But even with 244 Hz the engine running at 9000 rpm or 150 Hz will not even give you two frames per revolution, about 221° of rotation per frame to be precise. If you want a somewhat smooth animation, say 10° per frame, you want to look for a 5400 Hz monitor.
Yup, 240Hz here make even idling look more like something glitching than moving fast.
At 1/4th the speed idling moves fine, but the individual pixels don't have time to reset properly and some artifacts can be appreciated (1ms refresh time 27" IPS panel)
I don't think it's overly pedantic or even really pedantic at all as there's only one reason for any author to make such assumptions knowing full well that it won't hold for the entire audience. (The reason being editorializing the title to make it sound more appealing than it might otherwise be)
What's wrong with "9000 RPM is faster than my screen refreshes" or "9000 RPM is faster than most screen refreshes" or "9000 RPM is faster than an average screen refreshes"?
"Shocking" news that is anything but. "Little known facts" that are widely known. "Mistakes your making with ..." that you've never once made. It's all just trying to get you to consume the content.
The fastest reciprocating ICEs I've ever heard of are small, two stroke model engines. Some of those can approach 30K RPM, but that is rare, and I don't know if anyone still manufactures those. ~20K isn't rare for these small engines.
Back in the pre-history of Radio (before and during WW1,) electro-mechanical alternators were used to generate low frequency RF in powerful transmitters. Some of those designs would spin at 20K RPM.
Once you go above 144 hz, the returns really start to diminish.
Going from 60 to 144 hz in games was great. Certainly noticeable. Going from 144 to 240, it's much more subtle. I'm not sure I'd even notice 500 versus 240 unless I had them side-by-side.
