Has any non pro consumer ever noticed a display greater than 60 hz. I can barely get the regular people in my life to nice anything above 30 hz or turning off motion smoothing. I really don't see how any of this stuff matters for most people
Has any non pro consumer ever noticed a display greater than 60 hz. I can barely get the regular people in my life to nice anything above 30 hz or turning off motion smoothing. I really don't see how any of this stuff matters for most people
Someone was complaining to me that Apple took a long time to add 120 Hz displays to phones. I didn't even know what my iPhone had, turns out it's 60 Hz cause it's a 12 mini. I've used 120 Hz displays before. Cannot tell the difference.
If you use a 120 Hz iPhone for 6 months and then switch back to your 12 mini, you'll notice immediately.
What you definitely notice between 60Hz vs 120Hz on a phone is the battery drain.
Depends a lot on the usage I guess. In a tablet where you may draw etc you can notice the difference definitely. Or if you play games on the phone. But otherwise I don't think the difference is that important as it is sometimes claimed.
I think this varies a lot from person to person. I find the effect to be incredibly subtle - one of my monitors reset it self to 60hz a while back, and I didn't catch the problem for days.
Scrolling text, I notice IMMEDIATELY
Sure, and maybe I'm odd, but I don't read text while scrolling. I stop scrolling and then read. So yes, if I just scroll up and down quickly I can see the refresh is different, but otherwise I don't notice it in my regular usage.
I used to switch between a MacBook Pro with a 120Hz display and a MacBook Air with a 60Hz display and never noticed any difference. I think I could probably have noticed if I'd put them side by side and compared the feel of the scrolling, but why would I do that?
There's a minority of people who really do notice stuff like this, which is fine. The problem is that for some reason, they sometimes have difficulty accepting that they're a minority.
If something is not noticeable when it gets "better", but it leads people to notice other stuff is "worse" over time, then I'd argue it's not actually a good thing to get.
Imagine if someone said "this food won't really taste better to you when you first eat it, but after 6 months you'll find other food tastes worse". To me, this would not be a selling point.
I didn't know how bad TV looked in the 90s. We watched a low res 19 inch TV from across the room. Did moving to HD make any real difference in our lives? Do we really enjoy TV that much more? Once the excitement wears off about 20 minutes into watching it, its still the same thing. If the story is good, you get into it either way and forget what you're watching it on.
I watched TV and used computers in the 90s and the whole time I was desperate for display technology to improve. Mainly CRT refresh rates, which often gave me a headache, but yeah I noticed the crappy pixel density all the time too. The nice Apple display I have now is one of my fave things I’ve ever bought and could only be improved by being >60Hz (which I do notice, but it’s not a big deal).
Watching older TV shows I notice a lot more close ups of actors faces. I’m convinced it’s because the shows were produced with small screens in mind.
Depends on the content. When people are talking in a nondescript (thing the "12 Angry Men" movie), SD is quite fine. Now compare it to Blade Runner or Scarface. Those movies absolutely benefit from more detail and colors.
Yes, I definitely remember noticing how much better TV was when we moved from 20" sets from last century to HD LCDs (and then much larger/higher-res LCDs) over the last 25 years.
And I would disagree that only the story matters. If that were the case, people wouldn't go to the theater (a trend that has started happening in the last 15 years as people have been able to rig their living rooms to give an experience that is nearly theater quality, especially when considering cost and convenience. When we had 20" TVs, they were no substitute for going to the movies.
People had giant TV’s in the past as well. They are cheaper now.
Either way, a larger screen is not the same improvement as higher resolution. And more importantly, the reason people may not go to the movies when they have a home theater system is partly due to justifying the cost of the theater system.
It's the same dynamic as with how we optimize for web pages speed. People don't immediately think that website responding 200ms faster is better. But they enjoy the experience more anyway (even if at some subconscious level) and they end up liking it more and spending more time with it.
With food also you could be incrementally getting better and better food and when you then try v1 it would taste bad.
It seems that we might also be noticing slight degradation more than slight improvement in general? No idea if that's true.
I don't think that's a good comparison.
I've often had new phones that are 'faster' but I barely notice the fastness until I go back to my old phone and realise that my finger-memory needs adapting because things take just a bit longer to load.
I'd assume it's similar for screen refresh rates.
That's not been my experience with the refresh rates, and it's not what GP and GGP said either. I have a 13 mini and have bought both 16 and Air. I kept them for 2 weeks and then returned.
When I got the phones, I did not notice any benefit related to screen refresh. I also did not notice any detriment when I went back to my 13 mini after two weeks on a 120 Hz screen.
But if it was as GP said, and it's only something you notice when you go back to a "lesser" screen, then that would not be a selling point in my book.
I always wondered why Windows users didn't notice the jagged text in 2001 and see a Mac as obviously better. You don't know what you aren't missing until it's gone.
Some people are born with nervous systems which aren’t capable of noticing the difference, just like there are people who can’t see better than 20/20 no matter how good their optical acuity is.
Maybe I'd be able to tell in a blind test if I'm looking for it. Just meant it's not something I'd passively notice.
If you have any devices with a faster screen, you can see them side-by-side on https://testufo.com/
Not a blind test, but the smoothness when tracking a moving object is very obvious
Thanks for the link, checked it and well even side by side on my mbp, the difference is not that super obvious. 30 to 60 fps is very obvious and night and day. 60 fps and 120 fps, I only notice the difference side by side if I pay attention...
But maybe it's because I'm 40+ with relatively bad eye vision and 20 years earlier I'd be noticing the difference much more.. But I'd say going from 1080p to 4k was a lot more obvious than that...
I've never understood the 120hz hype. Sure it looks a tiny bit better, but I'd trade that in a heartbeat for more battery.
I'm sure there is a point of diminishing returns for display refresh rates, but I can tell you from experience that it is definitely higher than 60hz. 90hz feels meaningfully smoother (on a Steam deck), and 120/144hz (on a desktop monitor in my case) feels smoother than that. Even mouse input latency is perceptibly lower. I've never used a display faster than 144hz but I honestly would not be surprised to discover that one can still tell the difference well past 144hz.
60fps is basically fine as long as you are unaware that it can be any better, but once you find out you are forever spoiled by the knowledge.
I'm sure mouse latency is a big issue for iPad Mini users.
I know there's a sizable contingent of people who just think a bigger number is better, but realistically this is a device for passively consuming text and video content that is typically around 30 fps anyway. Why waste the battery power on faster refresh?
I know you’re being sarcastic with that first line, but touch latency is even more noticeable than mouse latency.
Does the page look and feel glued to your finger as you scroll?
> Does the page look and feel glued to your finger as you scroll?
Yes, for me issues with apps have mainly been in poorly optimized code causing lag, slow loading and the like. The 60hz/120hz thing has never really been a practical issue.
Yes? That was true even of the first iPad.
Not sure about iPads, but going from a pixel 3 to a pixel 5 made me feel like my pixel 3 was broken. Xr to 16 pro was similar, but that is because Xr was legit broken.
The ProMotion screens have variable refresh rate depending on the content displayed. 10Hz to 120Hz for iPhones and 24Hz to 120Hz for iPads. So in theory the power consumption should be even better than a regular screen for static content like reading text.
[dead]
Yup. For me up until 90/100ish it's a pretty significant improvement all the way up and after that I don't know if I could notice outside of a fast game or wiggling the cursor over a contrasting color
I'm sure a lot of people now would feel odd if you gave them a 60Hz phone after high refresh has become so common, even if they don't pay conscious attention to that kind of stuff
Having seen faster screens, I find 120 is where the diminishing returns ramp up for me. I wouldn’t bother with more.
For doomscrolling or watching videos it makes little difference. For an iPad that advertises drawing with the pencil, the latency of the brushstroke is a massive difference between the two. The more immediate feedback unlocks more confidence and reduces a lot of friction.
From what I can tell, it's the thing they notice more than almost anything else. I was recently shopping for a new phone and my brother, who has no interest in tech, kept telling me I need to get the one with it (I forgot the exact term he used, it wasn't 120hz admittedly).
> I can barely get the regular people in my life to nice anything above 30 hz or turning off motion smoothing. I really don't see how any of this stuff matters for most people
"I don't have an issue with it, so most people also don't have an issue with it"
False Consensus Effect (or false consensus fallacy):
It happens when someone overestimates how much other people agree with them, assuming that their own personal beliefs, values, or experiences are the default for everyone else.
But in this case, most people really truly don't have an issue with it.
It's a very small minority who cares.
> It's a very small minority who cares.
Cite your sources, please or you're just echoing "trust me, bro".
Most people don’t even know what a refresh rate is. They don’t know why it’s measured in hz. They certainly don’t know what 60 vs 120 means.
You can’t prove your inverse take tho.
Reading comprehension is important. There was no inverse take here. Just pointing out anecdotal evidence isn't enough to draw a conclusion over a larger sample size.
I think Apple has held off 120 Hz for so long precisely because the average person gets a bit of a jolt of "this device is fast, it runs so smooth compared to..." they can't quite immediately place until someone explains it's the refresh rate.
Without this, it'd be very hard for an average user to "feel" a performance difference between an A18 Pro in the Neo and say as far as the M5 Max in a MacBook Pro unless they had a "special" use case which really needed the extra CPU/GPU cores.
Of course, they can't stay forever on that. E.g. with the iPhone 17 they finally flipped the non-Pro over. Probably because it was starting to make the iPhone seem sluggish/stuttery compared to other phones more than it was making the iPhone 18 seem fast. Tablets have never seemed to be as fierce a market in terms of your average Joe comparing them, but I'd expect the same switch to being a liability instead of a tool will happen there as well (if they aren't already late to the game).
I think they made iOS run slower for 60Hz devices. Like 2-3 version ago they changed all the animations and it makes it unbearable to use my iPHone 17 on 60Hz when I used to prefer running my old Samsungs on 60Hz several years ago.
I would be surprised if >10% of people didn't notice a difference between 60Hz and 120Hz.
Whether the hardware can keep up with Liquid Glass and push 120 frames a second is a different story, of course.
notice, maybe, but care, definitely not. there's a reason TV manufacturers get away with leaving on that awful AI smoothing by default.
That argument goes the other way though? The only reason TV manufacturers would leave frame interpolation on by default is that a decent chunk of people notice, those people care, and most of the people who notice are "normal people" who aren't repulsed by it.
If only "pro consumers" noticed or cared... well, those "pro consumers" are the ones who think it looks like shit and would rather have a TV without it.
You don't have to know what Hz is to see that scrolling on some devices is smooth and on other (coug..Apple) devices is choppy. 60Hz feels like a decade old phone.
As someone who occasionally browses Hacker News on a Kindle e-Reader, having a low refresh rate really doesn't matter.
I'd love to have eInk at 90-120Hz. But I agree that 60Hz or 5Hz is pretty much similar expeirience when it comes to scrolling.
E ink is at 60hz now. Look up Bigme B7 (it's wild!)
Yeah I wanted to love the form factor of the Mini and thought the 60 he wouldn't be an issue but was reminded any time I used the device.
Actually surprised to learn Apple did the OLED swap and didn't use the opportunity to bump it up at least to 90 hz like the OLED Steam Deck.
If your phone is choppy when scrolling a list on a 60 Hz display, it's not going to scroll smoothly on a 120Hz display.
> it's not going to scroll smoothly on a 120Hz display
It will be buttery smooth between the chops.
My pixel lets me pick between 60 or 120Hz refresh rate, the bump in perceived smoothness is substantial, to the point that 60Hz does appear choppy in comparison.
iOS at 60Hz is so much worse than Android at 60Hz, I don't know why. maybe Apple did it intentionally to sell more iphones
Really, my case it's opposite. I was quite happy with the 60hz on my ip13mini, even if my main phone is Android 120hz phone.
I got a Pixel 7 Pro for work, and it's so laggy. Idk what a 120hz display is for when stock apps like Google Maps are running at like 30fps. I thought maybe some corp security stuff was slowing it down, but I showed it to people at work who have only ever used Android, and they thought it was normal.
Outdated comparison now that Liquid Glass is lagging my phone.
For whatever map rendering in Google Maps is capped at 30fps, yes. Google doesn't seem to care.
Yeah the Android is capable of 120 but often lower than 60 in practice
I just tried it on my iPhone right now, and yeah, something seems wrong. Switching from 120Hz to 60Hz on my Mac, I can barely tell. On the iPhone, 60Hz feels more like 30Hz.
Phones today have plenty of power to generate 120 screens per seconds. Capping them with a screen is a terrible idea. Smooth form a decade ago isn't the same as smooth of today.
20 years ago I was gaming at 30fps and called it smooth. Now 120Hz feels like bare minimum.
I still game at 30 fps and don't really notice it, but scrolling at 30 fps gives me a headache.
Nobody ever wanted a >60Hz display, but once you've used one it's hard to go back. It's like having a higher-performance car. You're now stuck with paying more just for baseline happiness.
It's probably not actually as hard to go back as we think it is, but holding on to stuff is in our genes.
I keep hearing this all the time, and I think this is an absolutely massive overstatement that you cannot go back to 60 hz after experiencing high refresh rates.
My personal experience is that I do notice the difference - for like a minute - and then I adjust and never care anymore.
Yeah, we're talking more like reducing the amount of sugar in your tea hard, not quitting heroin hard.
As an experiment I put my phone into 60Hz after posting this comment. 5 hours later I've remembered. I didn't notice.
I think it only really matters for gamers, but seriously, who's gaming on an iPad?! Use a PC or console!
It's worth pointing out that mobile gaming surpasses PC and console combined, in terms of marketshare and revenue. https://playercounter.com/gaming-industry-revenue-statistics...
I don't know how "mobile" gamers are using iPads (or tablets), but considering the size of the market, I doubt it's particularly niche.