• prime_number_314159@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • sparkle@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

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

        • big_slap@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 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