Disappointed, what would you do?

I +rep'ed also...was a good honest and fair post.

A lot to think about...I doubt I'll need 4,096MB of graphics, not even close..but it is always nice to have it if need be.

 

Perhaps 99% of people cannot tell a difference because they have never experienced the difference. Second it is not a surprise that a laptop oriented forum might have a slant. I mean after all there are all these people feeding them false information about how 120hz only matters for pros. Really, well then so does having a GTX680M but that doesnt stop the people who are not pros from buying them and not wanting to get fragged more than they need to be. Second part of the reason you dont see a push is because most people who do care about performance just cant buy laptops because no laptop makers see fit to provide them with appropriate options. Then the laptop makers say oh well they arent popular. You cannot make a popular product catered to a performance oriented crowd if you totally screw them on some part of the performance. And so far that is what ALL laptop makers do.

Even so 3 people do want more, and that poll is pretty bogus given the fact the OP does not even appear to realize 120hz exists. If you had gave that an option I bet all 3 voters would have picked 120hz over 60.

Let me put it this way you might not be able to tell a difference because your eyes or brain or something is slow but I can. And I am sure many others can. People made these same silly arguements before about 30fps and where people game that arguement is pretty well dead now. But hey microsoft and sony will keep telling you 30 fps is plenty to sell more consoles. Then they will release the next gen and tell you that you need 60 fps at a real 1080p and the sheeple who once argued 30 was plenty will proclaim the advantage. Then 10 years later they will introduce 120hz and finally everyone will realize what they should have known all along.

 

Go here and click the button as fast as you possibly can. The chances are you're clicking about 10 times per second or less, and that's when you're only focusing on rapid clicking. With 60fps you see 6+ frames between each of those clicks. And my point is that human reaction and action time is not fast enough to benefit from a FPS over 60 unless they're extremely experienced with whatever they do. Anyway I guess this point is moot since it's not about the effectiveness anymore.

The fact is that majority of people don't care to have even 60fps over better graphic settings, even though it's available in almost every screen that is plugged into a computer. This completely negates the whole point that "people don't want it because they haven't seen how good it is". The amount of people willing to pay more just to get even higher fps than 60 is very small, besides those people are much more likely to buy a desktop since they are more powerful and cheaper. Specially since you need a higher end GPU to your laptop if you want to play at 100fps+.

The thread in this forum was just a quick and convenient example. Not trying to prove my point with it.

 

So you think that just because a persons finger can only move so fast that your brain cannot make any use of the extra information it recieves? Lets take your logic and apply it to soccer. I cant kick with my foot more than 3 times a second so clearly I dont need to see any more than 3 FPS in real life.

Now does that make any sense?

People can and do infact notice 60hz, if you ever ran a CRT at 60hz you would know you can clearly see the flashing / strobing. Pilots who were tested in the airforce were able to identify planes that were flashed in front of them in less than 1/200th of a second. When the computing industry sees fit they will push 120hz on us and no one will be talking about this arguement again. In fact the video game industry has basically already decided that 60fps is not enough because they have tried to build motion blur into games to give the illusion of smoothness. But the trick is they need to wait until they need 120 hz to get us to upgrade. Even the backlighting and CFL bulbs that claim to not have flicker all do so by increasing the rate to 120hz or more.

The best question is why are you so intent on getting everyone to accept a lower standard?

 

Lol give me a better way to easily compare reaction times. I agree it's not exactly useful, but see previous sentence.

I know you can see more than 60fps so stop trying to prove it. My point, once again, is that majority of people cannot react fast enough to benefit it. If they add motion blur to completely mess the visibility even in 60fps... you know where I'm going.

Currently 120Hz costs more than most people are willing to pay, and is more than most people care to see in their games anyway. Hey that rhymes.