Does 144hz really makes you a better player?

[55cps]

@JShug07 said:
Okay so I am planning to buy a cheap 144hz monitor probably in next month,I have read about the advantages of having 144hz monitor like people say there is a difference like night and day and some say the difference is noticeable but it isn’t worth since 60 FPS works for them,I wanted to ask to the people who own 144hz monitor here is it really worth getting it? I have usually seen that I struggle with players of level 60+ I don’t know whether those guys have a tremendous aim or do they use 144 Hz to have a advantage

Imagine you had to play with 20 less fps
40 fps is horrible

so more than doubling 60fps will be awesome

[Deathi]

Yep, what hasn’t been mentioned loud enough, is that you need a fast monitor. Fast meaning not the reaction-time, grey-to-grey, whatever, but the real input->display time. Sadly only a few sites really test it.
That’s where good crt’s still were/are better than the tft’s today, while still having 100hz+ ;-).

[Mc1412013]

Warning… once u go 144hz u wont want to go back. I have a 2nd pc that o dont use to game cuz it has a 60hz screen and the screen tear and the stuttering on it compaired to the 144hz drives me insane

[Deathi]

Rly, lil childs, sorry to be honest, we (Quake-2/3/whatever-players) already played on 100-110 hz monitors (CRT’s) last millenium, sorry for you beeing late, but I guess, there’s an fb.com-app for it…

[Xenithos]

Okay, I’m seeing some stuff here that doesn’t make sense. Also, anyone saying it’s like going from 30-60 fps is wrong. Basically, things appear as smooth to the eye at 23-30 fps depending on person. But this is because your brain adds extra frames to things. When you increase the fps further to 60 everything is much smoother and “feels” better because you don’t do as much work adding things in, but your reaction time is already pretty much at a halt. You can only react so fast unless you have explicit training. All higher hz will do past 60+ is make the game smoother (if your computer can also export out 144 fps) to your brain, and sometimes enable motion blur to not be as blurry (which CAN help when identifying movement and targets) but when it comes to reaction time, your own personal speed is highly unlikely to change.

Scientifically speaking, you can’t react to anything above 60. You can perceive better above 60. Easy example, I use a macro on a mobile emulator for a game that hits two different points one right after the other. On my 144hz screen, if I alt print screen during the emulation I only have one point hit at a time, but if I’m looking at the emulator I have the illusion of seeing both points being hit almost at once constantly.

My advice? If your computer can handle it, and you’d like to at least experience it, then get it. I got one, and I do enjoy it. I don’t lose my mouse on my screen anymore when going over the desktop laughably.

[MikeGreene1990]

Higher FPS doesn’t just mean smoother. Whats really going on client side, is that the game is drawing an updating each individual pixel rendered in the frame faster. This also means that the frame delay timing in milliseconds is dropping as well.

This makes for more accurate client side predictions when gaming online… It also captures the animation sequences better to. It will make people with higher reflexes and a steady hand way better players.

Before the MOFO update capped the fps to 180. I was averaging between 180-240fps on potato settings under my current sys build. When there is an avg frame delay of 2.5ms over a 240 frame render span running this game asynchronous to my monitor… It is literally god mode… You can see and react way faster than most people you are shooting at…

You have to remember the monitor can only output 120-144hz in most cases. But anything above that reduces render time. That is almost, if not more important than just pushing higher FPS since it can reduce frame stutter.

One last note, they do say the human eye sees only 23-30fps. But truthfully i don’t believe this. If it is the case, that means that our eyes see pure smoothness because we can process color with no delay. If there is delay it’s probably in the nano seconds spectrum, not milliseconds like in traditional computer monitors. This coincides with the humans ability to react based on sight and movement. Which makes or breaks people on the elite level of shooting.

In conclusion it makes everybody a better player.

[MikeGreene1990]

Another thing that makes people a better player is the quality of their ISP. Having at least a 100Mb connection with higher quality Cat 6A or preferably Cat 7 shielded Ethernet cables that plug directly into their modem.

I actually hate my current setup, because i go through cat 5E into a switch that connects to another Ethernet port on my fios modem.

That alone means i am probably doing 2 packet hops before even leaving my house, that alone is dog shit when it comes to pinging because i have 2 devices that are forwarding a packet out of the network instead of just 1.

[bgyoshi]

Here’s how video cards and monitor Hz works

Here’s how your eyes work

Here’s how it relates to FPS

tl;dw No, you can’t see higher than 60fps or so.
Yes, you can see and recognize an image that appears for only 1/220th of a second, but 220 sequential images per second is not the same as “seeing” 220fps.
Our eyes are meant to track objects and focus on what’s important to us at the moment. They don’t receive and process everything in an image on equal ground. This is why fast moving objects are blurry unless we focus on them. And when we focus on them, the background becomes blurry.
Fast moving objects shown in crystal clarity next to stationary objects will give you a headache eventually because our eyes are trying to blur the fast thing but can’t. This is why motion enhancing features on 240hz tv’s look really strange.

Finally, you now how enough info to know that anyone who’s trying to tell you that you can see the difference between 90 fps and 180fps is just straight lying or misinformed. The only way you can see the difference is with a higher refresh rate and you’re seeing a change in refresh rate, not FPS.

So don’t let those SLI videos where they bump some high end game from 45 FPS to 90 FPS fool you. The reason why it looks almost the same is because it IS almost the same.

An increase in FPS is not a reduction in stutter. Stutter is a completely different rendering issue and not an FPS issue.

tl;dr Your eyes don’t work that way

And if you see A4 Jeramie in game, let him know that you know how eyes and FPS work.

[MikeGreene1990]

@bgyoshi said:
Here’s how video cards and monitor Hz works
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L07t_mY2LEU

Here’s how your eyes work
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buSaywCF6E8

Here’s how it relates to FPS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhSHeYT2U70

tl;dw No, you can’t see higher than 60fps or so.
Yes, you can see and recognize an image that appears for only 1/220th of a second, but 220 sequential images per second is not the same as “seeing” 220fps.
Our eyes are meant to track objects and focus on what’s important to us at the moment. They don’t receive and process everything in an image on equal ground. This is why fast moving objects are blurry unless we focus on them. And when we focus on them, the background becomes blurry.
Fast moving objects shown in crystal clarity next to stationary objects will give you a headache eventually because our eyes are trying to blur the fast thing but can’t. This is why motion enhancing features on 240hz tv’s look really strange.

Finally, you now how enough info to know that anyone who’s trying to tell you that you can see the difference between 90 fps and 180fps is just straight lying or misinformed. The only way you can see the difference is with a higher refresh rate and you’re seeing a change in refresh rate, not FPS.

So don’t let those SLI videos where they bump some high end game from 45 FPS to 90 FPS fool you. The reason why it looks almost the same is because it IS almost the same.

An increase in FPS is not a reduction in stutter. Stutter is a completely different rendering issue and not an FPS issue.

tl;dr Your eyes don’t work that way

And if you see A4 Jeramie in game, let him know that you know how eyes and FPS work.

I agree on most of these points Excellent videos btw.

TV’s are crap to game on though because of motion features and panel latency. TV’s use frame interpolation to add fake frames in between the real ones that are drawn and rendered to the screen. It causes inaccurate rendering. There were two problems i saw with this that i didn’t like. It causes blurring when updating scenes in a movie, not particularly just movement and animation. In some cases it creates the Soap Opera effect where the movement is so smooth it looks fake.

Also increasing the frame rate limit in game does smooth out rendering. Even though it doesn’t exceed the monitors max frame limit. It cuts down on the latency in between frames being drawn. This can cause tearing due to the pixel flicker rate in many cases. But it allows for more accurate movement prediction in fast paced shooters.

In Dirty bomb, or any game where you can limit the FPS via console command or cfg. Play with the refresh rate and limit it in multiples of 30. I see the difference in movement change going from 30-60-120. I start to level out after the 180-220 mark.

even though i push 180 constant all the time in game. i have a 5.56 ms refresh delay. That is at my monitors 120hz limit. even though in game it says i am rendering 180. When i drop down to 120hz with smoke and airstrikes and everything going off. i dip into the high 130s. The refresh rate delay timing goes up to 9ms. I feel it bad sometimes on the input.

I feel like a very important metric here is being missed and not discussed. The latency portion not just the rate. 60hz over 1ms is going to feel and look faster than 60hz over 10ms. Pay attention the the frame timings right next to the frame rate counter. Ultra low is extremely important for being a good gamer. If running a game at 2x the refresh rate of your monitor cuts down on the frame timings than do it! I feel the difference in my case.

[FalC_16]

For me the whole deal around 144 Hz is almost zero input lag. It just feels so good comparison to 60 Hz

[Xenithos]

@bgyoshi said:
Here’s how video cards and monitor Hz works

tl;dw No, you can’t see higher than 60fps or so.
Yes, you can see and recognize an image that appears for only 1/220th of a second, but 220 sequential images per second is not the same as “seeing” 220fps.
Our eyes are meant to track objects and focus on what’s important to us at the moment. They don’t receive and process everything in an image on equal ground. This is why fast moving objects are blurry unless we focus on them. And when we focus on them, the background becomes blurry.
Fast moving objects shown in crystal clarity next to stationary objects will give you a headache eventually because our eyes are trying to blur the fast thing but can’t. This is why motion enhancing features on 240hz tv’s look really strange.

Finally, you now how enough info to know that anyone who’s trying to tell you that you can see the difference between 90 fps and 180fps is just straight lying or misinformed. The only way you can see the difference is with a higher refresh rate and you’re seeing a change in refresh rate, not FPS.

So don’t let those SLI videos where they bump some high end game from 45 FPS to 90 FPS fool you. The reason why it looks almost the same is because it IS almost the same.

An increase in FPS is not a reduction in stutter. Stutter is a completely different rendering issue and not an FPS issue.

tl;dr Your eyes don’t work that way

And if you see A4 Jeramie in game, let him know that you know how eyes and FPS work.

Can confirm, everything said here is absolutely true. I tried to dumb the information I know down, but you did a much better job at that in keeping with constant terminology. Bravo @bgyoshi

[bgyoshi]

@MikeGreene1990 said:
In Dirty bomb, or any game where you can limit the FPS via console command or cfg. Play with the refresh rate and limit it in multiples of 30. I see the difference in movement change going from 30-60-120. I start to level out after the 180-220 mark.

Yes this is because we’ll generally notice more smoothness between 30 and 60, and then your monitor is changing it’s refresh rate from 60Hz to 120Hz when you go from 60 to 120 FPS. Again, you’re seeing the change in refresh rate, not FPS.

I feel like a very important metric here is being missed and not discussed. The latency portion not just the rate. 60hz over 1ms is going to feel and look faster than 60hz over 10ms. Pay attention the the frame timings right next to the frame rate counter. Ultra low is extremely important for being a good gamer. If running a game at 2x the refresh rate of your monitor cuts down on the frame timings than do it! I feel the difference in my case.

Frame limiters increase latency a lot too. Usually when they’re baked into the game, they don’t increase latency much. But in the case of games like DB where you have to use a third party one, they cause a lot of input latency and you will definitely feel it when you turn them on.

[Szakalot]

@Xenithos the ‚fluid 22-25fps’ myth is complete bull. The only reason that a 22fps movie looks fluid is because of motion blur.

Run a high speed camera at very low exposure and 22fps, you will see exactly how wrong the myth is

[nokiII]

@Szakalot said:
@Xenithos the ‚fluid 22-25fps’ myth is complete bull. The only reason that a 22fps movie looks fluid is because of motion blur.

And even with motion blur, when I watch a movie nowadays I can see the stutter, especially on landscape pans, just because I’m used to a much smoother experience.

[teflonlove]

@MikeGreene1990 said:
One last note, they do say the human eye sees only 23-30fps. But truthfully i don’t believe this.

The approximately 25 fps are the lower limit necessary where movement becomes fluent. The upper limit where the human eye is still able to process information is much higher. In experiments with fighter pilots they showed them silhouettes of various air planes for 1/200 seconds (1 frame at 200 fps) and they were still able to explain which plane it was.

[bgyoshi]

@Szakalot said:
@Xenithos the ‚fluid 22-25fps’ myth is complete bull. The only reason that a 22fps movie looks fluid is because of motion blur.

Run a high speed camera at very low exposure and 22fps, you will see exactly how wrong the myth is

@teflonlove said:

The approximately 25 fps are the lower limit necessary where movement becomes fluent. The upper limit where the human eye is still able to process information is much higher. In experiments with fighter pilots they showed them silhouettes of various air planes for 1/200 seconds (1 frame at 200 fps) and they were still able to explain which plane it was.

My videos mention both of these things and explain both of them lmao

[Szakalot]

like id have time to watch videos, double whammy lmao

[bgyoshi]

@Szakalot said:
like id have time to watch videos, double whammy lmao

Then read my tl;dw

tl;dr your eyes make motion blurry on purpose, that’s normal

Using a fast camera to record super fast motion in crystal clarity gives you a headache because your brain is trying to make it blurry but can’t. It’s such a problem that modern day broadcasting/movies/games showing ultra-clear high FPS are adding motion blur back in so that it doesn’t give people headaches. That’s from the second video of the three.

[Szakalot]

this is an interesting topic:

in real, all images are ‚rendered’ at a frequency going into infinity, in as good a quality as physically possible.
Motion blur in movies is a result of long exposure: data from fast moving obj is collected and compressed into a single frame, making them blurry.

This is very different from the phenomenon you describe, which could be part neurological processing and part ‚exposure refresh rate’ differential across the eye/field of view.

What are the exact differences between real and high quality image captured on a high speed camera? Why wouldnt your eye/vision succeed in blurring camera-captured frames, just as it does in real?

[Xenithos]

@Szakalot said:
@Xenithos the ‚fluid 22-25fps’ myth is complete bull. The only reason that a 22fps movie looks fluid is because of motion blur.

Run a high speed camera at very low exposure and 22fps, you will see exactly how wrong the myth is

That’s… kind of what I was saying. Completely agree with you. It’s also why I was using 60fps as the usual limit where the eye stops seeing everything etc also… basically at certain speeds your brain can’t capture the entire canvas every single frame, it can follow the movement at incredibly high speeds, but just the movement, and if you’ve got something that’s not moving but just two different points or what not etc, at that point your brain will literally start seeing them both at the same time and stop following them as movment, but only in intensity… 0.o