High detail with minimal visuals versus balanced quality and richer graphics.
High detail with minimal visuals versus balanced quality and richer graphics.
What are you referring to? You mentioned "I'm judging high as constant 60," but there seems to be some confusion. The idea of a "constant" refresh rate isn't real—it's just a concept. I'll share the link so you can check it yourself. Remember, a dynamic refresh rate doesn't actually exist in current technology; it's just a theory.
I believe I should clarify this too, because it highlights your unclear grasp of what a refresh rate actually means. It measures the Hertz, or Hz, of a display. Every device uses Hertz—your CPU runs at megahertz, your GPU at gigahertz, even your vibrator. On screens, it describes how often the image refreshes. A 0.5Hz screen updates every two seconds, while 1Hz shows one update per second. Refresh rates were standards for old CRT TVs before LCDs existed, with 50Hz and 60Hz being common at home. Most TVs only reached up to about 29.97FPS for NTSC or 25FPS for PAL in Europe and the UK. The full 50-60Hz was rarely used during TV shows or movies anymore. If you have more questions or want to confirm, just let me know.
It’s hard to believe you’d think I don’t get it just because I’m not filtering everything through your strict knitting style. If you were even smarter than you think, you’d realize “a constant 60 FPS” isn’t about the monitor—it’s about how many frames the GPU produces, and that changes a lot. Still, keep going; explaining to someone with a physics background is what you’re doing. How naive of you. The phrase you’re using comes from old CRTs that scanned pixels in a row-by-row way at a steady rate. LCDs don’t do that anymore.
So... talking about frames per second? And clarifying that I wasn’t referring to refresh rate when you mentioned it. You were trying to understand exactly what I meant. Was I making things more complicated than necessary? Did I jump to a conclusion based on assumptions about what you were aiming for? I think I should have been more direct. Regarding the CRT example, I was using the refresh rate to discuss PAL and NTSC differences—not because of any confusion. As for misunderstandings, maybe your comment could have been clearer. You seem capable, especially with a physics background—just don’t feel the need to double-check everything you post.
There’s no point in debating the details when the facts are clear.
It was clearly evident from the context what I meant. Adjusting graphics details in games could affect a monitor's native refresh rate. It’s surprising how naive that assumption was—that this was exactly what I was discussing? Actually, your goal here was probably to offer a very condescending breakdown of a super simple idea for personal pride. To be honest, the distinction between Hz and FPS is just a convention. Hz stands for "per second," representing a rate-based measurement. Frames don’t carry a unit; they’re simply numbers, and as for “PS” in FPS—what it really means.