, when 240@4k is doable I'm take a look
240hz 4k OLED is out next year. Not many games you could run that on though...! 34inch or smaller screens are perfect for 1440p and those kind of monitors already exist. They will become cheaper hopefully when better iterations are released next year
240hz @ 4K OLED will be available in 2024.. and towards the end of the year, we should even have a GPU that can handle it (5090), though the combo of the two will be very expensive.. still, over time (years), that sort of performance will get cheaper and cheaper.
@@TheAscendedHuman It is, depending on the game and visual quality settings. Obviously there's lots of games that can't run at 4k 240fps in 2023, but there are some that will, and ofc as next gen GPUs and CPUs arrive, that'll improve. That said, newer games will continue to push the envelope.. like I already said, game quality is a separate issue.
While I am also a fan of high refresh rate gaming, there are two major caveats to all of this. 1. Frame Time Pacing: With uneven pacing, even a high refresh rate will feel uncomfortable. "120fps" alone doesn't tell anything about the actual quality. 2. The main problem with all of this: You will need an insanely powerful GPU for this kind of stuff. Even reaching 120fps in more modern games can be difficult. If you play Counter Strike on a 4090, then you can have your 540Hz experience. But fire up anything that is somewhat recent, and even at low settings you will have problems to achieve 240Hz for most games. I have a 3090 right now and most games struggle to achieve 120 fps at 1440p, even with somewhat reduced detail settings. This is also the reason I don't want a 4K monitor. Summarizing: in theory high refresh rate gaming is wonderful, but in practice it's very difficult to achieve, even with unlimited money. Especially since SLI is dead. In my opinion it's mostly something for highly competitive gamers who don't care about visual details at all. That being said, I have no experience with DLSS 3.0 and frame generation. I heard from a friend with a 4090 that it's actually not bad.
@@Barbarossa97 Completely depends on the type of game. I would much rather play Cities Skylines with a 4k monitor (even at 60 fps) than any 1080p monitor. That goes for most top-down games. FPS games are the opposite - fps matters much more than resolution, but I still find it tough to go down to 1080 after using 4k and 1440p for so long.
good video! yes high refresh rate matters a lot for shooter games especially. but for other games visuals are more important. I believe that monitors using the 27" 1440p 480hz OLED panel that LG is producing in 2025 will be the ultimate solution for both competitive shooters and visually stunning games.
@@adridell 1080p at 10 inches away from the eyes: let me show you the future, even though you won't resist too much time before needing eye droplets. Srry :T
I went from a 1080p60hz TV with horrible input delay to a 1080p165hz gaming monitor and the difference is absolutely worth the money. I'm much better at multiplayer shooters now and I get less headaches after long gaming sessions.
My trinitron based dell 1130p is one of the best screens I’ve used at 120jz it destroys any lcd I’ve seen like wise my diamondtron hp displays can get up to 180hz at 1024x760 and 150hz at 1280x1024 with 21” screen size again no blurry image at all would be cool to see you guys do a side by side review of how long it’s taken to get back to the display clarity we had 20 years ago
Yes, expensive CRTs were really good. But LCDs didn't catch up this year or anything like that, they've been better options for most of their existence (except for brightness).
7:53 Wow, I've been using 240hz monitor for a few years now and didn't know the clarity difference between 240hz and 360hz, it's night and day. I honestly wasn't expecting that.
Refresh rates DO matter, but there is most definitely a point of limiting returns. I think today's crazy high refresh rates are a little insane, and in placebo territory. 60hz is a good "minimum" for something single player, but I'd argue there is a lot of benefit above that, but serious limiting returns start setting in above 120hz. I don't think the burbusters little flying UFO test screens are really reflective of real world gaming. The test is meant to tease out worst case. Nothing OP says is wrong. Its just that in real life gaming, the benefits are minimal, and increasingly small as framerate increases much above 120, and the tradeoffs to get there usually just aren't worth it.
Please don't spread misinformation, I've seen people talking about limiting returns over the years so much that I bought into it and delayed buying a higher refresh rate monitor. Personally going from 144hz to 240hz was a bigger jump in smoothness and clarity compared to 60 to 144 in any sort of gameplay, not just fast paced shooters.
@@chezda lol tf r u talking ??? Today I tried to feel the difference for 30 min between 165fps and 240fps on my Samsung G7, to know if I should buy the 165hz alienware oled or the lg 240hz oled and conclusion: I can see the difference between them, if I do fast turns on a 9-9 and above sensitivity, but I cannot feel the difference in inputlag, and because to be competitive in cod, most pros play on a 6-6 sens, there on a 6-6 sens it’s hard to notice a difference even on fast turns because the sens is just to „slow“ And I was top 250 in warzone ranked The difference between 60hz and 144hz is MASSIVE lol dont try to make your 240hz good just because u have one „more difference than 60-144hz“ which is simply not true, that’s a increase of over 9ms per frame time, while the 144-240hz is just a increase of 2,7ms the bigger the frame time gap is, the more you will feel it Compare it on the same monitor, and not on two different ones My AOC 240hz on 240fps is slower than my Samsung g7 on 120hz, MUCH more blur and input lag, it always depends on the monitor
Excellent video. I just finished build a PC but, have been waiting for the higher refresh monitors that are supposed to be on the way in 24Q1 to upgrade from my 10 year old 27" 108p 60Hz monitor. People have been telling me that 540Hz really only benefits competitive gamers - now I know better. I'll stay the course and wait for those 540Hz monitors. Thank you!
This is terrific and I love it! I’ve found that I am quite sensitive to motion/blur clarity and I would take higher refresh rates any day over increased fidelity. However! Game designers need to support higher refresh rates! Too many games are stuck around 120hz and I have a 240hz oled and just doesn’t get used as often as I’d like… 🙁
Men in the last video about the new 540Hz Asus monitor so many people commented about the high refresh rate and how "you can't notice the difference past 60Hz" it's just pure ignorance, damn annoying. Cant argue with them tho because they just cant afford a high refresh monitor and thus they never really experience 120/165/240(Hz) and just choose to belive "its not that big of a difference" for the fear of missing out... Sad but it is what it is.
I've been using a 165Hz monitor for over a year, and honestly, I only see the difference in the UFO test. I don't play fast-paced shooters, mostly single player action games and RTS games, but I typically lock the frame rate at 60 because I don't notice any difference while playing (unlike the GPU noises). I also don't notice any difference between 60 and 120Hz on smartphones so I guess it just varies a lot from one person to another.
Im super happy with my oled 77" 120hz tv, to the point I haven't updated my older monitor, just switched up the tv room for recliner pc gaming, the clarity of moving screens is awesome. I don't play esports or competitive stuff.
For me personally, I’ve always said that resolution (to a point of course) is by far the least important factor for a monitor. I’d snatch up a 24inch 1080p 240+ hz oled instantly. Great motion clarity and amazing colors & contrast all while running almost every game at high fps.
I have been using a monitor with 240 Hz for about 3 years now, and I must say that I can never go back lower than this. You really get used to it and feel the difference, my main monitor is 240Hz and I have a second monitor at 144Hz, and it is really not the same. Of course this is more subtle than going from 60 to 144Hz but you can definitely feel it. Also lots of games go way past 240 fps today, it all depends on what you play, if you play any competitive FPS or stuff like LoL or Minecraft etc... which a lot of people do, you can get way higher than 240 fps. Lastly, for a reason i don't remember, it is better having a 240 Hz monitor playing a game that you can only run at 120 fps rather than having a 120 Hz monitor playing the same game. So yeah, I would definitely advise you to test high refresh rate monitors if you can and make your own opinion.
You get to enjoy older and less demanding games better than ever. Frame generation will become useful when it's used to give you twice the frames instead of only rendering half the frames. The point of this video isn't "you should only buy 540Hz" videos anyway, it's to demonstrate that there's a point to them at all. Obviously if your use case doesn't benefit from 540Hz you shouldn't prioritize that feature. Equally obviously 540Hz is a big step forward in motion clarity when the source material is there and we're not even in the "as good as makes any difference" point yet.
It would be cool if you did the same test with a crt monitor. You could even review a crt monitor & see how it compares to a modern display in all aspects like contrast & brightness.
...but at those higher refresh rates, do you require the corresponding FPS? like 360FPS @ 360Hz ? CRT was so much better at everything display wise, You only needed 72Hz and above to get rid of eye strain and not seem like it's flickering. So only require 72FPS and not a very powerful system to achieve the same kind of motion clarity. edit: ....another reason why I wish SED/FED tech came out all those years back in the mid 2000s. I suspect the individual electron emitters lighting up the phosphors would've and could've done the same or even similar job as how CRT worked, you don't necesarily need to strobe drawing lines, each electron emitter can light up at the same time, while the in between would be off/phosphor lights decaying.
Very naive to expect 75Hz to get rid of eye strain. Flicker free lcds are untouchable in that regard. Even better than oleds, these tend to flicker at low brightness and manufacturers aren't too keen to make dc dimming an option. CRTs ate eyes, if you used to work on one you would understand. Not a 1 hour gaming session, but a 6 hour day working with text.
@@dat_21 idk about that, my (young at the time) eyes had no problem with CRT for hours on end, and 120+ hz was certainly very doable. Still, maybe I was just genetically fortunate there, I obviously can't speak for anyone but myself.
@@greggmacdonald9644 Where did you even find a 120Hz capable crt? Most of them were limited to 75-90. At decent resolution let's say 1280*1024, high refresh rates were an exception not the norm.
@@dat_21 I wish I could remember, but it's been around 30 years, and I don't have the CRTs anymore. But I got it (14", I remember that), at whatever computer store it was at the time.
@@dat_21 What d'ya mean? I "worked" on a CRT for 15 years. 60Hz was godawful, but for me eye strain disappeared above 72Hz. Maybe other people required a higher refresh rate than that.
The worst part is when i see console players say they prefer 30 fps mode over 60 because it looks "cinematic" Theres nothing cinematic about 30 fps, camera shutters and light capture work differently than video game rendering. So while 24fps movie looks fine, 30fps game plays like a laggy choppy slideshow
There absolutely is a cinematic aspect. With 30 and 40 fps animations look choppier but that also mean that fast movements are more impactful, like think about anime at low framerates. You get more time to “hold” frames and this gives animations more character and impact. If we had the possibility to play everything at 1000fps, I’d still prefer cutscenes to be at like 40.
@@marrow94 There's no reason you couldn't do animations at a low framerate and run the game world at a higher one, this is what many games do already. If we had the possibility to play everything at 1000fps, I'd still prefer to skip cutscenes.
@@marrow94 idk about anime games, but i can tell you that humans in real life dont move in 40 samples each second, mocap in video games is done at much higher sample rate and it looks perfectly fine
while I certainly agree that increases over 120hz can be positive, I think we need to remember that there are diminishing returns. Since most of us are always going to be limited by GPU or cost elements, you need to decide what to prioritize. If your GPU can not kick out enough frames with the graphics quality of interest then a higher refresh monitor that what your card deliver is probably of limited value. By the same token, for most players better texture packs and more eye candy will probably improve the visual experience more than going from say 120hz to 360hz. Granted texture packs don't really impact frame rates but they do impact cost for your system. You only have so many dollars to spread around. If you are going to play say baulders gate 3, I don't thin you will see any difference between 120 and 360hz.
My first ever CRT monitor, was able to do 85 Hz, at max resolution, and 120 Hz at the next highest. There was a night and day difference, from playing at 60 Hz.
@@dfcx1 That's right, I'm not saying that CRTs are perfect, but I really miss that motion clarity.. I was able to look at the car driving nearby and see every single detail. Btw LCDs are far from perfect too - motion blur, black background looks like gray, and also every flat panel display looks blurry at resolutions different then native. I was wandering what technology we need to run every resolution like native..
I don’t know where the idea that single players games are "slow" and don’t involve fast movements comes from. Especially fast camera panning in 3rd person games introduce a lot of motion blur. I always lower image quality until I am cpu or monitor limited, as motion blur is always much worse than the usually relatively minor loss of static image quality from lowering the settings. Even a game like baldurs gate 3 at 144fps on my 144hz monitor looks a bit too blurry during camera panning.
If you find an old CRT you can see that 60 FPS has zero motion blur. That thing has image retention on the level of microseconds. But yeah, it's literally a headache.
Thats the interesting thing is locking 60fps to 60hz provides the same motion clarity on a CRT as 120fps at 120hz or whatever higher frames. However similar to what you replied 85hz gives me eye strain but once I hit 100hz that goes away. So you get less strain and better response by bumping things up.
1. Latency is max. 16ms with 60Hz. A normal mouse is already 8ms, a human reacts in about 500ms. 2. Motion blur actually makes movements smooth down to 24fps (cinema). Most people are not able to distinguish 60Hz from higher rates in a blind test, if proper motion blurred. 3. Moved pictures with high clarity (without motion blur) simply do not look natural to us.
This reminds me of my productivity work from 1984 to 2022 wherein I ALWAYS set the monitor to the highest refresh rate available. I dreaded when an employer would provide monitors that only do 60 Hz, and woe when a monitor wouldn’t quite do even 60 Hz. Why did I do so for productivity work? Because I can see flicker (the refresh cycle) at 60 Hz, which causes headaches. Once refresh gets to 75 and higher, I don’t notice flicker.
If only games were made with this in mind instead of continuing to pump out titles that become single thread bottlenecked at 60 FPS on any CPU that mortals can afford.
I am gaming at 4K HDR and 144Hz with mostly open world RPG games and other single player games. While it would be nice to push faster than that the cost to do so is pretty absurd and I gained more from 4K HDR in these games than I do from lower resolution and a display I can push at a faster rate. I have an RTX 4080 because a 4090 was so much more expensive when I got it that it was not worth the price jump. I don't see 4K HDR 360Hz as actually viable anytime soon.
I'm really looking forward to the new generation of capture cards so I can run my monitor at 240 Hz and have that pass through the card, so I don't have to keep swapping inputs to get 240 when I'm just playing.
Question for a future Q&A or maybe a video idea. I was going to write you a book talking about my experiences of recently obtaining my first LCD monitor (Dell G2724D) after using computers daily since the 90s and only every owning CRTs, but I decided it would be better to focus on one issue. Do you have any experience or opinions on removing the matte anti-glare coating from monitors? It's hard to find glossy monitors and I feel like the matte anti-glare coating makes the image quality worse. I have noticed a lot of IPS glow and I feel like the anti-glare coating is contributing to this. I also feel like it removes some of the vibrancy compared to a glossy screen. I am not worried about glare. I use the monitor a lot at night or with dark curtains closed, so there isn't a lot of light in the room. I also like to keep a solid black desktop background and use a very dark gray Windows theme. I sit about 3 feet from the monitor and can see IPS glow from all 4 corners (not backlight bleed). If I move my head in any direction and am not perfectly aligned in front of the monitor, the glow gets worse as the angle increases. This is really annoying because I like to change my sitting position often. I have found posts online where people have soaked paper towels and draped them across the screen for a certain number of hours and then carefully peeled the anti-glare coating off without removing the polarizing layer underneath. I was wondering if you wanted to share any opinions on this or possibly experiment with it yourself and make a video. If you have a matte IPS monitor you aren't worried about damaging, maybe you could do before and after testing to see the affects. I have been waiting for OLED computer monitors for about 15 years and they are now a thing, but they will probably still be out of my price range for the next couple years. I also don't want to deal with the subpixel layout text issue since I probably sit in front of it for about 12 hours a day. I don't have any testing equipment, but the matte coating bothers me so much that I am considering obtaining another identical monitor and removing the coating from one of them to see how it looks. It will be a few months before I can get it though because I don't want to spend money on an LCD, so I will get it the same way I got this one, by collecting enough points on Dells AWA site until I can get it for free.
This is the second time Ive watched this video and it just becomes even more impressive how clearly it explains the benefits of fps/refresh rate. I used to think there wasn't much to be gained beyond 120fps but when I saw how noticeable even a small step up to 165 fps is, my opinion has changed, my brand new system is already out dated with 360 fps being the new desireable 1% low :)
God-tier video! Makes me really wish newer fighting games like Street Fighter 6 and Tekken 8 were allowed to run at higher frame rates, since they are such fast paced games
I've been pc gaming on a 60hz monitor up until just recently, when I received a 1080 144hz Asus monitor as a hand me down. After purchasing the proper display port cable, I can honestly attest to the fact higher refresh rates are night and day compared to my old 60hz. All games feel remarkably smoother and in a lot of instances a sharper image. I don't think I can ever go back to lower refresh rates.
Yeah. I went form 1080p60 -> 1080p144 and the change was brutal. After that i went from 1080p144 -> 1440p(ultrawide & HDR)165 and lemme tell you, it's as big, or even bigger of a jump. HRD adds a lot more than i expected. It's not even close.
@@TheHighborn I have a 1080p and 4k monitor. 4k looks nicer but is definitely NOT worth the FPS cost. 540hz 1080p is the best monitor you can buy in my opinion. Better then 4k 144hz or 1440p 240hz oled monitors.
Yeah dude more hz is the best gift for gaming. At 60hz even windows browsing feels "laggy".
recently switched from 60hz to 240hz. I tried going back to 60hz as a 'fun test'. Its unplayable XD dont know how i played like that for years
@@lachlanB323 if I played a lot of shooters, I'd 100% agree. But, I personally prefer visuals over frames, and not to mention, hdr is really good for movies etc too. I also don't really play shooters.
It would be nice to see a comparison between an LCD screen and an OLED when it comes to motion clarity. 240Hz on LCD versus 120Hz on OLED.
It depends entirely on the panel. And software like backlight strobing. Because for the 7:35 area they are using an OLED because of the response times.
I can't speak for all displays of course. But I went from a 1440p 240hz IPS panel to a 1440p 175hz OLED display and the OLED definitely feels smoother.
Rtings let’s you compare motion clarity of different displays / different display types.
@@Keivz Their testing methodology is not as solid as monitors unboxed.
@@Keivz Similar but more of a reference in terms of response times.
Old PC demos made for CRTs often used fast scrolling text which is impossible to read on most modern screens. I hadn’t really thought about the problem being your eyes moving, but it explains why the text is perfectly clear with the rapidly flashing CRT.
True, I noticed that on the Amiga emulator and when seeing text scrolling, it looked quite blurry.
But I remember there was a mode on Sony tv's you could use that made the scrolling look a lot smoother, but the image was also a lot darker, that's the closes I've seen an LCD display actually look like a CRT display when it comes to smoothness.
I don't have a Sony tv at the moment so can't say what that mode is called.
@@paul1979uk2000 Sounds like black frame insertion or backlight strobing. It makes the screen dimmer because you have to flash the screen rapidly. He talks about it at the end of the video and it is a feature on some monitors to get better motion clarity at the cost of brightness.
when lcd tvs first came out, one of the biggest complaints was the ghosting effect. A lot of people thought plasma was going to be the way to go because it had a refresh rate comparable to the CRTs. But its nice we're finally getting higher refresh rates now that are comparable to the older CRTs and Plasmas. Thank god ghosting will be a thing of the past.
Last week I reverted from a 42" C2 OLED @120Hz to an older LG VA 32GK650F @144Hz. In a very easy to run game (WoW Classic) I panned a scene as slowly as my mouse would let me. The trees in view still blurred substantially, even at 144Hz. I suspect that the VA's slower grey-to-grey was the culprit. I think that the speed of the pixel switching is important too.
Yeah, most VAs have very slow pixel response times. That's why I have an ultrawide 165Hz OLED now, because of OLED's near-instant response time. It's so incredibly clear.
yup, u right. And I went from 48"C1 to AW3423DW, so from 4k@120 to 1440p@175Hz. While latest is faster, I noticed I have problems in FPS, as just because of screen size I now see less... so if there will be some 1440p or 4k but 16:9 screen, bigger than 34", I will switch again. I need bigger screen. I am too old now to sit close to screen...
@@Tomiplymy old Alienware 13 r3 OLED has very slow black to gray response which makes darks look kind of purple. Made Watch Dogs a bit hard to play. Gorgeous display otherwise
Too bad the C2 doesn't have BFI as that makes a huge difference.
@@nikilragavDoing some retro gaming on my old AW 13 R3 OLED this morning, yeah it’s old now but still useful and looks great. On my way now to finally pick up an AW3423dwf on a Black Friday sale 😊.
finally a video I can show to stop the idiotic arguments, your eyes can't see more than x images per second
This video proves nothing except ignorance.
A bullet traveling at ssy 1,800 miles per hour can not be seen by the human eye, at all!
Yet super high speed cameras can indeed capture that same high speed object and in perfect clarity.
Even down to the shockwave itself can be seen in the footage when slowed down.
Same applies to a much larger object with writing on it like (for example) an airplane.
All the human eye will ever see is a very blurry streak with totally unreadable lettering on it that the human eye will miss entirely.
Same airplane being captured by a high speed camera, footage when slowed down, the lettering will be crystal clear.
Or even say a passenger car traveling at 70mph if you was sitting on the side of a freeway, nothing but a blurry object will be seen with the human eye when it streaks by.
This one however, if you track that same vehicle with your eyes, you would be able to pick out some lettering on the side of the vehicle. But not likely be able to pick out all the lettering.
Back to the simulated world of games, no matter the refresh rate.
It isn't going to make you a better gamer having a higher refresh rate.
Super high speed footage is only good for clarity in slow motion footage. lol
@@larrypaul2462dummy. Lower latency means you can react quicker, higher refresh rate means you have more up to date information quicker. Pure idiocracy what you are saying
@@larrypaul2462maybe he meant our eyes can see infinte amount of frames but our brain is locket at a x amount of frames. Anyways he is probally just another braindead gamer who thinks higher refreshrate on a low tickrate game wil give you an advantage.
I mean i switched from 75 to 360 hz and climbed 5 divisions in a month in valo but before i was stuck in silver-gold for 2 years. Also in my OSU! Profile you can clearly see the the performance curve go up at a 40 degree angle instead of falling down. Seems to strong to be a placebo. Definitely going for 540 in a couple of years
@@larrypaul2462 Of course you cannot hope to track a moving bullet with your eyes, or even a car moving by really fast. So this isn’t the kind of motion we are hoping to see more clearly on a high refresh rate monitor.
But most movement in real life is trackable, like a slow moving car, people walking, or when you turn your head and your eyes are still able to fixate on a stationary object. This is the kind of motion that is hopelessly blurred on a 60 Hz display, but much clearer on 240Hz.
The examples in the video weren’t using a high-speed video camera. It was a regular photograph taken with a regular shutter speed, just tracking the UFO at its exact speed, which is easy to do yourself if you viewed the same demo with your eyes.
This video isn’t at all about the refresh rate of your vision. It is only about the blur caused by the sample-and-hold nature of modern displays.
Anyone who's ever watched native 120fps/240fps video on a 120/240hz monitor can attest to how much better of an experience that is. It really is a shame we've been given the short end of the stick with the advent of 60hz only LCD's that replaced the old min 90hz capable CRT's with natively 0 input lag or motion blur.
I didn't notice much going from 60 to 120, but after buying a 165hz monitor, there was a clear difference to 60hz
CRT were a better technology than LCD, just less practical.
At least nowaday we're close to having general-purpose OLED that are superior in those aspects, we just need to figure out a way to correctly solve the burn-in issue.
Watch it with a 9+ms refresh rate throughout.
Oh, what is that, it means your pixels are not refreshed before they get changed to a different colour, so take time to change and appears more blurry?
You, like most, including Timmy here, refuse to accept that it might not be what you want it to be, that it could be about how you display and then shoot on a frame you see, so more frames equals more accurate fire, even if the pixel on your monitor never appears to change.
Please review the ASUS tuf VG279QM 280hz monitor
@@Kazyekcheck rtings’ burn in torture test. Burn in is a problem but so far their tests show pretty favourable results. It takes a while for OLED to burn in. The problem is that the “while” is still not as long as you’d expect a display of its price to be. I’m fine with OLED for now especially on my TV. By the time I’ll want an upgrade microLED will be available for consumers at scale. Every company worth their weight in gold is doing extensive R&D on High refresh, dense, insanely accurate and bright microLED screens.
Even moving windows on the desktop or scrolling through web pages improve a lot when going above 60Hz
That is because they are not motion blurred, as is the mouse.
Very concise video and appreciate you tackling this issue that's generally relegated to the Blurbusters forums. While people might scoff at 1920 rate on UFOtest, that's basically around the same speed as a Genji dash or Tracer dash in Overwatch. This is where stuff like that realllly matter. Hope in the future we see another video taking a look at differences between display technologies as was mentioned. CRT/Plasma/OLED/TN/IPS/VN and tech that can help with them like BFI/ULMB.
Having owned a Plasma, even after switching to a OLED, there really is nothing that quite captures pictures the same. Really makes me sad that technology died out in addition to SEDs never making it to production.
OLED with 120hz BFI can compete with plasmas motion resolution
Sadly bfi makes OLED very dim
Plasmas are even dimmer without it
BFI doesn't hold a candle to a flagship plasma. It's still OLED, still sample and hold, the image lingers for far too long. My Panasonic TH50PZ850A has the best motion handling I've ever seen, period. Funny because my QD-OLED has 2x the refresh rate, and 2x the motion resolution at 1200 lines. Plasma is dim but when watching at night, especially watching a movie that was shot on film and has night scenes like Batman - The Dark Knight or The Negotiator, it looks bloody incredible.
Yeah just doing the maths on those character moves (and 180 whips) gives you a laughable number of drawings as they cross the screen.
this is why I prefer to be blind. 30hz 3000hz it’s all the same
I've always understood the point of higher refresh = better clarity, but this video helped hammer it in even better with concrete side by side comparisons. Great job!
Great video! The one subject I wish you'd have at least touched on is what benefit is a high refresh rate monitor if your PC is only pushing 60FPS due to hardware limitations (regardless of resolution). That's always been my thinking, that if my PC can only push 60 FPS, what's the point of a high refresh rate monitor showing the same frame 2x in a row if my PC hasn't sent a new one yet? Hearing your take on that would be great.
Anti-Aliasing. If the base picture is 120fps and shows at 60fps, that basically downsampling, which makes anti-aliasing unecessary. Actually, that's pretty much the principle of anti-aliasing. Same goes for say 4K picture downsampled to 1080p. There is a theory "rule" about how that works. You need 2x or more ("bandwidth") for the base picture to what you output to remove artifacts.
@@johnwayne-kd1pnlike with all signal sampling, whether it be audio or image, there are different modes to choose from. Anti aliasing in the temporal domain would be motion blur, and most monitors are not mashing together both frames, they're just showing the most recent one they're getting sent. If vsync is off, then you will get the next frame halfway down. I don't think Nyquist-shannon sampling theory is really applicable here, it's more like, if you wanna show an object flashing at 30hz, you need 60hz display.
To answer the OG comment's question, 60hz on a 120hz display (sample and hold) looks basically exactly the same.
Whoa! I hadn’t considered the smooth pursuit of the eye causing the image to blur due to it being stable then jumping! Thanks!!
Been on a 144hz monitor for years with always the latest and greatest hardware and very few new AAA single player games permit a consistent 144 fps at 4K. 240hz and up we talking about major sacrifices.
That is why 4k-monitors are a scam. Refresh rate>> resolution.
I'm a PC gamer who plays using a controller most of the time, regardless if I'm in front of my monitor or TV. I still need high fps while using a controller, otherwise I feel the input lag and weaker motion clarity handicappes me and creates an added barrier between me and the game. My preferred way of playing is at least at 90 (without in-game V-Sync and with RTSS frame limit), but only at or above 120 fps I really start to feel that the input lag no longer has a meaningful effect on my gaming skills. I would still like to play at 240Hz though, but there is no 3840x1600 21:9 monitor with this refresh rate yet, and the newest TVs can only do 240Hz at 1080p.
Asus has a 4K 240hz which was review here about 3 months ago
@@williamthatsmyname That's true, but I prefer to use 21:9 monitors. There will be a 3440x1440 240Hz OLED soon from ASUS, but I'm not sure I'll switch from my LG, since it has a larger screen with more pixels (3840x1600 38" 175Hz). I wish Samsung would just cut down their 32:9 57" Odyssey G9 to a 21:9 size, that would be an incredible monitor.
All the examples used to convey the idea of motion depending on the refresh rate are top notch!
Love that you included motion blur reasoning in games. Though most games have a very terrible implementation of motion blur, making you feel sick and uneasy, some games are massively upgraded because of it, but most dont utilize it. BF2042 for one is good, definitely enhances your smooth experience. COD never has a good one, though the weapon blur implementation i do use, but its still sub par compared to others, makes the game look smoother in aspects. The Finals needs it tuned, it has good potential, but you will lose important factors with it on for comp gaming. Definitely recommend try in random games, some could be gold for a better experience, you never know
Some cool follow up video ideas:
- OLED vs IPS (vs CRT?) at different refresh rates
- Explaining how end to end system latency works and anyways for a normal person to affordably calculate it? (Maybe you can even make your own product for this!)
- How different fps caps look on a high fps monitor? Does having a non-integer ratio of fps cap to refresh rate affect clarity? (Ex, is 120hz better than 144hz if the game is set to 240 fps?)
Good video! Once asynchronous warp technology is available for standard games you will be able to get the full benefits of your displays hz even if you can't hit that framerate. I have no idea when this is coming but it is according to the blur busters chief.
Yeah asynchronous warp is soo awesome. There's this test application out there and you can basically play games at like 40-50 fps but aiming is still smooth. Crazy stuff
I want to see a comparison video where the game's max fps is stuck at like 80, something realistic for singleplayer titles, and then see if the higher refreshes are actually making a difference. Nothing I'm playing is ever going to reach 500 fps, so anything that's 500fps on 500hz doesn't matter. If low fps games look the same on all higher refresh rates, then there's no point in a monitor faster that the games you're playing.
Yeah, currently there'd be just about zero reason to buy a 500hz monitor. You could only realistically achieve those levels of FPS at 1080p or in really old games. Current PCs/GPUs aren't going to be hitting the 300+ range in most games. You'd benefit far more from jumping up to 1440p than going for 500 FPS. I'd much rather have 1440p at 144hz than 1080p at 540hz.
You still get the benefits of faster pixel response.
Blur is just one part of the issue.
Ghosting/overdrive, gtg etc.
@@MauroTamm Serious question, would the pixel response on a 540 Hz monitor be quicker at 120 Hz than a 120 Hz native monitor if you're using VRR to avoid tearing?
@@3Dant most likely - they have to use much higher quality panels with subpixels that can switch on/off at that speed.
@@PREDATEURLT people aren't buying 540hz to play single player games dumbass, There's a reason it's 1080p, it's meant for competitive games that people run at the lowest settings and sometimes even lower resolutions than 1080p....
Being waiting for a video of these nature for years now thanks for giving us your time and patience
What if your monitor is 144Hz or above but the games you play, due to hardware, hardly ever hit 80fps or above. Will a high refresh rate monitor still be better?
This is the most common questions asked by everyone but it seems like Tim always avoid to answer this.
I know he will say diff brand tech comes with diff panel and response time is diff but seriously how worse it is if the fps drop below the max refresh rate
@@TheAscendedHuman according to the world tech n price now. Even VA can do 240hz and its even cheaper alot than IPS 165hz or even some "180hz". So why not ? If u talking about wasting Hz then how bout those people who play Alan Wake 2 ? U think they really wanna waste those Hz and play Alan wake 2 in a very low graphical settings ? Plus if Remedy can screw up those old gpu with only Alan Wake 2 , im definitely confirm other developers are following their steps now
you go buy RTX 4000 series and turn on DLSS3 for free frames making picture shine on high Hz
@@TheAscendedHuman please read carefully about what i type i did not mention about throwing money away. it seems like you know one to two things, so share with us. How does a 45 - 100 fps game perform in a 240hz monitor with and without VRR ? all of us are curious about this, mayb you can tell us or share with us
Nope, 60hz are still fine wine.
in 5 or 10 years from now, the standard will be 540hz, and the top end will be 1024hz. thats for monitors lol
For mouses, the Pooling rate might increase to 16khz or even 32khz ( right now there are 8k )
and the norm of gaming will be 4k/240hz for story games and 2048fps for fps games
IMO refresh rate matters up to a point. If pixel response time cannot keep up then we still get a blurry image.
Refresh rate and pixel response times should go hand in hand as we push closer and closer to 1000Hz
Yea that’s why OLED or better technology has to be the future imo. Trying to get more out of these lcd panels hopefully is at a stopping point with 540hz. I just don’t see the benefits of going in this direction and they might hit a wall anyways with what you’re talking about. I guess it does help people that have a fear of burn in which I get. But we need the best technology for past 540 hz to matter and I’m not even convinced it does.
@@Ray-dl5mpOLED isn't for everyone. There are many people that have some trouble with it. I really prefer my M32U and Acer Predator XB283K compared to the C2 unit I had. I had the pleasure and could configurate my mothers 83 inch C3 OLED and there is definitely something with it my eyes don't like even though the HDR was incredible and the overall image. To OP: I think 60 - 120 fps is alright everything else isn't important unless your a pro player in 1st person games.
Oh, they already know. That's why it's part of their monitor testing methodology. It's called the deviation metric, measuring how much of a panel's pixel response can keep up with the panel's advertised refresh rate.
I had a 144hz with not great pixel response, often felt worse than 60Hz on a CRT or OLED. Ghosting is awful
@@escape209 for 144 hz, Gigabyte M32U and Acer Predator XB283K is great. The Acer is maybe the best 28 inch 4k monitor If you don't care for HDR. OLED is not for me sadly. I tried a C2 and could configurate my mothers 83 inch C3 with awesome image and HDR but OLED makes something with my eyes that other displays don't do.
Looking at the 540Hz examples with fast motion shows that we are a long way to go to get perfect smoothness. Arguing against the benefits of fast refresh at this point is just being ignorant.
One benefit of a higher refresh rate with VRR: if you are using VRR and your FPS spikes to exceed your max refresh rate, then you generally get tearing. This can be worked around by setting a max FPS, but this is a manual step which doesn't always work perfectly and can introduce additional latency or stuttering in poorly implemented games. If your max refresh rate is high enough, you generally don't need to worry about this since you'll never have enough FPS for it to be a problem. I have especially noticed this in Rocket League on my 165Hz monitor since it can have huge 100 FPS swings that aren't always within my monitor's range. G-Sync at 60 FPS feels bad to me and so I like to keep to at least 100 FPS, giving me a 65Hz sweet spot which games are bad at staying in.
It's always better to have uncapped frames especially if you are overshooting the monitors refresh rate.. I've never experienced tearing and I play rocket league between 500-1100 FPS haha. But anyways VRR of any kind introduces latency and capping your frame rate is increasing input latency in the moments that you would be overshooting your cap. Check Optimum tech's content on input lag and latency.
Nothing beats CRT display when it comes motion clarity, input lag and response time. I played on CRT monitor since age of 7 to 18 now I'm 28 and using BenQ xl2566k it's little bit close to CRT but not there
CRT motion clarity is amazing but input lags are still limited by the framerate the game runs at. I've never seen a CRT run at 540Hz but that's where we're at with flat panels now.
@@dfcx1Yes, but to actually get the latency and clarity benefits of a 360-540 Hz display requires you to somehow run your games at 360-540 fps, which in most modern games seems... unlikely.
CRTs offer a significant latency advantage at any given fps, by virtue of having "processing" lag on the order of microseconds. So, a 160 Hz CRT may net you an experience that's largely similar to (and in some ways better than) a 360 Hz LCD, all the while only having to run your game at just 160 fps.
I agree and love CRTs too, but the counterpoint when it comes to input lag is that you should include the beam reaching the bottom of the screen as processing delay on the CRT since before that you don't have the full image. At similar refresh rates obviously the CRT is better, but when flat panels start to have refresh rates multiple times as fast the time to draw the whole image becomes a bottleneck.
If you're playing something like RetroArch and really dial in your latency settings, a CRT's draw time can become a noticeably limiting factor even with a 60fps game. Running at 120Hz fixes it but introduces a double image. I could never get black frames to work in RetroArch so I just run the CRT at 60Hz for games where double frames are noticeable.
really damn, i wish i could see a vid comparing them
I use a crt that runs at 240hz 960i but the 0 input latency is a game changer
interesting
based
This one's going to be a classic. This should be one of the very first videos that all new PC gamers should watch.
I admire the patience you have to teach about this matter, even though it makes as all laugh when someone thinks it has all the right saying "oh I never had the opportunity to test high refresh rate myself and for that it just doesnt matter, no difference at all" of course not with all this transparency but its really what they re trully thinking.
Thank you for all your efforts in educating these folks. May they have the opportunity to own a high refresh monitor soon!
Oh, try it on a 9ms response pixel monitor. No ghost pixels, but above 100Hz, you got blurring. Tim don't like that, though.
There is so much mind candy in this video and I love it.
The sections where there are 3 ufo's scrolling horizontally at different speeds to simulate refresh rate differences are great examples, but unfortunately suffer from occasional blips in their consistency when I'm watching this video on a phone. I've got the impression that these frame timing issues will happen while watching this video on any device or PC. Hiccup.
Still, this video said a lot of things I wanted to hear.
Could the hiccup have been caused by 60 vs 59.94 refreshes per second?
I hope someone solves VRR + BFI or backlight strobing. This improves motion clarity soo much that I'm saddened that my C2 can only use BFI at a fixed 60 Hz. Like, the motion clarity is so much better that you can even make out the chrominance overshoot artifacts of WOLED
They have, some gsync panels do it, and I have a gigabyte free sync panel that does it. The problem isn't capability, it's the manufacturers using it.
Shoutout C1 BFI@120
This is the only true way to display the differences between these refreshes. Some videos just show side by side Footage which is completely dumb because youtube cant show more than 60fps and some slow the footage doen which also makes no sense because you are essentially just comparing other refreshes Lets say 60hz vs 144hz but at half speed so you would Compare 30hz to 72hz.
You have done the biggest service for the tech community and consumers as a whole. There is finally a video that shows exactly why it is so important and why it matters. Hopefully this will help end misinformation about refresh rate and help people better understand why it's important we keep pushing for higher refresh rates. I had the lg gp950 4k 144hz monitor thinking I preferred having the sharper imagine. I decided to ,what I though was maybe a side grade, switch to the lg 27gr95qe 1440p 240hz oled and it was the best monitor decision I have ever made just refresh rate wise, not including the benefits of oled such as hdr and better pixel response times. I thought I would be disgusted with lowering the resolution back to 1440p witch I used before owning the 4k monitor but due to the refresh rate it is so much sharper than my old 1440p monitor and doesn't feel like as much of a resolution downgrade, especially in games.
Your tech videos are tremendous, is the most valuable thing you've brought the community yet.
I haven't visited the UFO test in a while and holy moly I forgot how much of a cheat BFI truly is. I 100% agree with you there.
Even on my 7 year old Zowie 144Hz TN panel I get a perfectly clear picture up to 1440p/sec. At 1920 I can't make out the individual 3 white lines in the UFO anymore but even the pupils of the alien are still visible. Now I remember why I didn't bother upgrading for so long.
full of crosstalk and warps yes
Yeah, but in return, you're looking at a TN panel with it's horribly lacking viewing angles and gamma and color inconsistency. That's a harsh tradeoff. (But more power to you if you don't mind that, I guess.)
@@Case_ No you're absolutely right. But back then 144Hz IPS panels were too expensive to consider for me.
I got a 1440p IPS as a second monitor and that takes care of my other gaming needs.
What the hell is "BFI"?
@@thisnameistaken Black Frame Insertion.
Great video as usual. Keep up the good work.
I’d be interested to see a follow up video that delves more into comparing graphics quality vs FPS and finding the optimal balance. I know it’s subjective, but would still find the discussion interesting. You’ve convinced me that high FPS is desirable, but for us plebs who do not have 4090s we will have to make some compromises to reach high FPS, and so the question becomes at what point does lowering quality settings to increase FPS a bit more become counterproductive?
I tend to limit my games at 90 fps with my 3070. I would go to 120 in certain games if my hardware can manage, because that's what I consider a reasonable limit beyond which the gains are becoming quite marginal, but 90 is a great compromise for me. And around 75 if I want a higher level of detail or if I'm running a more demanding title - somehow 60 is still not enough, but going just slightly above that does improve smoothness a fair bit.
Yep you have to compromise on rt, hdr resolutionreal-estate, and higher quality settings as well as the cost/resources/power usage to achieve 500 fps. The same company pushing for 500hz is also pushing for smoke and mirrors frame generation/upscaling techniques that compromises image quality. 🤪. I say ef the hype and find your own threshold balance.
Graphical settings are often unoptimised or out of proportion. You have to find the best cost/look settings for each game and use that. For single player games 40-45 FPS (or even lower) is playable on weak GPU and pleasing visuals if you have an adaptive sync display.
this is where frame generation is going to come into the equation going forward into the future.
@videogaminbiker889 The objective lab test done by Blur busters was using real frames. Frame generation introduces artifacts and lowers image quality, so there is that. If an ideal is considered 1000 hz with 1 blurry frame per 1000 frames, what do you think will happen if half those frames are generated in terms of blurry frames? 🤔
What an clever way to describe the why sample and hold creates blur! Bravo!
Motion blur attempts to solve stroboscopic effect.
Strobing attempts to solve persistence blur.
Brute force high FPS solves both. But my Skyrim is just now able to get 100fps w/ 13600kf. It'll be a very long time before GPU... and even worse, CPU perf allows me to run 240, 480 960fps etc. I simply can't do it, even if it's the best thing in the world. Real world does not sample and hold.
Real world doesn't strobe either. Strobing at low refresh rates is very fatiguing for your eyes.
@@dat_21 atually, the real world is never not strobing but your point still stands
@@scruffex3736 Well as far as photons go "strobing" as a word may be a little bit of a stretch.
@@dat_21 I was thinking of the vibrational nature of the universe when I was writing that, which is an even bigger stretch, to be fair. I guess, I was trying to add to your point by saying that everything oscillates anyways but that it's the frequency that matters in most cases.
I don't know why I didn't elaborate at all and I'm a bit ashamed of my cryptic-ass comment. I was being overly pedantic while actually being under informed.
I have been waiting a decade for someone to do this video, thank you immensely.
This has pretty much sold me my decision between moving up to 1440p or stepping up to 240hz for my next monitor. I can't afford nor can i run them combined, but my desire for visual clarity when in intense multiplayer fights just makes sense to go for higher refresh rate.
yes, for me 60 to 144 was huge and 144 to 240 was also similar huge difference i felt
So you're saying I must buy a 4k 240hz monitor for work so the text stays clear when moving the windows around, got it
Can't wait for a 4K 24.5' 1000 Hz OLED 10 bit HDR 1000 nits monitor to exist, it's the best resolution, best screen size for 4K regarding PPI, readability, clarity, and having a big enough, but not too big of a monitor if you play competitively, 1000 Hz would just fix all of the motion problems and everything would be crystal clear, OLED is just the fastest regarding response time, the color accuracy is near perfect, this would be the best monitor for gaming, content creation, and overall usage. I'd gladly pay 2000€ for a monitor like this if it's also made with a fairly decent heat dissipation to prevent burn-ins in the display, since it's OLED
anything below 27" is too little
@@GewelReal for competition anything above 24' gets too big for focusing, specially if you play closely to the monitor for better focus, that's why on tournaments the max size you see is around 24'
@@Androide323 even for competitive experience 24 is too small. It makes you sit TOO CLOSE to the monitor where you have to keep straining your eyes with focus
@@GewelReal yeah I guess a 27' if you're not too close could work and might be better for your eyes, sure, and it might also help with posture
Finally someone gets it.
as much as people hate frame gen, its the only way we are going to get close to 1000hz on modern games any time soon, especially at resolutions higher than 1080p. even if you technically had a gpu powerful enough to run modern games at 4k 1000hz , you would also need a cpu that can keep up with it which frame gen also conveniently sidesteps.
This was a really really good video. I had no idea there was so much difference above 120hz.
same, i thought like there was no noticable difference between 120 and 144 and up but holy crap was i wrong!
Unfortunately modern AAA video games nowadays run at 1080p 30 fps with dlss or fsr on "Quality" 😂
@@L3AF well 120 and 144 are reasonably close, 20% higher refresh rate, so roughly 20% less blur. but yeah, every refresh matters :)
Meanwhile Digital Foundry and the others praising ray tracing and path tracing as the must-have for the visual quality. Who cares that even the 4090 can't deliver 60 FPS at 4K in Cyberpunk and produces a blurry image as a result. And who cares the average viewer of their videos has a 3070 like GPU and can't get even 30 FPS at 1440p with DLSS on. But hey, still image in photo mode looks great, right? I like these guys but the disconnect from the reality is almost tangible.
@@JackJohnson-br4qrcry harder
This is really well presented and really shows how big of a difference higher refresh rates make in regards to image resolution, not even 540Hz give you a fully resolved 4K resolution outside of still/static images, I think it will take 1000-1500Hz to achieve 4K for video games and video content.
Personally, I have found that motion clarity is most important when playing 2D side scrollers, more so than FPS shooters. For example, I've been playing Super Mario Wonder on my LG C1 OLED TV. I can only play the game with BFI (black frame insertion) turned on, otherwise it's just too blurry for my eyes since the switch caps out at 60fps, and as you can see from this video, 60FPS is pretty darned blurry when you scroll content across the entire screen at a constant speed.
I really miss my old Panasonic Plasma TV. Even 30FPS content was extremely crisp in motion since it is not a sample and hold display. I would still use it over the OLED for playing switch games if it weren't for the poor input lag.
This makes sense. Motion clarity only matters when you're tracking an object across the screen with your eyes, as you do in sidescrollers. But in fast-paced FPS games, you track objects with your mouse instead.
Never understood the logic when some gamers say playing at lower frame rate like 30fps is better than 60fps, never made any sense to me.
For me, 60fps is more than good enough, and even though higher is better, I feel it's really diminished returns, especially for the extra performance needed to run it, but if the hardware can handle it comfortable enough, then great I'll take it, but it's not something I'm going to go out of my way when it comes to buying more expensive hardware to do it, basically, the cost to benefits is too small to care about, but that isn't to say that higher fps isn't better, because it is, but it's not that big of a deal to most of us, especially if the cost to attain those higher frames with games is too high.
I do agree about the CRT thing though, you don't realise how smooth it can be until you see it on a CRT, and even I forgot about that until I saw the difference recently on a CRT display over modern displays, and I suspect that most of us have just got used to LCD displays and accepted the setbacks because of the other advantages flat panels offer, much thinner and use far less power.
Mind you, i've been hearing some of the newer OLED displays from LG are really close to matching the smoothness of CRT's.
Maybe is missed it, but do you need to have fps close to the refreshrate? Or would 120fps on a 360hz monitor already feel smoother?
It will not be smoother but it will be less blur, more Hz=more clarity on a single frame no matter the FR. This is why if you CAP FPS it's critical to lock your monitor on the maximum RR u can use.
should look fine with VRR
Depends on what you consider smoother. In terms of animation smoothness 120 FPS on a 120 hz or 360hz monitor of comparable quality should “look” the same
The difference would be in responsiveness. As the 360hz monitor pings the GPU at a higher rate, the instant the frame buffer has a new frame it gets plopped in front of your eye balls. A 120hz display would wait for a bit longer before checking the frame buffer.
@@Diabepis If you have 360Hz monitor and play with 120FPS VRR will lock you on 120Hz not 360Hz so VRR is a bad call for lock FPS. VRR have sens only in Variable FR.
Yes the fps has to be at the refresh rate to realize the benefit as described in this video. Good question there
My journey of gaming started on 60hz and jumping from 60 to 144 felt amazing, my second leap was from 144 to 240hz, it didn't feel as a high leap but still well worth it for sure. I cant wait to one day try something higher like 540hz.
120 to max 240Hz with proper strobing is be the way to go in the future I think. With higher resolution becoming cheaper and games becoming ever more demanding, getting those FPS's to feed these extremely high refresh rates is not attainable. Proper syncing of the strobing with variable refresh tech with decent control over brightness needs to be researched more. This seems more attainable than 500+ Hertz displays.
Yeah, 540 hz will kill laptops battery life. And your power bill.
The best video I've seen on comparing monitor refresh rates, thank you!
Wake me up when the 1000Hz oleds are a reasonable price
Amazing information, thank you!!!
Awesome video. It would be great to see if there is a difference in image quality between lcd and oled in those refresh rates.
There barely is any difference, HUB themselves have reviewed the C1 etc OLEDs and the testufos always look blurry as all hell.
Only a CRT is significantly clearer than any of these modern technologies.
Great video Tim! Your monitor reviews are always top notch as well!
it is fantastic but how many games actually are build to maintain this fps sadly only few modern games even fps when it matters the most
Very informative and educational video. Keep up !
"I suspect that an even higher refresh rate, like 1000hz, would provide further benefits" - that was my first thought when I got a 360hz monitor. It was nice, but still nowhere near real life, and I felt it would need more like 3x that refresh rate to match how the real world looks to us.
It'll make a huge difference in VR. Low persistence is non-negotiable or you'll feel sick from all the motion blur. The move towards pancake lenses wastes more light than ever so you'll need more light to begin with. Without varifocal you'll want so much light that your pupils shrink into pinholes to reduce defocus blur. OLEDs need to run full duty cycle to get the maximum amount of light out of them. If you can't improve motion clarity with strobing because that wastes too much light you'll really need to hit those 1kHz refresh rates.
Ehh, to be fair, 360Hz LCDs still have blur added to them because of the technology. A 360Hz OLED, on the other hand, now that would be insane.
Same here going from 75hz to 240hz, massive jump, still dodnt feel "there". Although I still find it funny how even just for desktop browsing how much better 75hz is than 60hz. 75hz feels slow, 60hz actually feels...jarring? I guess how i'd describe it is 15fps is supposed to be the frame rate where we perceive motion, for me at least, it's around the 75hz mark where I get specifically for when I'm interacting with what is being displayed. Ofc 24,30 or 60 fps are fine with a video or something where I'm not inputting anything.
@@Tomiply Even then though, as the video points out, a OLED without backlight strobing (BFI, ULMB, DyAc and so on) is still sample-and-hold and therefore the amount of blur is directly connected to the refresh rate.
Gonna have to bring back SLI/Crossfire to run at these refresh rates lol
what people need to understand is that you wont benefit from high refresh rates if you cant keep your fps up to the refresh rate.
so you think you gonna use a 240hz monitor? you better have the hardware to always maintain that fps and the game is optimized well without any fps drops
Thanks Tim and team for an incredibly useful and informative video. However as one of the people in the "I prefer higher IQ settings than higher FPS settings" I am still not swayed and although you mentioned this mindset at the beginning of the video I don't think this was addressed much afterwards. I guess at the end of the day it remains personal choice and very much depends on the type of game being played, at least now I have a better understanding of the pros and cons.
Yeah the point of this video was to show you the benefits of higher refresh rates to visual quality.
There are tradeoffs of course; It probably deserves its own video. Lower settings often means visible pop-in, low-resolution/noisy shadows and reflections, screen-space artefacts, etc. These are undesirable visual effects, just like the blur from lower refresh rates is.
this video is a biased video from the standpoint of someone whose life is reviewing these things, not even playing them. personally, this feels like a sponsored video to me.
@@GraveUypo Nah, I didn't get that sense at all. He is just pointing out lesser-known benefits of higher monitor refresh rates for slower-paced games. But if you want high fps at 4K pushing a high refresh rate monitor, then yes, the hardware manufacturers will make some money off you.
@@GraveUypospotted the shitter stuck in the early 2000s.
@@GraveUypo Yes, it is sponsored, it's literally at the start of every video. That's completely unrelated to the discussion.
Dogs and cats seem to notice. In the old days they ignored TVs and monitors. Their brains couldn't decode the flickering images. When high-resolution monitors with high refresh rates arrived dogs started growling at dogs on the screen and cats attacked cats on the screen because they were intruders in their house. They even recognise cartoon cats and dogs and attack them.
Honestly after getting used to 360hz, there's no way I'll go back to anything less. Waiting on that LG 1440P 480HZ+ OLED to upgrade.
@user-zn9ke8um8s well, the current 1080p 360hz, I use a 12700k and a 3080 10gb. Everything is tuned manually, including memory (7800mhz @ c36).
FPS limiter with RTSS to cap the frame at 360 flat, so as to match my monitor's DyAC+ function. Holds the 360fps consistently in Overwatch which my main competitive game.
I'll probably drop in a 14900k and 5090 (when it comes out this year) for 1440p @ 480hz, though I could probably do it with just a better CPU.
@@RafaelSilva-yv3oh what refresh rate did you come from? I'd like to know if 360hz is really a game changer even tho it probably is haha
@@phm04 165hz.
@phm04 I was on 60hz till about 2015. Then 1080p 120hz, then 4k 120hz OLED TV in 2020, but went down to 1440p 165hz and now a little over year in 1080 360hz.
@@RafaelSilva-yv3oh oh nice, that's what I'm on rn.
It is awesome to see the difference, many of us gamers have known there is a real difference, but there are still doubters out there! Thumbs up!
This isn't the 'right' takeaway, but it makes me think 120hz is the new 60hz, it's the minimum not the maximum. I think 240 is the next jump for me, when 240@4k is doable I'm take a look
You meant 360Hz on 1440p. This is the correct next gen choice for people playing games (not watching pretty marketing pictures).
240hz 4k OLED is out next year. Not many games you could run that on though...! 34inch or smaller screens are perfect for 1440p and those kind of monitors already exist. They will become cheaper hopefully when better iterations are released next year
240hz @ 4K OLED will be available in 2024.. and towards the end of the year, we should even have a GPU that can handle it (5090), though the combo of the two will be very expensive.. still, over time (years), that sort of performance will get cheaper and cheaper.
@@TheAscendedHuman Game quality is a separate issue.
@@TheAscendedHuman It is, depending on the game and visual quality settings. Obviously there's lots of games that can't run at 4k 240fps in 2023, but there are some that will, and ofc as next gen GPUs and CPUs arrive, that'll improve. That said, newer games will continue to push the envelope.. like I already said, game quality is a separate issue.
Most players skills will never require this level of competitiveness
No joke going from 60 to 180 it improved my shooter games target tracking
While I am also a fan of high refresh rate gaming, there are two major caveats to all of this.
1. Frame Time Pacing: With uneven pacing, even a high refresh rate will feel uncomfortable. "120fps" alone doesn't tell anything about the actual quality.
2. The main problem with all of this: You will need an insanely powerful GPU for this kind of stuff. Even reaching 120fps in more modern games can be difficult. If you play Counter Strike on a 4090, then you can have your 540Hz experience. But fire up anything that is somewhat recent, and even at low settings you will have problems to achieve 240Hz for most games.
I have a 3090 right now and most games struggle to achieve 120 fps at 1440p, even with somewhat reduced detail settings. This is also the reason I don't want a 4K monitor.
Summarizing: in theory high refresh rate gaming is wonderful, but in practice it's very difficult to achieve, even with unlimited money. Especially since SLI is dead.
In my opinion it's mostly something for highly competitive gamers who don't care about visual details at all.
That being said, I have no experience with DLSS 3.0 and frame generation. I heard from a friend with a 4090 that it's actually not bad.
That is why "4k" is an intelligence test as a PC-gamer. You fail, if you choose it. Refresh rate >> resolution.
@@Barbarossa97 Completely depends on the type of game. I would much rather play Cities Skylines with a 4k monitor (even at 60 fps) than any 1080p monitor. That goes for most top-down games. FPS games are the opposite - fps matters much more than resolution, but I still find it tough to go down to 1080 after using 4k and 1440p for so long.
good video! yes high refresh rate matters a lot for shooter games especially. but for other games visuals are more important.
I believe that monitors using the 27" 1440p 480hz OLED panel that LG is producing in 2025 will be the ultimate solution for both competitive shooters and visually stunning games.
It's a long way until 2025, by then 480 fps may be for peasants and their old and obsolete rtx 4090.
@@adridell 1080p at 10 inches away from the eyes: let me show you the future, even though you won't resist too much time before needing eye droplets. Srry :T
I went from a 1080p60hz TV with horrible input delay to a 1080p165hz gaming monitor and the difference is absolutely worth the money. I'm much better at multiplayer shooters now and I get less headaches after long gaming sessions.
My trinitron based dell 1130p is one of the best screens I’ve used at 120jz it destroys any lcd I’ve seen like wise my diamondtron hp displays can get up to 180hz at 1024x760 and 150hz at 1280x1024 with 21” screen size again no blurry image at all would be cool to see you guys do a side by side review of how long it’s taken to get back to the display clarity we had 20 years ago
Yes, expensive CRTs were really good. But LCDs didn't catch up this year or anything like that, they've been better options for most of their existence (except for brightness).
7:53 Wow, I've been using 240hz monitor for a few years now and didn't know the clarity difference between 240hz and 360hz, it's night and day. I honestly wasn't expecting that.
Refresh rates DO matter, but there is most definitely a point of limiting returns. I think today's crazy high refresh rates are a little insane, and in placebo territory. 60hz is a good "minimum" for something single player, but I'd argue there is a lot of benefit above that, but serious limiting returns start setting in above 120hz.
I don't think the burbusters little flying UFO test screens are really reflective of real world gaming. The test is meant to tease out worst case.
Nothing OP says is wrong. Its just that in real life gaming, the benefits are minimal, and increasingly small as framerate increases much above 120, and the tradeoffs to get there usually just aren't worth it.
Please don't spread misinformation, I've seen people talking about limiting returns over the years so much that I bought into it and delayed buying a higher refresh rate monitor. Personally going from 144hz to 240hz was a bigger jump in smoothness and clarity compared to 60 to 144 in any sort of gameplay, not just fast paced shooters.
@@chezda lol tf r u talking ??? Today I tried to feel the difference for 30 min between 165fps and 240fps on my Samsung G7, to know if I should buy the 165hz alienware oled or the lg 240hz oled
and conclusion: I can see the difference between them, if I do fast turns on a 9-9 and above sensitivity, but I cannot feel the difference in inputlag, and because to be competitive in cod, most pros play on a 6-6 sens, there on a 6-6 sens it’s hard to notice a difference even on fast turns because the sens is just to „slow“
And I was top 250 in warzone ranked
The difference between 60hz and 144hz is MASSIVE
lol dont try to make your 240hz good just because u have one „more difference than 60-144hz“ which is simply not true, that’s a increase of over 9ms per frame time, while the 144-240hz is just a increase of 2,7ms
the bigger the frame time gap is, the more you will feel it
Compare it on the same monitor, and not on two different ones
My AOC 240hz on 240fps is slower than my Samsung g7 on 120hz, MUCH more blur and input lag, it always depends on the monitor
Excellent video. I just finished build a PC but, have been waiting for the higher refresh monitors that are supposed to be on the way in 24Q1 to upgrade from my 10 year old 27" 108p 60Hz monitor. People have been telling me that 540Hz really only benefits competitive gamers - now I know better. I'll stay the course and wait for those 540Hz monitors. Thank you!
This is terrific and I love it! I’ve found that I am quite sensitive to motion/blur clarity and I would take higher refresh rates any day over increased fidelity. However! Game designers need to support higher refresh rates! Too many games are stuck around 120hz and I have a 240hz oled and just doesn’t get used as often as I’d like… 🙁
Short answer: if we couldn't see the difference, added motion blur wouldn't improve smoothness (and has for years).
In 2024, it's going to be possible to compare 540Hz TN, 500 IPS, ... and 480Hz WOLED (LG) (maybe later 480Hz QDOLED?)... I can't wait to see that 😋
setup 0.01% of the player base would effectively use
@@fabrb26literally, these noobs thinking they will do something with it
Men in the last video about the new 540Hz Asus monitor so many people commented about the high refresh rate and how "you can't notice the difference past 60Hz" it's just pure ignorance, damn annoying.
Cant argue with them tho because they just cant afford a high refresh monitor and thus they never really experience 120/165/240(Hz) and just choose to belive "its not that big of a difference" for the fear of missing out...
Sad but it is what it is.
I've been using a 165Hz monitor for over a year, and honestly, I only see the difference in the UFO test. I don't play fast-paced shooters, mostly single player action games and RTS games, but I typically lock the frame rate at 60 because I don't notice any difference while playing (unlike the GPU noises). I also don't notice any difference between 60 and 120Hz on smartphones so I guess it just varies a lot from one person to another.
@120fps vs 60 I can see some increased smoothness if I really try, but generally I'm too focused on the game to even notice.
Im super happy with my oled 77" 120hz tv, to the point I haven't updated my older monitor, just switched up the tv room for recliner pc gaming, the clarity of moving screens is awesome. I don't play esports or competitive stuff.
For me personally, I’ve always said that resolution (to a point of course) is by far the least important factor for a monitor. I’d snatch up a 24inch 1080p 240+ hz oled instantly.
Great motion clarity and amazing colors & contrast all while running almost every game at high fps.
On some browsers, btw, the blur buster test will slow down significantly in fullscreen mode for no reason.
Not much point having 240Hz+ when even most powerful pcs struggle to generate 120 FPS+ in most recent games?
frame gen starts to work at 140fps, so then 240hz monitors have a place.
Lmao imagine buying 240fps games while you play trash game like Cyberpunk or solo games.
I have been using a monitor with 240 Hz for about 3 years now, and I must say that I can never go back lower than this. You really get used to it and feel the difference, my main monitor is 240Hz and I have a second monitor at 144Hz, and it is really not the same. Of course this is more subtle than going from 60 to 144Hz but you can definitely feel it.
Also lots of games go way past 240 fps today, it all depends on what you play, if you play any competitive FPS or stuff like LoL or Minecraft etc... which a lot of people do, you can get way higher than 240 fps.
Lastly, for a reason i don't remember, it is better having a 240 Hz monitor playing a game that you can only run at 120 fps rather than having a 120 Hz monitor playing the same game. So yeah, I would definitely advise you to test high refresh rate monitors if you can and make your own opinion.
You get to enjoy older and less demanding games better than ever. Frame generation will become useful when it's used to give you twice the frames instead of only rendering half the frames.
The point of this video isn't "you should only buy 540Hz" videos anyway, it's to demonstrate that there's a point to them at all. Obviously if your use case doesn't benefit from 540Hz you shouldn't prioritize that feature. Equally obviously 540Hz is a big step forward in motion clarity when the source material is there and we're not even in the "as good as makes any difference" point yet.
Great channel. I'm all in when it comes to practical applications of monitor technology. Very well showcased, thx!
It would be cool if you did the same test with a crt monitor. You could even review a crt monitor & see how it compares to a modern display in all aspects like contrast & brightness.
Would be cool to see vs an OLED as well as pixel response times are generally lower.
...but at those higher refresh rates, do you require the corresponding FPS? like 360FPS @ 360Hz ? CRT was so much better at everything display wise, You only needed 72Hz and above to get rid of eye strain and not seem like it's flickering. So only require 72FPS and not a very powerful system to achieve the same kind of motion clarity.
edit: ....another reason why I wish SED/FED tech came out all those years back in the mid 2000s. I suspect the individual electron emitters lighting up the phosphors would've and could've done the same or even similar job as how CRT worked, you don't necesarily need to strobe drawing lines, each electron emitter can light up at the same time, while the in between would be off/phosphor lights decaying.
Very naive to expect 75Hz to get rid of eye strain. Flicker free lcds are untouchable in that regard. Even better than oleds, these tend to flicker at low brightness and manufacturers aren't too keen to make dc dimming an option.
CRTs ate eyes, if you used to work on one you would understand. Not a 1 hour gaming session, but a 6 hour day working with text.
@@dat_21 idk about that, my (young at the time) eyes had no problem with CRT for hours on end, and 120+ hz was certainly very doable. Still, maybe I was just genetically fortunate there, I obviously can't speak for anyone but myself.
@@greggmacdonald9644 Where did you even find a 120Hz capable crt? Most of them were limited to 75-90. At decent resolution let's say 1280*1024, high refresh rates were an exception not the norm.
@@dat_21 I wish I could remember, but it's been around 30 years, and I don't have the CRTs anymore. But I got it (14", I remember that), at whatever computer store it was at the time.
@@dat_21 What d'ya mean? I "worked" on a CRT for 15 years. 60Hz was godawful, but for me eye strain disappeared above 72Hz. Maybe other people required a higher refresh rate than that.
The worst part is when i see console players say they prefer 30 fps mode over 60 because it looks "cinematic"
Theres nothing cinematic about 30 fps, camera shutters and light capture work differently than video game rendering. So while 24fps movie looks fine, 30fps game plays like a laggy choppy slideshow
I hate cinema.
There absolutely is a cinematic aspect. With 30 and 40 fps animations look choppier but that also mean that fast movements are more impactful, like think about anime at low framerates. You get more time to “hold” frames and this gives animations more character and impact. If we had the possibility to play everything at 1000fps, I’d still prefer cutscenes to be at like 40.
@@marrow94 There's no reason you couldn't do animations at a low framerate and run the game world at a higher one, this is what many games do already.
If we had the possibility to play everything at 1000fps, I'd still prefer to skip cutscenes.
@@marrow94 idk about anime games, but i can tell you that humans in real life dont move in 40 samples each second, mocap in video games is done at much higher sample rate and it looks perfectly fine
while I certainly agree that increases over 120hz can be positive, I think we need to remember that there are diminishing returns. Since most of us are always going to be limited by GPU or cost elements, you need to decide what to prioritize. If your GPU can not kick out enough frames with the graphics quality of interest then a higher refresh monitor that what your card deliver is probably of limited value. By the same token, for most players better texture packs and more eye candy will probably improve the visual experience more than going from say 120hz to 360hz. Granted texture packs don't really impact frame rates but they do impact cost for your system. You only have so many dollars to spread around. If you are going to play say baulders gate 3, I don't thin you will see any difference between 120 and 360hz.
Meanwhile CRT monitors - perfect motion on 60Hz..
We've only gone backwards since that
My first ever CRT monitor, was able to do 85 Hz, at max resolution, and 120 Hz at the next highest.
There was a night and day difference, from playing at 60 Hz.
Perfect motion clarity perhaps but perfect motion? Not even close. The flicker is unbearable and the strobing artifacts are quite jarring.
@@dfcx1 That's right, I'm not saying that CRTs are perfect, but I really miss that motion clarity.. I was able to look at the car driving nearby and see every single detail.
Btw LCDs are far from perfect too - motion blur, black background looks like gray, and also every flat panel display looks blurry at resolutions different then native. I was wandering what technology we need to run every resolution like native..
I don’t know where the idea that single players games are "slow" and don’t involve fast movements comes from. Especially fast camera panning in 3rd person games introduce a lot of motion blur. I always lower image quality until I am cpu or monitor limited, as motion blur is always much worse than the usually relatively minor loss of static image quality from lowering the settings. Even a game like baldurs gate 3 at 144fps on my 144hz monitor looks a bit too blurry during camera panning.
If you find an old CRT you can see that 60 FPS has zero motion blur. That thing has image retention on the level of microseconds. But yeah, it's literally a headache.
72-75Hz on a CRT not a headache though.
@@electricblue8196 meh, for me even 85hz caused headache so it depends who is using it
@@electricblue8196It is. Even though it's not as noticeable at first sight, it adds up throughout the day.
Thats the interesting thing is locking 60fps to 60hz provides the same motion clarity on a CRT as 120fps at 120hz or whatever higher frames. However similar to what you replied 85hz gives me eye strain but once I hit 100hz that goes away. So you get less strain and better response by bumping things up.
@@BrokenTV37 ah, good luck finding a CRT at 100-120Hz, they were pretty rare and expensive
1. Latency is max. 16ms with 60Hz. A normal mouse is already 8ms, a human reacts in about 500ms.
2. Motion blur actually makes movements smooth down to 24fps (cinema). Most people are not able to distinguish 60Hz from higher rates in a blind test, if proper motion blurred.
3. Moved pictures with high clarity (without motion blur) simply do not look natural to us.
This reminds me of my productivity work from 1984 to 2022 wherein I ALWAYS set the monitor to the highest refresh rate available. I dreaded when an employer would provide monitors that only do 60 Hz, and woe when a monitor wouldn’t quite do even 60 Hz.
Why did I do so for productivity work? Because I can see flicker (the refresh cycle) at 60 Hz, which causes headaches. Once refresh gets to 75 and higher, I don’t notice flicker.
Excelent work guys !
If only games were made with this in mind instead of continuing to pump out titles that become single thread bottlenecked at 60 FPS on any CPU that mortals can afford.
I am gaming at 4K HDR and 144Hz with mostly open world RPG games and other single player games. While it would be nice to push faster than that the cost to do so is pretty absurd and I gained more from 4K HDR in these games than I do from lower resolution and a display I can push at a faster rate. I have an RTX 4080 because a 4090 was so much more expensive when I got it that it was not worth the price jump. I don't see 4K HDR 360Hz as actually viable anytime soon.
I'm really looking forward to the new generation of capture cards so I can run my monitor at 240 Hz and have that pass through the card, so I don't have to keep swapping inputs to get 240 when I'm just playing.
Question for a future Q&A or maybe a video idea.
I was going to write you a book talking about my experiences of recently obtaining my first LCD monitor (Dell G2724D) after using computers daily since the 90s and only every owning CRTs, but I decided it would be better to focus on one issue.
Do you have any experience or opinions on removing the matte anti-glare coating from monitors? It's hard to find glossy monitors and I feel like the matte anti-glare coating makes the image quality worse. I have noticed a lot of IPS glow and I feel like the anti-glare coating is contributing to this. I also feel like it removes some of the vibrancy compared to a glossy screen.
I am not worried about glare. I use the monitor a lot at night or with dark curtains closed, so there isn't a lot of light in the room. I also like to keep a solid black desktop background and use a very dark gray Windows theme. I sit about 3 feet from the monitor and can see IPS glow from all 4 corners (not backlight bleed). If I move my head in any direction and am not perfectly aligned in front of the monitor, the glow gets worse as the angle increases. This is really annoying because I like to change my sitting position often.
I have found posts online where people have soaked paper towels and draped them across the screen for a certain number of hours and then carefully peeled the anti-glare coating off without removing the polarizing layer underneath. I was wondering if you wanted to share any opinions on this or possibly experiment with it yourself and make a video. If you have a matte IPS monitor you aren't worried about damaging, maybe you could do before and after testing to see the affects.
I have been waiting for OLED computer monitors for about 15 years and they are now a thing, but they will probably still be out of my price range for the next couple years. I also don't want to deal with the subpixel layout text issue since I probably sit in front of it for about 12 hours a day. I don't have any testing equipment, but the matte coating bothers me so much that I am considering obtaining another identical monitor and removing the coating from one of them to see how it looks. It will be a few months before I can get it though because I don't want to spend money on an LCD, so I will get it the same way I got this one, by collecting enough points on Dells AWA site until I can get it for free.
This is the second time Ive watched this video and it just becomes even more impressive how clearly it explains the benefits of fps/refresh rate. I used to think there wasn't much to be gained beyond 120fps but when I saw how noticeable even a small step up to 165 fps is, my opinion has changed, my brand new system is already out dated with 360 fps being the new desireable 1% low :)
God-tier video! Makes me really wish newer fighting games like Street Fighter 6 and Tekken 8 were allowed to run at higher frame rates, since they are such fast paced games