Lennon
Member
The paper is called a study on the impact of refresh rate on real-time FPS gaming performance, and the number doing the rounds is a 38% improvement in hit score at 480Hz versus 60Hz. Even 240Hz came in 28% up on 60Hz. They tested 60, 240, 360 and 480, presented in random order so players could not anchor on what they were meant to prefer, which is a decent piece of methodology and worth crediting.
Then you get to the sample: 31 adult males, described as general gamers. Thirty-one is small, and all-male is an odd choice for a study that is fundamentally about visual tracking and reaction time. None of that makes the effect fake. Input lag alone dropped by more than 10ms between 60Hz and 480Hz, and that part is physics rather than perception. But a 38% swing off 31 people carries wide error bars, and the paper comes from the company that makes a 540/720Hz panel.
The data I actually want is the event interval time, which they did collect - the gap between a target appearing and it being eliminated. That is a cleaner measure than hit score, because hit score folds in aim skill and the player warming up over a session. If event interval scales the same way, the finding stands up. If it flattens out after 240Hz, then the useful advice is go to 240 and stop, which is far more helpful to someone with a budget than a headline percentage.
For a TV rather than a monitor this stays academic anyway. Nothing you would hang on a wall runs at 480Hz. Has anyone here genuinely felt a difference past 120Hz on a big panel, or does it stop mattering at couch distance?
Then you get to the sample: 31 adult males, described as general gamers. Thirty-one is small, and all-male is an odd choice for a study that is fundamentally about visual tracking and reaction time. None of that makes the effect fake. Input lag alone dropped by more than 10ms between 60Hz and 480Hz, and that part is physics rather than perception. But a 38% swing off 31 people carries wide error bars, and the paper comes from the company that makes a 540/720Hz panel.
The data I actually want is the event interval time, which they did collect - the gap between a target appearing and it being eliminated. That is a cleaner measure than hit score, because hit score folds in aim skill and the player warming up over a session. If event interval scales the same way, the finding stands up. If it flattens out after 240Hz, then the useful advice is go to 240 and stop, which is far more helpful to someone with a budget than a headline percentage.
For a TV rather than a monitor this stays academic anyway. Nothing you would hang on a wall runs at 480Hz. Has anyone here genuinely felt a difference past 120Hz on a big panel, or does it stop mattering at couch distance?
