Comparing 144Hz to 240Hz seems pretty important (to know if it's worth the extra money for 240Hz). And yeah if you could get someone like Shroud for the tests that could help too.
To get the best test results they should not be using professional players. If you want the most valid results it's definitly best going with amateur players
@@ve1es.-428 nah 60 vs 240 resembles the same as 60 vs 144.. but as michael said the interresting thing to se would be 144 vs 240 cuz allmost all gamers have 144 hz
I know this is an old video, but for me, higher Hz isnt about reaction time, but say youre doing a 180 turn, you can see clearly when theres an opponent in the middle of the turn, while on 60hz you can't even see him at all. this is the biggest advantage higher Hz can have. Your surroundings perception becomes clearer. You can set up a test where this 180 turn is automated and you only press a button to stop when you feel you have the opponent on the crosshair. with each round the opponent being in a random distance on the radius degree
@Yul Strokheet Al-Wauch no because 60FPS/60hz doesn’t show as many pixels per refresh (aka image clearness per refresh sequence) So turning and moving at 60 across the board will not visually show the same as 120 FPS/ 120 HZ. Visually you will always see more and see it sooner on 120 FPS/HZ
@Yul Strokheet Al-Wauch I’ve played both for years and he’s right it’s not about when you see it it’s about how clear it looks 60hz no matter what in a fast turn looks like you have motion blur on
@Yul Strokheet Al-Wauch you might want to calm down a little, it does make a difference. Small, but still significant. Maybe don't call other people bs next time when you haven't even tried what they are saying?
Hell, I guarantee that the results for 240 Hz would be identical to those at 120... 100... or even 90 Hz. Even I, as a non competitive gamer, notice when a game is locked to 60, but I don't notice when a game continuously hits above 90.
@John Monk Honestly I think literally anything STABLE above 60 Hz is fine. We're forgetting that if you have a consistent frame rate of even 50 Hz you're not going to notice. It's FPS drops that are noticeable. When I change settings on a game around, I GENERALLY tune the game to run @ 75 Hz, and NEVER drop below 60. Some 60Hz monitors can even be boosted to run at 70 Hz, and that'd be fine for me as well.
@@reeepingk What do you mean you won't notice anything other than FPS drops? This video alone proved the benefit is noticeable. I'm also interested in the 144Hz vs 240Hz comparison, as I'm not sure the point at which our eyes could no longer keep up. But there's no question that > 60Hz refresh rates are noticeable and do improve one's ability to hit the target.
Znypr We need a current AND an ex, not one or the other. Could test not only reaction time and accuracy but how playing as much as pros do might affect it.
i love how serious gavin is, and how he instantly transitions to AH mode while playing a game i have to imagine "im ready as penis" is not something he says at typical out of network shoots
The serious smolder as he said I got your back in a super subdued way was totally how a cameraman talks to a director. He's got 3 personas I swear. "smart Gavin" we see on slowmoguys or when he explains something. "moron Gavin" we see on ah talk about shit like headlight fluid. And "serious Gavin" you and I don't really see when he does stuff like filming Sherlock Holmes movies. This is a very rare instance of serious Gavin
If this is revisited, do runs with 60Hz, 120Hz, and 240Hz, and crank the framerate on the Phantom up to 1200 - 2400. Deffo invite an eSports team. Also see if the benefits are noticeable in some non FPS games.
An eSports team would be interesting. For non FPS games, I play a pretty competitive racing game (trackmania) which, if I play on 60hz actually gives me a headache. on 144hz it feels more fluid and easier on the eyes because there are a lot of objects constantly in motion at high speeds. I'm not sure if the difference would be big in RPG games, but probably in games with iFrames there would be a difference.
If I got a 144 hz monitor I could only really tell a difference on tf2. Overwatch and r6s give me about 80 FPS while tf2 is like 200fps+. My monitor is 75Hz so it would be useless to upgrade my moniter
I really only noticed the game looking better. High fps doesnt just make you a better player. I guess in some very rare instances you may some a slight advantage with higher fps but as i said its rare.
Usually, or games, you have to turn on 144hz for your screen size in the setting. I remember having to do it in tf2. also, you have to make sure the pc itself is running either from settings or for me Nvidia display settings
Well that's because usually "it depends." Linus won't tell you what you want to hear, he will say what you need to hear. Which more often than not, just like the real world, whatever choice you make, how it results, well it depends.
Well, yeah but think about it this way. If you end up with a high-end ssd which has like a 3gig/s writespeed (And would still cost you around $600 for the 2TB model) , the 20 second sample would take a little more than 2 minutes just to copy and the same time to rewatch the same footage if its not in the ram atm. Pricey as hell, but its worth it.
Well, if you have the money for a phantom camera, then an extra $17,900 doesn't make that much of a difference. This is all super specialized professional equipment, Phantom probably only sells a few thousand of each camera model world wide and they are the only company that I know of who even make these kinds of high speed cameras.
Honestly I feel like if you had a pro do this you would have more consistent results. Shroud is a native Canadian, and a tech nerd some days. You should try and reach out to him for a part 2
@@RS_Redbaron I agree, may as well have done 30fps vs 240.. There has to be an asymptote in the relationship of refresh rate to performance. This test shows that 60HZ is noticeably worse than 240, but does not attempt to see if 240 is overkill. If there is marked improvement from 120hz to 240hz, this could suggest we still have farther to go beyond 240, but if they are very similar it would suggest that we have already gone too far with 240hz. If money is no object, and all obstacles can be overcome with sheer cash flow of course you want the 4k 240hz monstrosity of a rig. It's not just the monitor that will cost more. If you want to run a modern game at 4k 240hz you better have some serious hardware. A 2k setup with 120hz is roughly 1/4 the number of pixels per second being rendered compared to 4k 240hz.. I would be very interested to see if doing 4x more work is really getting you anything when compairing 2k 120hz vs 4k 240hz
@@TheN00bPolice We don't really use consistency in that context in science, as we use consistent to often talk about the relationship between results or results and theory
No. 1 Yes. Obviously get a pro. Someone as good as you can get to lower the human error factor as much as possible. No. 2 More tries, all blind so it doesn't influence the person subcontiously to try harder in either situation. No. 3 quite a few test shots in the beginning to lower the factor of person learning the pathbof enemy. It's not supposed to be a factor - just the reaction time. No. 4 the initial crosshair location should be away from the path of the target, so he has to move furthernto reach the target. This would increase the time it takes and therefore result in more accurate results. No. 5 Linus, don't touch the high rate camera, or you'll eventually trip it and drop it. No. 6 don't test mouse dpi's in the same test. Introducing a second changeable variable makes test results automatically inaccurate to count. You want to test mouse dpi's, do that separately.
@@XxANTOFFxX Was shocked that it was 60 vs 240 but no 144. My guess is that 60 to 144 makes more of a difference than 144 to 240. Actually u could find out 240 is nonsense over 144 by these tests.
No.1 Human error is not a factor. From a Human Factors perspective what you're talking about is performance consistency. This is a mechanical response to visual stimuli. Get more participants of wider skill to balance for higher skilled individuals. No.2 Yes, but no. All trails blind and more of them, yes! Skilled players will know the visual difference between 60 and 240. Higher skilled players will have to meta-cognitively compensate for the known effect of 60hzt. No. 4 This is a three measure test. Why not randomize the crosshair location within 120 squared degrees of the center of the path of the target. Then let the Pp choose the starting location. This would normalize response times and help balance for timed task stress. No.5 Yes
I would also specifically add a round of: aim and follow with no shooting. See if you can learn anything from tracking without firing. May be insightful, may not be.
A pro wouldn't work. Pros all have 240 hz screens. They are used to that, their performance is thus always going to be biased towards 240hz. Now obviously 240hz is better but using a pro would make it look worse than it is
If you're only playing competitive games, 1080 p will be plenty and therefore you should go 240hz. If you want a higher resolution you just can't go to 240hz. It's honestly that simple right now. Next time I upgrade my 1440/144 monitor it's gonna be to 1440/240.
@@fVNzO It isn't that simple in reality, because you are now assuming that 240 Hz brings practical benefits over 144 Hz, which has never been demonstrated.
240hz for sure for competitive edge, since u will be using 1080p anyway. Been using 240hz for a year, I switched to 144hz once and it feels like going from 144 to 60. It is very noticeable.
I agree. 144 is a very available and reasonably priced option. Would be great to see if there is a measurable difference between the 3 tiers, and how much of a step between them.
@@talonius5724 You're assumption that people play better cause they paid more money is dumb. You're completely ignoring the huge difference 60hz and 240hz creates.
@@AdrianDWolfe thats not their assumption at all, and they are barely even making an assumption, its more like a hypothesis. It is likely that the people who tend to be better and therefore spend more time playing tend to spend more on gaming equipment.
If the player is good the refresh rate would have significantly less weight. If the player was bad the refresh rate becomes a bigger factor. For adults who want an even playing field with childern online.
@@___Robin___ I agree, pros are used to high refresh rates, automatically meaning reduced performance at lower ones, particularly 60Hz, this is something gamers have been talking about for a while.However, such would demonstrate the benefit of higher refresh rates over time. Refresh rate is one factor that could technically go very far since our eyes see continuously (or at least as fast as electrical signals through the body). Resolution, however there is definitely a limit for, apart from going to larger screens further away, such as maybe gaming on a billboard.
"Correlation does not mean causation" Exactly. The most probably reason for the better results from the higher frame rate set is probably down to the users being heavier gamers and more willing to spend money on their setup.
If you're going to upgrade to a higher refresh rate, 144hz would be the gold standard in terms of cost efficiency. So I think most people, or maybe its just me, would be more interested in the leap between 144 and 240 and whether that's technically better - then decide if you want to pay 2 to 4 times more for it.
What about isolating something on screen that removes the need to aim and just press the trigger button? Usually for things to appear it takes a few frames but that would hone in on “reaction time”
When we got a camera with some higher FPS I asked my assistant to slap me while we filmed it. KA-POW! She hit me shockingly hard! She looked and acted like she hit a dog with her car. She said she didn't want to have to do it a second time so she figured she should do it right the first time. He's right... you're ears ring afterward.
The best way to test this is to play on 60hz for a month, and then on 240hz for a month. And then compare the monthly kill/death stats for both monitors.
@@bcp6524 No it would not be. An eye tracker can actually measure the time to react, which they currently just assumed was the time to move. That's not correct since,, as Gavin pointed out, people start moving their cursors at different times based in their ability or experience and the amount of pressure they are under.
@@JosephParlindungan unless you have a high speed as an eye tracker to see when eye starts moving, the normal ones are highly inaccurate and pretty much useless in the specific experiment which is built around that
@@feha92 You definitely thought way too much. I know it's supposed to be scientific, but recoil pattern, scope, ..., what? They did fine, just use DPI levels, eye tracking, a pro player & 2 or 3 of the most popular guns in their default modes.
So because you have more money you're better than people who are poor? lol More like pc gaming hasn't ever been and will never be a true competitive platform due to wildly varying system specs based on broken economy standards.
Money has nothing to do with it. I play Destiny 2 on Xbox. My brother convinced me to finally try it on PC and keep in mind this dude has this 240Hz shit and a custom build pc that idk what it has but it looks fantastic. I couldn’t do keyboard and mouse. Told him to use Xbox controller. Boy I was at my prime and felt right at home. It’s just what your used to. And if your good or not. Yeah shit seemed a bit faster cuz I’m not used to it but I quickly caught on.
@@Neiva71 No they dont. autonoob will stop the player if you hit it and once the enemy is slowed you are free to kill it. Try to oneshot someone with the autonub, using it like if it was a scout, is silly.
For me, 240hz gaming is about being able to accurately assess my surroundings while moving really fast - At 60hz things look smooth but any sort of motion aside from slow mouse movements results in massive perceived blur and essentially decreases what I am capable of seeing. However, at 240hz, there is little to no blur when moving around quickly, which increases the connected feeling with the game. Also, rendering so many frames makes it so that minor graphical errors such as aliasing or texture shimmering aren't as noticeable.
I was just about to google what he thought was "expensive" before i scrolled down and saw this. his demeanor said 2-3k... I'm shocked, He needed to add at least 10 expletives to really express his point on how expensive he really meant!
The real question is whether there is any advantage between 120Hz and 240Hz, because 60Hz is clearly inferior if you ask anyone who's used high refresh rate monitors.
You should absolutely get pro players in to do this. I would also really like to see 144 Hz compared to 240, because 60 feels like a no-brainer. I have never seen a 144 Hz display in my life but 60 Hz still feels somewhat laggy at times. Especially in fps games.
Anything above about 120hz and things really start to get difficult to see the difference from but its still there, Anything above 60hz is a major improvement, My roommate overclocked his monitor a bit ago to 80hz from 60hz and still noticed a huge difference. Its worth it if you have the money and a decent card for 120hz/144hz @ 1080p
Most great aimers will outaim most people with a 120hz monitor easily no problem. But a 240hz makes everything seem sharper and nicer, which can be a big factor when a enthusiast\pro is playing hours and hours. Quality of life is very important in anything that you do over long periods. And 144 vs 240 can be really timeconsuming to test, but if i had done that, i would have just used something like kovaaks aim trainer , and gathered the % from a ~20 minute gaming session 144 vs 240, from multiple people, maybe there would be a difference. Forget the "reaction time" , too many variables.
Man I just finished my stats class and all I can think about watching this is how a positive linear correlation exists and can be found using a simple regression calculator on Statcrunch and can probably be done with a significance factor of 0.05
Exactly! That's what I really want to see! I already know from personal experience with my Razer phone that 90hz is much better than 60. 120hz however doesn't feel as big of an improvement from 90hz though for me.
@@RandomFandomOfficial ofc, 60 to 90 is actually more than 90 to 120 % wise, like 144h is more than double 60 but its "only" 84hz extra while 240hz is not even double but its 96hz more
The real point is that it's easier to measure a significant effect with the larger difference in frame rates and 60 Hz is a reasonable, non-trivial case to use for the lower end.
Yeah a study was done by 3kliksphilips and high tickrate is almost unnoticeable. The group tested went from pros to even the newest of noobs. Not anyone of those groups guessed in a high enough percentage for 128 to be proven better than 64.... its actually an interesting video but everyones sees things differently so maybe there is a difference for some. I dunno.
Personally, I think that there is a noticeable difference between these tick rates, however I would love to see some simple testing, without a surprising twist like in that test
You could also study practice effect. Have some of your participants ONLY play 240 for several months leading up to the test, and the other group ONLY play 60. Then swap the practice groups and repeat the test a few months later.
This is what I like about LTT, while other channels sit there and talk about advantages and disadvantages, LTT comes with a high speed camera, sets up a test and proves what is what.
+ Ronak Dhakan Welllll sort of. The experiments I have seen are a lot like Mythbusters. They do do experiments but they do NOT actually prove or disprove anything. The experiment is more for entertainments sake than actual proof. They rarely have controls, the sample sizes are always WAY too small, the double blind considerations are often missed. So yep it is better than just claiming something - but it certainly is NOT sound scientific proof.
@@zinsy23 Yeah these sort of videos are cool and useful as it can expose people to new concepts and ideas. Just amazes me that some people think this was somewhere close to an actual scientifically sound experiment. This phenomenon might go a long way to describing why we have so many people being sucked in by pseudo-science.
Shroud is nowhere close to being the fastest... Plenty of faster people around. I say invite them all and figure out the quickest from say 500 tries :P
If NVIDIA's data wasn't a controlled experiment and was public data gathering (NVIDIA highlights Statistics) then it stands to mention the people who play video games more are statistically better, and people who play video games more are much more willing to spend more money on better computer parts.
That type of critique isn't as significant as you might think, because you can statistically control for any variable or set of variables you want, thereby isolating the cause of the correlation if you exhaust the reasonable causal variables. Since you're arguing that the data is clouded by the causation of skill, which correlates with equipment quality, you can simply control for some variable that either is or correlates with skill (hours played for instance) THEN see how strong the correlation between monitor refresh rate and gaming performance is.
kervin2k9 It’s not as difficult as you would think (just need to gather 50% more data and hire someone with a good understanding of statistics), although I wouldn’t expect Nvidia to release such a study if it didn’t work in their favor.
yeah, saying better gamers have better monitors is like saying better golfers have better clubs. if you're shit at the game, you probably dont spend much on the equipment
You might think that hours of gameplay equals skill. I can assure you, it does not. You need to actually learn things to get skill. Skill involves a lot of knowledge. There is a part of musclememory, sure. Wich is the only point where actual hours count. btw Never trust stats you haven't done yourself :P
But framerate isn't just "reaction time" as measured in such a straightforward way. It is really temporal resolution, and accounts for a wide range of important factors in gaming, especially depending on the game.
It'd be interesting to see how much difference there is with 60Hz vs. 144Hz because many people won't be able to afford 240Hz monitors for at least a while.
For me it's gigantic. I alternate between 2 systems, one with 144hz and another with 60hz (both around 150fps) and my kd goes up by 50% on the 144hz one. It is so noticeable my online teammates can tell which system I'm on just by watching replays/death ams.
240hz 1ms monitors are 300$ not that expensive... So if you buy a 144hz you basically waste money if your ultimate goal is to buy a 240hz monitor in the end...
@@nietzsche7207 Yeah also most ppl can't get more than ~150 frames and it also depends on the game, plus i don't think there's a gigantic difference between 144 and 240
dottoRe most 240hz monitors are 1080p and range from $240-$500. However they all use basically the same panel from AUO. One of the top 240hz monitors is the freesync Alienware one which is regularly around $300 and on sale will drop under.
@@nietzsche7207 you are wrong about the quality (the freesync Alienware 240hz is 330$ for example), but even if you weren't, what matters is the panel, and all those panels are exactly the same no matter what brand you choose... if you cant afford 300$ for 240hz then the plastics are not your main problem....
there is a difference but whether or not it's noticeable to an individual very much depends on that individual. the difference ratio wise between 60hz and 144hz is much higher than 144hz vs 240hz which is why it's night and day going from 60hz to 144hz but maybe only late afternoon to night when going from 144hz to 240hz. it's all pretty interesting stuff tbh. i personally believe that 120hz and higher is where you get the most out of your games and own personal skill for the most part. 60hz like on console and on TVs is just straight trash compared to high fps and refresh rates on a computer. #PCMasterRace
@uP-Andre Oh I used 100Hz monitors from late 90's to 2000. Those were CRT monitors though. While I do believe that change from 60Hz/FPS to 120 does improve the player performance, it would be nice to see more comprehensive study about the difference between 120 and 240 herz. The reaction times in the video were about 200-300 ms so having a ~3ms advantage does not make sense in paper. But the human eyes and brain are a complicated machine and can not be measured in raw monitor refresh rate. Some people may benefit from 240Hz displays while others do not notice the difference. But in the end, a skillful player will pwn n00bs no matter what kind of potato they are looking at.
Rocket jump ninja did a video on it. There are a lot of different factors and scenarios outside of changing hz (specific game, player skill, hours in game, etc.) but for him in quake, higher refresh rate didn't actually make him play better, though it was preferable just because it felt smoother.
Linus - we old school CS players really appreciate you adding in the old deatmatch sounds stolen from another game. Whoever on your staff did that is worthy of being front and center. Excellent throwback my friend.
I feel like the results are kinda like how much good quality music equipment helps you: it’s not gonna help that much unless you are already great at what you’re doing and pushing the limits of its current capabilities.
it seems like the step from 120/144 to 240 is pretty small- but the step from 60 to 144 is huge- fps isn't all though- overwatch for instance looks very choppy at 60hz but destiny 1 on a ps4 looks ok(ish) at 35 fps- the problem is the input lag that all solutions to make it look smooth with less frames introduce
you can't really change lagcompensation and turning interpolation and lagcompensation off will literally fuck you up more than if you had them at 1. I do recommend tickrate 128, but it doesn't matter if you're playing on a 64 tick server.
@@nobodylmportant Yeah, the game runs a private server that is essentially the same as an online server when you're on LAN, so if you set the tickrate to 64 it would be the same as playing a basic competitive game, only without as much lag
Another thing I noticed: Looks like if the player is aware that he is at 240Hz, the result is better not even than 60Hz, but also comparing with the blind test. Like a confirmation bias. 240hz situation: "gonna rule!" 60Hz situation: "I'll die" blind test sit.: "what am I supposed to do?" Time to Move all 3 players and Delta results Blind 60hz avg = 282,3 Blind 240hz avg = 254,3 Blind delta = 28 (11% better) Aware situation 60hz avg = 272,3 Aware situation 240hz avg = 218 Aware delta = 54 (24,9% better) The fact of knowing your situation can affect you results. So definitively there is a psychological component here!
The blind test wouldn't have made a difference for me because it's extremely obvious for most gamers who play consistently when there are huge refresh rate differences
Runé Jackson yeah I play at 144. My point is the test doesn’t start until you see the target and move the mouse, the target is in view for maybe 3-4 seconds, you really have time to say “oof 60 FPS, can’t hit him”
One thing in testing, the shooter should not know IF they got a kill, it should be an avatar that continues running either way and the kills can be determined off screen.
The target is "stuttering" at 60fps, but the camera too, I think that's where the accuracy is lost. Where you can really gain advantage with high refresh rate is in simracing, it become easier to feel your braking points as the car travels less distance between frames.
Rule number 1 linus: keep the individuals in the experiment unknowing of what they are trying to prove. You should've had someone else in your group do the test without telling them.
8:28 "Rock paper scissors for who has to go first?" "Are you the type of person who says it as they're doing it?" "Yeah. We go Rock, Paper, then you go." "You go on paper?" "No no. on scissors." *lol* *Proceeds to not say anything and reveal on the fourth beat* I don't know why this bugs me so much
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
If you had more RGBs in your rig, it would've increased your tracking.
No he needed a better gaming chair
true
Lol
Red = higher crit dmg
Lol
Comparing 144Hz to 240Hz seems pretty important (to know if it's worth the extra money for 240Hz).
And yeah if you could get someone like Shroud for the tests that could help too.
To get the best test results they should not be using professional players. If you want the most valid results it's definitly best going with amateur players
Not saying it wouldn't be cool to see how pro's do it though.
@@OytalFlyFrag a pro would showcase the fastest reaction times on both refresh rates. so no it would be better
This needs more comments to help it get attention, more testers and more refresh rates need to be done.
240 is probably overkill but if you really wanna know just buy two monitors and return the one which you like the least
You should've thrown a 144 Hz panel in there, because the interesting question is rather if the jump from 144 to 240 is noticeable..
from my experience it isnt i have a 144hz laptop and i got a 240hz monitor thinking it would be better but no you can barely notice the difference
Ya its funny.. 144hz to 240hz diff in video games isnt that large.. Bcuz 144hz is prime while 240hz just feels more extra
Or 60Hz===>144Hz
@@ve1es.-428 nah 60 vs 240 resembles the same as 60 vs 144.. but as michael said the interresting thing to se would be 144 vs 240 cuz allmost all gamers have 144 hz
@@jackklbk8098 I have a 60Hz...😭 But already ordered my 144!!!
I know this is an old video, but for me, higher Hz isnt about reaction time, but say youre doing a 180 turn, you can see clearly when theres an opponent in the middle of the turn, while on 60hz you can't even see him at all. this is the biggest advantage higher Hz can have. Your surroundings perception becomes clearer.
You can set up a test where this 180 turn is automated and you only press a button to stop when you feel you have the opponent on the crosshair. with each round the opponent being in a random distance on the radius degree
that’s actually a pretty good idea
@Yul Strokheet Al-Wauch no because 60FPS/60hz doesn’t show as many pixels per refresh (aka image clearness per refresh sequence)
So turning and moving at 60 across the board will not visually show the same as 120 FPS/ 120 HZ.
Visually you will always see more and see it sooner on 120 FPS/HZ
@Yul Strokheet Al-Wauch I’ve played both for years and he’s right it’s not about when you see it it’s about how clear it looks 60hz no matter what in a fast turn looks like you have motion blur on
@Yul Strokheet Al-Wauch you might want to calm down a little, it does make a difference. Small, but still significant.
Maybe don't call other people bs next time when you haven't even tried what they are saying?
you're only seeing something a frame faster... that's only 1/60 second (16ms) faster... i dont think your eyes can even see that...
60Hz to 240Hz is a pretty large jump. I'm more interested in seeing the difference between 144Hz and 240Hz
Hell, I guarantee that the results for 240 Hz would be identical to those at 120... 100... or even 90 Hz. Even I, as a non competitive gamer, notice when a game is locked to 60, but I don't notice when a game continuously hits above 90.
"You don't need more than 60Hz if you are not pro gamer. It will be smooth, but >60Hz will not raise your skill" © Cooller, Quake series god
@John Monk Honestly I think literally anything STABLE above 60 Hz is fine. We're forgetting that if you have a consistent frame rate of even 50 Hz you're not going to notice. It's FPS drops that are noticeable. When I change settings on a game around, I GENERALLY tune the game to run @ 75 Hz, and NEVER drop below 60. Some 60Hz monitors can even be boosted to run at 70 Hz, and that'd be fine for me as well.
@@reeepingk What do you mean you won't notice anything other than FPS drops? This video alone proved the benefit is noticeable. I'm also interested in the 144Hz vs 240Hz comparison, as I'm not sure the point at which our eyes could no longer keep up. But there's no question that > 60Hz refresh rates are noticeable and do improve one's ability to hit the target.
It’s probably a negligible difference, which is why they did 60 vs 240.
Get a Pro / Ex Pro CSGO player. Do 60/144/240 FPS test. Test reaction time and accuracy
@shroud get shrood on it
Znypr We need a current AND an ex, not one or the other. Could test not only reaction time and accuracy but how playing as much as pros do might affect it.
@@ricedaddy88 no u need one test subject. its easier and makes it way more controlled, but linus is assssss.
I bet an S curve forms, since eventually Hz will reach parity with natural eyesight.
@@Neonagi true from 60-144 is way different than 144-240. I would still buy a 300 FPS monitor though cause your eyes can spot the difference.
Petition for the test subject to be Shroud
Remember your vote counts
|
Yep
It'd be interesting seeing him having to use 60Hz lol
@@speedy83 he uses 240? Right
@@rishikeshdas8884 he does
Rishikesh Das naah i wanna see get-right or niko and a deagle
i love how serious gavin is, and how he instantly transitions to AH mode while playing a game
i have to imagine "im ready as penis" is not something he says at typical out of network shoots
The serious smolder as he said I got your back in a super subdued way was totally how a cameraman talks to a director. He's got 3 personas I swear.
"smart Gavin" we see on slowmoguys or when he explains something.
"moron Gavin" we see on ah talk about shit like headlight fluid.
And "serious Gavin" you and I don't really see when he does stuff like filming Sherlock Holmes movies.
This is a very rare instance of serious Gavin
If this is revisited, do runs with 60Hz, 120Hz, and 240Hz, and crank the framerate on the Phantom up to 1200 - 2400.
Deffo invite an eSports team.
Also see if the benefits are noticeable in some non FPS games.
And add a 30FPS run too, so we can compare to console peasants.
@@themagiceye6723 that's just mean
@@themagiceye6723 Console with E sports Vs PC but console players... 🤔
144 too,and bring the pro player who play awp
An eSports team would be interesting.
For non FPS games, I play a pretty competitive racing game (trackmania) which, if I play on 60hz actually gives me a headache. on 144hz it feels more fluid and easier on the eyes because there are a lot of objects constantly in motion at high speeds. I'm not sure if the difference would be big in RPG games, but probably in games with iFrames there would be a difference.
this video sold more 240Hz monitors than any ad
mine will be here tomorrow. next day shipping baby
@@AMGEnvy I want one but they are SO EXPENSIVE
@@TasFirinErkegi i got the alienware aw2518h it was $200 cheaper than my lg curved ultrawide monitor
@@AMGEnvy thanks I will check it
@@AMGEnvy I cant find a website that is selling it where did you buy it from
Do a part 2 for sure. This was super interesting to watch and I’d love to see how pros act compared to everyone else.
Agreed
Yo, all FPS players ...thumb this comment up please :)
Bring shroud for next ep
I need a part two and grab shroud and dizzy
bring XANTARES
"I'm ready as penis"
Nice to have Gav's AH side get shown to people who aren't familiar with it.
Inservio Achievement Hunter
AH?
@@GregOld31 usually means asshole
Its definitely a surprise for the people who have never seen achievement hunter content
When I upgraded to 144hz, (team fortress 2 mostly)I didn't get better, I could just see why I died more clearly.
If I got a 144 hz monitor I could only really tell a difference on tf2. Overwatch and r6s give me about 80 FPS while tf2 is like 200fps+. My monitor is 75Hz so it would be useless to upgrade my moniter
I really only noticed the game looking better. High fps doesnt just make you a better player. I guess in some very rare instances you may some a slight advantage with higher fps but as i said its rare.
Usually, or games, you have to turn on 144hz for your screen size in the setting. I remember having to do it in tf2. also, you have to make sure the pc itself is running either from settings or for me Nvidia display settings
that is literally how to get better though :P
@wys you can overclock your 75 hz monitor to 90 hz to take more advantage of your fps in tf2
get 3kliksphilip to help think of the best way to test this. That man is a king in analyzing and processing
yes please
I totally agree!
he wouldnt like him using the auto
Yes
or 2kliksphilip... :D
Wow, an LTT video has a conclusion other than "It depends."
Well that's because usually "it depends."
Linus won't tell you what you want to hear, he will say what you need to hear.
Which more often than not, just like the real world, whatever choice you make, how it results, well it depends.
@@ChristopherCraven That Depends.
@@mikem9536 idk. It depends.
@@louis.bodota I think that depends.
@@louis.bodota In his defense,It Depends.
For the first one he said “it took me so long to start tracking him” 137ms response time is absolutely insane
4:33 Just to give a number figure. That 'little' flash drive is around $18,000 while the camera alone is nearly $100,000
Ok
Ok
Ok
Ok
and that's usd.
Echoing others' suggestions:
1) Get a professional gamer to try it with you guys
2) Try 144 Hz as well (or 120 or 165)
I mean, Gavin plays games for a living, but unfortunately, he is most certainly not s professional
I'm insterested as well in 120 vs 240, will there be a difference?
You came here to give Linus tips on making tech videos?
yea. why the fck even test *240 vs 60,* when *240 vs 144/120* is the only thing that matters
this
4:34 "These are expensive..."
Just checked. 2TB of storage will run you $17,900.
That's kinda pricey. They should use that on the iPhone to make them even more expensive.
Well, yeah but think about it this way. If you end up with a high-end ssd which has like a 3gig/s writespeed (And would still cost you around $600 for the 2TB model) , the 20 second sample would take a little more than 2 minutes just to copy and the same time to rewatch the same footage if its not in the ram atm. Pricey as hell, but its worth it.
Well, if you have the money for a phantom camera, then an extra $17,900 doesn't make that much of a difference. This is all super specialized professional equipment, Phantom probably only sells a few thousand of each camera model world wide and they are the only company that I know of who even make these kinds of high speed cameras.
Also, if 466 GB doesn't even equal 20 seconds of video, that means $18k gets you about 70-80 seconds worth of storage.
18 Mac Pro stands
"How did i miss that?" Welcome to CS
rng
he did miss the shot
whatch
in slow motion
i was f*cking laging
@Spray Made yeah
“Why is it so buggy?”
Honestly I feel like if you had a pro do this you would have more consistent results.
Shroud is a native Canadian, and a tech nerd some days. You should try and reach out to him for a part 2
F Shroud
agree, Shroud would be a good choice to have come in an assist.
it should increase their view i think?
That’d be an interesting collab.
I think he is the most consistent across all games and would serve as a great median between refresh rates
You should definitely try to get Shroud to see if it makes a difference to a pro. That way aim is not as much of a concern.
dude great idea man
Shroud would literally testify in court for 240Hz, he's an ex CS pro and those guys swear by their high refresh rates
this
why not a better one?¿
@@RS_Redbaron I agree, may as well have done 30fps vs 240.. There has to be an asymptote in the relationship of refresh rate to performance. This test shows that 60HZ is noticeably worse than 240, but does not attempt to see if 240 is overkill. If there is marked improvement from 120hz to 240hz, this could suggest we still have farther to go beyond 240, but if they are very similar it would suggest that we have already gone too far with 240hz.
If money is no object, and all obstacles can be overcome with sheer cash flow of course you want the 4k 240hz monstrosity of a rig. It's not just the monitor that will cost more. If you want to run a modern game at 4k 240hz you better have some serious hardware. A 2k setup with 120hz is roughly 1/4 the number of pixels per second being rendered compared to 4k 240hz.. I would be very interested to see if doing 4x more work is really getting you anything when compairing 2k 120hz vs 4k 240hz
The human eye can only see 8GB of RAM
the human eye can only see4.6 ghz
The human eye can only see quad core
The human eye can only see 25mbps or less
The human eye can only see 30fps
@@gaijinbot8135 You mean 29.97fps?
Gavino Free, arguably the only "camera guy" more famous than a lot of actors 😂
I'm sure Linus is great. But I only know of him because of this video and another video he did with Gavin Free
Gavin O'Free lol
MARK NUUUUT
I can't tell you how much I appreciate your awareness of the distinction between accuracy and precision
What is the distinction?
@@AdrianGK47 To put it simply, precision is being consistent, where as accuracy is being on-target.
So...... consistency and accuracy then? We already have words that mean the two different things after all.
@@TheN00bPolice We don't really use consistency in that context in science, as we use consistent to often talk about the relationship between results or results and theory
It's funny how a couple of words make you feel superior to the laymen.. Fuck right off, i'm neither precise nor accurate so I have no clue
Next Slow Mo Guys video : "Linus drops an $8,000 CPU at 150,000 fps"
I would watch
Roasted
Imagine seeing the pins bend as the CPU hits the floor.
@@Luuk3333 cpu's haven't used pins for 10+ years.
@@bleh64532 Ryzen. ;)
Definitely hit up some pros for part 2. That sounds interesting as hell.
imagine if they had shroud with them
I’d watch that
Yes the results would be more consistent because the pros know how to get in the zone and not feel the pressure
@@Dyils you say that like shroud doesn't perform infront of thousands of people when he streams
@@Dyils you said he would be to hype. thats what my comment was about.
Being a fan of both achievement hunter and LTT, This is the crossover Event I never new i needed, but always wanted
I want to see Linus dropping something at Dan @ 72000 fps.
I think you're confusing at with on. lol
how do you drop something at someone?
@@NonsensicalSpudz wind? Lmao
@@NonsensicalSpudz nonsesically so.
How about 100,000$ pc...
No. 1 Yes. Obviously get a pro. Someone as good as you can get to lower the human error factor as much as possible.
No. 2 More tries, all blind so it doesn't influence the person subcontiously to try harder in either situation.
No. 3 quite a few test shots in the beginning to lower the factor of person learning the pathbof enemy. It's not supposed to be a factor - just the reaction time.
No. 4 the initial crosshair location should be away from the path of the target, so he has to move furthernto reach the target. This would increase the time it takes and therefore result in more accurate results.
No. 5 Linus, don't touch the high rate camera, or you'll eventually trip it and drop it.
No. 6 don't test mouse dpi's in the same test. Introducing a second changeable variable makes test results automatically inaccurate to count. You want to test mouse dpi's, do that separately.
No. 7 Include 144Hz
@@XxANTOFFxX Was shocked that it was 60 vs 240 but no 144. My guess is that 60 to 144 makes more of a difference than 144 to 240. Actually u could find out 240 is nonsense over 144 by these tests.
No.1 Human error is not a factor. From a Human Factors perspective what you're talking about is performance consistency. This is a mechanical response to visual stimuli. Get more participants of wider skill to balance for higher skilled individuals.
No.2 Yes, but no. All trails blind and more of them, yes! Skilled players will know the visual difference between 60 and 240. Higher skilled players will have to meta-cognitively compensate for the known effect of 60hzt.
No. 4 This is a three measure test. Why not randomize the crosshair location within 120 squared degrees of the center of the path of the target. Then let the Pp choose the starting location. This would normalize response times and help balance for timed task stress.
No.5 Yes
I would also specifically add a round of: aim and follow with no shooting. See if you can learn anything from tracking without firing. May be insightful, may not be.
A pro wouldn't work. Pros all have 240 hz screens. They are used to that, their performance is thus always going to be biased towards 240hz. Now obviously 240hz is better but using a pro would make it look worse than it is
Please do 144hz vs 240 hz, see if it's worth it to spend that extra cash when you are upgrading from 60 hz anyways!
If you're only playing competitive games, 1080 p will be plenty and therefore you should go 240hz. If you want a higher resolution you just can't go to 240hz. It's honestly that simple right now. Next time I upgrade my 1440/144 monitor it's gonna be to 1440/240.
@@fVNzO It isn't that simple in reality, because you are now assuming that 240 Hz brings practical benefits over 144 Hz, which has never been demonstrated.
240hz for sure for competitive edge, since u will be using 1080p anyway. Been using 240hz for a year, I switched to 144hz once and it feels like going from 144 to 60. It is very noticeable.
I’d like to see the degree of improvement at 90hz, 120, 144, 240hz and please try not to distract your subjects so much.
I agree. 144 is a very available and reasonably priced option. Would be great to see if there is a measurable difference between the 3 tiers, and how much of a step between them.
People are probably better with a 240hz monitor because they are more dedicated to gaming since it's expensive
Super dumb take! Dont think too hard youll break your brain thinkin stupid thoughts.
@@AdrianDWolfe ?
@@talonius5724 You're assumption that people play better cause they paid more money is dumb. You're completely ignoring the huge difference 60hz and 240hz creates.
@@AdrianDWolfe thats not their assumption at all, and they are barely even making an assumption, its more like a hypothesis. It is likely that the people who tend to be better and therefore spend more time playing tend to spend more on gaming equipment.
If the player is good the refresh rate would have significantly less weight. If the player was bad the refresh rate becomes a bigger factor. For adults who want an even playing field with childern online.
Shrouds tracking is insane, he uses 240hz so it would be interesting testing him on lower hz
morgan godfrey he would kill himself if he plays on 60hz
A video with a professional would be perfect to see how they benefit from a high refreshrate.
Shroud would fit
Great video!
I think it is better to let non professionals do it, it's obvious it is highly beneficial for pros so I'm glad they let non pros do it.
but gav is a "professional"
@@___Robin___ You dont have to be pro but if you're trash, then 240Hz wont magically make you better
With a cs:go professional team? Maybe?
@@___Robin___ I agree, pros are used to high refresh rates, automatically meaning reduced performance at lower ones, particularly 60Hz, this is something gamers have been talking about for a while.However, such would demonstrate the benefit of higher refresh rates over time. Refresh rate is one factor that could technically go very far since our eyes see continuously (or at least as fast as electrical signals through the body). Resolution, however there is definitely a limit for, apart from going to larger screens further away, such as maybe gaming on a billboard.
LAN party time, two teams, one on 60hz the other on 240hz then switch over 4 or 8 rounds.
Excellent idea!
And make it something simple like quake instagib
but don't tell them
@@ubaft3135 Ohhhh you can tell. I can tell 60 from 120. On my pc TV anyways.
200 iq
"It matters more if youre already good" is about what I expected
Amazing!
Do a part 2 with 120hz VS 240hz
And do a part 3 with Gsync/Freesync on VS off
Yes, seconded since 144 and 240 is much closer so how bout 120 and 240
Yessss
And a mouse sensitivity, dpi, etc. and a pro gamer?
Yeah cause I got a 144hz monitor so I'm wondering if it's worth it to pull the trigger and get a 240hz monitor.
Yes! I'm way more interested to see the differience between 120/144 and 240hz! Than I am to see 60 vs 240!
It's like Mythbusters, but for gaming nerds... I love it.
Needs more explosions though, and it'll be perfect
Jamie, wants a big boom.😀
they are hardware nerds, they cant game
@CITYOFHEROES CITYOFHEORES There is also Savage Builds and his TH-cam channel Adam Savage's Tested. Mythbusters junior is garbage
GET SHROUD TO DO 60Hz vs 144Hz vs 240Hz PLEASE
Canadian bois testing Hz
yeah 144Hz too 1080p.1440p. and 4K too would be very interesting
Ivobardolf holy fuck are you 10? I bet you got banned from his stream
upvote!!!!!!!!!!!
Get shroud!!!! Plssssss
"Correlation does not mean causation"
Exactly. The most probably reason for the better results from the higher frame rate set is probably down to the users being heavier gamers and more willing to spend money on their setup.
you only got one person fitting to do the job for your 2nd part video:
SHROUD.
I mean, they clearly know that lol, it's in the video.
agree
More like guardian
@@gregorgardos688 that's an odd way of spelling S1mple
jw has the quickest reaction time tho
I think everyone already knows there's a difference between 60 and 240Hz. The question is whether there is any difference between 120Hz and 240Hz.
Or between 120Hz and 144Hz xD
Yeah, 60Hz and 240Hz are way different
If you're going to upgrade to a higher refresh rate, 144hz would be the gold standard in terms of cost efficiency. So I think most people, or maybe its just me, would be more interested in the leap between 144 and 240 and whether that's technically better - then decide if you want to pay 2 to 4 times more for it.
Was about to comment the same thing. Anything higher than 60 is obvious. They need a test at 120.
I well yeah. 24hz :P
Did nvidia not factor in the possibility that if you're really good at games you invest money in your pc to make them look better?
InCrIpTiOn They knew that’s exactly the case, they just wanted to make money from those who don’t do their research
@@Beanvee whats wrong with that
they already talk about this in the video. You clearly didnt watch it
Exactly, correlation != causation.
yeah, thats part of it. but mostly its not because it looks better.. it sounds dumb, but shooter FEEL better at higher rates.
What about isolating something on screen that removes the need to aim and just press the trigger button? Usually for things to appear it takes a few frames but that would hone in on “reaction time”
My old bosses never let us slapped them. Now I can confirm, Linus is truly a good boss.
A bad boss demands, a good boss leads.
He immediately said sorry, true Canadian
My boss used to demand it and that she could call me daddy. Never work for your girlfriend... It gets WEIRD.
When we got a camera with some higher FPS I asked my assistant to slap me while we filmed it. KA-POW! She hit me shockingly hard! She looked and acted like she hit a dog with her car. She said she didn't want to have to do it a second time so she figured she should do it right the first time. He's right... you're ears ring afterward.
Get some pro players in and do this again. Would be very interesting.
They would immediately feel the input lag and aim worse with 60 hz ^^
@@thequattro4219 Very much this. I'm shit, and I can still feel an appreciable difference between 144 and 60hz, let alone 240 and 60.
They would be frustrated with 60Hz. they publicly get mad when FPS drops below 180Hz...
@@henrym5908 because if your used to 240 then 180 looks like dogshit
@@henrym5908 The refresh rate drops below 180? Or does the fps drop below 180? Think before you write.
maybe with eye tracking device and also with 144 Hz, Im wondered about differences between 144 and 240, 60 is slow obviously
It is important for the eyetracker to be able to track with the same or higher frequency as the monitor.
The best way to test this is to play on 60hz for a month, and then on 240hz for a month. And then compare the monthly kill/death stats for both monitors.
A good sample size
For next run, use eye tracker to add more variable
@@bcp6524 they talk about play style and being zoned-out as a variable point, so I think eye tracker will help to see that.
@@bcp6524 No it would not be. An eye tracker can actually measure the time to react, which they currently just assumed was the time to move. That's not correct since,, as Gavin pointed out, people start moving their cursors at different times based in their ability or experience and the amount of pressure they are under.
@@JosephParlindungan unless you have a high speed as an eye tracker to see when eye starts moving, the normal ones are highly inaccurate and pretty much useless in the specific experiment which is built around that
@@feha92 You definitely thought way too much. I know it's supposed to be scientific, but recoil pattern, scope, ..., what? They did fine, just use DPI levels, eye tracking, a pro player & 2 or 3 of the most popular guns in their default modes.
People who are really invested into computers are better at games than casual players. Hot take from Nvidia right there.
So because you have more money you're better than people who are poor? lol More like pc gaming hasn't ever been and will never be a true competitive platform due to wildly varying system specs based on broken economy standards.
@@GodlyAtheist that is not what he meant...
@@GodlyAtheist Dum Dum
Money has nothing to do with it.
I play Destiny 2 on Xbox.
My brother convinced me to finally try it on PC and keep in mind this dude has this 240Hz shit and a custom build pc that idk what it has but it looks fantastic.
I couldn’t do keyboard and mouse.
Told him to use Xbox controller.
Boy I was at my prime and felt right at home.
It’s just what your used to. And if your good or not. Yeah shit seemed a bit faster cuz I’m not used to it but I quickly caught on.
@@GodlyAtheist even though PC esports is worth more than console esports but ok.
Gav looks more professional whenever he's a guest.
And oddly enough he curses more frequently.
Good old gavin.
Yeah, seeing him here instead of on AH really makes it obvious that Achievement Hunter is NOT a family friendly channel
"Gav looks more professional as a guest"
Gav: Flips off camera within 10 seconds of videos start.
He always carries a different, more rigid feel and it low-key stresses me out
Y’all should do this again but 60Hz to 360Hz
Contact Shroud, 3kliksphilip and TheWarOwl for part 2!
How about battle(non)sense?
@@jonbrandjes9024 YES BATTLE NONSENSE
Thing is if they would have to use the same dpi (to eliminate other factors) and that is very enoying. You can see the same with edzel
@@notdave5081 or they could run the whole test multiple times varyong dpi and sens after each full run of the whole test
@@notdave5081 maybe throw some mouse acceleration in there and really mess things up
CSGO Players are probably just mad that they used the autosniper
I was thinking an awp would be better
@lucky strike Ed is actually a decent cs player
@@Neiva71 No they dont. autonoob will stop the player if you hit it and once the enemy is slowed you are free to kill it. Try to oneshot someone with the autonub, using it like if it was a scout, is silly.
only silver noobs were mad
I'm feeling attacked rn
For me, 240hz gaming is about being able to accurately assess my surroundings while moving really fast - At 60hz things look smooth but any sort of motion aside from slow mouse movements results in massive perceived blur and essentially decreases what I am capable of seeing. However, at 240hz, there is little to no blur when moving around quickly, which increases the connected feeling with the game. Also, rendering so many frames makes it so that minor graphical errors such as aliasing or texture shimmering aren't as noticeable.
Linus Media Group, the only company where an employee can slap the CEO and not get fired. LOL
-1
Hell, he GOT PAID to do it!
Stoney Mahoney lol true
But...but... Roosterteeth.... Where you bully your boss, your boss bullies you, and destruction of company property is a win as long as you record it
FYI: The Phantom CineMag drives cost roughly 11k for 1 TB and 18K for 2TB
And here I thought my 1TB T5 was outrageously expensive at $169.
fuuuuuuuuuck
I was just about to google what he thought was "expensive" before i scrolled down and saw this. his demeanor said 2-3k... I'm shocked, He needed to add at least 10 expletives to really express his point on how expensive he really meant!
@@snafuraider1696 When you deal in your base model camera being 100k, the 11k card doesn't seem quite as bad.
For that price...it better out live my grandkids
I think 144hz should have been in the mix. For me the real debate is whether 240 matters over 144.
Agreed.
I think 144hz is enough just train your aim more
But if you want to play pro then buy 240
personally I think 144 is more than enough
People broke records at 15 FPS. Stop being man-childs with your higher refresh rate and learn to game just like the 90s. ROFL
@@Supremax67 nice meme dude. lol
would love to see this study with a larger sample size and more consideration for test/restest bias
The real question is whether there is any advantage between 120Hz and 240Hz, because 60Hz is clearly inferior if you ask anyone who's used high refresh rate monitors.
Luide Mulumba this is a great idea 100-144hz is pretty common.
Yeah, and throw ULMB mode in there too.
Great, now im stuck again between 144hz 1440p or 1080 240hz... :P
Randy Hulsebos exactly, me too
@@s1gnex just wait for the Legion Y27gq monitor from Lenovo
You should absolutely get pro players in to do this. I would also really like to see 144 Hz compared to 240, because 60 feels like a no-brainer. I have never seen a 144 Hz display in my life but 60 Hz still feels somewhat laggy at times. Especially in fps games.
60 to 144 is an insane difference
Frilent Yeah I went from 60Hz to 240Hz, laptop to £3500 PC and I felt so slow and the pc felt so fast. It was mind boggling.
Anything above about 120hz and things really start to get difficult to see the difference from but its still there, Anything above 60hz is a major improvement, My roommate overclocked his monitor a bit ago to 80hz from 60hz and still noticed a huge difference.
Its worth it if you have the money and a decent card for 120hz/144hz @ 1080p
@@Syphious64 I was literally just trying to find out how to do that since someone mentioned it. I do need a new card for more than 80 frames though.
@@Caballum :O
We already know 144hz is better then 60. No point comparing 60 to 240 instead you should compare 144hz to 240hz...
the point is just to show there is a difference between high and low, it wouldn't really show as much of a difference if it was 144 and 240
I agree I have a 144hz monitor and was wondering if it's worth upgrading to a 240hz monitor
144 is hard to calculate
@@bryan.w.t then they can do 120hz, close enough
Most great aimers will outaim most people with a 120hz monitor easily no problem. But a 240hz makes everything seem sharper and nicer, which can be a big factor when a enthusiast\pro is playing hours and hours. Quality of life is very important in anything that you do over long periods. And 144 vs 240 can be really timeconsuming to test, but if i had done that, i would have just used something like kovaaks aim trainer , and gathered the % from a ~20 minute gaming session 144 vs 240, from multiple people, maybe there would be a difference. Forget the "reaction time" , too many variables.
Man I just finished my stats class and all I can think about watching this is how a positive linear correlation exists and can be found using a simple regression calculator on Statcrunch and can probably be done with a significance factor of 0.05
Glad you were allowed to use a program like statcrunch, we had to program that in C++ from scratch :s
*Everybody:* I wonder if 240hz is worth it over 144hz
*LTT:* 60hz vs 240hz
Exactly! That's what I really want to see!
I already know from personal experience with my Razer phone that 90hz is much better than 60. 120hz however doesn't feel as big of an improvement from 90hz though for me.
^-- this so much this
@@RandomFandomOfficial ofc, 60 to 90 is actually more than 90 to 120 % wise, like 144h is more than double 60 but its "only" 84hz extra while 240hz is not even double but its 96hz more
The real point is that it's easier to measure a significant effect with the larger difference in frame rates and 60 Hz is a reasonable, non-trivial case to use for the lower end.
Just continue using 144hz, forget about it, and be happy
Should have ran the server at 128 for best hitbox accuracy
yeah but on lan it's not that big of an impact. Also the hitregistration has some big flaws in cs:go in my opinion.
Where do you see that it's not? Usually when you run local its 128.
@@MichaelBylehn nope, default is 64, you have to set launch options to get 128
Yeah a study was done by 3kliksphilips and high tickrate is almost unnoticeable. The group tested went from pros to even the newest of noobs. Not anyone of those groups guessed in a high enough percentage for 128 to be proven better than 64.... its actually an interesting video but everyones sees things differently so maybe there is a difference for some. I dunno.
Personally, I think that there is a noticeable difference between these tick rates, however I would love to see some simple testing, without a surprising twist like in that test
Inv shroud for part 2 and use him as your test subject ez, calculate his avg response time and precision :v
Do it!
DO IT!
Yes
Definitely have Shroud test 120 vs 240
This would make a really interesting vid with a lot of views.
You could also study practice effect. Have some of your participants ONLY play 240 for several months leading up to the test, and the other group ONLY play 60. Then swap the practice groups and repeat the test a few months later.
144hz vs 240hz Higher sample size and tracking as well as flick accuracy.
60 vs 144 vs 240
That shroud nudge at the end though, I'd love to see it happen :D
Should I tell them that the guy slows down if you get a body shot?
They did it once in this video lmao
also the auto-sniper needs cooldown to regain accuracy, don't think they had that disabled in the console :/
So?
@@Fif0l after the body slows the accuracy required for the next shot is less
Gavino Free, arguably the only "camera guy" more famous than a lot of actors 😂
1:11
why did i expect a sponsor 😂
This is what I like about LTT, while other channels sit there and talk about advantages and disadvantages, LTT comes with a high speed camera, sets up a test and proves what is what.
+
Ronak Dhakan
Welllll sort of. The experiments I have seen are a lot like Mythbusters. They do do experiments but they do NOT actually prove or disprove anything. The experiment is more for entertainments sake than actual proof.
They rarely have controls, the sample sizes are always WAY too small, the double blind considerations are often missed.
So yep it is better than just claiming something - but it certainly is NOT sound scientific proof.
I always talk about how demonstrations are the best way to learn things, especially here!
@@zinsy23 Yeah these sort of videos are cool and useful as it can expose people to new concepts and ideas. Just amazes me that some people think this was somewhere close to an actual scientifically sound experiment. This phenomenon might go a long way to describing why we have so many people being sucked in by pseudo-science.
Yes indeed.
@@VestigialHead exactly what I was going to say your correct
Human eye cant see more than 60 GB of watercooled PSUs
dont forget the rgb
I will download 70GB of watercooled psus and prove you wrong
Only true gamers see at 120 watts per frame
The human I can't see more than 24 per second frames.
@@Verticas the human eye cant see more than 120 rgb graphic card gbs per second of custom fan water cooler hz
I can't get over how much Linus's nose jiggled back and forth when he got slapped.
:D
Same.
@@802Garage I swear you are everywhere. If yt had a top fan, I feel like you would have one on every channel lol.
@@Dabagel100 😂😂😂 In the automotive, gaming, and some commentary spaces at least. I like to socialize. XD
The source of his great business sense.
love the boom headshot reference at 13:31!!!
invite shroud, i want to see his reaction with 60hz, and 240hz.
This
Yeah they have all this complicated tech but the real error comes in with the players
Hit up the Canadian shroud
Shroud is nowhere close to being the fastest... Plenty of faster people around. I say invite them all and figure out the quickest from say 500 tries :P
Shroud would pull a crowd
Where can I download more Hz for free?
Just link a power cable to a cloud, and you can steal other people's Hz for free. You can also do that to download more storage!
Same place you download ram
www.morehzforfree.com
go to the nearest hadron collider, they might have some left in the trashcan
@Manay Lodha who's going to tell you
If NVIDIA's data wasn't a controlled experiment and was public data gathering (NVIDIA highlights Statistics) then it stands to mention the people who play video games more are statistically better, and people who play video games more are much more willing to spend more money on better computer parts.
That type of critique isn't as significant as you might think, because you can statistically control for any variable or set of variables you want, thereby isolating the cause of the correlation if you exhaust the reasonable causal variables.
Since you're arguing that the data is clouded by the causation of skill, which correlates with equipment quality, you can simply control for some variable that either is or correlates with skill (hours played for instance) THEN see how strong the correlation between monitor refresh rate and gaming performance is.
@@Nathan-tg4gu But is Nvidia really going to go through all that hassle?
kervin2k9 It’s not as difficult as you would think (just need to gather 50% more data and hire someone with a good understanding of statistics), although I wouldn’t expect Nvidia to release such a study if it didn’t work in their favor.
yeah, saying better gamers have better monitors is like saying better golfers have better clubs. if you're shit at the game, you probably dont spend much on the equipment
You might think that hours of gameplay equals skill. I can assure you, it does not. You need to actually learn things to get skill. Skill involves a lot of knowledge. There is a part of musclememory, sure. Wich is the only point where actual hours count.
btw Never trust stats you haven't done yourself :P
But framerate isn't just "reaction time" as measured in such a straightforward way. It is really temporal resolution, and accounts for a wide range of important factors in gaming, especially depending on the game.
It'd be interesting to see how much difference there is with 60Hz vs. 144Hz because many people won't be able to afford 240Hz monitors for at least a while.
For me it's gigantic. I alternate between 2 systems, one with 144hz and another with 60hz (both around 150fps) and my kd goes up by 50% on the 144hz one. It is so noticeable my online teammates can tell which system I'm on just by watching replays/death ams.
240hz 1ms monitors are 300$ not that expensive... So if you buy a 144hz you basically waste money if your ultimate goal is to buy a 240hz monitor in the end...
@@nietzsche7207 Yeah also most ppl can't get more than ~150 frames and it also depends on the game, plus i don't think there's a gigantic difference between 144 and 240
dottoRe most 240hz monitors are 1080p and range from $240-$500. However they all use basically the same panel from AUO. One of the top 240hz monitors is the freesync Alienware one which is regularly around $300 and on sale will drop under.
@@nietzsche7207 you are wrong about the quality (the freesync Alienware 240hz is 330$ for example), but even if you weren't, what matters is the panel, and all those panels are exactly the same no matter what brand you choose... if you cant afford 300$ for 240hz then the plastics are not your main problem....
But what about 144hz? ppl keep saying that there is no difference between 144hz and 240hz!
there is a difference but whether or not it's noticeable to an individual very much depends on that individual. the difference ratio wise between 60hz and 144hz is much higher than 144hz vs 240hz which is why it's night and day going from 60hz to 144hz but maybe only late afternoon to night when going from 144hz to 240hz. it's all pretty interesting stuff tbh. i personally believe that 120hz and higher is where you get the most out of your games and own personal skill for the most part. 60hz like on console and on TVs is just straight trash compared to high fps and refresh rates on a computer. #PCMasterRace
i own a 240hz monitor and there is a big difference imo
@uP-Andre Just got my second 240hzer... Mostly cuz of lower imput lag tho... To be fair, above 144hz imput lag is the bbigger factor...
@uP-Andre Oh I used 100Hz monitors from late 90's to 2000. Those were CRT monitors though. While I do believe that change from 60Hz/FPS to 120 does improve the player performance, it would be nice to see more comprehensive study about the difference between 120 and 240 herz. The reaction times in the video were about 200-300 ms so having a ~3ms advantage does not make sense in paper. But the human eyes and brain are a complicated machine and can not be measured in raw monitor refresh rate. Some people may benefit from 240Hz displays while others do not notice the difference. But in the end, a skillful player will pwn n00bs no matter what kind of potato they are looking at.
Rocket jump ninja did a video on it. There are a lot of different factors and scenarios outside of changing hz (specific game, player skill, hours in game, etc.) but for him in quake, higher refresh rate didn't actually make him play better, though it was preferable just because it felt smoother.
Can you get shroud? For the follow up video, that'd actually be amazing
i doubt they could but shroud is so chill that he actually might
Make sure there's a salty 12 yo for him to yell at
@@incediumignis They are also both sponsored by madrinas
@@4FYTfa8EjYHNXjChe8xs7xmC5pNEtz that's what Linus is there for. Lol
Yes, please. That would be amazing.
Linus - we old school CS players really appreciate you adding in the old deatmatch sounds stolen from another game. Whoever on your staff did that is worthy of being front and center. Excellent throwback my friend.
I feel like this would be more accurate if everyone used their normal mouse, dpi, and sensitivity
true, but it would make the math that much harder so you'd have a higher chance of errors
@@bleack8701 it would be more realistic though since they already have muscle memory with their setup
@@bleack8701 it would be less. i cant pick up a mouse randomly and react the same way i can with my home mouse in any way shape or form.
I think it would definitely affect the accuracy, but not the reaction times themselves.
It is obvious that there is benefit of 240hz over 60hz but the real confusing question is about 144hz and 240hz difference
came here to say that
I can tell between 165hz and 100hz but not 240hz
You can barely tell when you switching from 144 to 240. But if you use 240 enough and switch back to 144 you can tell for sure. Tested on myself.
Exactly. It would be interesting to compare 60 to 120, 144 and 240 and see how and when diminishing returns kick in for differently skilled players.
Not as huge as 60 to 144
Definitely get shroud as a test subject, he will be perfect!
If its shroud there will be very less miss cuz he is insane
@@Akash_Banerjee when did Gavin get so sexiiii
Steve Thea gayyyy
yes, get a pro gamer and compare 144hz vs 240hz, because 60 vs 240 is obviously a difference
YASSS
I feel like the results are kinda like how much good quality music equipment helps you: it’s not gonna help that much unless you are already great at what you’re doing and pushing the limits of its current capabilities.
I'd like to see at what point does it starts giving diminishing returns? (120 vs 240?)
www.blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/
yes of course it does, why wouldn’t it lol
I'm glad the difference wasn't soo much, it wasn't worth an upgrade for just 1 game lol.
The 240 gives more fluidity. It doesnt make me a better player at all, but it just feels more natural.
it seems like the step from 120/144 to 240 is pretty small- but the step from 60 to 144 is huge- fps isn't all though- overwatch for instance looks very choppy at 60hz but destiny 1 on a ps4 looks ok(ish) at 35 fps- the problem is the input lag that all solutions to make it look smooth with less frames introduce
cl_interp 0
cl_lagcompensation 0
tickrate 128
I hope you input these commands/launch options
Maxstar22 Ed would know this because even Tf2 players know how to use configs so a middle level comp cs player should
What do these launch options do?
you can't really change lagcompensation and turning interpolation and lagcompensation off will literally fuck you up more than if you had them at 1.
I do recommend tickrate 128, but it doesn't matter if you're playing on a 64 tick server.
@@nobodylmportant Yeah, the game runs a private server that is essentially the same as an online server when you're on LAN, so if you set the tickrate to 64 it would be the same as playing a basic competitive game, only without as much lag
Came here to post this, but also -refresh 240 in the launch options.
Do gamers with a higher hz monitor hit the right arrow faster after Linus says "SPEAKING OF..."?
This is the best comment ive ever read
In my case, yes.
But me on my own is, like, the complete opposite of statistically significant.
I'd probably do it based on the audio at 192,000 HZ.
nasolem Note that you may have to multiple times
My monitor runs at 60hz unless I am playing any game.
i never thought these two together would be so entertaining
Another thing I noticed: Looks like if the player is aware that he is at 240Hz, the result is better not even than 60Hz, but also comparing with the blind test. Like a confirmation bias.
240hz situation: "gonna rule!"
60Hz situation: "I'll die"
blind test sit.: "what am I supposed to do?"
Time to Move all 3 players and Delta results
Blind 60hz avg = 282,3
Blind 240hz avg = 254,3
Blind delta = 28 (11% better)
Aware situation 60hz avg = 272,3
Aware situation 240hz avg = 218
Aware delta = 54 (24,9% better)
The fact of knowing your situation can affect you results.
So definitively there is a psychological component here!
Daniel Liberato ok but as soon as you start playing you can tell when you’re at 60 vs 240. It’s Impossible to have a blind test
The blind test wouldn't have made a difference for me because it's extremely obvious for most gamers who play consistently when there are huge refresh rate differences
How exactly can you tell when the test is literally 3 seconds long. You don’t have enough time to determine the difference in frame rate and react.
Ky the second you move the mouse you can tell. Have you ever played on anything higher than 60fps?
Runé Jackson yeah I play at 144. My point is the test doesn’t start until you see the target and move the mouse, the target is in view for maybe 3-4 seconds, you really have time to say “oof 60 FPS, can’t hit him”
Gav: Hi I'm Gav
Linus: Speaking of Gav, SQUARESPACE
One thing in testing, the shooter should not know IF they got a kill, it should be an avatar that continues running either way and the kills can be determined off screen.
BB that would remove the psychological effect of missing, good idea
The target is "stuttering" at 60fps, but the camera too, I think that's where the accuracy is lost. Where you can really gain advantage with high refresh rate is in simracing, it become easier to feel your braking points as the car travels less distance between frames.
12 secs 4k 1000hz 450+ gigabytes...
Ohhh thats where a petabyte of storage could become in handy
I mean the camera itself costs $100k+ but the 2TB storage is around $18k thats insane...
I don't get it first but now... haha Handy in Germany means mobile phone
I think it shoots at 1000 fps to get the full detail and than converts it to slow motion 60fps. So it's still a 4k 60 FPS file
well, that was in 1000 frames a sec.
not the usal cinematic refresh a normal LTT video is shot in. but yeah, it's still a lot of data
Can we get a slow-mo shot of Linus dropping the monitor?
*cpu
Conner Forbis And the reaction pls
Rule number 1 linus: keep the individuals in the experiment unknowing of what they are trying to prove. You should've had someone else in your group do the test without telling them.
and they even acknowledged the mental state played a huge role. Any input they had affected.
Maybe the correlation is that the more seriously you take something, the more pleasurable you try to make it, no matter how good you are at it.
8:28
"Rock paper scissors for who has to go first?"
"Are you the type of person who says it as they're doing it?"
"Yeah. We go Rock, Paper, then you go."
"You go on paper?"
"No no. on scissors." *lol*
*Proceeds to not say anything and reveal on the fourth beat*
I don't know why this bugs me so much
That was autism of the weaponized variety
well... At least doing it on the 4th beat is the right way to do it...