PC Gaming

8573 readers

349 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

Be Respectful.
No Spam or Porn.
No Advertising.
No Memes.
No Tech Support.
No questions about buying/building computers.
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

266

This is not a typo: The world's fastest gaming monitor may well be this ancient IIyama CRT unit, pushed [modded] to 700 Hz at a glorious 120p resolution (www.pcgamer.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] prime_number_314159 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I wanted to know how important this really would be. Human reaction times among gamers are on the order of 150-300 ms, and professional gamers mostly manage 150-200 ms. A view refreshing 700 times per second gives a new frame every 1.4 ms, while a view refreshing 60 times per second gives a new frame every 16.6 ms.

In a reaction timing heavy game, this would not be enough to bridge the gap between the fastest in the world and the slowest professionals, but it's on the right order of magnitude to make a difference in professional level play, up against a 60 Hz display. On the other hand, it's only a marginal step up from a 240 Hz display, and the loss in resolution must have an effect at some point.

There's probably games where this is better, but only when the difference is small, or the other display is handicapped.

[–] big_slap 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

so, i have a 280hz monitor. my reaction time is awful compared to others I know, but it just feels smoother and more pleasurable to use for games that support a higher refresh rate.

I don't think framrate is tied to reactions. if that was the case, I think most of the popular fighting games (sf6, tekken 8, mk1) wouldn't be capped at 60fps.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Higher refresh rate has great applications, but the competitive crowd swears up and down that it makes a big difference. I've had a 240hz monitor and I couldn't tell any meaningful difference from my 165hz.

[–] big_slap 2 points 3 months ago

I think once you get into the 200s, you start getting diminishing returns. I'll probably stick with my 280hz, but I'm super curious as to what higher refresh rates feel like

[–] LwL 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think there's a lot of placebo involved, but it does make a difference in games with direct competition. If 2 people in CS headshot each other, even being 1ms faster can flip the outcome in some cases. I can definitely see why you'd just want as fast as possible.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

In multiplayer games, having a low ping is more important than refresh rate.

[–] LwL 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yes, but it's not a factor at for example lan tournaments. It's just a compounding number anyway. Ping can easily be sub 20 ms even online, then the up to 12ms (average 6ms) difference between 60 and 240hz is more significant than further ping reduction.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think they're capped at 60 fps specifically to prevent people who have better hardware from having an advantage.

[–] big_slap 1 points 3 months ago

I had to look it up cause I was curious, and according to this article, the frame data for a character is tied closely to the framerate and not because better hardware means bigger advantage... unless I missed that mentioned in the article