alt Hacker NewsLove your post. So, don’t take this as disagreement.
I’m always a little bewildered by frame rate discussions. Yes, I understand that more is better, but for non-gaming apps (e.g. “productivity” apps), do we really need much more than 60 Hz? Yes, you can get smoother fast scrolling with higher frame rate at 120 Hz or more, but how many people were complaining about that over the last decade?
Replies
> how many people were complaining about that over the last decade?
Quite a few. These articles tend to make the rounds when it comes up: https://danluu.com/input-lag/ https://lwn.net/Articles/751763/ Perception varies from person to person, but going from my 144hz monitor to my old 60hz work laptop is so noticeable to me that I switched it from a composited wayland DE to an X11 WM.
I enjoy working on my computer more at 144Hz than 60Hz. Even on my phone, the switch from 60Hz to a higher frame rate is quite obvious. It makes the entire system feel more responsive and less glitchy. VRR also helps a lot in cases where the system is under load.
60Hz is actually a downgrade from what people were used to. Sure, games and such struggled to get that kind of performance, but CRT screens did 75Hz/85Hz/100Hz quite well (perhaps at lower resolutions, because full-res 1200p sometimes made text difficult to read on a 21 inch CRT, with little benefit from the added smoothness as CRTs have a natural fuzzy edge around their straight lines anyway).
There's nothing about programming or word processing that requires more than maybe 5 or 6 fps (very few people type more than 300 characters per minute anyway) but I feel much better working on a 60 fps screen than I do a 30 fps one.
Everyone has different preferences, though. You can extend your laptop's battery life by quite a bit by reducing the refresh rate to 30Hz. If you're someone who doesn't really mind the frame rate of their computer, it may be worth trying!
Essentially, the only reason to go over 60 Hz for desktop is for a better "feel" and for lower latency. Compositing latency is mainly centered around frames, so the most obvious and simplest way to lower that latency is to shorten how long a frame is, hence higher frame rates.
However, I do think that high refresh rates feel very nice to use even if they are not strictly necessary. I consider it a nice luxury.
I agree. Keyboard-action-to-result-on-screen latency is much more important, and we are typically way above 17 ms for that.
If our mouse cursors are going to have half a frame of latency, I guess we will need 60Hz or 120Hz desktops, or whatever.
I dunno. It does seem a bit odd, because who was thinking about the framerates of, like, desktops running productivity software, for the last couple decades? I guess I assumed this would never be a problem.
I never complained about 60, then I went to 144 and 60 feels painful now. The latency is noticable in every interaction, not just gaming. It's immediately evident - the computer just feels more responsive, like you're in complete control.
Even phones have moved in this direction, and it's immediately noticable when using it for the first time.
I'm now on 240hz and the effect is very diminished, especially outside of gaming. But even then I notice it, although stepping down to 144 isn't the worst. 60, though, feels like ice on your teeth.