I agree with you, because I spend more time reading documents, where the higher resolution of a 4k monitor is essential for the nice rendering of the typefaces, than doing things that benefit from a higher frame rate.
Nevertheless, I hope that in a not too distant future there will be affordable high quality 4k >=120 Hz monitors.
Before the transition to LCD monitors, almost 2 decades ago, few CRT monitors were so bad as to not have at least a 90 Hz frame rate. Their better responsivity and rendering of movements were very noticeable in comparison with their LCD successors, even when ignoring the pixel remanence problems of the early LCD monitors.
The transition from CRT to LCD was a great improvement in size, weight, geometric distortions and screen flicker, but it was a visible regression from the point of view of the lower frame rate.
Hopefully, this will be corrected eventually, so that it will be no longer necessary to choose between a 4k resolution and a high enough frame rate.
For text and productivity I agree 100%, but for games having >100hz really makes a difference. It's useful even if you're not playing twitch shooters. It makes interfaces more responsive. All movement is less stuttery. If you have typical 60Hz without VRR, then it can display only 60 or 30 or 15, etc. fps, so a game running at 40fps is going to have tearing or uneven framerate. If the game drops a frame, it's visible at 60->30hz, but not at 144->72.
I currently have a 4k 60hz monitor and a 1440p 240hz monitor on my desk. And I just switch between them depending on if I'm programming or gaming. Would be nice to have one monitor that does great for both but it would cost a fortune and I'm not sure cables can even push 4k 240hz worth of data.
I have a 48" 120Hz OLED as my main monitor, and I love the smoothness when you scroll or zoom on webpages, or even just moving the mouse around. Never going back to 60Hz.
well, i currently have 4k 240hz... so i agree in some tangential sense, but also mostly disagree in the sense that the comparison you posit is not really state-of-the-art-apples to state-of-the-art-apples, as it were. but, having had a 144hz monitor... i'll stick to 240, thanks. you guys can equivocate à la "no one can comprehend audio beyond 192kbps 16bit" all you want, and i'll stick to my "superhuman" abilities of perception over in this "you 'scientifically' cannot exist" corner"...
Nevertheless, I hope that in a not too distant future there will be affordable high quality 4k >=120 Hz monitors.
Before the transition to LCD monitors, almost 2 decades ago, few CRT monitors were so bad as to not have at least a 90 Hz frame rate. Their better responsivity and rendering of movements were very noticeable in comparison with their LCD successors, even when ignoring the pixel remanence problems of the early LCD monitors.
The transition from CRT to LCD was a great improvement in size, weight, geometric distortions and screen flicker, but it was a visible regression from the point of view of the lower frame rate.
Hopefully, this will be corrected eventually, so that it will be no longer necessary to choose between a 4k resolution and a high enough frame rate.