I mainly just look at text all day, so the "slow" transitions between different bits of text just don't matter all that much to me. Resolution helps that text look nice and crisp though, which I really do appreciate.

If you look at text specifically all day than high refresh rate is especially useful since you will be scrolling a lot.

I don't think I'm reading the text while it's scrolling... But maybe I am more than I realize? I actually think I'm more looking at the shape of the text when it's scrolling rather than the actual text itself.

That's why I will be sticking to my 4k 144hz monitor. Yes, it's less than 5k but I get crisp fonts and smooth transitions.

To this day, 27" 1440p, 144hz IPS gaming monitors are still my favorite daily driver for any desktop productivity. And when I say favorite, I mean by an extremely large margin.

The amount of real estate you get with 2560x1440 is fantastic, and you can actually game on it at native resolution on older gen graphics. The pixel density of 27" @ 1440p is the epitome of goldilocks. Every single pixel is just the right amount of useful.

I use one, but it’s still not sharp enough for design work. You can see aliasing everywhere.

24” @ 4K would be perfect but is hard to come by.

I switched from 27in 1440p to 27in 4K recently, and I am enjoying it. I previously used 100% scaling, but now I'm using 200%. I have less screen real estate, but everything is more crisp, and I find myself leaning forward at my monitor less and with less eye strain.

Although I agree that 100+ Hz matters and the difference is huge, pixels density is very important also, and for some (myself included), it matters more.

Remember 60hz CRTs? That was unbearable for me.

For a while I went down the rabbit hole of getting high end CRTs for retro games. I’m in a PAL region though, and the first time I booted up a 50Hz game I wondered how the hell I didn’t spend my entire childhood with a migraine. 60 I’m fine with but 50 I can literally see flickering.

Oh yeah no I could see the flickering at 60. Worse the higher the resolution got.

I don't know what it is with everyone claiming a 60 HZ panel is unusable. Movies are in 24Hz and people panic if you make them 60Hz because it's too smooth for them, but somehow 60Hz isn't enough to browse the web?

Being able to see my screen's pixels annoys me a lot more than moving my mouse at 60 Hz.

Meaningless comparison. You also can't run most VR games at anything less than 90-120fps without introducing motion sickness in the user. So what does that say about "usability" of 60fps on a monitor? Nothing. You can't compare two visual mediums directly by the number of "frames per second".

Camera lenses introduce blur through the use of the shudder, which acts as a form of "interpolation" and smooths out the image. Displays do no such thing; image strobing is extremely noticeable at different framerates. The difference in Destiny 2 between 60FPS and 100FPS is quite literally shocking to the point I can't go back.

TVs have techniques to deal with this, either motion smoothing[1] or black frame insertion. PC displays can't do the first for latency reasons but I think BFI is just down to expense, or because we don't have OLED/mini-LED displays yet.

[1] it's not as bad as you think

All the tv frame interpolation I've seen is so bad. The Smooth Video Project gives such better results in my experience.

There's two kinds on LG OLEDs, 24->60 and 60->120. The second one doesn't have the objectionable artifacts.

The first one people say you shouldn't turn on to respect the artist's vision, but I sure hope they don't mean it, because that'd mean they're respecting Harvey Weinstein. Clearly leaving it on is the moral option.