Sim Racing 240Hz - Compared To 60Hz / 100Hz + Monitors?

[Dan Costa]

I understood your point from previous posts and it doesn't invalidate what the video demonstrates. The huge gaps you can see at 60hz on slow motion are very very perceptible in real time, and from my experience, I feel them clearly up to 144hz.

Point being is that we are not comparing 600hz vs 2400hz. We are comparing 60 vs 240hz which are well inside our perception capabilities.

 

[Mr Latte]

Well quite simply if a video image has 4x information/update per second that offers a smoother transition. It may for some people let them see better road surfaces or braking markers. It may help them feel the steering is smoother and improve reactions.

This part is debatable and on a per-user experience. I reckon though as Dan highlights, few people have probably really tried to do longer tests or studies into it regards racing titles or adjust in what to look for. Having 1440p resolution, with a 1000R curved monitor and it offering better quality image with minimal ghosting may improve this for some people or it may just do nothing.

As stated, regardless, people are going to be buying the tech.
This has nothing to do with audio, such examples/comparisons are stupid, come on.

Your inputs/reflexes to your steering wheel or braking have generally nothing to do with cues in what we hear in the game. They may however be increased for some people with what they see is improved.

Some of you are like on a mission to tell everyone its all pointless and ignoring if at all new displays may improve things?
It needs more opinions from users with these new displays before anything can be concluded, If it offers anything beneficial and possibly maybe only a small percentage of people.

 

[Dan Costa]

For racing its more a quality of life thing. Comfort.

And if the benefit we are looking for is comfort, although high refresh rates are a must, we are still leaving outside the discussion the real problem with current monitors. They are Sample-and-hold technologies and you will have a blurred image even with 1000hz and low persistence panels.

The absolute most important thing you need to look for comfort is good BFI support (black frame insertion, "flicker") which is a feature made possible by high refresh rate panels.

So, when should you chose a monitor with BFI? depends on the screen size and how far you are from it. When playing with real FOV on huge screens (55") at 70cm distance, every time there is sideways motion, your real-life sized braking reference point on track becomes blurred. Doing tight corners will make everything blurry to the point of distraction. It doesn't matter if you are at 60 144 or 240hz. Your laptimes wont change with BFI enabled, but your eyes will be happier.


We are in a point where high refresh rate monitors are common, so after having them for granted, we need to start looking at the things that really can fix the image instead of only arguing numbers on a sheet.

 

[Mr Latte]

Yes certainly more to image quality than just FR and lots of OLED owners state that 60Hz OLED is better than some monitors with high refresh. Its one reason why 4K 120Hz on OLED has people excited as the picture quality and HDR will be much better than most monitors too.

Samsung are pushing the 1000R as an eye comfort feature and this faster 1ms response time with G-SYNC so Im certainly keen to get user perspectives on the different screen options we have available. We have not had this spec and with HDR 600 before that I am aware of on a monitor before.

Do keep in mind that the new G7 G9 are claiming to offer high performance for fast-paced gaming so lets see how well they fare.

 

[Fennario]

Actual refresh rate of your eyes: 13hz

Your brain is doing a lot of post processing, tiling, and image stitching to assemble what you perceive. Our sensitivity to flicker is much higher but gets into issues involving light sensitivity vs image perception (you notice the intensity change). The ability to see an image flashed for a microsecond is due to image permanence.

Once again, do not drink the coolaid. Go test for yourself.

 

[Dan Costa]

Yes certainly more to image quality than just FR and lots of OLED owners state that 60Hz OLED is better than some monitors with high refresh. Its one reason why 4K 120Hz on OLED has people excited as the picture quality and HDR will be much better than most monitors.

I have an oled 55" TV and motion wise the only thing it does better than high refresh rate PC monitors is the pixel transitions due to low persistence of Oled, which eliminates ghosting, but not motion blur. At 120hz you still have motion blur due to sample-and-hold. The new Bx Cx Gx of LG can do BFI at 120hz which is the holy grail imo.

Why Do Some OLEDs Have Motion Blur?

Written by Mark Rejhon (aka Chief Blur Buster) originally in 2013. Edited for 2019. OLED has been regarded as a Holy Grail for eliminating motion blur. Unfortunately, not always: The portable Playstation Vita, and the iPhone X and Samsung Galaxy still have lots of motion blur during fast...

blurbusters.com

Actual refresh rate of your eyes: 13hz

Your brain is doing a lot of post processing, tiling, and image stitching to assemble what you perceive. Our sensitivity to flicker is much higher but gets into issues involving light sensitivity vs image perception (you notice the intensity change). The ability to see an image flashed for a microsecond is due to image permanence.

Once again, do not drink the coolaid. Go test for yourself.

Its better to search online for accuracy, but I read many years ago that eyes do not register images in updates per second (hz) not does it sample the entire retina like a camera shutter. As soon a single cone is hit by a light particle the brain receives the info and holds to it until the information changes, regardless of what the other cones are seeing. Its also due to this that you see motion blur on sample-and-hold monitors, and why it disappears if you insert a black frame between frames.

 

[Mr Latte]

Actual refresh rate of your eyes: 13hz

Your brain is doing a lot of post processing, tiling, and image stitching to assemble what you perceive. Our sensitivity to flicker is much higher but gets into issues involving light sensitivity vs image perception (you notice the intensity change). The ability to see an image flashed for a microsecond is due to image permanence.

Once again, do not drink the coolaid. Go test for yourself.

Yeah so no one should buy 240Hz monitors or aim to use them at over 120Hz right?.

Samsung has not had the best BFI in previous monitors lets see how they compare to others with these new G7 G9 units.
The tech has been improving and thats why Im not just relying on people's perceptions/views with older displays.

Like the LG CX OLED (while it has issues) these monitors are also certified.

 

[Fennario]

Yeah so no one should buy 240Hz monitors or aim to use them at over 120Hz right?

Let me repeat myself (for the 3rd time). Try them out for yourself to see if you can perceive the difference. Same advice for those looking to purchase $10,000 speaker cables.

 

[Fennario]

A good article on the issue: https://www.pcgamer.com/how-many-frames-per-second-can-the-human-eye-really-see/

 

[Mr Latte]

Let me repeat myself (for the 3rd time). Try them out for yourself to see if you can perceive the difference. Same advice for those looking to purchase $10,000 speaker cables.

Somehow you don't see a problem with that recommendation?

Sure, I'll just pop out and buy a £1500 TV and £1300 Monitor to discover myself at a time when Job security and income is a little concerning to say the least.

Mmmmmm, err no, instead I will just take onboard views from reviews and experts that know much better than me how well the new Samsung models do. Yet OLED with the CX, in particular, has lots of guys saying how good it is as a PC monitor. I am fully aware we do not necessarily need 240Hz but the whole point is on what is the best thing to currently consider buying for a sim rig to get the best visual experience. It just happens that new monitors are going this way.

 

[Fennario]

Nice straw man/gaslighting... the point is to save the OP and anyone else thinking about 240hz from spending money on something (i) they may not be able to perceive, and (ii) which can easily max out their system.

How about going to a big box store, gaming store, or even a buddy's house to check one out for free?

EDIT: Granted not the best advice (brain jumped back to 2019 for a bit). If you want to safely test one for "free" then you probably need to take advantage of a store's "14 day money-back, no questions asked" policy. It would be ethical assuming one intended to keep it if they could notice a material difference, but not if just looking to test and return. This is not a recommendation to do so regardless of finances/prior intent to get a 240hz monitor.

 

[Mr Latte]

I wanted user views on 240Hz monitors regards sim racing, Yet what I got was a barrage of people with, in some cases older tech displays saying it's not worth doing. Thats fair enough but their opinions are not based on the new models so for me I'm still interested to discover do I put that level of money into an OLED a G9 or possibly triple G7 monitors? I might even not bother for a while and consider the HP gen 2 VR.

I don't need to see for myself to purchase something if the consensus is that a product offers good performance. As stated people will be buying high refresh monitors as thats what new models are bringing.

I also said that if someone can achieve 240Hz gysnc with titles like i-racing or AC then they are certainly not going to use 120hz.
Granted the G7 may make this more possible than the G9 but ahh, can the G9 run the G7 resolution if desired but certainly, it could drop to the 1080p vertical of the original 49" models. In that scenario then yes someone may prefer to get @100Hz with native 1440p than a higher refresh with 1080p.

Im coming from 60Hz TV so its a big decision but will be one that brings a nice improvement.

 

[Fennario]

Apples, Oranges, or Strawberries? At some point it just comes down to personal preference. You can watch as many videos/reviews as you want but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is if you can perceive the difference and if it is worth the $. Something to consider as well is that reviews can lead to your having a confirmation bias when evaluating the equipment.

Assuming you have the hardware to run things at their optimal rates... I value resolution above refresh over 120-144hz. Short answer is b/c image permanence allows for perception/retention of the extra detail regardless of refresh.

 

[John-Eric Saxén]

I have not found a single blinded test online where humans can consistently tell the difference between 144 Hz and 240 Hz, whereas, there are lots of videos with people comparing 60 Hz with 120/144/240 Hz and most of them can tell a difference. The reason these tests aren't there is that we all know the result, average people wouldn't be able to distinguish the higher refresh rates apart at a higher accuracy than pure chance (excluding maybe some CS:GO professionals playing at 300 FPS).

Doesn't exclude there aren't other merits with more recent monitor tech, but in my view no one should be upgrading from 120 Hz to 240 Hz if that is the only improvement they get.

 

[Kek700]

I have had the lot, at the moment I have a 120hz 1440p 49 inch monitor.
The most important thing by miles is the 1440p, it means I can have it very close and not see pixels. Maximum FOV.
The rest is not really worth worrying about, especially for all the reason stated above. I run it at 103fps so that it remains stable “what ever” 120fps give me too much in game variations.
If you sim race then 60 is perfectly good, play ACC at 60hz cannot tell the difference, but and this is a big but I do have free sync activated that is a big must have.
That is the power of marketing, even though you know it is pointless you seem to have to buy it so you can add your self to the “I told you so group”.
Samsung ....£1200 thank you.