alt Hacker NewsEven 50hz is fine. I'd go so far as to say, barring any medical or sensitivity issue, if any person prioritizes a 120hz screen they are a victim to habit or marketing.
It adds zero value to the experience, and you're just looking for things to be annoyed by / brag about.
Modern displays are already cutting edge. They have improved in every way that's meaningful in the last 35 years. Refresh rate is just not meaningful enough. "35 year old performance" it most certainly is not. You just seem hellbent on using this arbitrary (to most people) benchmark as a filter.
FYI, I run my 17 pro almost exclusively on power saving mode to cap frame rates because the battery life extending by 30 mins is more infinitely more valuable than frame rate over 50. I've capped my fancy monitor's frame rate to 60 so it matches my macbook air. And it's all fine in this world, nothing here is "one notch above unusable".
Replies
> Refresh rate is just not meaningful enough.
Until the bloody compositor updates the screen based on it or worse based on half of it.
"Even 4gb of memory is fine", "even 720p is fine", "even 2ghz CPU is fine", "even a membrane keyboard is fine", "even USB 2.0 is fine", "even 2 hours battery life is fine"...
Yeah it's all "fine". If these were the specs of the only laptop available to me then yeah it would be "fine". I could get things done. One or more of those things are deal-breakers for an awful lot of people.
For me, a rubbish display is a deal-breaker. I can't accept that they would compromise in this aspect, presumably to save a few bucks.
It's likely as difficult for me to understand how you could possibly prefer battery life over refresh rates as it is for you to do the opposite. And I'm not even talking crazy refresh rates here, 120hz or even 90hz at a minimum.
Would you buy a high-end laptop with 15 minute battery life? I'm not buying a new laptop with a 60hz display.