Is going from 144Hz -> 240Hz noticeable?

Is going from 144Hz -> 240Hz noticeable?

Attached: file.png (1280x720, 1.4M)

going from 240 to 144 will be noticeable for sure

going from 60 -> 144 is barely noticeable so i'd assume from that point there's no difference

I barely noticed 75-144

>he fell for it already
kek

It is noticeable to some people but not all.

Its only really noticeable when you go back to 144hz.
Don't do it user. It's like shooting yourself in the foot. You will raise your standards for a long period of time, and the satisfaction will be minimal and last a few minutes at most. Unless you are an esports pro player, its really useless.

Upgrade from 1080p to 1440p instead. Preferably keep the 1080p one if you mind not always getting max frames, as 1440p cant downscale evenly to 1080p

blind redditors

People will cry about this post but I genuinely think most people who think a 144hz monitor is a game changer don't know what frame timing is considering there's hardly a difference between 120hz and 60hz locked to 120fps

i went from 60 to 240 so i don't know

Attached: hz.webm (1280x720, 2.91M)

Why not just go to 480?

If you got a powerful PC (esp CPU) and play the right games, sure it can be.
After 144hz you get VERY HARSH diminishing returns tho.
The difference is no doubt there, just like there is one between 60 120 or 120 to 144, but its getting smaller and smaller the higher you go.

difference between 60 and 144?

It is pretty hilarious with dual monitors. Obviously my secondary is some old shitty 1080/60 monitor I used ten years ago. Dragging a window over to it makes it look like the window sprained its ankle but still somehow running the same distance in a race.

it was noticeable for me but i was coming from a monitor that still had a vga port

you'll notice how bad a tn panel looks

because the highest refresh rate monitors as of right now are only 360 hz

60 to 144 is visibly noticeable. 144 to 240 is less visibly noticeable, more physically noticeable through reduced latency.

id tell you guys the real answers but every time i do, im met with shitposts and "hurrr nice bait". so no, go fuck yourselves and i hope you burn your money on a shitty monitor.

I have 27" 165 hz 1440p and a 55" LG C9

I have 30/20

>buy 240hz monitor
>computer can barely output in 60fps in most modern games anyway
I guarantee this is 90% of the people buying in.
Yeah, it makes your mouse movements real smooth, probably worth the money

1/144 is about 7 milliseconds between frames, 1/240 is just over 4 milliseconds.

It’s a placebo, anyone telling you different is lying to themselves.

the one on the left looks more like 30hz to me

stop playing shitty consoleports

is this webm actually outputting at 144 fps though

no the one on the left is definitely worse than 60hz
Or maybe its just broken or the vid has some issue

I'll take a high quality IPS/VA 144hz panel with g-sync over a 240-360hz shitty TN any day of the week. Once you configure g-sync and framerate limiters right, the input latency difference between a 144hz g-sync monitor and 360hz no fps limited display is physically impossible for a human to notice. We're talking like 5ms at most here. For reference, standard displays with v-sync on are in the 100+ms range, and VR headsets are typically in the 15-20ms range.

You must be new here so let me give you a piece of advice: NEVER under any circumstance take purchasing advice from Zig Forums. I don't care what board you are on, don't do it. Research the answer somewhere else.

Lol no. I use a 144hz monitor as my main display and a 60hz one as my secondary. The difference is insane.

Disagree user, /g/ was often very helpful to me on some specific topics but of course prioritize OTHER researches.
Never, ever, ask for advice on Zig Forums

>if I slow down time by thousand percent you can tell the difference
neck yourself consoomer

I upgraded my phenom 2 to a 5600x thanks to /g/
It's pretty good

60 to 144hz is very noticeable it becomes less noticeable the more you move up from 144.

In order to portray 144hz you would;
>Need to record at 144hz
>Meaning your GPU and display need to be outputting 144hz
>Your capture software needs to capture 144hz
>You need to maintain 144hz
>The person watching needs to have a monitor that can view 144hz and the GPU needs to be able to output it.

It's one of those things that people just need to see the difference themselves, but in order to do so they need to invest in it.

That particular webm isn't that good since you can acheive the same with a low dpi or polling rate on a mouse, or the camera they are recording the screen could simply be recording a lower framerate.

>going from 60 -> 144 is barely noticeable
Bait.

What kind of brain damage makes you see things in slowmotion?

>he doesnt use a 1000000hz screen shilled by one of the hundreds of youtube tech channels

it only matters if you want it to matter. if you want to consume. it will be the most important difference in the world to you and you will never be able to live with anything less than 240 hz again.
personally I'm happy with 60hz

Literally the only reason to do 240 is if you are a computer animator and those extra frames help you do your job.

My Phone has a 90hz refreshrate and you can go between 90 and 60
Its very very very noticeable, anybody who says otherwise is lying