Response time vs refresh rate: which really matters?

12 Tem 08:21

А вот реальный кейс: пару месяцев назад собирал комп знакомому, который на CS2 и Valorant фанатеет. У него моник 1080p 240Hz был с 0.5ms, но когда на 165Hz переключил — разницы в плавности не почувствовал, зато хвосты за объектами местами оставались. Перебрали на 144Hz с 1ms панели (IPS, а не TN) и всё как-то глаже стало — и цвета приятнее, и следов от движения нет. То есть, 240Hz реально круто, только если железо потянет, а так — лучше 165Hz с нормальным откликом, а не наоборот. У друга после смены моника фпс просел на 10-15%, но субъективно играть комфортнее стало. Так что вывод: если не фризишь в 500+ фпс — 165-240Hz ИПС с 1ms будет оптимальнее, чем 144Hz с 0.5ms.

12 Tem 09:06

Man, this is a classic dilemma everyone goes through when upgrading their setup. I remember when I swapped from a 144Hz 4ms monitor to a 240Hz 0.5ms beast—it was like night and day in shooters like CS2. At first, I thought the response time made more of a difference, but then I realized that higher Hz is way more noticeable in fast-paced games. Especially in games where you need to track fast movements, like Valorant or Quake champions, the smoother transitions between frames from 240Hz just feel so much more responsive, even if the actual latency difference between 0.5ms and 1ms isn’t always *that* big in real terms. Still, don’t sleep on response time though—especially if you’re playing competitive games where ghosting or smearing can mess up your shots. I had my fair share of flicks failing because my old screen couldn’t keep up with 144Hz without some nasty blurring. So yeah, if you’re going 240Hz, make sure your response time is at least decent (0.5ms–1ms), otherwise you’re kind of wasting all that refresh rate power. It’s the combo that works best—high Hz for smoothness, low response time for clarity.