| |
| ▲ | mrob 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It makes it easier to treat the computer as part of your own body, allowing operation without conscious thought, as you would a pencil or similar hand tool. | |
| ▲ | tuetuopay 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Outside of gaming, not much. However, now that I'm used to a 144Hz main monitor, there is no world where I would get back. You just feel the difference. So basically, no use when you've not tasted 120+Hz displays. And don't because once you do, you won't go back. | | |
| ▲ | bogwog 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I have a 165hz display that I use at 60hz. Running it at max speed while all I'm doing is writing code or browsing the web feels like a waste of electricity, and might even be bad for the display's longevity. But for gaming, it really is hard to go back to 60. | | |
| ▲ | tuetuopay 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Mine supports variable refresh rate, which means for most desktops tasks (I.e when nothing is moving), it runs at 48Hz. Incredibly, Linux has better support than windows for it on the desktop: DWM runs full blast, while sway supports VRR on the desktop. Windows will only enable it for games (and games that support it). Disclaimer: Wayland compositor required. It’s not enabled by default on e.g. sway because on some GPU and monitor combos, it can make the display flicker. But if you can, give it a try! | | |
| ▲ | jasomill 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Windows 11 idles at around 60 Hz in 120 Hz modes on my VRR ("G-SYNC Compatible") display when the "Dynamic refresh rate" option is enabled, and supports VRR for applications other than games (e.g., fullscreen 24 FPS video playback runs at 48 Hz* via VRR rather than mode switching, even with "Dynamic refresh rate" disabled). * The minimum variable refresh rate my display (LG C4) supports is 40 Hz. | |
| ▲ | bogwog 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I use KDE + Nvidia, and last I looked into it, it only worked if you had one monitor enabled. That's fine for gaming, not for working. But it has been a while since I've tried it, maybe I should look into it again |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | TacticalCoder 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > What use is there in display frame rates above 60 fps? On a CRT monitor the difference between running at 60 Hz and even a just slightly better 72 Hz was night and day. Unbearable flickening vs a much better experience. I remember having some little utility for Windows that'd allow the display rate to be 75 (not 72 but 75). Under Linux I was writing modelines myself (these were the days!) to have the refresh rate and screen size (in pixels) I liked: I was running "weird" resolutions like 832x604 @ 75 Hz instead of 800x600 @ 60 Hz, just to gain a little bit more screen real estate and better refresh rate. Now since monitors started using flat panels: I sure as heck have no idea if 60 fps vs 120 fps or whatever change anything for a "desktop" usage. I don't think the problem of the image fading too quickly at 60 Hz that CRT had is still present. But I'm not sure about it. | |
| ▲ | Tade0 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I, for one, lose track of the mouse way less often at 165Hz. | | |
|
