Refresh rates aren't meaningless, but even low-end monitors and laptop screens are alright enough to play on. The users will already be playing at sub-par graphics settings on their mid to low range machines. Most PC gamers don't play on the latest and greatest hardware, and the game developers know this (well anyone not named Crytek)... so they make games that play well on 3-4 year old hardware.
You're making this out to be an issue of power and it isn't. I was strictly taking about refresh rate. No offense, but I'm starting to get the impression that you don't understand what it is. Developers aren't trying to program their games based on what monitor you use (unless they're doing 3D crap still). Refresh rate is the amount of times what you see on screen is updated per second. You can have a ridiculous machine and it still be a poor experience due to a monitor with a high refresh rate or latency. The best example is in counterstrike...With a 120hz monitor you will literally get 2 times as many updates of the players movement (over 60hz) which leads to a significantly smoother experience. It makes people easier to hit and their location easier to predict (especially if they're strafing back and forth). This wasn't really an issue with CRT monitors and has become an issue due to the advancement of LCD screens. Again this has NOTHING to do with how fast the machine is.
Really? Have you game on a TRUE 120Hz monitor with a game that is running 120+ FPS? I'm not taking about those TVs that advertise 120hz/240Hz true motion because it's not the same thing. Plug it into a PC input and you're only getting a 60Hz refresh rate. There were actually gamers who were still playing on CRTs due to their superior refresh rates compared to the newer LCD technology at the time that was suck at 60Hz.
I have a 120hz monitor. It was a joke referencing a comment he made to me before about it. See my post right above yours.
Haha, my bad. Been using a 120hz monitor since BF3 open Beta was out. I just sometimes laugh at the console gamers gloating about 60fps on their PS4s and Xbones.
Umm, FPS ≠ Refresh rate. You do realize, your 120hz monitor isn't giving you 120FPS right? EDIT: Nevermind, reread the page. I know exactly what it is, and I have a full grasps of refresh rates. Your eye can't distinguish the differences you mention, and that is scientific fact, so it doesn't matter. The best eyes, can only distiguish about 80fps, and the improvement from 60-80 is minimal at best. Anything over that is overkill.
My eyes can't distinguish the difference? Um...you're crazy. I think anyone who has played a shooter for longer than a couple years can very easily distinguish if something is is steadily over 60fps. You can definitely tell the difference between a 60hz monitor and 120hz. If you couldn't, there would be no reason for anyone to buy them. Your 240hz tv would be completely useless and you wouldn't even be mentioning it. If YOU can't tell a difference, that's an issue with your vision. The human eye can definitely detect higher than 60fps because our eyes don't work like monitors. I can tell the difference between 75hz and 120hz, and it's a big difference. If you want...come check out my monitors for yourself.
Wrong. There is no benefit for a 120hz monitor is 2D - with the exception of allowing a game to run at more than 60fps. However, the primary usage for 120hz monitors is for use in conjunction with 3D technology. Let me see, trust you - or trust science? I choose science. It is all in your head if you think you can distinguish more than 80fps, and most people can't tell the difference between 60-80, so a 60hz monitor works just fine for the vast majority of the populus. Again, this is scientific fact. If you think you can tell the difference between 60-80 - okay, fine but there is no way you can possibly tell the difference above that.
60hz monitors have a cap of 60fps without tearing. 120hz monitors allow for more fps, but the eye can't distinguish more than 80fps. Most people can't distinguish from 60-80 because the increase in clarity is minimal. 120hz and 240hz TVs are kind of a gimmick because HDTV signals are currently capped at 60hz. Current media is maxed at 1920x1080p at 24fps, some 60fps media is coming however (like Xbox One NFL game streams). 120hz and 240hz TVs can provide a surreal effect, but the content being received is still limited to a maximum of 60hz. Yeah, science b****. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3381858/
You're not an optometrist, so your google facts are questionable at best. You can say what you will, but I've played recently on a 60hz monitor...a 75hz monitor...and a 120hz monitor and the 120hz monitor is very noticeably smoother than the 75hz. If eyes can only detect 80fps, that's wonderful -- I may not be detecting all 120 frames (yes, my computer can do 120fps+ in most games), but there is definitely a noticeable difference in smoothness. Lastly, there's advancements in science everyday, including vision. If you think we know everything there is to know about the human eye and how we perceive things I don't know what you tell you. A large portion of the population doesn't even view the color spectrum in the same way, but you seem to think you know what I can and can't discern?
Ive been playing League of Legends for the past two years on my 120hz monitor with vsync on doing a constant 120FPS. Now, when group fights happen, the FPS usually dips into the 80s and I can definitely tell how jittery it is compared to 120. Its even noticeable in the 2D environment in Windows when you're moving Windows back and forth. and the overall smoothness of the mouse.
Since we're googling random **** and calling it science and facts: Interesting...we can't tell a difference beyond 80fps...yet there are games that don't function properly if you're not at their maximum frame rate (in this case 125). What else do we know? Your PC won't show you 125fps unless you have a monitor that goes higher than 120hz. Go figure. "Science b****" It's okay though, all we need is 60fps and a 60hz monitor right? Teach meeee.
Did you just use Wikipedia as a source? Just because games function beyond what your eye can see doesn't mean they can't make them. You can shoot film at 300FPS, that doesn't mean you can tell the difference between 60fps and 300fps. I base my claims on SCIENCE. You bring an blurb about video games above 120FPS. It is running on a computer, so it will process and display it however fast it can.
Not the same thing. When you get in fights and the FPS drops, your computer also has to compute harder to process all of the actions taking place.... aka, lag. There is game/system lag, and network lag. In those big fights, your RAM, CPU and Hard Drive are all taxed more.
SCIENCE has shown that most humans can't distinguish past 60fps. This was written by a computational neuroscientist. http://xcorr.net/2011/11/20/whats-the-maximal-frame-rate-humans-can-perceive/ http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/User:Eugene_M._Izhikevich/Proposed/Flicker_fusion
You're still comparing video games and film. Most tv is run at 29.97 fps...so how about you stop bringing that up to begin with. Eyes don't perceive in frames anyway, and you link one article and all of a sudden everything you say is based off science? When you become an ophthalmologist, you can start popping off about your scientific facts, I'm done arguing with you. You just linked an article (http://xcorr.net/2011/11/20/whats-the-maximal-frame-rate-humans-can-perceive/) implying that 30fps is the best framerate for video games. I'm definitely done talking with you. You don't even understand the articles you're linking, you just keep tossing them out. It even states in the article it varies by user. Lol, you're hilarious dude. Stop trying to make yourself seem more intelligent than you are, you can't bull**** a bull****ter.
Wrong again. TVs do not run at 29.27fps, the content dictates the fps - NOT the TV. You can run 60fps content on all HD TVs as they are all 60hz by design. 60fps TV is coming, and I posted a link above to that fact. Video game consoles can and do run 1080p resolution at 60fps. Both the PS4 and the Xbox One can and do achieve those performance results. So to say that you have a clear advantage over console gamers in the performance area is hogwash. Is it easier to get higher performance on a PC? Sure, but the added benefit from 60-80fps is minimal at best. Regardless of what you think, anything past 80fps and you can't tell the difference.
You know what I meant, I was referring to broadcast television and media. Broadcasts are not currently at 60fps, they're just what I said. My number was incorrect however, it's actually lower 23.976 FPS.
