Here's a simple test to do with the demo. Try tracking that motion-blurred cube on the left with your eyes - it's all blurry. Now, try tracking the one on the right - it will be sharp, but "jumpy". Now, try tracking the one on the right with your 120Hz monitor - the motion should be MUCH smoother - and that's where the need for high frame rates comes in. The higher the frame rate, the better the object will look when you're tracking it with your eyes.
Ideally, if we only account for objects travelling across the screen in 2 seconds, and a screen is ~2000 pixels wide, and we want to have an error of <=1 pixel, then theoretically, we need (2000px)/(2sec) = 1000 Hz frame rate for high motion realism. Unfortunately, I don't see it coming anytime soon...
Also it's very, very annoying that Firefox is limited to 60Hz, that's very short sighted in my opinion.
[1]: https://github.com/shurcooL/RefreshRateMultitool / http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1423433
Btw, is it okay to plug your stuff? It's my first submission to HN so I'm not yet an expert on how things work here. I just thought it was relevant, so I wanted to share...
Also, I wonder if a simple square is enough to prove the "sameness" of motion blurs across different framerates. A fast camera pan across a landscape may yield different results.
http://shurcool.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/the-effect-of-motio...
It does a lot to explain the discrepancies we often see when people argue "you can't see more than 24 frames per second" vs. "I can tell 60 vs. 120 fps".
It matters how DISTINCT the frames are.