Show us your average reaction time
http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime
>>340133430
Probably a small amount. Almost negligible when applied to real life applications like catching a ball.
Hand-Eye coordination isn't as important as Everything else coordination. Playing videogames won't help me to catch a ball that's about to smash my face if I don't have the arm coordination or muscle memory to prevent it.
You may be able to recognize change on a screen faster or press a button faster but that's about as good as it gets.
>>340133769
You're suppose to 5 to average out you're score. But yeah, this really isn't a big deal unless your in esports
>>340133769
272 average first try, am I Neo from the matrix yet?
>>340133430
I can't seem to get better than 300.
>>340133971
Average reaction time is 250Ms, So no.
>>340133430
Friendly reminder, this test is more dependant of your screen's refresh rate
I easily get 145~ on my main display, but 280+ onTV
>>340133430
>>340134047
Average is actually around 270-280.
welp
Is reaction time something you can train significantly? Top athletes can have a reaction time of 100 milliseconds, but can the average person attain that on their own?
>>340133430
Video games made it faster. Age nullified that though.
>>340134147
hre is my last score.
Results can easily be skewed when you just predict it.
I cheated by guessing.
Only just had my morning coffee.
Guess I know now just how fast I can react to a color turning green, by tensing a single finger muscle!
Not bad for 30, I guess.
>>340134186
>>340134162
Or you could have a crappy monitor that has slow refresh
>>340134304
>>340134335
Your average gives it away though.
>>340134406
Maybe.
>>340133430
I get 320+ on my laptop w/ trackpad, but get 227 on my friends desktop with mouse.
It's probably dependent on how good your mouse is. I remember getting 270-300 before on my old, shitty mouse.
>tfw you will never play that försvarsmakten game with anons on /v/ because they shutdown the servers
>>340133430
I thought I was slow at this, then I saw the scores. Do you guys even play video games?
>>340134472
I'm aware of what the average shows. My point stands, you can try this multiple times and end up just predicting it 4-5 times and have a super low MS based on pure guess work and then come in here and brag, doesn't mean much of anything honestly.
I mean that's 56ms with my shit monitor and it's refresh rate, it wouldn't be too hard for someone with a far better monitor to do more accurately and consistently.
>>340134849
233 is a pretty decent score
I can consistently get around 250, but a few times I have gotten lucky and scored 130. I'm not sure how to make those lucky results more consistent.
Did it on /pol/ a while ago
>>340134849
It's completely dependent on someone's monitor refresh rate and how good their mouse is. Some people could have worse stuff than you and still be getting in the 230s, which is pretty damn good actually considering the average is 270-280.
I might have jumped the gun and cheated on one (where I got 120) but on average I was getting 170-175.
I forget, don't these not work as well on mobile devices?
tfw your score is 300+
>>340133430
No but it made me realize how much your setup influences tests like these.
For example, disabling windows aero will net you up to 50msand for me, my cursor felt smoother too
I would wager that there are hundreds or thousands of optimizations and hidden processes you can tweak or kill to lower this.
>>340135212
>mfw I only play single player games
>>340135049
>average 159
so you're just clicking randomly then?
Kek.
>first five attempts were around 350ms
>at attempt 10 it drops I am getting around to 300ms
>by attempt 20 I am getting around 235ms
>sticks around there afterwards
well I already knew it took me a while to get into shit, I guess I just have slow start or something
Actually, it's not just refresh rate affecting it. It's the whole system from your computer, to screen, to your movement, to the mouse, to the PC, to the USB controller, to the processor. The real human reaction time is actually lower than the reported 270 average here because computers in the modern day have traded off latency for processing power, generally speaking. There is probably more variability in PC latency than there is in human perception, so this really does not mean anything of real value unless you do a more scientific test that eliminates such variables.
The only real value this might serve is to tell if your system has abnormally high latency.
Average of 254 ms with 1k hours in csgo. Yeah, video games isn't making my reaction time any better for me.
>>340133430
My mum worked at some chemical factory when she's carrying me. It might explain why I'm bad at sports.
This is all that matters
http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/memory
Huh
normally I get well over the 250 avg and end up in 285 range
maybe I'm just feelin' good tonight
>You scored over 400
>>340135531
well, it only tests sensory memory but I still can't help but feel retarded
although I don't care enough about my epeen to try again
http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/number-memory
Filename says it all
>>340135531
Only got like Lv. 11 on that with like 37-38k, forgot to screencap that one though, sad too because I remember the majority of my life except for like when I was 1 and most of when I was 2, though I do have some memories from 2 years old.
>>340135950
I did, it's on my phone though, will try it on pc when I get to work.
>tfw slow af
Just kill me now senpai
>>340135389
>your system has abnormally high latency.
For a board that's supposed to be hardcore gamers, I'm seeing way too many 250ms+
I think the average person (and average 'gamer', apparently) just don't care about their quality of gameplay.
The lower you can get this number, the faster you'll respond in every single game. You'll be more connected, win more, and be able to make decisions faster.
What can we learn by asking the people with low scores? What kind of setup optimizations do they have? Are they just 'naturally' better than the rest of us?
>>340135268
>>340135125
>>340133430
holy cow i thought i was slow but i'm one of the fastest ones here
It's almost 3 AM.
I don't even play games requiring fast reactions.
>>340136575
I had the 180 score. I've got a 144hz monitor and some fancy logitech mouse, an older i5 processor and 12GB of RAM. I think one thing that might help is I really like to cut down on bloat when it comes to superfluous programs running on my PC.
>>340136575
>>340136581
just to elaborate on this, that's my score and i use a VG248QE and i expect that it helps significantly over a regular 60 hz monitor with more lag
>>340136804
I don't know how people get such high scores on the number test
>>340136575
Well there is a difference between sitting there trying to predict a green flash and actively playing a game. It's like the Millia GG block frame reaction test. While that does give a good idea on mixups, it's not indicative of any skill whatsoever other than your ability to predict and react, in an actual match, tons of stuff play into account between distant, both player's movements, and you aren't limited to a single block, or in this case a single click of the mouse to try and get the green screen.
As for the other thing, not everyone on /v/ is a dedicated PC gamer, sure quite a lot are, but not everyone is, some may have a good tower, but not a good monitor, either due to money issues, or other factors, or some may just play on consoles.
There are really a lot of factors, hell some anons live in bad parts of the world, even in first world countries where internet is still atrocious which is also slightly affecting how things play out.
>>340133430
>tfw 30 and you have a faster reaction time than all the underage on /v/.
>>340137061
I play competitive melee which requires so fast inputs, I totally get what you're saying, it's much easier to react than to play in the moment
>>340137073
30 is the peak though, you're literally at your best now and it'll only get worse from now on.
>>340135531
vis 78%, num 10%, word 80%
more cheating and luck
>>340137225
>I play competitive melee which requires so fast inputs
Only if you play Fox
>>340136998
I went higher the first time I tried it, I think I failed that time because of a mistype rather than an improper remembering.
>>340137227
no
>>340137073
30? Damn, are you a wizard?
>>340136998
10 digits, which isn't even that high...
I remember them in pairs. so 562793 is 56 27 93 for me.
>>340136804
I got 89% 12% 77% 91%
Although I'm on mobile and I think it's seriously handicapping my reaction time.
>>340137651
NEET wizard yes
>>340137439
How'd you cheat?
>>340133430
I can't get past level 3 in that Minigame from Kirby's Adventure where you're a cowboy.
how do you guys get so fast?
i wonder why my visual memory is so bad...all tests only attempted once
>>340137791
Are you a phone poster?
>>340137532
I'm pretty sure with the exception of Jiggs, most of the top 8 requires fast inputs. Fox is obviously the one with the fastest inputs need
>>340137742
>mobile
REEEEEEEEE NORMIE GET OUT
>>340135117
>It's completely dependent on someone's monitor refresh rate and how good their mouse is
I totally concur with the former statement. I have two monitors, one running at 60hz and another at 144hz, and my average between both is insanely different. My average on my 60Hz one is 236, while the average I got when doing the test on my 144hz monitor was 198ms.
>>340137816
Honestly, on visual, my problem was that the image was gone before I could look at it in full.
>>340137724
I do the same but after a while Its took much, funny enough I excel at the other tests but not the number test.
i have a disability, fuck this
if only it allowed alternate input methods
On my old monitor I got 222 average and on my new one it's 300.
280 on the first try
>>340137816
You have dominant left hemisphere maybe?
>>340137962
what disability do you have that won't let you click a mouse for seven seconds that would be solved if you could input a different way?
>>340137962
Jesus Christ...
I'll never be better than average at anything.
You guys stink
>>340137061
That overhead thing is flawed. You can literally just stand block if you haven't already been hit by a low. If you're doing nothing for 20 frames, you deserve to be hit.
Decent monitors aren't that expensive - maybe a hundo for an evo monitor. A bit more (250~300) for a top of the line 144hz monitor.
144hz will give you up to 10ms faster response than 60hz, due to the precision. That's a frame or less.
You can REALLY fuck up by using your bigscreen tv to game, which can add 100ms or more.
Games usually have a much larger window to react than this.
For example, parrying in FromSoft games. You don't have to be exact
https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/global/disable-windows-aero-windows-7.html
I guarantee this will give you a lower score.
>>340138060
its probably gonna take him a really long time to reply kek
>>340135515
Or you just have a shitty lcd.
275 average on the tv
don't feel like busting the monitor out
probably only 30-40 ms faster there
i'm getting old man
>>340138116
>A bit more (250~300) for a top of the line 144hz monitor.
If you're okay with 1080p
>>340138207
Lets say I want to click on someone's head. Whoever clicks on the head first wins.
With faster reactions, you will click on the head first and can aim closer to corners than the opponent who reacts slower.
Most games aren't about raw reactions, but predictive timing (like playing music)
>>340138354
legit chuckled
>>340138493
Oh, I guess hitscan FPS games are different. Yeah, I don't play many of those anymore
Couldn't even get under 300.
Last attempt was 317.
Don't know if any of this would affect it but I'm using a wireless mouse and using a TV as a monitor.
Also I'm really tired right now.
>>340138428
I'll take response time over graphics any day.i have the lowest non-cheated score in this thread
>>340133430
I spent 20 minutes on this thing before, trying to get at close to my base reaction time as possible. I barely got under 300ms after all that.
got a 195 with on a 60hz monitor with aero enabled, fight me
>>340138590
>wireless mouse
+lag
>TV as a monitor
+major lag
>really tired
+minor lag
You're basically doing everything wrong, anon.
>>340138604
how do you cheat in this?
AutoHotKey?
Pretty decent for being almost 30 I suppose.
>>340138604
I'm okay with my 230 average. I'm not playinig anything really fast.
It's just kinda depressing that not wanting to sacrifice anything will run you north of $650.
>>340138747
damn, you too? Are you destined to be a wizard too?
>>340138817
Next year, fellow apprentice.
Guess not.
I've been up for 16 hours and am in my dizzy sleep throws
>>340138743
I bet you could write a script to get you 0~1ms every time.
I don't cheat, but most anons are probably just guess-clicking on a visibly red screen. You can see single-digit cheated times above. I'd say anything below 150ms is most likely cheated. There might be some setups that can do that legit, but since none of you know your shit...
>>340138880
I only have 2 months left. I'm scared
>tfw average is roughly 270
>My average is 309
I always knew it was a little behind. In FPS games I'm always slightly slower on the quickdraw and, depending on the game, get killed before I can take 2 shots.
I always thought it was because they heard me before I turned the corner so they could predict when I turned...
>>340138937
We're all going to make it, anon.
>>340138923
under 100ms really isn't suspect
they might be doing "your face right on the fucking screen" thing, since focused vision is slower than peripheral vision
the more space in your vision that changes, the faster your time will most likely be, when practiced
>>340138804
I mean, that's just a week or two worth of work at the lowest end job. Think of how much time you spend on vidya - shit's worth it.
I've got a wired g400s (recommended by /v/) and a 144hz 27" BenQ. I'd assume the 24" model has technical advantages.
To get anything more, I think I'd need to scrap my rig and delve into overclocking.
>>340138923
As for proper reaction, you also need to figure in the time it takes to actually press the damn button.
>>340139110
>I mean, that's just a week or two worth of work at the lowest end job.
Yeah, that's a neat thought, but some of us have bills to pay from that income.
>>340139097
Tried this and it didn't improve my score, but did make me uncomfortable and eyes water.
The "Number Memory" test is complete bullshit. After a while, the numbers go off the screen and you can't read them anymore.
How is that indicative of anything?
>>340138604
what's your average?
>>340139168
My strategy is to have my finger pressed on left click as hard as possible without getting an accidental input. This lessens finger travel time when you actually want to click. I think it's optimal.
>>340139371
there's no way you're remembering that many numbers without cheating though.
>>340139334
if your arm is in a different position than usual, that's likely to add time due to the awkwardness
try something like pressing the windows key with +, to make it take up as much of the screen as possible
I play fighting games you would think my ability to recognize patterns would be higher and not bordering on retarded
>>340139453
Well, my mouse has a "fall in" point, i.e. no depression until a certain level of force, and very low force needed afterwards. So that's not really feasible for me.
not too bad
>>340133430
>in a world where ping is about 40-60
>using any online device to measure reflexes.
>>340139097
>>340139334
>>340139518
I had already been using chrome's zoom-in feature to make the game take up more of my screen for easier reaction.
>>340135125
This guy has a much better average, but admits to having cheated at least one click. I want to know what kind of setup he's running.
>>340139656
>In a world where we mostly play games online. >Not measuring your ability to react in lag
>>340139656
that's not quite how it works, buddy
>>340139656
Hour you and idiot?
The game runs on your hardware after being downloaded. Ping has 0 impact.
>>340133430
number memory 82%
reaction time 54%
verbal memory 74%
visual memory 37%
>>340139656
JS isn't done server-side, though.
>>340139691
>>340136868
That was me. I really do get 180 average even without cheating, I could do it again if you're so inclined.
>tfw scoring around 300
>>340139567
So use as much force as you can before hitting that point.
It's a practical skill if you're, for example, standing still and looking to react to someone immediately when they become visible.
I lost about 10ms~ when I tested not using this technique.
at least I can type fast
all legit clicks and no cheating. possibly fastest in thread since the one faster that i can see admits to jumping the gun and getting a 120
>>340139854
Can you post your processor, os, and graphics card?
Do you have aero disabled?
15+ years of playing competitive / shooters. Not as fast / accurate as I used to be though
Average 214.
Maybe could get under 200 if I kept at it, as my time got progressively better with each one.
>>340139950
>>340140067
i'm this guy posting for science: 5930k, windows 7, 2x 970 SLI, VG248QE @144hz
Why are my reactions so bad
I guess I have somewhat decent memory though?
>>340133430
l play alot of fighting games so...maybe? l don't know.
>>340140067
>>340140149
sorry, also my aero is NOT disabled
>>340135049
>>340137439
>>340134301
Hi Sebastian
>>340140215
Try disabling aero, you may become a god.
Also, chrome right? everyone uses chrome these days
>>340140067
Intel i5-2500k @ 3.3GHz, Windows 7 Home, GTX 770. Aero not disabled. I'm disabling now, will post results.
Old age taught me patience, that and being tired.
>>340140149
>>340140073
Different people actually.
Win10, i7 377k, 980ti, 144hz
>>340134047
>>340134151
>get 306.3 average
>tells me im on the top 33%
>not to mention this test is done with people willing to look this up, probably making a hasher competition.
Clearly you guys don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
I tried switching from Firefox to Edge and it went from ~250ms to 220ms. What.
pro tip, don't look directly at the red screen, set your focal point on the whiteness of the page.
Your instinctual reaction time will happen when you see the colour out of the corner of your eye and should be a faster reaction time
>>340140349
I got 98 on one and I'm not entirely sure it's a mis-click, considering I didn't click too early on any of them. Maybe I'm a god
Where are my visual niggas at?
>>340140506
http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/statistics
>>340140417
>Old age
are you 70? 335 is a bit high, i'm old and half blind got 180
>>340140537
Forgot screenshot.
I got a new record.
My strategy was to Right Click as the "trigger" instead of left clicking. It cut off another 15~ms.
reposted since I suck at cropping
>>340140506
Dude, you actually only beat 33% of testers.
>>340140624
Read.
According to the data the average reaction time has gone DOWN over the years.
The current percentage is closer to what the actual average would be.
Seeing as they still keep the old data, 275 is a result of the old users.
The actual average for normal people is probably somewhere around 350
>>340140681
I took the test trying to be as calm as possible, not as fast.
>>340140772
>TOP 33 of this test!
That would be bottom 33 anon, or top 67.
>>340140783
>The actual average for normal people is probably somewhere around 350
so, everyone here is not normal?
>>340140608
>>340140167
I can only do the visual one. I guess this explains why I like 90s level design so much.
It would be trivial to write a script to generate a click when the colour changes so as to get onto the leaderboard. You guys think they get rid of results sub 100ms?
>>340140843
Look at the statistics.
300ms puts you on the right half of the curve.
>>340135531
For word I got a score of 156.
>>340140601
>0.101 seconds is the current fastest reaction time recorded for human beings. The average reaction time of human beings is around .215 seconds. This is determined by the amount of time it takes for people to react when given the proper signal to click.
For example, runners are disqualified for false starting if they predict the gunshot and start early. 100ms is the baseline, and with your computer's processing time added, I'd say the 98 is unreasonable.
>>340140787
the point is to react naturally and click
basically your body must do the work not your consciousness
I got 265ms. Though I did get caught off guard one time because it turned green really fast compared to the rest.
>>340140868
>The average (median) reaction time is 215 milliseconds, according to the data collected so far.
The site itself says the median is 215ms.
>>340140958
Yeah, you're probably right.
>>340140907
>Clicks faster than 100 milliseconds will be saved, but they will not count towards your score on the leaderboard.
plz no bully.
>>340134795
that shit was the bomb. Green always sucked.
>>340141042
>on /statistics
>The median reaction time is 265 milliseconds.
Ok, so it can't make up its mind. The graphs look like the median is indeed 265 ms though.
I'm fucking shit
>>340141119
average
>>340133430
rip mortals
>>340141119
That's prettyNormal
>>340141119
>average across the board
>not being an autistic savant
>>340140295
disabled aero and zoomed in so the color took up more of the screen and got a new thread best as far as i can tell
>>340141248
>that average "score"
what?
>>340141248
>that average
I've been had.
>>340133430
I feel like i notice the green fast enough but I'm not trigger happy enough.
Any advice on how to make the finger react faster?
>>340141162
>green
Red detected. Go play the blame game somewhere else.
I am still failing A2 level math at my 3rd year of uni, send help.
>>340141370
one anon said earlier to put as much pressure on the mouse button as you can without clicking it while waiting, helped me shave some time off
Prediction game bois.
>>340141414
You might have discalculia, get yourself tested, get that paper and you're ok.
210 1st try, still wasted
step it up anons
Oh well, I guess I can do something right.
>>340141539
>reaction time: 455 ms
is this a joke?
>>340141268
Not gonna try to beat that, grats anon.
Looks like we're the only ones really trying anyway.
I heard that most progamers don't actually have "inhuman reactions". I'd bet they're just infinitely more precise and knowledgeable about their chosen game.
>>340141506
get fucked turbonerd
>>340135307
>averaege 159
>just clicking randomly
Not anon but assuming the average isnt skewed by low times its still a great average and is a lot lower than most. However I think that anon predicted and got incredibly lucky resulting in a 6 ms 'reaction' speed.
>>340141689
same anon, 3rd attempt broke 200 average
can barely stay in my chair
bring it
>>340141259
Savants would easily be in the top 1 percent. You're just a guy with shit reaction time who, in a room with 100 hundred people, would only have the 10th best memory.
>>340141370
You want a tense finger, not a lazy/relaxed/normal finger. Some shootan pros use a "claw grip" for their mouse, but that didn't help me.
What did help me was right clicking instead of left clicking.
Another thing I tried was setting process affinity for that chrome window to HighI don't know how to change process affinity for CSGO, it blocks me if I try post-launch
What the percentages? Percentiles?
I did it, bros. I'm a superior human bean.
>>340133430
130 ms
It's 4 AM.
Night, scrubs.
t. console gamer
>>340134304
>>340134335
Still a valid way of testing video game skills.
Tests how good you are at making reads.
>>340141636
pls no bully
>>340133430
Got one at 24ms, one 75 and one at over 300. I guess my reaction is pretty incosistent.
>>340141930
Not really a read when there's nothing to really "read" besides a screen that flashes at a random interval
damn you guys have a good reaction
I used to be able to go under 200 (ten years ago). Then again, i don't play fast games too often anymore.
>>340141996
the 24ms and 75ms were lucky clicks as it's impossible to react that fast
>>340135531
kind of easy to cheat this. The contrast between the white and blue squares is enough for me to see the after image after the white squares disappear.
>>340138937
jus get laid fag
>>340141786
I just tried my ass off to get this. Not using predictions either.
>>340142140
That's the purpose of the exercise and your memory working properly.
>>340142226
time to go faster
I'm assuming I did well. I suck ass at memorizing numbers.
Ricer gear = idiot tax
>>340142495
Can't read moon
Is that screen delay? If so, how can it be negative, as it would be displaying things before they happened.
>>340142374
I think you have me beat, I can't go faster than that.
>>340142664
I would assume it's input delay in ms relative to the G300
>>340141248
There's a reason the Olympic commission calls anything under 90ms a false start.
This is because your body can't process and output a response any faster than that.
>>340142495
>the first eight
>negative screen delay
>your screen is displaying the future
>>340143449
>it's mice
>comparative delay to g300
>>340142495
I'd also like to mention here that you won't ever get a ping low enough for it to matter, and that the one additional frame on 144hz you get doesn't provide you with more information, because what happened in those 0.01 seconds is simply not enough to make a difference.
You can now be proud that your mouse reacts 0.01 to 0.015 seconds faster, it doesn't fucking matter.
I got something around 95/60/95/98 when I last took this test. I'm kinda disappointed
>>340143997
>and that the one additional frame on 144hz you get doesn't provide you with more information
the 1ms response time does. your 60hz monitor almost certainly isn't (real) 1ms
>>340143997
>I'd also like to mention here that you won't ever get a ping low enough for [over 30 ms input lag] to matter
>>340144502
>your 60hz monitor almost certainly isn't (real) 1ms
It's 5ms.
No, the difference of 0.004 seconds doesn't provide you with an advantage. You can tell me the picture looks nicer, and I'll take your word for it. You can tell me it's smooth, and I'll take your word for it. But if you want to tell me that you can actually put those 0.004 seconds worth of earlier information to good use, you're a liar.
>>340144556
Yes, the 30ms ones are pushing it. I'd personally put the "completely irrelevant" bar at 15ms.
>>340144635
can you tell me something
are you a console player
>>340135314
My first was around 450. Trust me, you can't be slower than me.
Looks like an average of 260 is the best I can pull off. This is why I'm painfully middling in shooters isn't it?
>>340144781
No. But I can realistically estimate the limits of the human nerve system.
And I can tell you that you are unable to discern the difference between individual following frames at both 60 and 144 fps. You notice the difference in continous picture quality, but the individual frames are too similar for it to matter. That's the whole point of it, the high framerate is supposed to get exactly this result, frames that cannot be distinguished from one another.
If you claim you're good enough that a difference of 0.004 seconds in information delay matters, you're a liar, or grossly overestimating yourself. Plain and simple.
I'm top 10 in Project M in my state and my average was 250. Dont worry guys, reaction speed isnt what makes you.
>>340145010
i guess 30fps is also peachy to you, since it's oooooonly a difference of just 0.004 seconds as well, right?
silky smooth?
>>340144994
If you're over 25, you're too old to play competitive multiplayer games as your reflexes shit themselves with time.
If you're male your reactions are good until you hit 40.
If you're female, limit yourself to your rightful healslut status for life, because you're biologically shit at video games.
>>340145117
30 fps means 0.033 seconds per frame. Ten times as much.
And you'll still have a hard time making out differences between individual frames.
And like I said:
>You notice the difference in continous picture quality
Here, since you seem to have a problem understanding written text, I'll paste it again for you, three times.
>You notice the difference in continous picture quality
>You notice the difference in continous picture quality
>You notice the difference in continous picture quality
Maybe with a total of five times, you'll get it.
wasnt there one of these where you actually had to shoot at something?
>>340145304
Well guessed, but not good enough to hide your average.
>>340133430
Probably. Looks like I'm faster than the majority of people. 26 for age reference.
>>340133430
This test depends too much on the screen and force needed to click the mouse. Someone using a CRT at a very high frequency will always get a better score
>>340145228
i think your brain is defective or something man
you say 'the extra frame on 144hz doesn't provide you with more information', i respond 'the 1ms response time does, your 60hz monitor isn't 1ms' therefore agreeing with what you said
you respond 'No, the difference in a 144hz's doubled refresh rate doesn't provide you with an advantage. You can tell me the picture looks nicer, or it's smoother, but if you (blah blah blah blah)'
not actually considering that you're braindeadly repeating the thing i just said is right, as though i had argued it, i assume that you're now arguing that 60hz is just as good as 144hz for video game performance, which is wrong
this was annoying enough to type that i didnt even feel like it but now at least you realize how dumb you are hopefully
>>340137816
Nice stats bro.
I got 9 on the numbers twice, and 10 once. Each time i failed on the tenth, was because my brain deleted the zero at the end.
I got 232 MS
Is that bad
>>340145745
>i respond 'the 1ms response time does, your 60hz monitor isn't 1ms' therefore agreeing with what you said
Yes. Like I mentioned then, my monitor has a response time of 5ms. The difference between your and my response time is 0.004 seconds.
You hence have a reaction 0.004 seconds before I do. If you claim this makes an actual difference outside of "smoothness" or "picture quality", i.e. that you actually have better information that you can use, that's bullshit.
>>340145938
if you can't tell a 4ms difference it's because you aren't good at video games
a lot like how amateur boxers don't give a shit about being 40 or 50 pounds different from each other weight-wise, but at the top professional level even having an extra pound can be enough for the fight to be called off and 3 pounds is like an automatic no-contest
>>340145938
>my monitor has a response time of 5ms
Probably jsut G2G, it's higher in practice
