- JackGreenEarth ( @JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee ) English19•6 months ago
Who needs 1000hz refresh rate? I understand it’s impressive, but 120hz already looks smooth to the human eye.
- ThermoToaster ( @ThermoToaster@exng.meme ) 8•6 months ago
Who needs 4K when 1080 already looks sharp to the human eye.
- Lojcs ( @Lojcs@lemm.ee ) 9•6 months ago
Humans can’t see more than 24 fps anyways
- Hadriscus ( @Hadriscus@lemm.ee ) 1•6 months ago
I think the perceptual limit is around 60 or 80fps, but don’t quote me on that
- chayleaf ( @chayleaf@lemmy.ml ) 1•6 months ago
as a rhythm gamer, I can say you’re full of shit lol
I have 240hz and the difference between 120hz and 240hz is somewhat noticeable, don’t see why I’d need any more than this though
- Hadriscus ( @Hadriscus@lemm.ee ) 1•6 months ago
Angular definition. You have to factor in screen size and distance to observer, otherwise it’s meaningless
- giloronfoo ( @giloronfoo@beehaw.org ) 7•6 months ago
Competitive (professional) gamers?
Seems there are diminishing returns, but at least some gains are measurable at 360.
- Fushuan [he/him] ( @fushuan@lemm.ee ) English4•6 months ago
In thought that 60Hz was enough for most games, and that for shooters and other real time games 120 or 144 was better. However, it reaches a point where the human eye can’t notice even if it tried.
Honestly, going up in framerate t9o much is just a waste of GPU potency and electricity.
- narc0tic_bird ( @narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee ) 10•6 months ago
A better way to look at this is frametime.
At 60 FPS/Hz, a single frame is displayed for 16.67ms. At 120 Hz, a single frame is displayed for 8.33ms. At 240 Hz, a single frame is displayed for 4.16ms. A difference of >8ms per frame (60 vs 120) is quite noticeable for many people, and >4ms (120 vs 240) is as well, but the impact is just half as much. So you get diminishing returns pretty quickly.
Now I’m not sure how noticeable 1000 Hz would be to pretty much anyone as I haven’t seen a 1000 Hz display in action yet, but you can definitely make a case for 240 Hz and beyond.
- jsomae ( @jsomae@lemmy.ml ) 4•6 months ago
It’s pretty easy to discern refresh rate with the human eye if one tries. Just move your cursor back and forth really quickly. The number of ghost cursors in the trail it leaves behind (which btw only exist in perception by the human eye) is inversely proportional to the refresh rate.
- Fushuan [he/him] ( @fushuan@lemm.ee ) English3•6 months ago
Sure, but wasting double or triple the resources for that is not fine. There’s very limited places where that even is a gain on games, because outside those super competitive limited games it’s not like it matters.
- jsomae ( @jsomae@lemmy.ml ) 4•6 months ago
Yeah I agree with you, but I was just refuting your claim that it’s not perceivable even if you try.
- Fushuan [he/him] ( @fushuan@lemm.ee ) English1•6 months ago
oh, yeah I’ve read and heard of plenty people saying that they definitely notice it. I’m lucky enough not to because most ARPGs don’t run 60FPS on intense combat, let alone 120 fps on a rtx3080 lmao.
I was talking more about the jump from 240 and beyond, which I find surprising for people to notice the upgrade on intense gaming encounters, not while calmly checking or testing. I guess that there’s people who do notice, but again, running games on such high tick rate is very expensive for the gpu and a waste most of the time.
I’m just kinda butthurt that people feel like screens below 120 are bad, when most games I play hardly run 60 fps smooth, because the market will follow and in some years we will hardly have what I consider normal monitors, and the cards will just eat way more electricity for very small gains.
- JackGreenEarth ( @JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee ) English1•6 months ago
I thought games are to have fun, what’s the point of monetising them?
- Account_93 ( @account_93@lemm.ee ) 3•6 months ago
New Careers for the new (and Current) generation.
- lengau ( @lengau@midwest.social ) 2•6 months ago
Here’s a real-world use case that also won’t require insane GPU power.
- Baggie ( @Baggie@lemmy.zip ) 13•6 months ago
I would be happy with a 240hz 4k that doesn’t have a subtle hum when it’s going that hard. It’s hard to test for because shops are too loud to hear it, but in a quiet office it gets very noticeable.
- LaggyKar ( @LaggyKar@programming.dev ) 11•6 months ago
So it’s not really a 4K 1000Hz screen then, if it’s just togglable between being a 4k 240 Hz screen and a 1080p 1000 Hz screen.
- Confetti Camouflage ( @Confetti_Camouflage@pawb.social ) English12•6 months ago
From what I understand in the article the prototype TCL panel being demonstrated is actually 4k@1000hz. They mention a few competitors with multiple modes right after which could be where the confusion comes from.
- Lojcs ( @Lojcs@lemm.ee ) 6•6 months ago
That’s not what the article says?
- LaggyKar ( @LaggyKar@programming.dev ) 3•6 months ago
Oops, I misread, that was a different monitor
- grrgyle ( @grrgyle@slrpnk.net ) 9•6 months ago
Please stop
- Dippy ( @Dippy@beehaw.org ) 5•6 months ago
I’m hoping that people stop giving an actual fuck at around 400 so that they can just simply produce that and stop.
- pedz ( @pedz@lemmy.ca ) 8•6 months ago
After having a TCL smart TV that constantly smells like burning plastic, even a year after using it, I’m not sure I would want another of their product in my home.
- filcuk ( @filcuk@lemmy.zip ) 4•6 months ago
It’s so that you know it’s working hard
- Em Adespoton ( @adespoton@lemmy.ca ) 5•6 months ago
Why only 4K? We have 8K monitors now.
- Blizzard ( @Blizzard@lemmy.zip ) English4•6 months ago
Performance Mode > Quality Mode ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- kieron115 ( @kieron115@startrek.website ) English4•6 months ago
Now tell us the pixel response time.