Title says it all (i have turned on 165hz on settings). Its a cheap monitor, do some 165hz monitors not truly give you that experience? Or are my eyes fucked
Try the UFO test. https://www.testufo.com/
If you still can’t see the difference there may be a setting on the monitor or PC preventing you from seeing it.
I’ve never seen any difference with the top two with that test. My monitor is 144hz and TBH I might as well have saved my money and got 60Hz ones.
We’re not all hardcore gamers trained to see miniscule differences.
Humans can see a single solid color frame changing at 1000 fps. So if you don’t notice a difference between 60 and 165 fps something isn’t working. It’s not your eyes.
Seeing a solid color frame change is completely different from the minor changes generally occurring per frame, especially in media such as movies and games which are continuous.
The Hobbit movies at 48 instead of 24 fps still looked much smoother and better.
Yup, while I do see the point some people make about it breaking the immersion of film for being too fluid (everybody has their preferences) it definitely WAS more fluid.
I will say though that when I first moved from 60-144hz I wasn’t blown away by the change either. Things seemed a bit smoother maybe but not that big a deal. It wasn’t until I accidentally went back to 60 that something felt horribly wrong. I can ABSOLUTELY see the difference now and for some reason I had to get acclimated.
The problem with the movie was that a lot of TV watching people see it as a “soap opera effect” because those are shot in 60 fps. So they don’t like it and want a “cinematic” feel.
For me who doesn’t usually watch TV it was glorious. Yes, you notice every tiny mistake on the screen at 48 fps, but it actually feels real. Like that’s a real dwarf there talking with an elf for example. More lifelike if you get what I mean? It’s a damn shame you can’t buy the movies with HFR :-/
Well, 144hz has more than one benefit. You get a smoother image output of course, but also less input lag (seeing actions you take faster on the screen). But switching between the two is very obvious usually, even when just moving around a window on the desktop.
I vastly preferred them in 24 fps, they looked awful in 48 fps to me.
Your usecase may be different, but I am usually not required to catch solid color frames in my day to day computer use.
The difference shouldn’t be miniscule, though. If you’ve never been able to see a difference, my money’s on not setting the refresh rate in Windows. It’s not automatic.
It’s mostly marketing. Films are perfect at 24fps and gamer bros think they can see framerates ten times that.
Really? Movies at 24 fps are tolerable because we’re used to it and there’s a lot of motion blur, but any motion or panning shot still looks incredibly jerky. You have to get way up into the 100s of fps before you hit diminishing returns of smoothness, and even then it’s still noticeable.
deleted by creator
You dont have to be a hardcore gamer to see the difference. A lot of people who use phones see the difference 90/120hz makes over 60.
Do you have it enabled in Windows under display settings tho? It sounds like you aren’t actually having it enabled. Other possibility is that your monitor has very low response time and everything blurs.
I’m not sure it it’s possible to not see a difference in refresh rate jump this big until about 160Hz.
Cool, I’ve never seen this before. Thanks!
It’s wildly obvious if you grab a window and drag it around. Try having the settings on 60 and dragging it around when you change it to 165; it’s very glaringly obvious.
I thought you were talking about physical windows for a sec. Made no sense. I’m an idiot.
Please stop carrying huge glass panels around for no reason, that’s not a safe thing to do.
Lol. But I’m not done with my tests!
What works best for me is simply moving the cursor quickly in a circle. On a higher refresh display, you’ll see much more “ghost” cursors at the same time.
I’d make sure you don’t have any display boost stuff going on your monitor, ghosting isn’t a feature it’s a bug
For me the difference was immediately noticeable. Even back in the old days I had to have at least a 75 Hertz monitor because 60 Hertz was slow enough that I could see the flicker pulse of the screens.
I will say I can’t notice much of an improvement from 144 Hertz to 165 and I haven’t had the chance to see a 240 yet, but anything under 75 is essentially unusable for me
I did that, I cant tell, iv had this problem on Linux and windows so its not an is issue either
What cable and interface are you using?
DP 1.4 i think, anyways i had checked it can handle 1080p 165hz
Haven’t read the entire thread so apologies if you’ve already provided this information but could you show us a picture of your monitor’s osd with the input source information? That should tell you right there that your input device isn’t sending out what you desire.
Also if you don’t have a >144hz option in your os’s display options, try disconnecting any other monitors you have plugged in.
Yeah I checked, it works, did a lil test with the cursor and there’s visibly more images on my 165hz one, I think it just has bad eno7gh smearing that it doesn’t work properly
Have you configured your OS to use a higher refresh rate in monitor settings? The difference is night and day…
It should be wildly obvious just moving your mouse across the screen. Maybe your graphics adapter has an issue and isn’t properly setting the mode?
You’re only going to notice if the thing playing goes up to 165fps. If you’re, say, watching a movie or video you won’t notice anything because there’s nothing to notice.
Play a game that you can get really high FPS in (maybe Half Life 1 which a modern machine should have no trouble getting 300+). Limit it to 60. Check it out. Then go up to 144. Then 165.
Also if you have an nVidia GPU, it may not be setting the refresh rate properly. I constantly have this issue with driver updates resetting it back to 30hz on my machine. You gotta go into the Nvidia control panel, find the display settings and scroll down somewhere toward the bottom is a refresh rate setting. Change that to the highest your display can use.
An addendum to this, the jump between 60 and 120 is not as noticeable outside of dynamic movement so even though you may see a slight difference when looking, unless you use M+K it won’t feel that big. With mouse and keyboard quick mouse adjustments should feel smoother. And this isn’t a knock on FPS over 60, just that the difference between 30 and 60 can feel very big when you snap between them
Let’s not forget that the industry always likes to exxagerate with the goal to sell… IMO refresh rate is the latest victim of “bigger number is BETTER!” marketing.
You almost certainly have the settings screwed up. Your eyes worked have to be royally fucked to not see a 60 to 165 jump.
You may have to set the refresh rate manually to go higher than 60hz. Things should look much smoother.
Run ‘xrandr -q’ and see if it gives you multiple refresh rates for your displays.
Also, what GPU are you using?
RX 6600 on fedora 38 (a extension I like isn’t on 39 yet)
Is your monitor plugged into your GPU, as opposed to the plug on your motherboard (which would go to your integrated graphics on your CPU, if it’s supported)?
No its plugged into the gpu
How are you testing? You can run the UFO test for a quick and dirty comparison: https://www.testufo.com/
More subjectively, you could load up a game you know well and start it at 30FPS. Wave your mouse around a bit looking for blurring or artefacting, then step it up to test 60, 90, 120, etc to see if you can tell the difference.
When you say “settings”, did you check the settings on the monitor menus too? And in your graphics card settings, outside the game?
What cable is connecting your monitor to your PC?
I’ve done UFO, and the top one looks a bit nicer IG? Might be placebo. Fanes are much the smae, I think theres a difference but I’m not sure
I’ll tell you the other info when I get home
Is it possible that there are ghosting issues with the panel? I had a 120hz monitor at work at one point that had ghosting issues so bad it made it look barely any better than a 60hz panel. Going from 60hz to 120hz+ should definitely be noticeable to most people
That’s my current theory, BC that monitor is a super cheap acer monitor
If its a cheap VA panel and not an IPS one, the chances of smear is fairly high
I can’t remember the model, but it was the cheapest monitor (hrr) I could find at the time
I’ll never forget when I went from 60hz to 165hz, everything seemed so fluid and smooth. I couldn’t imagine going back.
deleted by creator
How old are you? I’m nearing 40 and can’t see the difference between 60 and 120 on my phone
Whip the mouse back and forth quickly, it’s the only time it’s visible really.
Also gaming…
I am totally with you. I have had a 144Hz monitor for 2 years now. I am 100% sure that everything was configured correctly and I could spot some small differences in the UFO test. But other than that I do not feel any differences in day-to-day activities or games. Windows reset my frequency settings occasionally, but I never noticed it.
I have used https://github.com/Nixola/VRRTest before to check the refresh frequency. I use X11 and wanted to check if my 144Hz monitors work with my older 60Hz one. Set the test mode to squares and the frame rate to twice your monitor’s refresh rate. You should see every second square light up. If this is not the case, play around with the frame rate in the program until every second square lights up.
I can’t see the difference either though. Yes, the mouse moves a bit quicker if I pay attention to it. But I do not care or notice, to be honest.
I’m also unable to see the difference directly, but everything just feels more snappy. If you can’t feel it, maybe you have some extra latency from somewhere else
