>Which is the right choice

No damn it, it's not!

Everyone I know can immediately see a clear difference between 120 ppi and 200 ppi, but I've yet to encounter anyone who can reliably tell 120hz from 200hz. We have monitors that render lego-sized pixels at 500+ hz now, it's enough.

Gamers have been gaslit to believe they have the reflexes of spider-man and are a lost cause, but their preferences have been listened to by monitor makers for 30 years. Enough already!

Millions of office workers are working all day reading text on screens optimized for playing games at low resolutions. It's just sad.

Steve Jobs showed a decade ago that 4x resolution could be sold at great profit for normal prices. Text on screens can be as crisp as on paper.

Sadly it only became the standard on phones, not on productivity desktop monitors. It so easily could be, and it should be.

I've recently gone from 60hz to 240hz to 480hz. Refresh rate in games is not just about what it looks like. It completely changes game mechanics, like movement, recoil etc. It is such a big difference between 60hz and 240hz that you're not really playing the same game. There are things you can do at 240hz that are impossible at 60hz. At 480hz, there's also so much more time to react, so you really don't need fast reflexes to take advantage of it.