Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmytroi | Hacker News Reader

FWIW tried testufo [0] with Samsung G7, 240Hz vs 144Hz was very noticeable on image and text scrolling tests. I guess for a person who never seen 240Hz it would be hard to identify it in a blind test, but after you've seen how the images/text looks like in scrolling, it's trivially identifiable.

- [0] testufo.com

View on HN

But that's the point. If in a blind test you can't tell the difference, then there is very little to no perceptible difference.

If testufo was randomized with multiple repeating patterns and random offsets, it could be a much better test. Here you can accidentally bias yourself.

240 is not evenly divisible by 144. Curious to know if 240 vs 120 Hz is more or less noticeable on a 240 Hz monitor than 240 vs 144 Hz on a 240 Hz monitor.

With games as long as you have good enough hardware to run the game at a steady frame rate you want it being divisible by some magic number does not matter. Also the old "standard" Hz for games is 60hz so going to 120 and then to 240 is the "natural" steps.

The old 144hz goal was/is nice if you want to display 24fps (movies) content but games don't work like that. They display correctly without any judder/pulldown at whatever frame rate you want (as long as you have the hardware to run it at that rate)

> 240 is not evenly divisible by 144.

Sounds like the beginning of a sales pitch for a 720 Hz display. :-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com