I found it interesting to see the technical differences and semi-scientific experiments, since I regarded anything over 100Hz as snake oil.
There are still many remarks to be made about the test setup so I do not see this as entirely conclusive, but the results are pretty convincing in that 144+ is clearly distinct from 60. If I remember correctly, there was some research where participants couldn't even tell there was a flash of light in a dark room when it was <100th of a second, so I am fairly surprised that it makes such a big difference in gaming.
Then again, this is not a pure monitors' test, this is about computer speed as well. I definitely noticed the difference when playing OpenArena on 125fps vs 60fps (125 specifically had some physics advantages, hence that number), even though both were displayed on a 60Hz monitor. I wonder if the results still hold up when only the monitor refresh rate changes, it is a proper double-blind test, and the participants are not already used (over thousands of game hours) to certain frame rates.
There are still many remarks to be made about the test setup so I do not see this as entirely conclusive, but the results are pretty convincing in that 144+ is clearly distinct from 60. If I remember correctly, there was some research where participants couldn't even tell there was a flash of light in a dark room when it was <100th of a second, so I am fairly surprised that it makes such a big difference in gaming.
Then again, this is not a pure monitors' test, this is about computer speed as well. I definitely noticed the difference when playing OpenArena on 125fps vs 60fps (125 specifically had some physics advantages, hence that number), even though both were displayed on a 60Hz monitor. I wonder if the results still hold up when only the monitor refresh rate changes, it is a proper double-blind test, and the participants are not already used (over thousands of game hours) to certain frame rates.