Refresh rate
The step from 60 Hz to 144 Hz is the largest single perceptual upgrade available in PC gaming. The step from 240 Hz to 480 Hz is a rounding error for most people. Both are true, and the reason is that the benefit scales with the reciprocal of the rate, not with the rate.
Why the returns diminish so sharply
The benefit of a higher refresh rate is measured in the time between frames, and that time is the reciprocal of the rate. Doubling the rate always halves the interval, which means the absolute saving shrinks every time.
| Refresh rate | Frame time | Mean scan-out wait | Gain over previous row |
|---|---|---|---|
| 30 Hz | 33.33 ms | 16.67 ms | - |
| 60 Hz | 16.67 ms | 8.33 ms | -16.67 ms |
| 75 Hz | 13.33 ms | 6.67 ms | -3.33 ms |
| 100 Hz | 10.00 ms | 5.00 ms | -3.33 ms |
| 120 Hz | 8.33 ms | 4.17 ms | -1.67 ms |
| 144 Hz | 6.94 ms | 3.47 ms | -1.39 ms |
| 165 Hz | 6.06 ms | 3.03 ms | -0.88 ms |
| 180 Hz | 5.56 ms | 2.78 ms | -0.51 ms |
| 240 Hz | 4.17 ms | 2.08 ms | -1.39 ms |
| 280 Hz | 3.57 ms | 1.79 ms | -0.60 ms |
| 360 Hz | 2.78 ms | 1.39 ms | -0.79 ms |
| 480 Hz | 2.08 ms | 1.04 ms | -0.69 ms |
| 540 Hz | 1.85 ms | 0.93 ms | -0.23 ms |
Read the last column. Going from 60 Hz to 144 Hz saves 9.72 ms per frame. Going from 240 Hz to 480 Hz saves 2.08 ms. The second upgrade costs far more and delivers about a fifth of the improvement.
Motion clarity, which is the real benefit
Almost all displays are sample-and-hold: each frame is displayed continuously until the next one replaces it. When you track a moving object with your eyes, your eyes move smoothly while the image on screen stays still for a whole frame period, so the image smears across your retina.
The amount of smear is proportional to frame time. At 60 Hz a target moving across the screen in one second smears across roughly 1.7% of the screen width per frame; at 240 Hz it is roughly 0.4%. That is the difference between an enemy at distance being a readable shape while moving and being a blur you have to wait for.
Crucially this depends on how long a unique image is held, which is set by your framerate when framerate is below refresh rate. A 480 Hz panel showing 120 fps holds each unique image for 8.3 ms, exactly like a 120 Hz panel would. The panel cannot invent clarity it was not given frames for.
Frames or hertz: a decision rule
The two purchases compete for the same money, so it is worth having a rule.
| Your situation | Buy | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| 60 Hz panel, any framerate | The panel, immediately | The largest perceptual upgrade in PC gaming. Nothing else comes close. |
| 144 Hz panel, 1% low above 200 fps | A 240 Hz panel | You have frames the panel cannot show. |
| 144 Hz panel, 1% low below 120 fps | Frames: CPU, settings, resolution | You cannot fill the panel you own. |
| 240 Hz panel, 1% low above 300 fps | Consider 360 Hz, or stop | Real but small. Money may be better spent elsewhere. |
| 240 Hz panel, 1% low below 200 fps | Frames | Same reason as above, one tier up. |
| Any panel, IPS with visible smearing | Fix response time first | A fast panel with slow pixels is a slow panel. See below. |
Use 1% lows rather than averages throughout. The moment you need clarity is a busy fight, which is exactly the moment your framerate is lowest.
Refresh rate is capped by response time
A 360 Hz panel gives each frame 2.8 ms of display time. If the pixels take 8 ms to change colour, they are still transitioning when the next two frames arrive, and the panel cannot actually resolve distinct frames at its rated rate.
This is why panel technology and refresh rate must be considered together, and why a 240 Hz OLED can look clearly better in motion than a 360 Hz IPS. See response time and overdrive.
The honest summary
60 to 144 Hz is transformative. 144 to 240 Hz is clearly worthwhile if your framerate supports it. 240 to 360 Hz is a real but modest improvement that most players will not notice in play. Above 360 Hz you are into territory where the panel technology, the response time and your framerate all matter more than the number on the box.
Related reading
- FPS and refresh calculator for your own numbers.
- Motion clarity and backlight strobing in depth.
- Response time and overdrive, which caps what refresh rate can deliver.
- Frame time versus framerate, and why 1% lows are the honest metric.
Frequently asked questions
Is 240 Hz noticeably better than 144 Hz?
Yes, if your framerate can feed it. The frame time drops from 6.9 ms to 4.2 ms, so moving objects smear across 40% less distance per frame and the image is more resolvable in motion. The latency saving alone (1.4 ms) would not justify the purchase; the clarity does.
Is 360 Hz or 480 Hz worth it?
Only if you already reliably render above 360 fps in the game you play, which for most competitive titles means a strong CPU and low settings. Otherwise you are buying refreshes that repeat frames you have already seen. The marginal clarity gain is real but small, and the cost is high.
What refresh rate should I get?
Match it to the framerate you actually sustain in the busiest moment of a round, not your menu-screen average. If your 1% low is 180 fps, a 240 Hz panel is well matched and a 360 Hz one is mostly decoration. Check with the FPS and refresh calculator.
Does refresh rate matter if my framerate is lower?
A little. The panel still starts drawing sooner after a frame arrives, which reduces the scan-out wait, and variable refresh keeps things smooth. But the motion clarity benefit, which is the large one, tracks unique frames rather than refreshes, so it does not appear.
Can the human eye see above 60 Hz?
Comfortably, and the framing of the question is wrong. Human vision does not have a frame rate. What you can perceive is the difference between a smoothly moving object and a series of discrete snapshots, and that difference remains detectable well past 240 Hz in fast motion, particularly when your eyes are tracking a moving object.