▲ 268 ▼ This is not a typo: The world's fastest gaming monitor may well be this ancient IIyama CRT unit, pushed [modded] to 700 Hz at a glorious 120p resolution (www.pcgamer.com) submitted 2 years ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca 53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Poem_for_your_sprog@lemmy.world -14 points 2 years ago (3 children) 60 isn't fine permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago* (2 children) I think they're mostly talking about regular video, in which case 60 is generally fine. Heck, 30 is usually fine. But I agree that in video games anything below 120 is downright painful permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] BluesF@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (2 children) I definitely don't play with anything near 120 and it doesn't bother me. I suppose it's something that once you start paying attention to you notice haha. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Nythos@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) When you regularly start playing at >120hz you definitely notice when stuff is playing at lower than 60hz Like it sounds snobby but I can’t play stuff at lower than 100hz ish otherwise I somehow get motion sick from it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OrangeJoe@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago You would honestly probably be fine after a short while with lower frame rates. Guaranteed you used to game at those slower frame/refresh rates and never knew better. I absolutely agree there's still benefit to be had above 60, but 60 is still mostly fine. Unless I guess all you do is ultra competitive gaming where twitch reactions are necessary. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Poem_for_your_sprog@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, you're just used to it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BluesF@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago And my wallet is no doubt thankfully for it. As long as my old GTX1660 keeps chugging on I'll keep gaming at ?Hz on my ????p monitor lol permalink fedilink source parent [–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Depends on the human, there was an article many years ago from a proper science study, some peoples internal vision refresh brain clock speed doesn't get more info with the super higher refresh. I can tell that 90 is smoother than 60 just slightly, but when it involves large motion across the screen like at the movie theatre my brain doesn't process the spots in between and I end up seeing static snapshots. it becomes nauseating, so for a scene I know will have a speedy side to side motion I end up looking down. And it is not the saccade phenomenon, because it happens even if I have a focal point on screen to not move my eyes of off. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Poem_for_your_sprog@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Yes this...panning shots at 24fps literally make me nauseous. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago I played Half Life at 15 fps back then, and I can tell you that 60 fps is mostly fine. My next monitor will still be 144 or more though. permalink fedilink source parent [–] KaRunChiy@kbin.run -1 points 2 years ago (3 children) Then why has it been the standard for almost 50 years? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ProjectPatatoe@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago 60 is fine, and its cuz we used the wall power 60 hz as a clock since it was extremely stable and free. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zorque@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Because more means more costs which means people won't buy as many? permalink fedilink source parent [–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago Because we didn't have as good technology for higher framerates Not only do you need better screens, but also faster processing speeds permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago* (2 children) I think they're mostly talking about regular video, in which case 60 is generally fine. Heck, 30 is usually fine. But I agree that in video games anything below 120 is downright painful permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] BluesF@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (2 children) I definitely don't play with anything near 120 and it doesn't bother me. I suppose it's something that once you start paying attention to you notice haha. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Nythos@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) When you regularly start playing at >120hz you definitely notice when stuff is playing at lower than 60hz Like it sounds snobby but I can’t play stuff at lower than 100hz ish otherwise I somehow get motion sick from it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OrangeJoe@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago You would honestly probably be fine after a short while with lower frame rates. Guaranteed you used to game at those slower frame/refresh rates and never knew better. I absolutely agree there's still benefit to be had above 60, but 60 is still mostly fine. Unless I guess all you do is ultra competitive gaming where twitch reactions are necessary. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Poem_for_your_sprog@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, you're just used to it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BluesF@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago And my wallet is no doubt thankfully for it. As long as my old GTX1660 keeps chugging on I'll keep gaming at ?Hz on my ????p monitor lol permalink fedilink source parent [–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Depends on the human, there was an article many years ago from a proper science study, some peoples internal vision refresh brain clock speed doesn't get more info with the super higher refresh. I can tell that 90 is smoother than 60 just slightly, but when it involves large motion across the screen like at the movie theatre my brain doesn't process the spots in between and I end up seeing static snapshots. it becomes nauseating, so for a scene I know will have a speedy side to side motion I end up looking down. And it is not the saccade phenomenon, because it happens even if I have a focal point on screen to not move my eyes of off. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Poem_for_your_sprog@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Yes this...panning shots at 24fps literally make me nauseous. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BluesF@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (2 children) I definitely don't play with anything near 120 and it doesn't bother me. I suppose it's something that once you start paying attention to you notice haha. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Nythos@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) When you regularly start playing at >120hz you definitely notice when stuff is playing at lower than 60hz Like it sounds snobby but I can’t play stuff at lower than 100hz ish otherwise I somehow get motion sick from it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OrangeJoe@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago You would honestly probably be fine after a short while with lower frame rates. Guaranteed you used to game at those slower frame/refresh rates and never knew better. I absolutely agree there's still benefit to be had above 60, but 60 is still mostly fine. Unless I guess all you do is ultra competitive gaming where twitch reactions are necessary. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Poem_for_your_sprog@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, you're just used to it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BluesF@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago And my wallet is no doubt thankfully for it. As long as my old GTX1660 keeps chugging on I'll keep gaming at ?Hz on my ????p monitor lol permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nythos@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) When you regularly start playing at >120hz you definitely notice when stuff is playing at lower than 60hz Like it sounds snobby but I can’t play stuff at lower than 100hz ish otherwise I somehow get motion sick from it permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OrangeJoe@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago You would honestly probably be fine after a short while with lower frame rates. Guaranteed you used to game at those slower frame/refresh rates and never knew better. I absolutely agree there's still benefit to be had above 60, but 60 is still mostly fine. Unless I guess all you do is ultra competitive gaming where twitch reactions are necessary. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] OrangeJoe@lemm.ee 1 point 2 years ago You would honestly probably be fine after a short while with lower frame rates. Guaranteed you used to game at those slower frame/refresh rates and never knew better. I absolutely agree there's still benefit to be had above 60, but 60 is still mostly fine. Unless I guess all you do is ultra competitive gaming where twitch reactions are necessary. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Poem_for_your_sprog@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, you're just used to it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BluesF@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago And my wallet is no doubt thankfully for it. As long as my old GTX1660 keeps chugging on I'll keep gaming at ?Hz on my ????p monitor lol permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BluesF@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago And my wallet is no doubt thankfully for it. As long as my old GTX1660 keeps chugging on I'll keep gaming at ?Hz on my ????p monitor lol permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Depends on the human, there was an article many years ago from a proper science study, some peoples internal vision refresh brain clock speed doesn't get more info with the super higher refresh. I can tell that 90 is smoother than 60 just slightly, but when it involves large motion across the screen like at the movie theatre my brain doesn't process the spots in between and I end up seeing static snapshots. it becomes nauseating, so for a scene I know will have a speedy side to side motion I end up looking down. And it is not the saccade phenomenon, because it happens even if I have a focal point on screen to not move my eyes of off. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Poem_for_your_sprog@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Yes this...panning shots at 24fps literally make me nauseous. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Poem_for_your_sprog@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Yes this...panning shots at 24fps literally make me nauseous. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago I played Half Life at 15 fps back then, and I can tell you that 60 fps is mostly fine. My next monitor will still be 144 or more though. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KaRunChiy@kbin.run -1 points 2 years ago (3 children) Then why has it been the standard for almost 50 years? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ProjectPatatoe@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago 60 is fine, and its cuz we used the wall power 60 hz as a clock since it was extremely stable and free. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zorque@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Because more means more costs which means people won't buy as many? permalink fedilink source parent [–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago Because we didn't have as good technology for higher framerates Not only do you need better screens, but also faster processing speeds permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ProjectPatatoe@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago 60 is fine, and its cuz we used the wall power 60 hz as a clock since it was extremely stable and free. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Because more means more costs which means people won't buy as many? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago Because we didn't have as good technology for higher framerates Not only do you need better screens, but also faster processing speeds permalink fedilink source parent