Thought this way until 144Hz; now 30Hz is cheese-grated-eyeballs, and 60Hz ponders "is something wrong/corrupted with this slow/glitchy system?"

I spent three decades @30Hz, and just the past few ≥60Hz@4K... as I've aged I appreciate the analogue more, and the jarring stutters of 30Hz are constant reminders of computized digitality.

Also, PoE at 144Hz is incredible (I went from <30Hz to 144Hz with this one simple trick: $1000 5070Ti, which turns out was actually a great investment, too [today's price $1449]). But so is scrolling through walls of text, now.

¢¢

It seems unfortunate to become so sensitive to frame rate that you can only buy high-end equipment. I wonder how that can be avoided?

I cannot distinguish between 120Hz and 144Hz.

I avoid any-higher refresh rates, by your own reasoning =P

I still maintain an entire fleet of 30Hz equipment, but my main two machines are each 144Hz (sharing one screen $$). The $600 Mac Mini handles this easily. Obviously the other's nVidia GPU is a different $tory$$$$ == PoE@144Hz so_pretty

My favorite digital reading method, conversely, is probably less than 1Hz (eInk)? But even hundred of pages of text I'll always prefer printouts.

It can happen by accident. I assembled a system for my son (for "gaming"), and noticed that the window movement on his monitor was significantly smoother than on the cheaper monitors I'm accustomed to. It was just...nice. So I upgraded the monitor on my desktop too.

>It was just...nice.

In psychedelic tongue: it drips well.

And it's getting so inexpensive (I can easily price many 120Hz systems, barely above $1000)!

How much (approx) was your son's build?

Well I'll let you know I have a 120Hz screen and I will only game on that screen.

But a web page just sits there. And I never scroll slowly enough for refresh rate to matter, I go for big jumps that look the same on anything faster than e-ink. The benefit I get from a faster screen during normal desktop activities is slightly better mouse precision and latency.