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.
@TheHighborn9 ай бұрын
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.
@lachlanB3239 ай бұрын
@@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.
@stonecold919 ай бұрын
Yeah dude more hz is the best gift for gaming. At 60hz even windows browsing feels "laggy".
@jbjakers8049 ай бұрын
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
@TheHighborn9 ай бұрын
@@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.
@gerardphilippetuazon4919 ай бұрын
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.
@fatphokingloser9 ай бұрын
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.
@1981AdamGs9 ай бұрын
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.
@Keivz9 ай бұрын
Rtings let’s you compare motion clarity of different displays / different display types.
@fatphokingloser9 ай бұрын
@@Keivz Their testing methodology is not as solid as monitors unboxed.
@fatphokingloser9 ай бұрын
@@Keivz Similar but more of a reference in terms of response times.
@Ty4ons9 ай бұрын
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.
@paul1979uk20009 ай бұрын
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.
@Ty4ons9 ай бұрын
@@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.
@theclaybeartravels35964 ай бұрын
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.
@stuntvist9 ай бұрын
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.
@aRealAndHumanManThing9 ай бұрын
I didn't notice much going from 60 to 120, but after buying a 165hz monitor, there was a clear difference to 60hz
@Kazyek9 ай бұрын
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.
@markhackett23029 ай бұрын
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.
@charliegeorge22919 ай бұрын
Please review the ASUS tuf VG279QM 280hz monitor
@willuigi649 ай бұрын
@@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.
@whismerhillgaming9 ай бұрын
finally a video I can show to stop the idiotic arguments, your eyes can't see more than x images per second
@larrypaul24629 ай бұрын
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
@phillyd20189 ай бұрын
@@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
@moioyoyo8489 ай бұрын
@@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.
@IstyManame9 ай бұрын
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
@Rachit09049 ай бұрын
@@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.
@dwahnaslowdown88879 ай бұрын
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.
@Tomiply9 ай бұрын
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.
@MrGrzegorzD9 ай бұрын
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...
@nikilragav9 ай бұрын
@@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
@djayjp9 ай бұрын
Too bad the C2 doesn't have BFI as that makes a huge difference.
@fractalelf77609 ай бұрын
@@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 😊.
@gamerknott87919 ай бұрын
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!
@thelegendaryklobb28799 ай бұрын
Even moving windows on the desktop or scrolling through web pages improve a lot when going above 60Hz
@Bensam1239 ай бұрын
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.
@stefanschuchardt57349 ай бұрын
OLED with 120hz BFI can compete with plasmas motion resolution
@jonathanruiz41589 ай бұрын
Sadly bfi makes OLED very dim
@stefanschuchardt57349 ай бұрын
Plasmas are even dimmer without it
@minus3dbintheteens609 ай бұрын
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.
@bakedbeings9 ай бұрын
Yeah just doing the maths on those character moves (and 180 whips) gives you a laughable number of drawings as they cross the screen.
@konczdavid9 ай бұрын
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.
@williamthatsmyname9 ай бұрын
Asus has a 4K 240hz which was review here about 3 months ago
@konczdavid9 ай бұрын
@@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.
@PotatMasterRace9 ай бұрын
We are using our measly RTX 4090s while this man here already sports a 7090 it seems. :D
@rommeltorres17659 ай бұрын
this is why I prefer to be blind. 30hz 3000hz it’s all the same
@GewelReal9 ай бұрын
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
@Ray-dl5mp9 ай бұрын
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.
@flockelocke22979 ай бұрын
@@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.
@RicochetForce9 ай бұрын
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.
@escape2099 ай бұрын
I had a 144hz with not great pixel response, often felt worse than 60Hz on a CRT or OLED. Ghosting is awful
@flockelocke22979 ай бұрын
@@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.
@LuciferXV9 ай бұрын
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.
@IAMXoX9 ай бұрын
All the examples used to convey the idea of motion depending on the refresh rate are top notch!
@EhNothing9 ай бұрын
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.
@johnwayne-kd1pn9 ай бұрын
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.
@Liquifiedpizzas7 ай бұрын
@@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.
@gnashr43669 ай бұрын
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?)
@keithgoh1239 ай бұрын
No joke going from 60 to 180 it improved my shooter games target tracking
@ZCSilver9 ай бұрын
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.
@yahootube909 ай бұрын
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.
@MauroTamm9 ай бұрын
You still get the benefits of faster pixel response. Blur is just one part of the issue. Ghosting/overdrive, gtg etc.
@PREDATEURLT9 ай бұрын
Yeah, all these reviewers act like even 4090 is capable of 500+ FPS in any new game at 1080p, not talking about cs go and VERY FEW other online shooters, new single player games can crush even 4090/7900XTX to less than 120FPS at 1080p, and if we start to talk about upscaling than we don't need to talk about motion clarity...
@3Dant9 ай бұрын
@@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?
@MauroTamm9 ай бұрын
@@3Dant most likely - they have to use much higher quality panels with subpixels that can switch on/off at that speed.
@Decki7779 ай бұрын
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
@dfcx19 ай бұрын
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.
@ozzyp979 ай бұрын
@@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.
@dfcx19 ай бұрын
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.
@Fear_BFG9 ай бұрын
really damn, i wish i could see a vid comparing them
@BravenTyler6 ай бұрын
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
@Hybred9 ай бұрын
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.
@AnimeUniverseDE9 ай бұрын
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
@RafaelSilva-yv3oh9 ай бұрын
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.
@RafaelSilva-yv3oh5 ай бұрын
@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.
@phm043 ай бұрын
@@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
@RafaelSilva-yv3oh3 ай бұрын
@@phm04 165hz.
@RafaelSilva-yv3oh3 ай бұрын
@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.
@phm043 ай бұрын
@@RafaelSilva-yv3oh oh nice, that's what I'm on rn.
@davii_ms9 ай бұрын
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!
@markhackett23029 ай бұрын
Oh, try it on a 9ms response pixel monitor. No ghost pixels, but above 100Hz, you got blurring. Tim don't like that, though.
@scottcondie13639 ай бұрын
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
@simonhartley91589 ай бұрын
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.
@MorganReidguitar8 ай бұрын
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.
@SirW0nka9 ай бұрын
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.
@mind.journey9 ай бұрын
@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.
@thegoondockswarcouncil95439 ай бұрын
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?
@Case_9 ай бұрын
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.
@aberkae9 ай бұрын
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.
@eniff29259 ай бұрын
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.
@videogaminbiker8899 ай бұрын
this is where frame generation is going to come into the equation going forward into the future.
@aberkae9 ай бұрын
@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? 🤔
@gaurd39 ай бұрын
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.
@Barbarossa979 ай бұрын
That is why 4k-monitors are a scam. Refresh rate>> resolution.
@M.T_Chimpanski9 ай бұрын
I use a crt that runs at 240hz 960i but the 0 input latency is a game changer
@notreya9 ай бұрын
interesting
@magyararon69189 ай бұрын
based
@SL1PSTAR9 ай бұрын
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?
@leetuanlingedison45929 ай бұрын
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
@leetuanlingedison45929 ай бұрын
@@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
@abc-ni9lp9 ай бұрын
you go buy RTX 4000 series and turn on DLSS3 for free frames making picture shine on high Hz
@leetuanlingedison45929 ай бұрын
@@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
@AntiGrieferGames9 ай бұрын
Nope, 60hz are still fine wine.
@gamingmarcus9 ай бұрын
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.
@abc-ni9lp9 ай бұрын
full of crosstalk and warps yes
@Case_9 ай бұрын
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.)
@gamingmarcus9 ай бұрын
@@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.
@thisnameistaken9 ай бұрын
What the hell is "BFI"?
@Case_9 ай бұрын
@@thisnameistaken Black Frame Insertion.
@bakedbeings9 ай бұрын
Short answer: if we couldn't see the difference, added motion blur wouldn't improve smoothness (and has for years).
@urch-rs7dx9 ай бұрын
Wake me up when the 1000Hz oleds are a reasonable price
@256shadesofgrey9 ай бұрын
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.
@BoredErica9 ай бұрын
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_219 ай бұрын
Real world doesn't strobe either. Strobing at low refresh rates is very fatiguing for your eyes.
@scruffex373627 күн бұрын
@@dat_21 atually, the real world is never not strobing but your point still stands
@dat_2127 күн бұрын
@@scruffex3736 Well as far as photons go "strobing" as a word may be a little bit of a stretch.
@scruffex373626 күн бұрын
@@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.
@jonathanjanzen85019 ай бұрын
Whoa! I hadn’t considered the smooth pursuit of the eye causing the image to blur due to it being stable then jumping! Thanks!!
@notapplicable72929 ай бұрын
This was a really really good video. I had no idea there was so much difference above 120hz.
@L3AF9 ай бұрын
same, i thought like there was no noticable difference between 120 and 144 and up but holy crap was i wrong!
@crookim9 ай бұрын
Unfortunately modern AAA video games nowadays run at 1080p 30 fps with dlss or fsr on "Quality" 😂
@seritools9 ай бұрын
@@L3AF well 120 and 144 are reasonably close, 20% higher refresh rate, so roughly 20% less blur. but yeah, every refresh matters :)
@JackJohnson-br4qr9 ай бұрын
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.
@VaydaladaVodalada9 ай бұрын
@@JackJohnson-br4qrcry harder
@darudesandstorm70029 ай бұрын
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.
@AnimeUniverseDE9 ай бұрын
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
@JohnDoe-ip3oq9 ай бұрын
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.
@DefinitelyNotMyRealName8 ай бұрын
Shoutout C1 BFI@120
@petergibson23188 ай бұрын
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.
@jacobisalemon9 ай бұрын
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.
@raivons8 ай бұрын
yes, for me 60 to 144 was huge and 144 to 240 was also similar huge difference i felt
@patb33569 ай бұрын
Dammit, now you make me want a 360hz+ monitor when I just upgraded to 240hz 😭that crispness is insane :(
@DanielVanderwel9 ай бұрын
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.
@EMerkelF9 ай бұрын
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.
@Immudzen9 ай бұрын
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.
@breeminator9 ай бұрын
"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.
@dfcx19 ай бұрын
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.
@Tomiply9 ай бұрын
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.
@Frozoken9 ай бұрын
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.
@exscape9 ай бұрын
@@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.
@3Dant9 ай бұрын
Gonna have to bring back SLI/Crossfire to run at these refresh rates lol
@selohcin9 ай бұрын
This one's going to be a classic. This should be one of the very first videos that all new PC gamers should watch.
@ramanmono9 ай бұрын
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.
@cameronbosch12138 ай бұрын
Yeah, 540 hz will kill laptops battery life. And your power bill.
@Cr4zyProd1gy9 ай бұрын
Thx for showing 1920pps. I only test at that speed and faster. Basically every 240hz screen looks the same at 960pps. Reviews can be misleading when speed is not clarified.. Also: warm up your screens for 2-3h before doing ufotest, expecially on IPS.
@Zarathustra-H-9 ай бұрын
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.
@chezda9 ай бұрын
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.
@kerim_og_93789 ай бұрын
@@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
@venatorx9 ай бұрын
"I've seen quite a few opinions from people claiming that 60 FPS or even 30 FPS is sufficient for modern games, and that there's no real benefit to playing games, especially single-player titles, at a higher framerate, and refresh rate. Some even argue that the visual quality of gaming at lower FPS is better because you can run the game at higher graphical fidelity settings." I've personally never encountered anyone who thinks that 60 or 30 FPS is better than 120 or higher FPS, but anyone who does think this is just wrong. 60, 120, or higher FPS gaming is better than 30 FPS gaming. It's not an opinion. It's a fact. I transitioned from PS4 console gaming to PC gaming 3 years ago, with a GTX 1660 as my initial GPU. I was able to achieve 60 FPS at 1440p in many single player games by tweaking the graphical settings, and I immediately had a much more improved and enjoyable experience coming from 30 FPS console gaming. I upgraded my GPU and can now achieve 120 to 165 FPS (my monitor's max refresh rate is 165Hz) at max settings in all the games I like playing. The difference from 60 FPS to 120/165 FPS is noticeable, and I honestly can't appreciate 60 FPS gaming anymore.
@marrow949 ай бұрын
Yeah, we don’t think that 30 and 60 are the right way to do everything, ideally we’d play everything at 1000 fps. The problem is that we want graphical quality, and we’re ok with sacrificing framerate to achieve it.
@tr4nnel7529 ай бұрын
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?
@Roy887729 ай бұрын
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.
@Diabepis9 ай бұрын
should look fine with VRR
@TheOCDDoc9 ай бұрын
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.
@Roy887729 ай бұрын
@@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.
@dukdive9 ай бұрын
Yes the fps has to be at the refresh rate to realize the benefit as described in this video. Good question there
@delenius19 ай бұрын
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.
@Androide3239 ай бұрын
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
@GewelReal9 ай бұрын
anything below 27" is too little
@Androide3239 ай бұрын
@@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'
@GewelReal9 ай бұрын
@@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
@Androide3239 ай бұрын
@@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
@Barbarossa979 ай бұрын
Finally someone gets it.
@gustynkas23479 ай бұрын
I don't know if i need to give up my 4K 60Hz monitor and buy a 1080p or even 1440p 144 or 240Hz monitor
@artura55269 ай бұрын
Awesome video. It would be great to see if there is a difference in image quality between lcd and oled in those refresh rates.
@anomyymi01089 ай бұрын
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.
@remi40209 ай бұрын
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.
@Barbarossa979 ай бұрын
That is why "4k" is an intelligence test as a PC-gamer. You fail, if you choose it. Refresh rate >> resolution.
@NineS59 ай бұрын
@@Barbarossa97 Not everyone like to play competitive games lmao. You must be blind to not see a difference in quality at 4k. Anyone with a molecule of brain would take 4k 144hz over 1080p 360hz anyday.
@Zyxlian9 ай бұрын
@@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.
@wonk19769 ай бұрын
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
@nimrodery9 ай бұрын
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).
@danyyy_87332 ай бұрын
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.
@paulwebster90309 ай бұрын
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.
@Rachit09049 ай бұрын
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.
@GraveUypo9 ай бұрын
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.
@Sam_Saraguy9 ай бұрын
@@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.
@milsimprodigy9 ай бұрын
@@GraveUypospotted the shitter stuck in the early 2000s.
@SweelFor9 ай бұрын
@@GraveUypo Yes, it is sponsored, it's literally at the start of every video. That's completely unrelated to the discussion.
@lllIIllIllllIIIIl9 ай бұрын
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.
@Ash-cd3ny9 ай бұрын
Not much point having 240Hz+ when even most powerful pcs struggle to generate 120 FPS+ in most recent games?
@sudd36609 ай бұрын
frame gen starts to work at 140fps, so then 240hz monitors have a place.
@AquilaeYT9 ай бұрын
Lmao imagine buying 240fps games while you play trash game like Cyberpunk or solo games.
@Playful25049 ай бұрын
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.
@dfcx19 ай бұрын
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.
@ytdlder9 ай бұрын
Thanks for this video, but I'd have 2 addendums: 1) proving scientifically that more Hz is better is important and also somewhat logical, but... 2) can you actually see a difference >120Hz? Ingame, while playing a fast game? Or is the timing so crisp (only a few milliseconds), that you mostly don't benefit from the clearer image that the display can generate, because you typically aren't as focused with your eye anyway? I've played most my life in 60Hz (more wasn't available) and it's true, that 120Hz is better. But beyond that, I just can't - definitively - make out any positive effect. This brings me to the most important question: how do FPS and thus GSync play a role in all of that? Of course, 540 Hz at 540 FPS is king, but no one will ever get that in most games. So how does this all come together with: a) lower FPS (lets say 50) without GSync, meaning 540 Hz b) lower FPS (lets say 50) with GSync, meaning 50 Hz Thanks and Cheers!
@Conrad759 ай бұрын
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.
@sirius4k9 ай бұрын
There are no monitors at 32"+ UHD 360Hz+. I have currently a 32" 3440x1440 144Hz Acer Predator. I'm willing to go higher refresh rate, but I'm not willing to downgrade physical dimensions or resolution.
@grospoulpe9519 ай бұрын
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 😋
@fabrb269 ай бұрын
setup 0.01% of the player base would effectively use
@blacko7779 ай бұрын
@@fabrb26literally, these noobs thinking they will do something with it
@ValnerWar9 ай бұрын
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.
@pepoCD9 ай бұрын
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.
@adridell9 ай бұрын
It's a long way until 2025, by then 480 fps may be for peasants and their old and obsolete rtx 4090.
@Adri95709 ай бұрын
@@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
@xxxUPGRAYEDDxxx9 ай бұрын
i would should also add pixel response time and how it changes clarity. like how OLED's seem to create cleaner clarity even at the same refresh rate.
@thrallj9 ай бұрын
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… 🙁
@paul1979uk20009 ай бұрын
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.
@john_hunter_9 ай бұрын
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.
@adpt_music9 ай бұрын
Would be cool to see vs an OLED as well as pixel response times are generally lower.
@Wobble20077 ай бұрын
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.
@ThunderingRoar9 ай бұрын
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
@dfcx19 ай бұрын
I hate cinema.
@marrow949 ай бұрын
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.
@dfcx19 ай бұрын
@@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.
@ThunderingRoar9 ай бұрын
@@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
@olo3989 ай бұрын
as a boomer, nice to see stuff like this visited again even though i already know the benefits of high refresh. take note kids.
@CheapBastard19889 ай бұрын
Personally, I only really notice the difference between a 60Hz IPS screen and a 165Hz OLED screen in fps games. I don't notice the difference in 3rd person games played with a controller. I notice the better contrast though.
@TheOCDDoc9 ай бұрын
You can see the differences on an IPS panel. My laptop has a 240hz panel that when unplugged drops to 60hz. You can feel and see the drop with mouth cursor movement, clarity in games
@dfcx19 ай бұрын
3rd person games still have camera panning which makes environments look unbearably blurry without strobing or very high refresh rates.
@altostratus93429 ай бұрын
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!
@_marqu_86509 ай бұрын
Meanwhile CRT monitors - perfect motion on 60Hz..
@vrilgod41769 ай бұрын
We've only gone backwards since that
@akyhne9 ай бұрын
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.
@dfcx19 ай бұрын
Perfect motion clarity perhaps but perfect motion? Not even close. The flicker is unbearable and the strobing artifacts are quite jarring.
@_marqu_86509 ай бұрын
@@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..
@Kapono51509 ай бұрын
With 4K 240hz Generation 2 QD OLED monitor coming in January, you won’t need a new monitor for a long time
@coldReactive4 ай бұрын
On some browsers, btw, the blur buster test will slow down significantly in fullscreen mode for no reason.
@sergiopablo65559 ай бұрын
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.
@weirdodude11734 ай бұрын
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!
@Alexandra-Rex9 ай бұрын
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.
@jaymacpherson81679 ай бұрын
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.
@ViewTube_Emperor_of_Mankind9 ай бұрын
The most important video for all gaming nerds.
@fabrb266 ай бұрын
So basically if you would play on a 1080p 1080hz screen. An object traveling horizontally will move one pixel at a time without missing any ?! So the absolute clearer clarity in any situation would be to have a screen frequency equal to the diagonal pixel resolution ( DPR ) of that screen, or 2203 Hz on a 1920x1080 panel ? That seems like a long road even to max out clarity in HD
@dtibor59039 ай бұрын
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.
@electricblue81969 ай бұрын
72-75Hz on a CRT not a headache though.
@dtibor59039 ай бұрын
@@electricblue8196 meh, for me even 85hz caused headache so it depends who is using it
@dat_219 ай бұрын
@@electricblue8196It is. Even though it's not as noticeable at first sight, it adds up throughout the day.
@BrokenTV377 ай бұрын
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.
@dtibor59037 ай бұрын
@@BrokenTV37 ah, good luck finding a CRT at 100-120Hz, they were pretty rare and expensive
@Baba_Jyaga9 ай бұрын
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
@davii_ms9 ай бұрын
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.
@gamingmarcus9 ай бұрын
I think you should have gone a bit deeper into explaining how the UFO test is captured by moving the camera at the same speed as the object you're capturing. This isn't intuitive for people who aren't familiar with the test.
@jedics15 ай бұрын
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 :)
@deus_nsf9 ай бұрын
I have been waiting a decade for someone to do this video, thank you immensely.
@obocecha9 ай бұрын
I still here people argue that you can’t see any difference over 60hz. Smh
@АлександрВавилкин-л4е9 ай бұрын
But what if you have 240 hz screen but ur fps is around 120? Since most today's titles can't have high fps due to hardware limitations how motion clarity suffer from that? Big love to the channel
@HasanAkdogan9 ай бұрын
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.
@electricblue81969 ай бұрын
...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.
@dat_219 ай бұрын
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.
@greggmacdonald96449 ай бұрын
@@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.
@dat_219 ай бұрын
@@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.
@greggmacdonald96449 ай бұрын
@@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.
@electricblue81969 ай бұрын
@@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.
@BUDA209 ай бұрын
clarity is great, yes, but one thing I truly like is the amount of steps in fast moving situations, like rotating the camera fast, you can always do it faster and see steps, the question is how much at the same speed
@RAYNE09126 ай бұрын
I've been playing at sub 60hz for a long time, even now i'm using a 4k 60hz monitor. But my wife just bought an MSI Mag 401 qr with 155hz refresh rate for her work from home/gaming setup and i'm excited to finally try out a higher refresh rate for myself for the first time and see if I can tell the difference, maybe it'll convice me to drop to wqhd resolution with high refresh rate.
@UNi-cl1do8 ай бұрын
Being waiting for a video of these nature for years now thanks for giving us your time and patience
@rneth7449 ай бұрын
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
@ilKamuTube3 ай бұрын
Forgive me but I don't understand, in a competitive online game if you're lucky you can have 20ms latency, 20ms means that your opponent's position will be updated with a frequency of 50fps even if your monitor is capable of managing 1000fps, where is the advantage?