When I have a migraine setting in, I get pretty severe peripheral vision flicker. Like cheap LED bulbs and my 2nd monitor will flicker bad to me. My main monitor is “only” 75Hz, but that helps a surprising amount.
Would love to upgrade to >100Hz, but that is out of budget for the forseeable future.
I saw that some new Razer laptops are coming out with 360Hz 1080p displays.
My thoughts:
contrarian? not necessarily…just expressing my viewpoint.
however, saying you see more than 60fps, the maximum we can process, is unrealistic and goes against what sciences has found. it’s no different than saying we can hear higher 20khz or lower than 20hz. it’s just not possible, no matter what someone says.
buuut, there are exceptions to this. a lot is going on when we are watching something and while we cannot see beyond 60fps, we can be aware of flicker at higher rates…up to 90hz.
same for audio…you don’t hear below 20hz but you can darn well feel it! not sure about 20khz as my hearing taps out at 15khz now.
people need to justify or suffer the placebo effect badly. YMMV.
At this point I understand you are a dick. Have a great day.
science:
but I’m fine to agree to disagree on this point. doesn’t mean we can’t be civil or enjoy a level of camaraderie on other topics. 
I have a fundamental problem with this “FPS seeing”-expression.
Now, my biology understanding is not great. However:
There are different types of neurons, digital and analog ones. Due to their working principle they can be “locked” into excited or unexcited state (by poison or other substances that influence them).
They are also limited in transmission speed meaning continuous triggering on one end leads to a permanent high on the other.
For the visual receptors and nerves connecting it, this retrigger-speed is reached at 24Hz resulting in perception of motion. This is why old film is recorded at 24 frames per second.
If you have been to a Disco with strobes changing speed, you will notice how 10 to 20Hz flashing makes a huge difference.
And this continues further. 30 FPS looks smoother than 25. 60 smoother than 30 and so on.
So this afformentioned retriggering gets affected by rising frequency.
On an audio forum… Bold thing to say…
Could argue the KPH30i is the same as HE-1.
They are different because signature, timbre, etc.
Monitors are the same.
Input latency, Response time Grey to Grey, etc.
Thought:
Ever played with a ping of 250ms?
That is 4FPS!
80ms - 12.5FPS
30ms - 33FPS
16ms - 60FPS
I can clearly tell you the difference between all 4 of them… Thanks to my German Internet…
The word contrarian indeed seems appropriate to you, but fine, I will indulge you one more time:
Have you read the article? It actually never says we can only see 60hz and that we might be able to see more than previously thought for one. Secondly their way of measuring appears to be flashing an image and see whether people can tell what was in that picture. That’s something different than perceived smoothness and probably doesn’t apply when you are waiting for a change on a specific part of the screen (holding an angle in csgo for example.
Also please explain why vr glasses with a high refresh rate reduce motion sickness and headsches if the eyes cannot do anything with a signal above 60hz.
Fair enough, I shouldn’t have said no one. Out of curiosity, what games are you running at what framerates?
I remember when console gamers used to say the high est we can see was 30 fps lol. Speaking from experience and how big of a deal people make when they first see refresh rates higher than 60 with new tech like our phones let alone just gaming at 144 Hz I’m pretty sure we can see over 60 fps and saying otherwise feels contrarian or you simply haven’t experienced it. I don’t know but. Both anecdotal and straight up seeing “scientific” data of the past who even say the diminishing returns point is 120 Hz , and Linus doing his videos that show returns for people even beyond that. I’m pretty sure we can see above 60 fps. The biggest benefit a smooth and high refresh rate brings is how fast I can response due to the usually faster gtg and die to how many more frames there are input latency is much faster so if I’m flicking heads I can see heads much faster and therefore adjust my aim mid flick much better and be able to click much better for one taps. Same goes if I’m holding an angle I can see when an opponent crosses my sights faster and even if it’s just a millisecond it gives me the advantage especially with some of the cracked individuals I see in siege sprinting at me doing leans and dodging bullets like neo I need as much help as possible
My 3600x 3070 combo can run all the esport titles aside from the battle royal games max at more than 250-300fps @1440p so with his combo I assume most last gen titles
I was really hoping for some new options at CES, but nothing so far. The closest I’ve found to what I want is the Odyssey G7 but it’s only 600 nit peak (which is usually around 350 typical brightness) and the panel isn’t the best for colour reproduction.
I was also looking at the 43" ASUS PG43UQ but all the 43" HDR monitors have a litany of issues because they’re all edge lit (so is the G7) with a pitiful number of dimming zones.
Hurry up, MicroLED.
The games that I currently play on my 1080p screen are warzone, black ops cold war, rocket league and overwatch. I’m getting around 200 fps average on warzone and black ops I would guess. Overwatch I can max out the game engine but I soft lock it to 238 to keep in the gsync range without the added input lag from using v sync. Rocket league doesn’t really benefit as much past 144 for me because the size of the ball but I only use my 1440p 144hz screen for race Sims. All my racing is done on my rig instead with a 144hz samsung va panel.
as I pointed out from the article, the eye can process 60fps but that it is aware of what they call ‘flicker rate’ that can be as high as 90fps.
that said, this bit is the important part:
The short answer is that you may not be able to consciously register those frames, but your eyes and brain may be aware of them.
seeing 200fps is physically impossible, just as hearing higher than 20khz or lower than 20hz is physically imposible. however, with our other senses, we can be ‘aware’. the crux here is that I don’t believe 200fps or 300fps helps a gamer as much as gamers think it does.
but as I closed with…believe what you want to believe, each to their own as YMMV. 
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07861
I think it’s fair to say the human body is complicated and alot of its not really understood. Also why doctors practice medicine.
Speaking from personal experience the difference between 140fps 60Hz vs 200fps 144Hz is huge. You definitely have an edge over other players that aren’t using, if you are playing competitive shooters. In some scenarios you can even see the other person before they do and you are more precise with your mouse movement, flicks and such. High FPS and high refresh rate aren’t gimmicks nor are they unnecessary, specially if you have a use case for them. Of course at some point you have to ask yourself do I really need that 360Hz monitor or not, like some guys buy McLarens and what not only to drive to work in city traffic, without pushing the limits of the car. Sure it’s the pinnacle of performance, but if you aren’t really using it then what’s the point.
And then there’s this, hopefully this changes your mind.
The only true proof for myself is anecdotal but this is a barely debated topic cause most people who experience are pretty much convinced to experiencing such a difference. Especially those it matters most to which are competitive shooter gamers. These boys will use shitty audio all day sometimes pretty shitty boards but the one thing we all kind of have in common even though personally I’m not that good at games but everyone I know who is top at their games whether pro or semi pro is we all have mice with top sensors and have or in the process of getting high refresh rate monitors cause it gives everyone a huge edge. I’m at the point of not being able to play shooters if it’s locked or my PC can’t run it at at least 100 fps. Cause anything below that I feel something is off and I can’t concentrate.
this is the root of the matter. anecdotal…placebo even. 
And so is most of our finding when it comes to audio and with audio the debate is even a hotter topic because we can’t actually see the differences and then you get to technicalities of say an amp and we can’t even quantify that. With this kinda thinking we have literally no reason to get a 880 over a ksc75 if the soundsig is pretty close.
true…but sciences has proven the limits of our hearing. however, with our other senses we can go beyond those limits, which is especially so with bass notes.
Purposely sidetracking this conversation:
I’m looking at a new mouse and I’m trying to decide between Logitech Pro Wireless and Razer Pro Click.
I use it for work all day and gaming one or two nights a week, sometimes a bit of competitive CSGO with friends (not ranked high) and other times RPGs and stuff. I should not that I suck at CSGO and have no plans on improving, I couldn’t hit a flick if I were using an aimbot.
Both mice have their pro’s and cons, but what I’m mostly torn between atm is the weight; the Logitech is 80 grams, the Razer 106 grams and my current mouse is 93 grams. I’m not particularly looking for something that weighs less or weighs more so I’m not sure what to get.
I like the aesthetic of the Razer more and the fact that it also has Bluetooth (for my laptop), but the Logitech has so many good reviews. I feel like the Razer is better for work and the Logitech is better for gaming…
Thoughts, ideas or suggestions?
I’d go with Logitech. their software is a lot friendlier than Razer’s. Razer’s software caused so many issues I turned around and gave away my Razer keyboard and mouse.