Screens keep getting faster. Can you even tell? | CES saw the launch of several 360Hz and even 480Hz OLED monitors. Are manufacturers stuck in a questionable spec war, or are we one day going to wo...

On one hand, 360hz seems imperceptibly faster than 240hz for human eyes.

On the other hand, if you get enough frames in, you don't have to worry about simulating motion blur.

I'd much rather they invest efforts into supporting customisable phones. Instead of just releasing a few flavours of the same hardware each year, give us a dozen features we can opt into or not. Pick a base size, then pick your specs. Want a headphone jack, SD card, FM radio, upgraded graphics performance? No problems, that'll cost a bit extra. Phones are boring now - at least find a way to meet the needs of all consumers.

Reminiscent of the hi-res audio marketing. Why listen at a measly 24bit 48khz when you can have 32/192?!

At this point it's a dick measuring contest.

Well no, because most people aren't getting them. It's nice but it's difficulty to justify spending hundreds on a lightly better screen

Finally, a screen with the refresh rate that my cat can enjoy! He sure is gonna love that Tom & Jerry like no other cat that ever lived.

I splurged on a 4k 144hz monitor when I worked constant night shifts in covid times and I don't think I will ever need something else.

This says "can you tell?" Like I don't get a new screen once every 10 years maybe and even then the last one I got was used.

All I want is a 27/28 inch oled 4k monitor with good hdr. I don't care about the refresh rate as long a it's 60Hz+

Isn't the point that you're not supposed to be able to tell?

360hz no scope

How can screens be fast when our eyes are slow?

So when are 144hz, 1440p, hdr oleds going to come down in price?

The bigger the screen, the more you notice because it covers more of your field of view. I would say 240Hz is the sweet spot. You can definitely feel the improvement from lower rates, but rates above it start to be barely noticeable. However I am fine with 144-165Hz if I wanted to save money and still get a great experience. Bellow 120Hz is unusable for me. Once you go high refresh, you cannot go back, ever. 60Hz feels like a slideshow. For gaming 60 is fine, but for work use and scrolling around I can't have 60. Yes people, high refresh rate is useful even outside of gaming.

Funny thing is, while gaming, even if my monitor and PC can do it, I rarely let my fps go above 120-140. I limit them in the game. PC gets much quieter, uses less power, heats up less and its smooth enough to enjoy a great gameplay. I will never understand people who get a 4090 and play with unlocked fps just to get 2000 fps on minecraft while their pc is screaming for air. Limit your fps at least to your Hz people, have some care for your hardware. I know you get less input lag but you are not Shroud, those less 0.000001ms of input lag will not make a difference.

It won't matter until we hit 600. 600 integer scales to every common media framerate so frametimings are always perfect. Really they should be focusing on better and cheaper variable refresh rate but that's harder to market.

I get less motion sickness with higher refresh rates. But anything above 120hz makes no tangible difference. I’m more interested in OLED and color accuracy.

It's complicated. Certain slow and continuously moving objects would be perceived as moving more slowly even fast 500hz, but due to the nature of displays displaying frames, certain other types of motion would show no improvement. For me, 144hz looks the same as 240hz for most games, but not the same for others.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

After all, it wouldn’t be the first time manufacturers have battled over specs with debatable benefit to customers, whether that’s the “megahertz myth” or megapixel wars of the ‘00s or, more recently, smartphone display resolution.

You can read an in-depth breakdown of the reasoning in this post in which they argue that we’ll have to go beyond 1000Hz refresh rates before screens can reduce flicker and motion blur to a level approaching the real world.

Higher refresh rate monitors might be smoother, with better visual clarity and lower input latency for gamers — but at what point does it stop making sense to pay the price premium they carry, or prioritize them over other features like brightness?

All of this also assumes that you’ve got the hardware to play games at these kinds of frame rates, and that you’re not tempted to sacrifice them in the name of turning on some visual eye candy.

But even as a person who’s been enjoying watching the monitor spec arms race from afar, I’m not looking to imminently replace my 100Hz ultrawide LCD, which I’ve been using daily for over half a decade.

Or, to use an even sillier example, it’s like drinking bad coffee after a pandemic spent obsessing over brewing the perfect cup at home.

The original article contains 1,095 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 80%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

I can’t even be bothered with 4k, never mind this. I guess least it gives them something to do…

I just want my low key input to display latencies in games and I'll be happy with as low as 40 fps. Unless it's vr then I also need way more stuff than I can afford like 140+hz, lenses and fov something something, panel tech something also, etc. in order to not get sick

My screen is still the same 144hz. How do you make it go faster?

I still use a 75hz desktop and 60hz on my Laptop. I can’t tell the difference.

Even looking at the iPhone 15 pro next to a 15 looks the same to me.

Honestly as funny as it is I've been able to notices differences between 120 - 144 hz displays pretty consistently

What a dumb premise.

No, the content isn't a thing on the media side and most folks don't have 3080 class hardware to get to 120 much less higher at any decent resolution and fidelity.