That's absolutely not true. I can tell the difference between 60 hz (16ms) and my 144 hz monitor. I can tell when my 144 hz monitor is accidentally running at a lower refresh rate, including 120, 100, 75, and 60.
200 ms is like a full react/response time for a human to take action in response to input, our actual sense of time is much finer than what our nervous system can make our muscles do.
Good monitor reviews include a test of the delay. 3 frames delay (<100 ms at 60hz) is absolutely atrocious and easily detected by players in games.
But of course, that's not the problem. It's ok that the phone doesn't unlock with out me noticing the delay. It just can't be so long that I start doubting whether it works.
Yes. You'd feel quite drunk even controlling the mouse pointer with 100ms lag. This was/is actually a problem with some LCDs (VA in particular) that cached a frame or two in order to "anticipate" future changes so that they could adjust the voltage and make the image transition faster.
This overdrive is probably also the cause of burn-in-effects that seems to be especially common in VA panels.
Is that because of the faster refresh rate, or because none of those divide evenly into 144 and thus you're getting weird frame stretching?
Curious as I just got back into gaming after several years and everyone seems to love 144fps now, wondering if I should upgrade. I have a 1080Ti, so I could presumably render that
Ah, I was just wondering if running a 144hz monitor at 60hz was like watching a 24fps movie at 30fps... if that makes sense? But the monitor can just switch its actual refresh rate.
200 ms is like a full react/response time for a human to take action in response to input, our actual sense of time is much finer than what our nervous system can make our muscles do.