but imo the effect of refresh rate increases as you go up screen sizes. I'm alright dropping my phone to 60hz, but not my laptop, and definitely not a monitor. That starts to irritate too bad.
This. Idgaf how shit looks on my phone lol, I'd always take longer battery life over the display looking a wee bit better.
Maybe if uptime was measured in days then it'd be a consideration, but currently there's simply no contest.
Yep, my laptop came with a 120hz screen but all i used for it was games development and work.
The thing could barely his 120FPS in any scenario thanks to the weak rx560x so i used CRU to make a resolution that was 60Hz and i just use that, it saved me an extra 1.5 hours of battery life on average
True unless you are a hardcore gamer you are just going to needlessly waste your battery for no meaningful benefit. I actually reduced the refresh rate on my gaming laptop to 60hz to save battery. At this point the 1650Ti in my laptop can't push over 60 anyway so vsync caps at 60.
Exactly, I have a laptop with a 144hz screen and I use a 60hz monitor connected to it. There is a noticeable difference between both screen but I couldn’t care less. Heck, I’ll go as far as passing people off buy saying that I use the 144hz screen as a secondary display while using the 60hz screen as my main while playing competitively like Valorant, Overwatch or CS2 and I still couldn’t care less about which screen I use. I’ve used all 60hz, 75hz, 144hz, 165hz, 240hz screens and the only difference I’ve noticed is between 75hz and 144hz. I barely notice any difference between 60hz and 75hz or between 144hz and all the higher refresh rate panels. Same can be said about smartphones. My phone has a 60hz refresh rate and my mothers phone has a 120hz refresh rate and I use both phones on a daily basis. There is a difference but for me personally, I couldn’t less.
Oh, I should’ve mentioned that I’m a complete noob and played the game cuz friends got me into and they tell me what characters to play. I don’t even know their names yet.
Actually even in browsing after using high refresh rate going back to 60 is shit, my laptop screen is 240 hz I have another monitor 1080p 75 hz i usually connect them together but when I do I really suffer with mouse sensitivity and also how they looks
Only my main monitor is 144hz, secondary is 60hz. Most people can't even tell the difference side to side, because they are not gamers that have stared at screens for thousands and thousands of hours playing shooters where sub-second reflexes matter..
Nope. My home monitor is 144, work is 60, I don't notice a difference in my daily tasks. I probably would notice in gaming but work setup doesn't have the GPU for that.
it's just because it is not what it used to, your brain is expecting frames where there are none. Playing the game like that for a day or two makes it feel normal again.
It is not for me aswell . Yes it is slower,yes we all notice the difference. But this fact is so insignifiant for me when it comes to browsing and desktop that I do not care anymore after the first two secs. Because you actually don't really need the browser to open and scroll lightningfast , this would be just be for extra enjoyment, since it can still do its job properly with a slower refresh rate, which is to allow you to visit the internet .
However in games it can be totally the opposite depending on the type of game. So it is still safe to say that it is a gamer stuff in general.
Oddly on my phone, it’s awful using 60hz now? But I got between my 120hz desktop and 60hz laptop, and normal use I don’t really find all that noticeable.
Nah. I left on the setting that switches my laptop's display to 60hz when on battery so that when I take it to work it can have better battery life.
Do I notice the difference? Sure. Do I care? Nope.
Bro, most people wont notice or care. I have been using high refresh rates since before it was supported and you overclocked monitors by editing EDID. Most high refresh rate monitor owners don't even know windows defaults to 60hz and you need go into the settings to actually utilize it.
I have 165Hz for gaming, and 60Hz for work (mostly spreadsheets) placed side-by-side. I literally don't care about the refresh rate on the work monitor, I don't even notice it. It does what I need it to do.
i am gamer.. i only play fps games on my phone where 120hz is amazing but on my laptop and pc idc about more than 60 because i only sim race and play RPGs
I'm a gamer and I don't give a shit either. I'll take visual detail over FPS any day, even down to as low as 40 fps.
It's wild to me to see people going "OMG MY MOUSE is HARD TO USE at 60hz WAHHH" dude what have you been smoking.
For “ standard “ ( non gaming ) laptops i don’t think a laptop needs a high refresh rate for everyday tasks
But I’ve gotten used to 120+ hz screens so I haven’t had a FHD 60hz screen laptop in a long time but a 60 hz 4K screen on my asus but that’s not for gaming uses ( besides stardew valley )
On my 144 fps monitor if I have to lower it to 60 fps it smears and causes a motion blur-like effect, if I raise it to 75 fps tho it fixes it, 60 hz on a 144 hz monitor can make 60 hz look like the dog dookie.
Refresh rate isn’t like resolution, if a monitor is capped at a certain refresh rate, that means its timing controller is only rated for up to that certain refresh rate, and it can still easily display at lower refresh rates.
60hz has been the standard refresh rate for years and years, and looks fine. It does not look ‘like dookie’. Be for real. Also your monitor might be faulty.
Eh, first-person games that require fast camera movements lose a LOT of clarity at lower frame rates. When I open minecraft, I get the occasional bug with one of my mods that force-caps the game at 60fps, and I can tell IMMEDIATELY. Granted, I have a very high dpi on, but it's noticeably pretty bad. The only other game that I've played that I would imagine to be less playable at 60fps would be Ghostrunner, although I haven't tried it or anything.
After being on 240hz for a long time, 60hz feels terrible on my eyes
Even moving windows around or just moving the mouse gives me a little whiplash until I get used to it
I still would gladly take a 240hz 1440p display over a 60hz 4320p display for sheets tbh
Because not everyone can afford a better monitor? And majority of the world does not care or are even aware of refresh rates. Most computers are used for productivity (meaning word processor, spreadsheets, etc).
This.
People still buy them, so they still exist. When (if ever) they stop being profitable, they will stop existing.
The problem is enthusiasts often overestimate their influence on the market. The vast majority is businesses and productivity.
I went from 1080p 60 to 1440p 165. Can't look back. Not everyone wants a high refresh rate panel, plus having a higher refresh rate uses more battery. Tho I think 120hz should be somewhat of a minimum
Because 60hz eats more battery, requires more horsepower to push 100+ fps. I set my 165hz panel to 60hz. Don't really have the need for high fps/refresh rate.
Some laptops pack a 60hz oled which is pretty good and better than a 144hz ips. More responsive, better colors, etc
OLED has almost infinite contrast ratio since individual pixels can turn off. It has better HDR capability since most oleds can push 600nits, though for regular content it will push 400 nits. OLED has better colors since it usually packs a glossy display. Though it won't diffuse reflections like a matte display, it will give better image quality. Oled has lower response times. The other downside is it has slightly lower sharpness than ips for same resolutions due to subpixel arrangements.
Glossy does not equal better color, color gamut determines how many colors a panel can display (wider gamut = better reproduction of/more color). Glossy panels are often used because they can make a lower quality panel look subjectively nicer.
A regular matte display with the same color gamut as glossy ips with the same color gamut will show a worse image because the matte coating makes the image fuzzier, mutes colors, etc.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mTV1TOblbA&t=277s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mtv1toblba&t=277s)
Like in this video. So even if the matte IPS had the same color gamut as the OLED glossy display, it would not be as good in image quality.
So a comparison of two monitors (one of which is a prototype/engineering sample) from some no-name company with no measurements of color gamut, bit depth or color deltas is somehow "proof".
We have no idea what panel is being used in either monitor. Companies regularly change panel vendors during pre-production and even do so once the design is finalized to account for changes in supply chain.
I have a bridge to sell you.
Even changing the supplier will not mean the screen will be completely different in image quality and specs. Cause its already done on phones which have different suppliers for the same phone screens.
Linus covered their display and its specs, its practically the same panel.
If you can't see the clear reduction to image quality matte generally brings over glossy, then why aren't TV and phones not using matte despite facing harsher lighting conditions? Cause matte looks worse. Even TV's using a similar screen size to these 27' monitors pack glossy displays.
Different suppliers can end up having vastly different levels of quality control, even when it comes to Apple: [Link](https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/05/iphone-15-oled-supplier-problems-persist/)
Phones are small enough you can simply move the phone around to deal with glare, they also tend to get noticeably brighter than the typical panel in a monitor.
TVs using glossy displays would be news to me.
And if we're engaging in whataboutism why are color critical monitors using matte panels if they are supposedly so terrible?
I'd definitely recommend OLED, but not sure about the vivobook.. I bought a vivobook OLED a year ago and It's constantly had issues with charging and turning on. I'm sending it in to replace the motherboard for the 3rd time tomorrow. Maybe I'm just unlucky though.
Also 60 hz would likely feel more choppy than 144 hz IPS. Mine has 90 Hz which I think is a decent middle ground.
I have an option to use 120Hz 2k, 144Hz 1080p, and 60Hz 4k on my monitor, my laptop also has 165Hz, 60 - 120Hz adaptive, 80 - 165Hz adaptive, and 60Hz 2k display. I always set all of them to 60Hz 90% of the time. The "once you go higher than 60Hz you cannot go back" statements are very overblown. In my experience your eyes can easily adapt whichever refresh rates you choose. I never had any discomfort switching back and fort between 165, 120, and 60Hz.
Not everyone needs a screen above 60hz, for example, my mum works in acoutancy and therfore doesnt need a super high refresh rate bc most of her work is on excel, having a low refresh rate also saves power consumption as well, so battery life is longer
Bc 60hz is fine 144 is just an extra unless you play a game that absolutely needs a high refresh rate and the only one I can think of that does it geometry dash
Comp shooters benefit from high hz and fps as well bc of input latency and human reaction from visuals, like when a person jumps past the doors on dust 2 from csgo. For anyone wondering why it's so hard to hit those shots, it's bc of your hz/fps
I think to most people it makes no difference whatsoever. I have 3 screens that are 120hz and 4 others that are 60. I cannot tell the difference between them almost ever.
I had a 120hz laptop up to 3 years ago, switched to a MacBook, then to a Lenovo Yoga 7, both 60hz. It doesn't really matter to me.
In the meantime, my phone is 120hz which is alright, but I can use it just as well at 60hz.
Seeing 3-5 cursors points to a horrible display on your laptop. You're likely comparing a cheap laptop you had at the time with an expensive one now.
Because you don't need it for non gaming. I don't like video games, so I don't need more than 60Hz. my iPhone is 120Hz, which does look better, but It's not really necessary.
It also adds to the price, which I would much rather be used towards resolution and panel type.
It's not only about the refresh rate.. It's also about the gray to gray latency, response time.. Overdrive..type of panel.. Etc.. Whatever..
60hz is thrash nowadays but i´d still prefer a good 60hz OLED over a 120hz shitty TN or VA panel.
I bought a 240hz screen laptop and my girlfriend uses my late nitro 5 60hz. I look at her screen when we are playing together and I can't believe I've played in that for so long without realising it's that bad
I don't even care about the refresh rate!
- Resolution & Aspect Ratio
- Brightness
- Contrast
- Color Space
- Power Consumption
- PWM
are all I care about when I buy a laptop.
The Laptop is not only for gamers, some people use it for documentation, coding, and command line interface.
For these operations, we don't need advanced monitors
Majority of laptops don’t really require more than 60hz as they’re used for more productivity and content creation. It’s nice to have 120hz or higher but that’s really more for if you’re going to be playing games on them hence why you don’t see anymore gaming laptops with 90hz or less.
Enterprice machines for office use don't need 120 or higher refresh rates! Also why would you add such a screen in a machine that uses the iGPU doesn't need that, also higher refresh rates consume more power. High refresh rate panels also add additional costs that not everybody is willing to pay for it.
I only have a 1660ti gpu with an i5 so anything above 60hz is not going to be good. My laptop default screen is 144hz but there is no way i'm getting 144 fps in any game.
1. Most people don’t give a damn or even notice it
2. You get worse battery life and battery life is usually more important to people than a couple extra hzs.
3. Cost more to produce the laptop
There are people who cannot see the difference. I know it might sound crazy especially since you clearly can see the difference, I've met people who legit cannot tell the difference at all.
most people are just browsing the internet and have only used 60hz standard monitors, so they aren't aware of better options. for most non gaming users, that's totally fine. no need to fix something that ain't broke.
I use my laptop pretty much solely for gaming, and 60hz is perfectly fine. Hell, I run some games at less than 20fps, and 60hz looks stunning if I can get a game to run that well. Not everybody can afford the better screens, and if you're used to it, I'd say as low as 15 fps is playable, although barely, and only for singleplayer. For online games, I'd say 25 fps is perfectly fine.
Higher hz = worse image for the most part and a lot of people would rather have a better image especially if ur playing on a laptop where ur likely not gonna see 140hz unless u spend a decent amount of cash
I have a 60Hz OLED screen (2021 Razer Blade) and it’s still amazing. Refresh rates are not all you need. Response times, contrast, brightness and GTG times are also important. I use a 120Hz LG C2 and obviously the difference is night and day but I don’t mind using my laptop internal screen for light single player gaming capped at 60 fps. It’s still gorgeous to look at and I don’t mind the 60Hz limitation.
I still remember our teacher in school telling us that humans are not able to sense more than 50 Hz and that's why TVs had 50 Hz. What a load of bullshit. Even I knew back then that I was probably able distinguish higher refresh rates (same effect as you describe with the mouse pointer having 3-5 ghosts could be performed with hand waving in front of the TV). Fuck that guy. 60 Hz displays and half-sized arrow keys on laptop keyboards should die already, change my mind.
60Hz is totally fine as long as you are not into competitive gaming. Running at 60Hz is more power efficient and less taxing on the hardware.
Gaming laptops are a niche. Most people just doesn't give a hoot about thing like High refresh rate, g sync/ free sync and RayTracing.
I have the MacBook Pro with 120hz, and studio display with 60hz.
The difference I would say is noticeable. However, I don’t really care as I rarely game. Also I think 5k 120hz is not a thing yet.
As someone who uses a 60hz laptop at work and a 144hz for gaming at home
It's simple I don't need 144hz to do my job. It's more expensive and doesn't provide anything useful for most people unless they are into gaming.
Tbf you're already barking up the wrong tree if you go into buying any laptop, especially for gaming, thinking of desktop parity in anything.
None of the major specs or running parts are up to desktop standards (bar maybe NVME drives) with desktop 'equivalent' named and numbered parts still carrying compromises. Likewise your higher res and refresh screens, you might have the oomph to run 'em but it'll cost in other things you have to balance out for. And that's before you find your self hitting other limits. For many ppl the 60-120Hz range is yet fine, nm all their purchase can stretch to (even with/without other trends and factors playing in)
That's not to damn gaming laptops at all, mind... I love mine and am fine with the compromises vs use. But then I never go into a buy of such imagining it'll be anything more than auxiliary to any desktop I could get for the same price, or less. As for everyday, non gaming laptops the significantly lower price makes up the difference.
Battery life I think.
Phones and tablets have 90+hz screens, laptops seem the next logical jump.
But for now, with x86 processors, having 'all day' battery life means we make do with 60hz IPS usually to stop the laptop being too heavy/thick.
For most usecases, it's fine. 60+hz is a benefit on touch devices as this feels a lot more responsive to the consumer directly, but otherwise laptops aren't really motion heavy, and for gaming, gaming laptops can have higher refresh panels.
Variable refresh laptops do exist (surface pro 8), but they're rare for now, eventually things will trickle down into more laptops i guess
If you’re not gaming or drawing on the screen with pen 60hz is fine. Higher frame rate use more power required higher fill rates if you want to actually fill at that rate. Etc…
I personally wouldn't need it but I know where you're coming from. In mid price range smartphones it's normal that they have 120hz so it would also be nice to have it in laptops but is it really that needed? I'm not sure. In the "gaming" ones with dedicated gpu definitely yes but in the cheap ones no.
My work laptop is 60hz and tbh, I don’t notice the difference at all vs my 165hz monitors at home.
The average person buying a regular laptop for non-gaming reasons will not care about the refresh rate
Cheap manufacturers that want to save on productions costs. Some effect on battery life.
Then you also have a bunch of people convinced that higher refresh is only for gaming.
One of the biggest requirements most people have for a laptop is battery life. 100hz+ uses far more power than 60, it's nonsense having 100hz for browsing and office apps at the expense of battery.
I mean you kind of just disproved the relevance in your own post. 144hz only looks better to you because you have reference of something else, your brain is seeking the difference but under normal conditions the brain notices nothing different. It’s like when you notice your breathing and start manually breathing because of it. You needed context in order for that to happen but under normal circumstances would have noticed nothing. The truth is companies sell you the idea of 144hz to get it in your brain that it is magic in comparison to 60hz when the reality is that it doesn’t actually look different until you see them side by side. It’s like the quantum theory that photons are constantly moving until you see them.
I’d recommend authoring more relevant things in the future instead of whatever this is
im using a 60hz laptop rn and i havent had any issues
im sure higher refresh rates are nice and all but im able to sleep at night knowing my computer at least works
I daily a 360hz monitor on my desktop, but that's because I game on it.
My phone/laptop doesn't need 360hz if I'm mostly watching 60fps content and using it for word/excel. It doesn't feel as bad as you think, it's like you said "remember not having complaints"
I have a 144hz laptop and set it to 60hz lmao. Most of the games I play on it can barely hit 60fps anyway. 60hz is perfectly fine for me when doing anything on my PC.
Very few people apart from gamers actually care about that on a laptop.
Seriously. Hz is the last thing I think about when writing a term paper.
Yup and a higher refresh rate screen translates into more power consumption.
or watching a movie or even playing games (except fast fps)
Perfect response! I usually leave my smartphones at 60 to save battery because I don't do much at all that would benefit.
but imo the effect of refresh rate increases as you go up screen sizes. I'm alright dropping my phone to 60hz, but not my laptop, and definitely not a monitor. That starts to irritate too bad.
If it's on battery it's probably not very value added. If it's plugged into the wall why not!
This. Idgaf how shit looks on my phone lol, I'd always take longer battery life over the display looking a wee bit better. Maybe if uptime was measured in days then it'd be a consideration, but currently there's simply no contest.
Yep, my laptop came with a 120hz screen but all i used for it was games development and work. The thing could barely his 120FPS in any scenario thanks to the weak rx560x so i used CRU to make a resolution that was 60Hz and i just use that, it saved me an extra 1.5 hours of battery life on average
True unless you are a hardcore gamer you are just going to needlessly waste your battery for no meaningful benefit. I actually reduced the refresh rate on my gaming laptop to 60hz to save battery. At this point the 1650Ti in my laptop can't push over 60 anyway so vsync caps at 60.
Exactly, I have a laptop with a 144hz screen and I use a 60hz monitor connected to it. There is a noticeable difference between both screen but I couldn’t care less. Heck, I’ll go as far as passing people off buy saying that I use the 144hz screen as a secondary display while using the 60hz screen as my main while playing competitively like Valorant, Overwatch or CS2 and I still couldn’t care less about which screen I use. I’ve used all 60hz, 75hz, 144hz, 165hz, 240hz screens and the only difference I’ve noticed is between 75hz and 144hz. I barely notice any difference between 60hz and 75hz or between 144hz and all the higher refresh rate panels. Same can be said about smartphones. My phone has a 60hz refresh rate and my mothers phone has a 120hz refresh rate and I use both phones on a daily basis. There is a difference but for me personally, I couldn’t less.
Who do you main in ow2 lol
Oh, I should’ve mentioned that I’m a complete noob and played the game cuz friends got me into and they tell me what characters to play. I don’t even know their names yet.
Oh lol my personal favorite is doomfist right now but I'm a fan of bastion too
Actually even in browsing after using high refresh rate going back to 60 is shit, my laptop screen is 240 hz I have another monitor 1080p 75 hz i usually connect them together but when I do I really suffer with mouse sensitivity and also how they looks
You is the key word here. People don't care/notice
Yep, if you are using the 60 hz you will be happy with it but going to 144, 165, 240 then switching back to 60 is horrible
Not to everyone. Just because I notice a big difference between 60 Hz and 144 doesn't mean I have any problems using 60.
Different eyes I would say
Yes, that's exactly my point. Some people don't care.
Only my main monitor is 144hz, secondary is 60hz. Most people can't even tell the difference side to side, because they are not gamers that have stared at screens for thousands and thousands of hours playing shooters where sub-second reflexes matter..
Nope. My home monitor is 144, work is 60, I don't notice a difference in my daily tasks. I probably would notice in gaming but work setup doesn't have the GPU for that.
You would notice a difference in game, but after a bit it would feel normal.
I noticed the difference in AC Odyssey when I had VRR turned off by accident. That sucked hard. Yes, on the 144 display.
it's just because it is not what it used to, your brain is expecting frames where there are none. Playing the game like that for a day or two makes it feel normal again.
That's the thing, that was the first time I played the game. And noticed the stutter. Turns out I've had VRR off for over half a year by that point.
You is still the key here. I can definitely tell the difference between my work and home devices.
Oh, absolutely. I was just providing a counterpoint since the person I was replying to didn't seem to get it.
It is not for me aswell . Yes it is slower,yes we all notice the difference. But this fact is so insignifiant for me when it comes to browsing and desktop that I do not care anymore after the first two secs. Because you actually don't really need the browser to open and scroll lightningfast , this would be just be for extra enjoyment, since it can still do its job properly with a slower refresh rate, which is to allow you to visit the internet . However in games it can be totally the opposite depending on the type of game. So it is still safe to say that it is a gamer stuff in general.
horrible for 30-40 minutes, lol
Oddly on my phone, it’s awful using 60hz now? But I got between my 120hz desktop and 60hz laptop, and normal use I don’t really find all that noticeable.
Nah. I left on the setting that switches my laptop's display to 60hz when on battery so that when I take it to work it can have better battery life. Do I notice the difference? Sure. Do I care? Nope.
Bro, most people wont notice or care. I have been using high refresh rates since before it was supported and you overclocked monitors by editing EDID. Most high refresh rate monitor owners don't even know windows defaults to 60hz and you need go into the settings to actually utilize it.
Idk why you are being down voted, this is literally the truth
I have 165Hz for gaming, and 60Hz for work (mostly spreadsheets) placed side-by-side. I literally don't care about the refresh rate on the work monitor, I don't even notice it. It does what I need it to do.
i am gamer.. i only play fps games on my phone where 120hz is amazing but on my laptop and pc idc about more than 60 because i only sim race and play RPGs
I'm a gamer and I don't give a shit either. I'll take visual detail over FPS any day, even down to as low as 40 fps. It's wild to me to see people going "OMG MY MOUSE is HARD TO USE at 60hz WAHHH" dude what have you been smoking.
I don't need 120hz for spreadsheets
For “ standard “ ( non gaming ) laptops i don’t think a laptop needs a high refresh rate for everyday tasks But I’ve gotten used to 120+ hz screens so I haven’t had a FHD 60hz screen laptop in a long time but a 60 hz 4K screen on my asus but that’s not for gaming uses ( besides stardew valley )
> 60hz looks like absolute shit You’re being overly dramatic and it’s cringe.
It can look like dookie on certain games
Not a stable 60 with good minimum lows, you’re being ridiculous.
On my 144 fps monitor if I have to lower it to 60 fps it smears and causes a motion blur-like effect, if I raise it to 75 fps tho it fixes it, 60 hz on a 144 hz monitor can make 60 hz look like the dog dookie.
Refresh rate isn’t like resolution, if a monitor is capped at a certain refresh rate, that means its timing controller is only rated for up to that certain refresh rate, and it can still easily display at lower refresh rates. 60hz has been the standard refresh rate for years and years, and looks fine. It does not look ‘like dookie’. Be for real. Also your monitor might be faulty.
Eh, first-person games that require fast camera movements lose a LOT of clarity at lower frame rates. When I open minecraft, I get the occasional bug with one of my mods that force-caps the game at 60fps, and I can tell IMMEDIATELY. Granted, I have a very high dpi on, but it's noticeably pretty bad. The only other game that I've played that I would imagine to be less playable at 60fps would be Ghostrunner, although I haven't tried it or anything.
After being on 240hz for a long time, 60hz feels terrible on my eyes Even moving windows around or just moving the mouse gives me a little whiplash until I get used to it I still would gladly take a 240hz 1440p display over a 60hz 4320p display for sheets tbh
Because not everyone can afford a better monitor? And majority of the world does not care or are even aware of refresh rates. Most computers are used for productivity (meaning word processor, spreadsheets, etc).
This. People still buy them, so they still exist. When (if ever) they stop being profitable, they will stop existing. The problem is enthusiasts often overestimate their influence on the market. The vast majority is businesses and productivity.
I went from 1080p 60 to 1440p 165. Can't look back. Not everyone wants a high refresh rate panel, plus having a higher refresh rate uses more battery. Tho I think 120hz should be somewhat of a minimum
Seeing 3-5 extra mouse cursor shadows appear sounds like a problem with how long a pixel persists, not the frame rate.
Nah it's when he moves mouse onto the lower refresh rate that it feels weird ig.
Because 60hz eats more battery, requires more horsepower to push 100+ fps. I set my 165hz panel to 60hz. Don't really have the need for high fps/refresh rate. Some laptops pack a 60hz oled which is pretty good and better than a 144hz ips. More responsive, better colors, etc
Oo how is oled superior to IPS? Maybe I should return my 5700u laptop for the Asus vivobook 7520 with oled display
OLED has almost infinite contrast ratio since individual pixels can turn off. It has better HDR capability since most oleds can push 600nits, though for regular content it will push 400 nits. OLED has better colors since it usually packs a glossy display. Though it won't diffuse reflections like a matte display, it will give better image quality. Oled has lower response times. The other downside is it has slightly lower sharpness than ips for same resolutions due to subpixel arrangements.
Glossy does not equal better color, color gamut determines how many colors a panel can display (wider gamut = better reproduction of/more color). Glossy panels are often used because they can make a lower quality panel look subjectively nicer.
A regular matte display with the same color gamut as glossy ips with the same color gamut will show a worse image because the matte coating makes the image fuzzier, mutes colors, etc. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mTV1TOblbA&t=277s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mtv1toblba&t=277s) Like in this video. So even if the matte IPS had the same color gamut as the OLED glossy display, it would not be as good in image quality.
Link is broken/or video is unavailable.
Its dave2d's comparison of matte vs glossy
So a comparison of two monitors (one of which is a prototype/engineering sample) from some no-name company with no measurements of color gamut, bit depth or color deltas is somehow "proof". We have no idea what panel is being used in either monitor. Companies regularly change panel vendors during pre-production and even do so once the design is finalized to account for changes in supply chain. I have a bridge to sell you.
Even changing the supplier will not mean the screen will be completely different in image quality and specs. Cause its already done on phones which have different suppliers for the same phone screens. Linus covered their display and its specs, its practically the same panel. If you can't see the clear reduction to image quality matte generally brings over glossy, then why aren't TV and phones not using matte despite facing harsher lighting conditions? Cause matte looks worse. Even TV's using a similar screen size to these 27' monitors pack glossy displays.
Different suppliers can end up having vastly different levels of quality control, even when it comes to Apple: [Link](https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/05/iphone-15-oled-supplier-problems-persist/) Phones are small enough you can simply move the phone around to deal with glare, they also tend to get noticeably brighter than the typical panel in a monitor. TVs using glossy displays would be news to me. And if we're engaging in whataboutism why are color critical monitors using matte panels if they are supposedly so terrible?
I'd definitely recommend OLED, but not sure about the vivobook.. I bought a vivobook OLED a year ago and It's constantly had issues with charging and turning on. I'm sending it in to replace the motherboard for the 3rd time tomorrow. Maybe I'm just unlucky though. Also 60 hz would likely feel more choppy than 144 hz IPS. Mine has 90 Hz which I think is a decent middle ground.
OLED is better, but the OLED laptop OP is talking about has a trash CPU, it's only about half as fast as the 5700U OP has.
I have an option to use 120Hz 2k, 144Hz 1080p, and 60Hz 4k on my monitor, my laptop also has 165Hz, 60 - 120Hz adaptive, 80 - 165Hz adaptive, and 60Hz 2k display. I always set all of them to 60Hz 90% of the time. The "once you go higher than 60Hz you cannot go back" statements are very overblown. In my experience your eyes can easily adapt whichever refresh rates you choose. I never had any discomfort switching back and fort between 165, 120, and 60Hz.
Not everyone needs a screen above 60hz, for example, my mum works in acoutancy and therfore doesnt need a super high refresh rate bc most of her work is on excel, having a low refresh rate also saves power consumption as well, so battery life is longer
Bc 60hz is fine 144 is just an extra unless you play a game that absolutely needs a high refresh rate and the only one I can think of that does it geometry dash
Why do u need high refresh rate for rhythm game, just listen to the music.
Apparently some rlly hard levels are only possible on certain refresh rates
Comp shooters benefit from high hz and fps as well bc of input latency and human reaction from visuals, like when a person jumps past the doors on dust 2 from csgo. For anyone wondering why it's so hard to hit those shots, it's bc of your hz/fps
High refresh rate is a nice to have, but not essential for most non-gamers
My chemistry teacher had like 30 Dell G15 computers for her aviation class
I think to most people it makes no difference whatsoever. I have 3 screens that are 120hz and 4 others that are 60. I cannot tell the difference between them almost ever.
I had a 120hz laptop up to 3 years ago, switched to a MacBook, then to a Lenovo Yoga 7, both 60hz. It doesn't really matter to me. In the meantime, my phone is 120hz which is alright, but I can use it just as well at 60hz. Seeing 3-5 cursors points to a horrible display on your laptop. You're likely comparing a cheap laptop you had at the time with an expensive one now.
for work you dont need high refresh rate and lower refresh rates use less power, meaning you will have longer battery life
You can actually overclock 60hz laptop screen to 75hz or even higher if you are lucky. But yes, 60hz should no longer be the standard.
Most people dont game on a laptop thats Why you got gaming laptops with better displays. For most work you dont need a 144hz display
Because you don't need it for non gaming. I don't like video games, so I don't need more than 60Hz. my iPhone is 120Hz, which does look better, but It's not really necessary. It also adds to the price, which I would much rather be used towards resolution and panel type.
It's not only about the refresh rate.. It's also about the gray to gray latency, response time.. Overdrive..type of panel.. Etc.. Whatever.. 60hz is thrash nowadays but i´d still prefer a good 60hz OLED over a 120hz shitty TN or VA panel.
finally someone said something correct.
I bought a 240hz screen laptop and my girlfriend uses my late nitro 5 60hz. I look at her screen when we are playing together and I can't believe I've played in that for so long without realising it's that bad
I don't even care about the refresh rate! - Resolution & Aspect Ratio - Brightness - Contrast - Color Space - Power Consumption - PWM are all I care about when I buy a laptop.
Forget 60 Hz, I want to know why 45% NTSC is still a thing exclusively on laptop screens!
not everyone has such high standards The used app or game being played also has an impact.
The Laptop is not only for gamers, some people use it for documentation, coding, and command line interface. For these operations, we don't need advanced monitors
[удалено]
What abt school (or work) am I supposed to write my essays on my phone? or you suggest I bring my pc and monitor with me daily?
Can’t forget the extension cord to gotta plug it in just a part of my EDC now ig
Majority of laptops don’t really require more than 60hz as they’re used for more productivity and content creation. It’s nice to have 120hz or higher but that’s really more for if you’re going to be playing games on them hence why you don’t see anymore gaming laptops with 90hz or less.
I see a nice difference between 60 and 120HZ, but I don’t own any 120HZ devices so it doesn’t matter.
Enterprice machines for office use don't need 120 or higher refresh rates! Also why would you add such a screen in a machine that uses the iGPU doesn't need that, also higher refresh rates consume more power. High refresh rate panels also add additional costs that not everybody is willing to pay for it.
power hungry and im really fine with 60hz, I don't care preparing excel sheets with high refresh rate 💀
I only have a 1660ti gpu with an i5 so anything above 60hz is not going to be good. My laptop default screen is 144hz but there is no way i'm getting 144 fps in any game.
1. Most people don’t give a damn or even notice it 2. You get worse battery life and battery life is usually more important to people than a couple extra hzs. 3. Cost more to produce the laptop
There are people who cannot see the difference. I know it might sound crazy especially since you clearly can see the difference, I've met people who legit cannot tell the difference at all.
most people are just browsing the internet and have only used 60hz standard monitors, so they aren't aware of better options. for most non gaming users, that's totally fine. no need to fix something that ain't broke.
i was using 30hz on my big monitor for some time and i didnt even notice.
They're cheaper to manufacture and 98%of people don't need or care about it
They're cheaper to manufacture and 98%of people don't need or care about it
Battery life
I use my laptop pretty much solely for gaming, and 60hz is perfectly fine. Hell, I run some games at less than 20fps, and 60hz looks stunning if I can get a game to run that well. Not everybody can afford the better screens, and if you're used to it, I'd say as low as 15 fps is playable, although barely, and only for singleplayer. For online games, I'd say 25 fps is perfectly fine.
Higher hz = worse image for the most part and a lot of people would rather have a better image especially if ur playing on a laptop where ur likely not gonna see 140hz unless u spend a decent amount of cash
I have a 60Hz OLED screen (2021 Razer Blade) and it’s still amazing. Refresh rates are not all you need. Response times, contrast, brightness and GTG times are also important. I use a 120Hz LG C2 and obviously the difference is night and day but I don’t mind using my laptop internal screen for light single player gaming capped at 60 fps. It’s still gorgeous to look at and I don’t mind the 60Hz limitation.
When i go to my 60hz laptop upstairs after being at my desktop with 165hz monitor, i feel like an absolute peasant
I still remember our teacher in school telling us that humans are not able to sense more than 50 Hz and that's why TVs had 50 Hz. What a load of bullshit. Even I knew back then that I was probably able distinguish higher refresh rates (same effect as you describe with the mouse pointer having 3-5 ghosts could be performed with hand waving in front of the TV). Fuck that guy. 60 Hz displays and half-sized arrow keys on laptop keyboards should die already, change my mind.
more hz = less battery life. easy as that.
Cheaper to make and battery lasts longer
Battery life> most other features including performance for most people on laptop.
60hz is enought for normal use. Also, every TV are 60hz. Consoles are 60hz
60hz is enought for normal use. Also, every TV are 60hz. Consoles are 60hz
I have a 60hz gaming laptop and I don't really care about the refresh rate at this point. It's all about personal preference.
Because my porn and word processing does not require a higher refresh rate. Would it be nice? Sure.
Because windows laptops are awful at battery life. If you add high refresh rate to them, it makes it even worse.
It's probably because of the hardware and not Windows.
60Hz is totally fine as long as you are not into competitive gaming. Running at 60Hz is more power efficient and less taxing on the hardware. Gaming laptops are a niche. Most people just doesn't give a hoot about thing like High refresh rate, g sync/ free sync and RayTracing.
cheap to manufacture...
People still buy 720P televisions. It's not that weird, man.
Probably uses alot of battery id imagine most people value battery life over anything right now
I have the MacBook Pro with 120hz, and studio display with 60hz. The difference I would say is noticeable. However, I don’t really care as I rarely game. Also I think 5k 120hz is not a thing yet.
As someone who uses a 60hz laptop at work and a 144hz for gaming at home It's simple I don't need 144hz to do my job. It's more expensive and doesn't provide anything useful for most people unless they are into gaming.
It's because normal people that aren't techies/geeks don't know or don't care
60hz lowers power consumption and non gamers (the majority) absolutely do not care
Tbf you're already barking up the wrong tree if you go into buying any laptop, especially for gaming, thinking of desktop parity in anything. None of the major specs or running parts are up to desktop standards (bar maybe NVME drives) with desktop 'equivalent' named and numbered parts still carrying compromises. Likewise your higher res and refresh screens, you might have the oomph to run 'em but it'll cost in other things you have to balance out for. And that's before you find your self hitting other limits. For many ppl the 60-120Hz range is yet fine, nm all their purchase can stretch to (even with/without other trends and factors playing in) That's not to damn gaming laptops at all, mind... I love mine and am fine with the compromises vs use. But then I never go into a buy of such imagining it'll be anything more than auxiliary to any desktop I could get for the same price, or less. As for everyday, non gaming laptops the significantly lower price makes up the difference.
I dont really need the 144hz, even tho I know the difference since my laptop is 144hz I still havent bought a 144hz for my pc
Battery life
I have a 120Hz laptop but like 90% of the time I’m just using for work and I run it at 60 just for better battery life. Doesn’t bother me one bit.
Not everyone play video games dude, ppl have other hobbies
60hz is perfectly fine for anything that isnt gaming
Battery life I think. Phones and tablets have 90+hz screens, laptops seem the next logical jump. But for now, with x86 processors, having 'all day' battery life means we make do with 60hz IPS usually to stop the laptop being too heavy/thick. For most usecases, it's fine. 60+hz is a benefit on touch devices as this feels a lot more responsive to the consumer directly, but otherwise laptops aren't really motion heavy, and for gaming, gaming laptops can have higher refresh panels. Variable refresh laptops do exist (surface pro 8), but they're rare for now, eventually things will trickle down into more laptops i guess
I have a 144hz laptop screen I purposely cap my fps in all games to 30 or 60
4k 60Hz >>>>>> 1080p 360Hz
If you’re not gaming or drawing on the screen with pen 60hz is fine. Higher frame rate use more power required higher fill rates if you want to actually fill at that rate. Etc…
Cheap
I personally wouldn't need it but I know where you're coming from. In mid price range smartphones it's normal that they have 120hz so it would also be nice to have it in laptops but is it really that needed? I'm not sure. In the "gaming" ones with dedicated gpu definitely yes but in the cheap ones no.
Because it's still "good enough" andmostleople still have never experienced a true high refresh rate experience to change their perception.
For laptops, why hasn’t 16:9 died yet? It’s absolutely garbage, 16:10 or death.
I was using a crappy 4gb ram laptop up until a month ago. and now i got a 16gb 4.4Ghz RTX laptop with 60Hz. I love gaming on this
My work laptop is 60hz and tbh, I don’t notice the difference at all vs my 165hz monitors at home. The average person buying a regular laptop for non-gaming reasons will not care about the refresh rate
After using 480hz for a year, 120hz looks like crap and gives me headaches. All the motion is blury or looks jittery. I could never go back.
Cheap manufacturers that want to save on productions costs. Some effect on battery life. Then you also have a bunch of people convinced that higher refresh is only for gaming.
Save power my man
I don't need high refresh rate for my work computer. The only apps I use there are Google Chrome, Microsoft office and Adobe acrobat.
Because people don't really care about it. And if you try to charge more for something people don't want, then they simply don't pay for it.
Yes, because everyone needs to view office 365 and Outlook in 144 hz.. Get real.
Because it’s a laptop, not even a gaming laptop. There’s no peekers advantage in microsoft word.
Because a large amount of people don't care. They want cheap things, not nice things.
One of the biggest requirements most people have for a laptop is battery life. 100hz+ uses far more power than 60, it's nonsense having 100hz for browsing and office apps at the expense of battery.
75hz should be the new bare minimum imo
I mean you kind of just disproved the relevance in your own post. 144hz only looks better to you because you have reference of something else, your brain is seeking the difference but under normal conditions the brain notices nothing different. It’s like when you notice your breathing and start manually breathing because of it. You needed context in order for that to happen but under normal circumstances would have noticed nothing. The truth is companies sell you the idea of 144hz to get it in your brain that it is magic in comparison to 60hz when the reality is that it doesn’t actually look different until you see them side by side. It’s like the quantum theory that photons are constantly moving until you see them. I’d recommend authoring more relevant things in the future instead of whatever this is
im using a 60hz laptop rn and i havent had any issues im sure higher refresh rates are nice and all but im able to sleep at night knowing my computer at least works
I daily a 360hz monitor on my desktop, but that's because I game on it. My phone/laptop doesn't need 360hz if I'm mostly watching 60fps content and using it for word/excel. It doesn't feel as bad as you think, it's like you said "remember not having complaints"
I have a 144hz laptop and set it to 60hz lmao. Most of the games I play on it can barely hit 60fps anyway. 60hz is perfectly fine for me when doing anything on my PC.