Well the CSS transition wouldn't run at 60 fps, it would run at 120 fps, no?
An animation that looks slick at 120 fps might look too fast/slow/complex/whatever on a common 60 hz screen. So if I was still doing this sort of development, I'd prefer to be working on a 60 hz monitor.
Aren't CSS animations capped at 60, same as requestAnimationFrame?
I've been advocating (and using) high refresh displays for over two decades and I find your reasoning preposterous. Downgrading to crappy 60 Hz monitor for nothing.
I am pretty sure they are synchronized to refresh rate (at least on windows).
I made a small experiment about raf https://codepen.io/mmis1000/pen/qBxqgLr and it always looks uniform regardless I am on a 60, 120, 160 fps screen. (It would blink crazily if you put it in the middle of two screen with different refresh rate, because it can't be in two refresh rate at same time)
Erit: okay, it looks non uniform only in safari. Clap, clap, clap, Apple…
CSS transitions and animations seem to be declared using expressions that are continuous over time so it would make sense that they are just quantized down to whatever refresh rate the system supports.
I'm not even sure CSS animations can go above 60fps, and am unsure why you'd think it would be faster / slower on a different refresh rate screen: CSS transitions are defined by time, not frames.
An animation that looks slick at 120 fps might look too fast/slow/complex/whatever on a common 60 hz screen. So if I was still doing this sort of development, I'd prefer to be working on a 60 hz monitor.