"You can see this by enabling motion blur reduction on your 120Hz monitor, and then drag a text window. Fewer microstutters makes text easier to read while dragging."

Why would someone enable motion blur reduction if it makes micro stutters more easily visible? Why would someone want to read text while dragging a window? And if fewer microstutters makes text easier to read while dragging, wouldn't 125 Hz be the best choice because it obviously shows fewer stutters in the picture? So many questions...

Half-joking aside, I don't doubt it makes a difference, though I thought I saw a few microstutters on 1000 Hz as well... They just weren't highlighted with arrows because they were smaller stutters than the others...

This seems like another example of "technically superior but practically negligible"... As we can see here, 1000 Hz is technically superior due to its smaller microstutters. In-game, however, will it really be a big deal with regard to the subjective experience of aim? I use 900 DPI @ 500 Hz with the Deathadder 3.5G and I've not noticed any major or minor tracking discrepancies, despite the deviation from technically better settings of 1800 DPI (proven higher perfect control speed) and 1000 Hz.

"technically superior but practically negligible"

Welcome to the ESR hardware section :D

It's still an interesting read though, sheds some light on hardware that we use on a daily basis

DANKE! *gyrates*
Despite my tone, I thought it was informative.

totally

I experience a huge difference with 125 Hz vs. 500+ on the desktop and in-game. Seems quite crazy to me that someone else wouldn't notice.

A lot of people...

not in this forum.

I didnt notice a difference between 500hz and 1000hz in lightboost, maybe because games dont look perfectly smooth in that mode.

I only notice 500 vs 1000 with lightboost on desktop while eye-tracking my cursor on solid background. Thought maybe it was just me but I guess Mark at blurbusters saw the same behaviour