Now that you covered the resolution part, when are you going to test refresh rate Jay?

@RllyWyteCracka

4 жыл бұрын

Now that's funny

@Carson-ve9qh

4 жыл бұрын

Now that’s funny

@chunkyclumpy2983

4 жыл бұрын

Now......that's funny

@lunaticheaven9446

4 жыл бұрын

Now that's funny

@taurean06031990

4 жыл бұрын

Lol

The one criticism I have is that, to me, it isn't so important to be able to guess the exact refresh rate but that you can tell the relative difference. Other than the massive swing and miss on the first one, he could tell which one's were faster or slower. The question is can you tell the difference? The answer to that question is yes. That isn't the same as asking can you guess the exact refresh rate? That comparison to perfect pitch is a good analogy. Very few people have perfect pitch but almost all people can tell whether pitches are higher or lower than one another.

@Mad5cout

4 жыл бұрын

@Advocatus Diaboli If that were true then Jay would not have been even more accurate in that range at guessing the exact number than he was in the lower range. As a musician, this makes sense to me. It is a lot harder to subdivide a slower tempo and often harder to guess the BPM of a slow tempo, whereas tempos in the 80-144 BPM range are pretty easy. What I do agree with is that once you start going above 144 Hz, most people won't be able to tell, let alone guess the refresh rate.

@Lessenjr

4 жыл бұрын

Need to bump this post to the top as this is truly the bigger picture point of the topic.

@below90hz

3 жыл бұрын

@@Mad5cout so you're saying they lied or don't know what they are talking about when they said you can't tell the difference above 100hz? There's a reason VR displays are best at 90hz: a little below 90hz people CAN tell a difference, a little above 90hz they CANNOT. 144hz is a marketing gimmick to get you to spend money on a new monitor you don't need. I am one of the ones who fell for it and can actually admit it.

@Mad5cout

3 жыл бұрын

@@below90hz No. What I am saying is that most of them could not guess the exact refresh rates above 100Hz but they could pretty accurately tell if one monitor was faster than another one. The later is more important than the former. It really doesn't matter if you can tell what the EXACT hertz of a monitor is. If you can tell one is smoother than another, then it still does matter.

@below90hz

3 жыл бұрын

@@Mad5cout dude read my post again. I'm not disagreeing about being able to tell an exact hertz, I never even mentioned it. What they and I am saying is 'yes you can tell the difference. However once you get *above a certain threshold*, you cannot.' that threshold is below 144hz. They say 100hz and I think it's a little lower more like 90hz. You will not be able to see a difference between 90 or 100hz and 144hz. Not while gaming. And notice I am talking about a REFRESH RATE. Not fps.

It is interesting how people have different sensitivities to refresh rate. In school I built a quartz clock (very accurate) regulated circuit with an adjustable LED. I could see up to 89Hz pulses while my friends quit seeing them above 65Hz.

I read an interesting article about cinema frame rates when The Hobbit came out at 48fps and everyone was like "WTF that looked awful!" that analysed how the eye physically works and how the brain processes the information from it. The important pieces of information were that normal functioning eyes have a tremor in the approx 50-80hz range (depending on things like how tired you are, how old you are, etc) that assists perception of detail, and that your brain uses temporal processing to smooth out motion. When you put those together, you get three ranges of frame rates (at any particular moment on an individual basis, they aren't set in stone) that produce different perceptual effects depending on the results of the temporal processing. There's the low end where you get repeated frames on the screen being fed into your brain and the temporal analysis just says "this isn't real, I don't care" and starts pulling less detail from the image, counter-intuitively making it seem relatively good looking. That's why 24fps film at the cinema looks okay, and yes, it means the 30fps "cinematic experience" really genuinely is an actual thing. Then there's the mid range where the frame rate is around half the microtremor rate - the problem here is that the tremor rate changes, so the temporal processing is constantly switching between getting two identical frames in a row and then a new one, which confuses the hell out of it and makes it look generally bad. This is around the 40-50hz area - anyone with a G-sync or Freesync monitor may recognise an effect here where you don't notice a low frame rate in your game until it starts to dip below 50hz? Once you remove tearing from the equation, this is why. Finally, there's the top range. Once you hit 70hz+, your brain is like "this is fine" and everything is smooth and dandy. This doesn't mean higher refresh rates aren't worth it - after you exceed the ocular microtremor rate you are effectively increasing the amount of motion detail available for your eyes to see, and the asynchronus nature of the eye-monitor relationship means it is worth doing, but it's subject to fairly harsh diminishing returns in all but the most reflex-demanding situations. (NB: Again, these ranges and boundaries vary from person to person and over time, so hard numbers simply don't exist - which explains all the "Well *I* can see blah blah blah", "Well I *can't* see yadda yadda yadda" arguments in comment sections all over the Internets) Compare that with what Jay and Phil were doing and saying - the testing methodology here is fairly garbage, but the real results aren't that they were able to determine the exact refresh rate, but that they were clearly capable of spotting when the refresh rates went up and down far enough to cross the mid-to-high boundary. Or got confused when it was the same refresh rate twice in a row. Phil himself said "Anything above 75Hz seems to be a wash for me" and that's totally consistent with what we know about how eyes/brains work. It would have been interesting if they'd gone lower to 20hz/30hz/40hz/50hz in another test.

Some of the comments are deeply misguided... There is a HUGE difference between being able to "tell the difference" between a higher refresh rate side-by-side, and being able to actually eye-ball what the EXACT refresh rate is. Most people side by side can tell the difference between a 60 fps and a 120 fps image. I worked in eye-labs, this is not a controversial statement among perception scientists and psychologists, anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean they can tell you WHAT the refresh rate is, they just know the one on the right is smoother than the one on the left. This test has nothing to do with whether you can "tell the difference" between a given refresh rate, it has to do with whether you can tell what the refresh rate is based on playing the game. If you are sensitive to frame-rate changes, like many people are, it may very well be that you could be fooled by someone giving you a 100 hz monitor, and telling you it was 120-144 hz. However, if you then had to choose between a 100 hz monitor and a 144 hz monitor side by side, much less 100 compared to 240, you could probably tell the difference with a little play. This is again, not the same thing as being able to directly and immediately state the framerate just by looking at the screen, it's only valid when you can directly compare. It amazes me how people make totally unjustified leaps from one thing being tested to claiming another completely unrelated thing is true... This is why people are duped so easily, there's nothing wrong with statistics, just lots wrong with the idiots who can't interpret them to save their lives.

@a64738

4 жыл бұрын

Also many is unaware that with low light conditions (dark scenes) the eyes is much less sensitive and can not see higher frame/refresh rates. The brighter the scene the more easy it is to see differences in higher fps... There is a lot of people who still firmly believe the myth that humans can not see more then 24FPS.

@NickGhale

2 ай бұрын

Most people don’t have a 100Hz and 144Hz monitor side by side regard. All this shows is that they only have 1 monitor. And in a 1 monitor blind test, they can’t even tell whether it’s on 100 or 144Hz. So you’re not missing out. And you out here calling other people idiots lol

Your guys interaction is really cool and feels so natural, give Phil more screen time as a co-host beside you!

This actually proves for more than against being picky about refresh rates. They didn’t hit the exact refresh rate every time BUT they were in the ballpark every time which means you might not be able to distinguish between 60 and 75 but neither of these guys would mistake 240 for 120 or 144 for 60.

Can I just say, as a newcomer to this channel... Isn't Phil great? He has this infectious laugh in the background and he always just seems like he's in a good mood. Love that guy.

The worst part about high refresh rate is that you can't go back

@LetrixAR

4 жыл бұрын

That's why I'm still using a 30Hz monitor

@corsegerspwnd

4 жыл бұрын

you can takes about 3 days then you're used to it

@LetrixAR

4 жыл бұрын

@Chronic Rblx and don't leave your home to play somewhere else.

@mrmr7301

4 жыл бұрын

Worst part is that no 1 saw the 3960X/3970X Boxes on top shelf lol!

@jaybee0507

4 жыл бұрын

@Peter Cavojec He's talking about cars. Surely you don't want a car less than 200hp? Just kidding. Although i agree with him, there is similar treshold. Personally that treshold for me is around 100hz with g-sync, but so low refresh will hurt my performance in game.

Its very simple to tell on a black background, just move your mouse left to right repeatedly and follow the cursor with your eyes. The more solid the cursor looks the higher the refresh rate of the monitor, i can still see a blurry cursor even at 144Hz

Could we get a "Phil laughing at Jays mistakes" compilation? Phil's laughter is one of the best I've ever heard, really contegious. Don't get me wrong, your videos have always been great and fun to watch but the addition of hearing Phil loosing his shit in the background makes them even better :) -Much love and respect for both of you!

Phil is such a happy guy, makes me smile watching him in your videos. More Phil please!

*Refresh rate exists* Jay: "Is this a resolution?"

@ReaperHackz

4 жыл бұрын

Man this made me LMFAO

@AmericanHothead

4 жыл бұрын

Resolution killed Epstein

I upgraded from 60hz to 144hz a few days ago, and as soon as Windows loaded I could immediately tell the difference. It is so smooth, and whenever I go back to 60, I can see the stutter. The difference is immense.

@edgarpereira7608

4 жыл бұрын

Same to me! Looks like its lagging ahah

@Vleoxyz

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah me too lol

Jay just invented a new medical condition..."FPS Sensitivity"

Motion blur is on - that's a feature that tries to make a game look smoother than it is. That really should've been turned off.

@chunkyclumpy2983

4 жыл бұрын

^

@kamen42

4 жыл бұрын

Motion blur is basically the only reason why movies look smooth even @ 24 FPS. If every frame in a movie was perfectly clear they would be almost unwatchable.

@ZenrioBelieve

3 жыл бұрын

if its turned on and make 60hz look like 144hz. why u bother buying expensive gear?

"Human eye can see only 3.5Gb" - Jensen Huang, Nvidia CEO

@yoeymeme24

Жыл бұрын

I think he means bitrate, 3.5gb bitrate of bunch of “pixels”

@Xenotester

Жыл бұрын

@@yoeymeme24 Gtx970 4Gb isn't "real" 4Gb. Instead of united 4Gb 256bits vram it has two pool: 3.5Gb 224bit + 0.5 32bit. Gtx970 can't simple use a whole 4Gb at full speed - everything above 3.5Gb can cause a lot of slowdowns and need additinal work a

Your testing methodology is flawed, but your point about this being similar to recognizing tones is apt. If you give me an unknown framerate, I can't tell you what it is, but if you give me two framerates A and B, I can tell which one is faster. I don't have perfect pitch with music, either, but I don't think that means I don't benefit from frequencies above C# or whatever, because I can tell when a note is higher than another. Personally, on my 165Hz monitor, I can definitely feel differences up to at least this particular framerate cap (even though I couldn't pick it out of a lineup of arbitrary framerates).

@0dWHOHWb0

4 жыл бұрын

@Advocatus Diaboli It would be interesting to see the results of that, yeah. I guess I could program something that would display something randomly at 165 or 144 fps, but short of that it's kind of difficult to properly blind test by myself.

“What’s up guys jayz 0.02$ here” KZread’s Auto generated subtitles 2019

@Dizzer1948

3 жыл бұрын

It's true i just tested it

The difference between 10-15hz changes is hard. But in CS for example 100hz vs 144hz is day and night for me though. So yes refresh rate does make a difference I'd say. People who say it doesnt idk how you can say that Even for doing work or productivity I still prefer 144hz+ because I find myself getting work done faster on 144 than 60hz

@snekku

4 жыл бұрын

It's strange 60 to 75 I can barely tell the difference in smoothness, but 75 to 100 I definitely tell. After that it's just about responsiveness to me, but very minimal.

@iiiiii7680

4 жыл бұрын

@Advocatus Diaboli it's not absurd at all, in my personal experience editing videos, moving stuff etc etc at 144hz is wayyy better than 60 and 75. And yes 144 is better than 100 as well for my work flow

I think there is a difference between guessing the refresh rate spot on and telling which is slow and fast.. And this doesn't really change from person to person; lesser the difference its harder to guess.. No one on earth can tell which monitor has 60Hz or 59Hz, but everyone who used a 120Hz monitor will tell both are slow.. Actually most of the guesses are ballpark correct. They both feel which is fast and which is slow, kind of proves high refresh rate is useful.. And the answer to the question in the title is a definite yes.

Yes, for me the jump from 60 FPS to 144 FPS felt as drastic as the jump from 30 to 60 FPS

Better test would be “Is this higher or lower than the last one?”

@jakeaustin901

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, definitely!

Honestly I was just doing some testing yesterday myself. Stuff like G-snyc with or without V-sync and maybe a FPS limiter and so on. And i just randomly tried capping my fps (tied to refresh rate because of g-sync) to 125 FPS instead of 144 FPS and even that was quite clearly noticable. Eitherway now that I'm done I'm gonna watch the video anyway. Have a good day random person reading the comments ^^

Just tested it on myself and I can only tell the difference between 100Hz and 144Hz at the desktop by seeing the cursor move, in-game I can't tell the difference, which is weird for me as I'm a *Huge* advocate of high refresh monitors, I adopted high refresh very early when 75-100Hz panels were first becoming a thing. But 60Hz to 100Hz+ is _massively_ noticeable in any scenario; it's like going from an old console (PS3 or 360) at 25-30fps to a modern PC... it's a gigantic difference.

@wendyjacob-rogers7966

4 жыл бұрын

Same here - 60 to 100 is massive, but 100 to 144 is very difficult to tell.

@dovahkiin2976

4 жыл бұрын

After you've experienced 100+FPS I think it's one of those things you just can't go back, 60FPS makes me feel dizzy and gives me eye strain after a while.

@Chrispy-mp6ch

4 жыл бұрын

Exactly this ^^^

7:23 Phil look like Big Smok in GTA SA

"9000 Hz or go home" I am home.

The sweet spot is 144Hz for your eyes and your bank account.

We've not really seen much of Phil on camera before, he's mostly been the off screen voice (or more commonly laugh). But he was a natural in this video (despite being rubbish at detecting the REFRESH rates) 😂

Also a good visual indicator, is if whether or not you see florescent lighting flickering, which has a flicker rate of 120 cycles per second or 120hz. If you see them as flickering, you'll are likely to also visually notice higher refresh rates and fps on displays. However, if for you its a constant light, then it'll be less than this.

@trparky

4 жыл бұрын

Nope, I never could see the flickering; the only way I could was if I used a high-speed camera to take a video of it. I guess I have to overclock my brain. Any suggestions? LOL

I think the important takeaway was that you both could tell that there was an increase or decrease in frames, even if you over or underestimated. Though Phil was not as consistent in that sense.

Still rocking 60HZ here. It's really noticable, but I haven't ruined it yet by trying a higher refresh rate monitor. New monitor this year is the plan, 1440p 144HZ outta be a nice upgrade!

@Lighteningskye

4 жыл бұрын

I was doing this until I bought a GPU that made me see the actual difference in my monitor. Swapped from a used 980 to a new 2060 Super and oohhh boy. Running Heaven and Superposition benchmarks showed me that NOW, my monitor's refresh rate was my bottle neck " ". Which if I'm not mistaken, Jay actually did a video on lol. So he is 2/2 for my GPU/monitor buying lessons. Thx Jay!

People who haven't experienced high refresh rates: _"You can't see more than 60Hz"_ The people who can: *_"REEEEEEE"_*

Hey Jay? What’s you’re New Years refresh rate?

@laserlaukonyt1881

4 жыл бұрын

C G *your

@eridan2421

4 жыл бұрын

Kek

I recently went from 60hz 5ms response time to 144hz 1ms and the difference was BIG

Swear to god Jay and Phil are the perfect comedic duo

What's annoying to me are the dashboard lights in cars. Looking straight at them they're fine, but when my attention's focused on the road I can see them flickering with my peripheral vision. Drives me nuts because I feel like there's a light flashing in my face.

I used a 240Hz monitor for 3 weeks with nvidia panel settings on 60Hz thinking "wow, what a diference". Then I changed it on the nvidia setting to 240hz and I was like "wow, what a difference" then i changed the refresh rate in the game and I was like "wow, what a difference". Today I watch this video and I think "wow, what a difference". I also saw my ex pictures on facebook and thought "wow, what a difference". there is no moral to the story, I just like the "look for 7 differences" books. EDIT: (plot twist) My game settings were at ultra and I was getting 80 FPS the whole time.

@K3Vz0

4 жыл бұрын

Lol

@YourPalHDee

4 жыл бұрын

This is the first actually original joke comment I've seen on KZread in about 2 years.

I find it comical how many people say they can tell the difference between a 240 and a 144 or 120. Most 240hz monitors don't actually display 240fps (more than 90% do NOT). Preferably, they use blank frames to increase color saturation. The increased color saturation allows you to pick up small details easier/faster. This is actually very common in 144hz monitors as well, where the display shows just 72 unique fps, but the color saturation makes movements and small changes on the display stand out more. Because so many dude-bros play shooters and lack understanding beyond "big number better," manufacturers of high refresh monitors market their items towards the lowest common denominator. I don't say this to be a dick. I say it bc this behavior may actually be holding back display performance improvements that may have a more immediate impact on player performance.

Having a 144Hz monitor and not being able to play above 40fps due to an ancient graphics-card, thats the lifestyle!

@partytimeninja3139

3 жыл бұрын

I share the pain.

@username_5765

3 жыл бұрын

@@partytimeninja3139 i cant even run games but i have a 165 monitor

@GiantsGraveGaming

3 жыл бұрын

I have a 4k capable gpu hooked to a 60hz display.

@username_5765

3 жыл бұрын

@@GiantsGraveGaming sad

@GiantsGraveGaming

3 жыл бұрын

@@username_5765 yeah... but 1080p at 60fps is at least decent enough for tge games i play...

I may not see the difference between 100Hz and 144Hz but I can definitely feel it.

You keep saying how you can't see the difference but you do. You just can't exactly say what frequency you're using. However, you were perfectly able to differentiate which had a higher or lower refresh rate.

I used 60hz for years. Got a 144hz gsync last year and while I didn't immediately see a noticeable difference, I played for quite awhile with it. Some time later, I think windows update changed my monitor settings to 60hz and didn't realize it at all but I could _'sense'_ something was off. Eventually noticed and changed the setting back to 144 and boom. Night and day difference. It's when my eyes adjusted to the high refresh rate, going under for the first time didn't really don on me but when it went back to normal, there it was.

If people that have the age, go back to the times of CRT monitors, the magic number was always 85HZ, because its a tad faster than 75 where the human eye normally can't detect flickering anymore. the switch from 50/60 to 75 or 85 is quite noticeable, but we really didn't have video games or the computer power to render things at 85 hz in the late 90'es anyway, so it was primarily measured for still images for people working with photoshop or DTP. I really personly believe that you are going to have a super eye sight to see any difference over 144Hz today. And all this 300+ fps crap for CSGo is only because it is such an old title that even a half decent cpu and graphics card of today can render at least 200+ fps in it. and if the fps is already higher than your monitor refresh rate its propably more a problem of sudden glitches when your PC hitches in just a few miliseconds and the PC misses the sync with the monitor. This is not a theoretically thing based on facts, so don't rip my head off if I am not perfectly right, I aint an expert. I just "think" that with todays gamers easily being able to afford at least a 120+ hz monitor in 1080p or 1440p, its more a problem of having a PC that can deliver a smooth gaming performance in "Any" game of your choice, wich is comming back to a whole other problem of having every PC out there "perfectly" optimized for gaming in several hundreds or thousends of game titles, wich is most likely impossible to achieve, so some people will always be running into problems of hardware/software not being perfectly optimized for a particulary gaming title. Just my "Two" cents ...

Is motion blur on? I can't tell with how terrible the compression is on KZread and I will admit that I skipped until I saw Phil testing. Motion blur would ruin the whole test

11:43 Can't help you there, Jay. I've been stuck at 60Hz for my entire life.

Corridor Digital sighting! I dig the hat.

No need to use games for this. Just move your mouse in Windows, or drag a window with some text in it around and you will notice it rightaway.

@rasmachris94

4 жыл бұрын

Literally a website called testufo.com that shows you the difference based on your monitor at difference refresh rates based on the monitor refresh rate. I have a 144hz monitor and heres what i see [fps values provided are based on the websites choosing]; 4.5 fps - Ufo stutters across the screen. 9fps - Ufo stutters across the screen in a stop-motion manner. 18fps - Ufo jitters back and forth quickly as it travels across the screen, akin to blurr frames in animation. 36fps - Ufo glides across the screen smoothly, but details of the ufo are completely blurred as two ufo's appear to be superimposed on top of eachother. 72fps - A single ufo glides across the screen clearly, although some details are blurred. 144fps - A completely clear and trackable ufo travels across the screen.

There's a difference between the ability to accurately guess the refresh rate, and the ability to tell if the refresh rate is faster or slower. A better test would be: "Which is a faster FPS/refresh rate: A, or B?"

@Lorten369

4 жыл бұрын

Don't you mean resolution?

@T1cksandLeeches

4 жыл бұрын

I think you mean "easier" test. Guessing the hz is more relevant considering that is a main selling point for high end gaming monitors. Faster or slower would be too easy to tell and offer no data as a result

@Cionaoith

4 жыл бұрын

@@T1cksandLeeches The question posed is whether the human eye can see a difference in refresh rates. The answer to that question has nothing to do with accurately guessing the hz. Can you see a difference between 120hz and 144hz? It seemed that they were both able to see the difference, even if they couldn't guess the hz.

I feel you set this test up very poorly, making it much harder than it could be, just to support your own personal theory that you've "been saying for years", that you personally can't tell a difference past 100hz. But you can, and you did. Almost all of your guesses were only 1 step off. I can easily tell a difference between two different refresh rates in certain games and imagery, and in others it is much harder. You should have set it to one of the rates, eg 120hz, let the user know what speed it is, and play with it for a minute. Then set it to either 1 step up above (144), 1 step below (100hz), or the same without the user knowing. Then ask if it is faster, slower, or the same. Do this at all of the different stages. This would be much more effective at proving both your own personal theory that the difference between 60 and 75 is easier to detect, and that higher rates are harder to detect. I bet you the success rate would be dramatically higher. I can definitely tell a slight difference between two speeds, but if I am just blindly guessing out of 6 different options, after only looking at it for a few seconds... that would be extremely difficult. Also the game you chose, that scenery is very busy in some of these clips. Do something like dust2 on csgo, with a dark object in the foreground of a plain, light background with out any excess business like a bunch of grass that will just blend together anyways. The increased blurring and choppiness of a lower rate becomes much more obvious with an extreme amount of contrast / hard edges in imagery that is fairly simple or not busy.

@shawnpitman876

4 жыл бұрын

Except you're a fucking moron, because doing that makes it a 50/50 chance of people being right just by random chance, not to mention you're allowing people to use DEDUCTIVE REASONING to find their answer, rather than ACTUALLY BEING ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE. Go get a fucking brain, you clearly have no fucking idea how to run an experiment.

Long time CS player and you can 100% feel the difference , a really good resolution test to to grab a window like CMD or browser and move it around the screen rapidly. It's a easy and good way to illustrate how quick the monitor is able to refresh. There are so many variables when testing in games, not to mention a lot going on in any one scene or area of the game that can hide the refresh rate behind natural spikes/dips in FPS.

I can tell a huge difference between 240 and 165. I jumped from 60 to 240 and the smoothness is just unrealistic, greater than real life lmao

@91niemela

4 жыл бұрын

went from 60 to 144 with my own monitor. like night and day

I think the monitor market really missed the opportunity to take advantage of a high-end sweetspot in 1800p 90Hz. It's got noticeably more pixels than 1440p, while also noticeably more fluid than 60Hz. It's also approximately the same pixels per second as 4K so a machine that can run 4K should also be able to run 1800/90 assuming CPU is not bottlenecked. The gaps between 1440p and 4K as well as 60Hz and 120(144)Hz are both pretty large. It only makes sense to find the middle ground in between.

@irrrregularthegreat

4 жыл бұрын

Agree.

More Phil, please! The two of you together... awesome. Loved the furniture joke.

Why are all comments so recent? Did we all j see this video in our home feed

@jacksourbeck7998

4 жыл бұрын

Honestly idk

@Mac-ox7ow

4 жыл бұрын

Jack Sourbeck creeping me out tbh

@DannyGryphon

4 жыл бұрын

he has comments sorted by newest first

@Utshaw

4 жыл бұрын

I got it on home feed

@Apex-zl5sw

4 жыл бұрын

yea KZread suggested me to watch this

Switched from 75hz to 144hz recently. I was dumb enough to not unlock the 75hz short before the change so I had it running at 60hz before. The switch from 60 to 75 felt as big as the switch from 75 to 144 honestly

When I went from a 60hz monitor to a 100hz monitor, it not only looked different but it also felt different. Then a few years later I upgraded again to 144hz and could still see and feel the difference! And then I played on my friends 240hz monitor, and... I couldn't see or feel any difference from 144hz to 240hz.

@Nebujin383

4 жыл бұрын

Yea, because 60Hz to 144Hz is like 2.4x as smooth, but 144Hz to 240Hz is simply "only" 1.6x as smooth, but the difference is still there. You can see that excellently on high-speed cams, in case your eye cant catch the difference in action. kzread.info/dash/bejne/popsspiNZde6idY.html

@scarkillerful

3 жыл бұрын

@@Nebujin383 That's the thing. You can see the difference on high-speed footage. You have eyes, not a slow motion camera sensor. You basically just said that you need a slow motion camera to see the difference between 144Hz and 240Hz. I'm not saying that you can't see the difference if you compare 144Hz side-by-side with 240Hz, but that's the thing - you're not playing a game whilst actively comparing refresh rates side-by-side. You pick a refresh rate that looks smooth enough to you, and you stick to it. Your brain isn't going to care if it looks at a refresh rate of 144Hz or higher.

@Nebujin383

3 жыл бұрын

@@scarkillerful you misunderstood me there, prolly because of my bad english.

Good on-screen vibe with both of you guys talking. Need more Phil in videos

What I would do (and actually have done at home with some friends or family members to put this argument to an end) is the following: Most screen capture softwares can throttle the framerate once you hit record. I put people in front of a racing game, let them put on headphones, then I attach another keyboard and stand behind them. That way they cannot hear or see if I press the record button, and you can disable the FPS counter or the record hint in those programs on screen. I first used that to dismantle the "there is no difference between 60 or 30fps" claim. I set refresh rate to 60, and told them they should tell me once they preceive a difference. I specifically said PERCEIVE. Not see. Thus including feeling, aka if it feels sluggish. All of them felt the change once I hit the record button, which I did mostly around corners because that is where you feel it the most. I also did the test in reverse, so starting with the lower framerate and then switch to higher. All of them felt it too. Then I proceeded to start at the highest refresh rate (144Hz) and went down to 60 at random and ask them if they can feel the difference, then repeated the test with incremental caps on the framerate. For some of the folks from age 50 to 60, they had to do more guesswork on anything around 80fps, but most others could tell that there was a difference between 80 and 144. Between 100 and 144 the results continued to deviate more into guesswork. I would have liked to repeat that test to see if they ( and I, for that matter) can feel the drop from 240 to 144, but I don't have such a screen and as long as I don't have such a screen, it's pointless to make a video about the entire analogy. And I would need a bigger sample size of people. I'm sad that grandma is no longer alive to participate in that test. She was an avid Mario Kart player and liked the other racing games I showed her too and was a very tech curious person herself. I would guess she definitely would have felt a difference between 60 and 30, and likely also between 144 and 60. Bottom line is: Yes, some people have a slower perception than others, and yes it deteriorates with age, for some faster for some slower. 60Hz is still not satisfying for a proper experience. Even on desktop office duty a 120Hz will benefit you due to less eye strain and smoother experience. As for games: It largely depends on the type of game. Some will let you get away with slower framerater due to being slower paced than others.

@refuze4k

4 жыл бұрын

You're fucking genius man, this was fun read! :D

Eyes don't see in frame rate. Eyes process the continuous stream of light hitting the retina continuously. Our eyes/brains however are not trained exactly determine the frame rate. . An easier controlled test is setting your screen to black with a white mouse pointer. Now super quickly flick your mouse from left to right. Now what you'll notice is that you can see multiple mouse cursors along the path the pointer has moved. Each one representing a frame. The gaps in between is where the mouse DID move but NO frame was rendered since it moved too fast. Y . our eyes/brain however are so fast we can perceive that gap easily. As long as you can see this gap you have not reached the capacity of what your brain can visually process. . Now as a reference we need a real life example to correlate to. So grab something small and hold it. Find a contrasting plain background like a white wall, Now quickly flick the object from left to right and back. Notice how you can see a stream/blur of the object? I';s because our brain and eyes can track the whole motion without any "missed frames" in between. . There is actually an upper limit to this. Because for example we can't see a bullet fly without the assistance of a high speed camera(well it depends). . So the question is more: How fast an object can we see at what distance. And how many frames/second would it take to replicate a perfectly smooth motion of such an object on a pc. . Now we're looking at thousands if not millions of frames. And yes WE CAN perceive it. Although our brains are not wired to say. "Hey! Thats exactly 156.55fps!" Our brains however do use and take that information.

people that don‘t see a difference between 60hz and 144hz ... ouch.

@JohnYcZ98

4 жыл бұрын

well blind people...

@ahmedk4532

4 жыл бұрын

Then you need to visit a doctor

Sadly you loose science points for giving the answer in the moment, thus influencing their following decisions. Should have offered 5 different refresh rates and ask them to be labelled. Reveal the correct refresh rates after.

My display is a 60 Hz panel, and it's something I've increasingly noticed. It is a nice big one with a 1080p native resolution, good for doing my work on and good for other general computing uses, but I'm noticing those frames in games. Got to think about upgrading, I think.

i can absolutely tell the difference between 144 and 240 my monitor got set down to 144 without me realising for a week, and i spent the whole week playing r6s and csgo thinking damn something feels really bad this feels a bit sluggish. Its not huge but its definitely noticeable. the test they're doing here would be hard tho, as identifying a refresh rate when its random is hard but if they had each of the monitors in a line you could absolutely order them from highest to lowest

Take a drink everytime Jay screws up resolution and refresh rate

I am fine with 60Hz. I can see if it's higher when I am actually thinking about the refresh rate, but after a few minutes of gametime I don't pay any attention at my refresh rate if there is no obvious FPS drop.

@h1tzzYT

4 жыл бұрын

Same man, i had various refresh rate monitors, from 60 to 144 and after having 144hz panel for 4 years im no longer interested in high refresh gaming as it is way too demanding from your cpu and gpu. Currently have 4k 60hz 32 inch screen and it is one of the best upgrades in 5 years or so, since i upgraded from core 2 quad to i5 4670k. Refresh rates are very subjective imo and people who shames people who are fine with 60hz panels needs to realize this.

Just dragging a file explorer window around is a great way to see how smooth it is. I have 4K 60 Hz and 2K 155 Hz extended displays and it is light night and day on how smooth all of the motions are.

So we are looking for 1080Hz at 100x75 resolution?

Console Players: ALL OF THEM ARE 30FPS!

@hueys_stitches

4 жыл бұрын

rip console players

@zayk6713

4 жыл бұрын

Except they are not

@abdielalfonso4556

4 жыл бұрын

Some games are 60fps which is decent tho.

You guys need to do this with games that are esports based. Try this with Apex Legends, Overwatch, Counter Strike go. Its 100% easy to spot the difference. I was blown away that I was able to tell the difference between 75-144 in overwatch and Apex Legends fairly easy. I tried with battlefield and it was a tad harder to tell for some reason.

@reverb765

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah I can't even play cs on anything less than 120 now. Feels way too choppy. Other games are fine though and I typically don't notice unless it drops below 100

75 htz is what i overclocked my monitor to. It really is the sweet spot. It's SOO much smoother. But there are more benifits to a high refresh rate than being able to tell the difference. less flickering, less headaches, less eye strain. And games will look smooth, and feel smoother to you. Even if it's not something you feel within a few seconds of playing. Put them side by side and you'll pick the smoothest. Also of course competitive shooters love high refresh.

thing is you CAN both tell the difference. At least you have a feel for generally which refresh rates were slower or faster

This dude lowkey built like big chungus

Incrementally, not much. But when i jump from 60 to 144, that's whole new world

I did a test for 30hz, 50hz, 60hz, 75hz, 90hz, 100hz, 120hz and 144hz. I noticed the differences around every 50% ish jump +. 30 to 60 hz was night and day 60 to 90 hz was night and day 90 to 144 hz was night and day. everything that was with in 10 to 15 hz wasn't that noticeable.... 30 hz was just unplayable for me. 60 hz was OK. my eyes seen more of frame smoothness the higher hz I went, and my aim improved more and more the higher hz I went.

I love when Phil is in front of the camera. When Jay and Phil are both in front of the camera it really is a lot more fun.

I just bought the vg248qe last week, it's a whole new world. There's no way I can go back to 60hz now 😆😆

@antiHUMANDesigns

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah, you get spoiled by it. I have 100hz, right now, and it's barely enough. :( (3440x1440 ultrawide)

Google caption said Jay's $0.02 I am satisfied.

I get this recommended 6 months after this video airing.

Just saw this one, and happened to see Linus' test with the eSports gamers, and it just confirms something I've believed all along. I used to teach classes in building computers and I would constantly advise against buying 'state of the art'. When you run two PCs, side by side, running the same application, and you need a benchmark to see the difference... then there *ain't* one. Buy the cheaper one of the two. Now we're doing the same thing with monitor frame rates. Pushing higher and higher frame rates is mostly a marketing thing. If experienced gamers have trouble telling the difference *side by side*, then why are we throwing money at this? When the difference is *that* small, then you're wasting your money on the faster refresh rates.

@puru7976

2 жыл бұрын

I agree when it comes to differences of 10-15, especially on refresh rates under 120. But once you go above 120, I don't think there's a point in saving your money because if you're planning on upgrading anyways, what's the point in buying the cheaper one if you're only getting it so you can buy the more expensive one in the future.

@gs-nq6mw

Жыл бұрын

I don't know, I overclocked my old monitor from 60 yo 75hz and noticed something different, it looked smoother and more satisfyingly to use, but I'm not sure if this was the placebo effect acting

@SilentSputnik

2 ай бұрын

The difference between 60-144 is not small. It's massive. 144-360 is not small either. It's very noticeable.

I worked in an optical laboratory for years. The human eye can absolutely see the difference, you will struggle to be able to determine the difference mentally/consciously (and even this will be different day to day past a certain point). You will absolutely see the difference, and the amount of information the brain is able to process changes depending on circumstances (physiology, tiredness, stress, adrenaline, training). Every time I see the refresh rate and resolutions discussion come up I long for a full on scientific experiment (damn you linus -shakes fist-) Fun video regardless though :)

@ALLMAPEOPLE

4 жыл бұрын

@B ok boomer

@XDbored1

4 жыл бұрын

a big reason why there is so much disinformation all the high refreshrate monitors are capped by there response time since LCD monitors take a long time to turn the pixels on and they cannot display motion with only black pixels so one person will have a monitor with a refreshrate of X playing some game where the response time is only good enough to display a motion rate of Y because the pixels cannot turn on fast enough and they will think i cannot tell the difference between X refreshrate and Y refreshrate so the Human eye must not be able to see more then Y fps

@XDbored1

4 жыл бұрын

the advertised response time averages the pixel on time and the pixel off time across all the pixels on the display but LCDs turn pixels off very fast and some pixels are much slower then others so the advertised value is always much faster then the true average motion rate displayable by the display when most of the pixels have slowly turned on so you can see them and much much faster then the slowest motion rate displayed by the slowest pixel on the display pixel off time is a mostly useless number for determining the motion rate of a display compared to pixel on time since a screen of only black pixels cannot display motion while a screen of fully on pixels could still display motion by changing colour

I can tell the diff between 144 and 100 (my two monitors), but JUST BARELY. If I was looking at an 120 Hz screen I probably could not tell if it's 144, 120 or 100... but the jump itself from 100 to 144 (and back) is noticeable to me. Anything below is sluggish, when the display accidentally jumps back to 60 for whatever reason I immediately know something is wrong.

Playing the different refresh rates is not the way to test if the EYE can see the difference. Playing is how you FEEL the difference. If you want to test if the eye alone can see it, then test someone watching gameplay, without playing it. And I mean actual gameplay, not just wiggling the mouse around for 30 seconds. If the question of this video was whether or not a person could FEEL the difference, then the answer is YES. Just because they couldn't guess the Hz exactly, they could feel there was a difference of faster or slower.

@alessioantinoro5713

4 жыл бұрын

I think this is the best comment

@tomholy

4 жыл бұрын

Not quite on topic but related. A few years back I played some games on my new 42 inch 1080p TV and I sat as close as I could to get the immersion. Just sitting watching the screen I could clearly see the pixels and for me, that would just be so annoying. However, when I played a game from the exact same position, I did not notice pixels at all. It was a smooth continuous experience. So Vizn, I agree with you that playing a game gives a different experience compared to using non game testing procedures. After all, we are living breathing humans and not a test rig.

@dshaprin

4 жыл бұрын

Yes and I think that this is exactly the case. I cannot see the difference in frame rate during cinematics, but I defenetly feel it during gameplay. And I am not talking about prerendered cinematics.

If you're playing around with different refresh rates or other monitor stuff, testufo.com has some great demos/tests, including the same moving image at your monitor's current refresh rate as well as 1/2 and 1/4 the current. Note that Windows will be running at 60Hz by default in browser even on a 144 Hz (or higher) monitor unless you manually change in the refresh rate at (In Windows 10) Display Settings, Advanced, Display Adapter Properties, /Monitor\ tab at the top of resulting window, screen refresh rate dropdown.

Should have added a 165hz and 240hz, maybe in a part 2 or something. Just an idea.

People watching this video on a 60hz monitor claiming "I can see the difference when watching the 144hz part!" ... Reminds me of old television commercials, there you are watching on a black and white tv when an advertisement for color televisions pops up "Just look at that amazing color!".

Been using a Benq XL2420T 120hz since 2012 and can tell if a monitor has low refresh. At 120hz+ even windows feels smoother.

I would like to see this experiment again, but arranging the refresh rates first into groups (for example like in 3 colours: blue for 50, 60 and 75. Green for 100 and 120hz, Red for 144hz and 244hz(?)). Then take 3 groups of ppl. One that doesn't game at all, one that play for fun and one of pro players. Then the non gamers test a game at 3 different refresh rates and then they choose the colors. That should be enough to see if they can identify a difference among those refresh rates. The casual gamers should first do the colors and then the refresh rate identification. Pro gamers go directly for the refresh rate numbers.

Human eye only downloads 1.21 gigawatts per nanosecond

I can see the difference between 30 and 60, 60 and 120, 120 and 144 is where it gets harder

Hey, Jay. Your hand writing is actually pretty awesome.

My 144 monitor has ruined me. I get headaches at less than 60, and my phone looks like it stutters so much I can’t stand it.

@HOkayson

4 жыл бұрын

Haha, welcome to my world! I got the Razer Phone purely because it's a 120Hz screen, all 60Hz phone screens look like juddery crap to me now! The 90Hz phones are good enough though imho, not as good, but good enough.

@astroslap

4 жыл бұрын

get a oneplus 7 pro

@astroslap

4 жыл бұрын

or the new asus rog phone

@aldaverj5780

4 жыл бұрын

Same, I wish i could enjoy playing at below 80fps again for demanding games so I don't have to upgrade

motion blur should be off, this is stupid

i can tell a small difference between feel on 100 and 144 on games that i have alot of time in, but most others 100 is about where i stop noticing

Lot of recency bias here when you're jumping huge ranges. Go back to a control refresh rate and you can notice them.

Brace yourself for "The human eye can't see more than 24/30 fps" Bullshit.

@TheMamaluigi300

4 жыл бұрын

Axel Vargas Actually, 15

@smklvr69

4 жыл бұрын

@Axel Vargas actually a gamer, someone who constantly games and has a keen eye for it can tell. I can tell if and when a game is running at 30fps,60fps,and 120fps. Very noticeably different with smoother rendering and refresh rate on a good monitor and also my little brother has motion sickness (cybersickness) and he can't play games at anything higher than 30fps because he starts to get dizzy and vomits if it's at 60+. To an untrained eye (a non true gamer) they wouldnt notice the difference but run your xbox one x on something like forza 4 or forza 7 per say on 30fps non 4k then run it at 4k 60fps and if you cant tell the difference, then you're not a gamer or "enthusiast".

Love this vid. You showed what I spent 45 minutes arguing with a friend about. I have a 144 monitor but could not tell jack after 100hz and I was the one setting the refresh rate!

After over a year with a 144hz monitor I can confidently say that I'm happy as long as it stays over 60fps.

One of the best ways to see the difference of low to higher refresh rates is the difference of the ghosting / blur effect in a racing game / simulator, if you run consistent laps it's easy to see the difference in motion and ghosting / blurring looking to the sides especially with a 3 monitor setup that has a wide FOV.

Basically he sees the difference from faster to slower, but the actual refresh rate is difficult to guess.

@Liniarkable

4 жыл бұрын

It's because you lack a sens of scale for such a thing.... it's like the temperature.... you can feel wether something is colder or hotter.... but you'll never be able to tell the real temperature numbers...

@chrisrosenkreuz23

4 жыл бұрын

@@Liniarkable you could with repetition over time and specific acknowledgement. Like for instance if someone made you aware of a degree shift in temperature or 12 hz shift in refresh rate... The problem is the association of the occurance of change in a quality with a different perceived quantity. With a lack of this data the subject is technically incapable of making a correct assessment.