Hacker News Reader

Comment by Mashimo | Hacker News Reader

I read similar reports so many times, when I got my 165hz screen I got disappointed. I also disable it on my phone to get more battery life. Different folks, different strokes.

View on HN

I switch between a variety of displays throughout my day, ranging from 60hz up through 240hz and yes there’s an obvious visual difference, but I adapt to it in a matter of seconds.

It’s nice for games but I don’t really care for productivity use. In fact in that situation I’d take integer-scaled HiDPI density over refresh rate in that scenario.

I wish I could be like you, because going back to 60Hz feels like everything is stuttering for me.

It's also correlated with age. Older = fewer "fps" neurologically.

How many watts are you saving with that, realistically? If that few minutes of extra battery is a game changer, you need a bigger battery, not a worse screen.

I can just go in to settings and turn the battery size up?

Mhh, maybe it was the resolution that I turned down on mobile to save battery.

Never thought I'd meet someone who's eyes can't see "more than X Hz anyways".

What phone is that? I thought they all had variable refresh rate nowadays.

If you mean LTPO, most in fact don't have it.

I have a 60hz monitor and a 144hz monitor and I simply can't tell the difference in normal usage. I can see a difference on something like http://testufo.com if I specifically look for it, and until I checked that I assumed the OS was just lying to me and the monitor was actually set to 60hz.

It's odd because I can tell right away if a game is set to 60Hz instead of 144Hz when first launched before I adjust the settings. The mouse cursor just feels laggy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com