Question Do higher refresh rates affect the lifespan of the GPU or monitor?

alexbirdie

Respectable
Feb 20, 2020
525
112
2,340
56
With higher refresh-rates GPU and the monitor have to work harder, no question.

But if this may result into a measurable degradation over time I do not know.

But one seems to be clear:

In heavy-duty-situation like gaming etc. it makes a difference, if I play with 144 or 240 Hz and GPU needs more power ( Watt) for higher rates.

And if you do not need the highest possible refresh-rates, than to use a lower refresh-rate might be a good idea.

F.i. I am playing in WQHD, and in Tina Tiny wonderland I use 120 Hz and capped to 115. I tried with 240 Hz, too, but did not see any difference.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: pierreandré

PsychoPsyops

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2014
485
53
18,890
6
They're all right. And on a side note, anything above 144Hz is a gimmick/scam, as the eye cannot see above 144Hz. This is actually why the new standards went from 60Hz, to 120Hz, then stopped at an odd interval of 144Hz.
 
Reactions: pierreandré

Gam3r01

Titan
Moderator
They're all right. And on a side note, anything above 144Hz is a gimmick/scam, as the eye cannot see above 144Hz. This is actually why the new standards went from 60Hz, to 120Hz, then stopped at an odd interval of 144Hz.
While I agree there is diminishing returns above 144Hz (I use 75Hz), there is no solid research that indicates a specific human eye "refresh rate".
Additionally, while 144Hz may be the "standard" for many these days, 240Hz monitors are common as well.
 
Reactions: pierreandré

lordmogul

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2014
538
29
19,440
192
They're all right. And on a side note, anything above 144Hz is a gimmick/scam, as the eye cannot see above 144Hz. This is actually why the new standards went from 60Hz, to 120Hz, then stopped at an odd interval of 144Hz.
The 144 comes from it being 6x 24, which is the usual rate movies run at.
And while I agree that there are diminishing returns, the eye doesn't see in "frames" and there is no fixed limit to what it can perceive. Setting the limit arbitrarily at 144 isn't any difference from setting it at 30.
As someone coming from PAL land, I'm more surprised that 100 or 150 Hz aren't more common, but instead it went from 120 to 144 to 165

In fact, in tests pilots were able to identify planes that were shown for 1/1000th of a second, which would hint towards at least 1000 Hz to be the limit for the human eye. But again, the eye doesn't see in frames, so there is no fixed number.

btw, the 24, 25 and 30 fps are based on analogue systems. More fps means the need for more length of film, which makes the production more expensive, hence 24 was the compromise the movie industry set on. The 25 and 30 are based on the 50 and 60 Hz mains frequencies (a bit more complicated than that, but for a simple explanation that is enough.)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY