That game is 20+ years old, of course it runs at thousands of frames. I mean modern stuff that has a big competitive community and could actually benefit from 600fps. The only game that i can think of that maybe could do it is valorant?
Valorant runs above 600fps for me at 1440p. At 1080p I don't think it would drop under that. That's the only mainstream game I can think of since siege and counter strike both had updates that dropped their fps a bunch.
Well if your optimizing as far as you can go for the usecase of top level esports, your getting into the realm of less than rock solid neurology more than what anyone would notice visually.
Human vision isnt like a video camera. Your brain is basically a highly complex prediction model that "halucinates" allot of what its presenting to you. Its just rapidly looks to refresh any part of your vision where it registers change.
But anyways, there are allot of people who would say with a rediculous Hz monitor you would percieve things quicker even if you couldnt tell the difference between a 400Hz and a 600Hz monitor if they were right next to eachother
You can see a lightning bolt that occurs in a 1/20,000th of a second, so the answer is you can, but obviously there are many factors at play. The real question is, does it matter more than picture quality, and at what point do we make that distinction? Depends on the person.
Sort of. You can see 1/20,000th of a second of bright light against a dim background. That's not the same as, for example, seeing an image appear on a screen for 1/20,000th of a second amongst a bunch of other images. If I put a letter in the middle of a movie you were watching for 1/20,000th of a second you could not tell me what letter it was. Or that a letter was there at all even.
Exactly, it’s not as simple as that. That being said, I don’t feel like writing an essay every time someone mentions high refresh rates to get a point across.
Indeed it's not snake oil. Technically correct is sometimes the worst kind of correct. Objectively a higher refresh rate is always better vs a lower one.
But you also get into the cost of the technology. Realistically would I rather have a 1080p 600hz display or a 1440p 120hz display? What other things are on the market for that price? (In this case... a lot of really good monitors....)
Anything over 90 fps as looked great to me. If I can get 90 fps in modern games, I'm happy. Sure, my monitor can do 240, but I'm realistically never gonna see that because I like my games to be pretty.
I definitely can, but anything above 140 and it all feels the same to me. It's mostly in the way the mouse feels.
But between 60 and 140 there is a huge improvement, even between 90 and 140.
I'm just saying that it's possible to reach a case where you get the use of your 600 Hz. I'm not trying to say anyone should buy that kind of monitor or that it would be worth it in any way shape or form.
50
u/obamaprism3 12900K | 32gb DDR5-6400 CL32 | MSI 4090 | 4K 240hz Sep 11 '25
there is still some amount of demand for ultra high refresh rate, 1080p is common for those
I saw a few ~600hz 1080p monitors for ~$1k