What gaming monitor to go for 60Hz, 120Hz or 144Hz?

MatTheCat

MatTheCat

MatTheCat

Associate
Joined
8 Mar 2013
Posts
689
Last time I purchased a monitor was late 2007, a 22" Samsung 226BW with 2ms response time. A cracking monitor at the time.

Obviously technology has moved on quite a bit since then and we now have up to 4K resolution monitors and/or 144 Hz refresh rate monitors. Gaming however, is still focused around 1080p at 60 FPS and will remain so for quite some time to come as this is the standard that the recent consoles aim for and is also a standard which is both pleasing on the eye and doesn't cause, migraines, eye strain, or motion sickness.

Up until the last gen consoles game out, PC gamers had to generally just accept that our machines were simply not going to churn out the latest titles, maxed out with a full 60 FPS (or even 30 fps in some cases). Possibly due to the consoles forcing devs to lower the bar and/or make more efficient use of the processing power they have at their disposal, this is thankfully a thing of the past. If a PC gamer has a fairly decent PC, then he can be assured that for all but the most cutting edge or poorly optimised gfx technology, he will be able to run all the big hitting AAA titles with maxed details, 1080p at 60 FPS.
This is a reality of modern PC gaming that I am very happy about. I like just to boot up a new game, turn everything right up, and get 100% smooth performance and if not, then maybe I sacrifice some 'shadows' or MSAA to get the desired smoothness (and if I can't get this smoothness such as with titles like Arma 3 or X-Plane 10, then the game basically goes straight in the bin / never gets played).

For this reason, I have absolutely no interest in higher than 1080p monitors for my PC. This just leaves the whole 120 Hz - 144 Hz to be considered.

I want to get a good 1080p monitor that takes advantage of the latest technology to deliver the highest quality image and responses. However is there any point in getting say a 120Hz monitor if any single GPU is not going to be able to churn at a solid v-sync'd 120 fps? If I was to go for a 120Hz monitor, how much of a hassle is it generally to have games run at 60 Hz so that I get my smooth v-sync'd 60 FPS frame rates? Would the quality of a good 120Hz monitor running in '60Hz' mode be just the same as a good 60Hz monitor running at native resolution and refresh rates, or would their be 'roughs around the edges'? If I was to go for a 144Hz monitor, then I would need to run at 72Hz and 72 fps to get that stutter free smooth v-sync'd experience. However, many games are designed specifically for 60 Hz (FIFA, Pro Evo) and have problems running outwith this refresh rate.

I am sure many of you have experiences of gaming with the sort of monitor specs that I am talking above and what appreciate any tips, info, or even recommendations on specific models. Just to state in advance, if anyone is the sort of gamer who prefers to play with V-sync OFF (and is therefore of the opinion that the more FPS at any given instance, the better and screen tearing doesn't matter), then that person probably doesn't need to leave any advice in this thread. (Apparently the majority of gamers play without V-sync and put up with and/or claim not to notice screen tearing whereas I personally find screen tearing utterly intolerable and can't/won't play video games on consoles because of it......would rather have 30 fps than screen tearing)
 
Last edited:
Having had 60Hz, 120Hz and 144Hz screens I'd say either 120 or 144 - you wont notice a difference between these two, so if you find a panel that has the features/specs you want but is 120 instead of 144, don't let the lower max refresh rate put you off.

Once you've played games at 120fps @ 120Hz+, you'll never go back
 
dvs8 said:
Once you've played games at 120fps @ 120Hz+, you'll never go back
Click to expand...

I am sure gaming at 120FPS on a 120 Hz monitor is just splendid, but what graphics cards are going to be capable of churning out say, The Witcher 3 at 120 fps with all the eye candy turned up?

In short, none of them will be able to do this. I know this without having to see it for myself and the same thing could also be said of a great deal of other titles.

I would rather game at 60 FPS or 72 FPS, and have a solid frame rate, other than have a frame rate that bounces around anywhere between 60 fps and 144 fps (perhaps with screen tearing since that seems to be something that the majority of gamers think is ok to live with). What I was trying to find out is what the implications are of buying a higher grade 120Hz or 144Hz monitor yet having demanding games still run at a solid v sync'd 60 fps on that monitor. I suppose it is the refresh rate equivalent of:

Q) Can I buy a good 1440p monitor but still choose to run games at 720p or 1080p?

A) You can, but they will look crap compared with just running them on a native 720p or 1080p screen so unless you are going to have the gfx card(s) capable of powering a 1440p screen, don't waste your money on such an expensive screen!


Perhaps someone will come along who understands what I am getting at and provide a good answer yet?
 
Last edited:
skuko said:
get the ROG SWIFT, end of story :)
Click to expand...

Great advice! A bargain at just £700 notwithstanding the 3* Sli Titans that I would need to power it with.

(Reaches for ignore button....damn, there isn't one :( ).


Is there anyone out there who isn't just a vacuous consumer got any input on this query?
 
MatTheCat said:
Great advice! A bargain at just £700 notwithstanding the 3* Sli Titans that I would need to power it with.

(Reaches for ignore button....damn, there isn't one :( ).


Is there anyone out there who isn't just a vacuous consumer got any input on this query?
Click to expand...

well, look at you, all mad and stuff :D

first, you are not mentioning ANY KIND OF MULTIPLE MONITOR SETUP....
second, ROG swift is your best bet for all framerates, from say 35 up to 144. yes, it is pricey, but it's future proof at the same time.

i have one, running it with a single gtx680 and an i7.

if you wanted a multiscreen setup, that would be a completely different story. like i said, you don't mention it in either of your posts.

and btw. you pay more for the screen, but can save on the GPU, since you don't need to drive purely high 120+ fps to get buttersmooth experience.

so take your condescending attitude and shove it.
 
fps and hz are different things.

You can get the benefit of 120/144hz screen without playing at 120/144fps. 144hz refresh rate helps to eliminate motion blur regardless of how quickly your cards are churning out frames. Basically you notice a difference on anything that can be rendered at 60fps and over
 
Last edited:
stuie said:
fps and hz are different things.

You can get the benefit of 120/144hz screen without playing at 120/144fps. 144hz refresh rate helps to eliminate motion blur regardless of how quickly your cards are churning out frames. Basically you notice a difference on anything that can be rendered at 60fps and over
Click to expand...

So you don't get stutter issues say using a 144Hz monitor whilst gaming at sub 144 fps with V-sync enabled? I keep stressing v-sync because it is of critical importance to me (I wouldn't even play a game with any screen tearing), whereas I realise that many others disregard it or don't even use it.

How does V-sync even work on a 144 Hz screen? I am guessing that when the GPU can't hit 144 fps, it will then aim for 72 fps, and what you are saying is that 72 fps on a 144 Hz screen is better than 72 fps on a 72 Hz screen? Or indeed, 60 fps on 120Hz screen is a better experience than 60 fps on a 60Hz screen?
 
60fps on a 120hz screen is imo better than on a 60hz screen.

You dont get stutter issues unless you drop below a frame rate where normal stutter would happen which for most people is below 30fps. vsync syncs the max hz it doesnt have an effect on anything below. If anything its better cause a 50% fps blip on 144hz is still above what most people consider to be stutter free gaming limit lose half of 60hz and you get problems.
Think of it like this owning a bentley still feels like owning a bentley even if your only doing 30mph yes at 200mph it feels even better but doesnt mean its suddenly worse than a golf just because your only doing golf speeds
 
stuie said:
60fps on a 120hz screen is imo better than on a 60hz screen.

You dont get stutter issues unless you drop below a frame rate where normal stutter would happen which for most people is below 30fps. vsync syncs the max hz it doesnt have an effect on anything below. If anything its better cause a 50% fps blip on 144hz is still above what most people consider to be stutter free gaming limit lose half of 60hz and you get problems.
Think of it like this owning a bentley still feels like owning a bentley even if your only doing 30mph yes at 200mph it feels even better but doesnt mean its suddenly worse than a golf just because your only doing golf speeds
Click to expand...

But for many, a smooth and steady 30 FPS is better than the frame rate bobbing about in between 30 and 60. One can get accustomed to a steady 30 fps, but when it shifts between 30 and 60, then it is impossible not to notice the roughness of the lower frame rates.

For me, I notice a lack of smoothness at any drop in frame rate below 60 FPS on a 60 Hz monitor. I don't know whether I would notice any drop from 120 fps on a 120 Hz monitor as contributing towards unsmooth 3D animations, as I have never experienced it.
 
I found screen tearing to be much less noticeable when I upgraded to a 120hz screen - so much so that I always leave vsync off now. It may be worth keeping that in mind when considering the higher refresh rate monitors.
 
Wow, pretty hostile responses from someone who is asking for help. I stand by what I said, and don't think you'll find many people on here who disagree with me ref gaming at 120Hz vs 60Hz (at 120fps or otherwise)
 
Soon I will launch a 27" 144Hz deal to kill every other deal, on a very limited 50pc and it will be a TODAY ONLY offer.

Should have it sorted in a few days. :D
 
Gibbo said:
Soon I will launch a 27" 144Hz deal to kill every other deal, on a very limited 50pc and it will be a TODAY ONLY offer.

Should have it sorted in a few days. :D
Click to expand...

Oooh oooh ooh pick me, pick me! :D

Well, as long as it's cheap. I mean, 'excellent value'! :p

Edit: If I can guess the model can I win it LOL? I'm thinking it's this: Acer UM.HB0EE.005 27" 144hz :cool:
 
Last edited:
I think 60Hz screens for gaming are almost at the end of there time ..... I think anyone looking for a gaming screen that has the PC to support it should be looking at 120 or 144 now IMO

PS I am 60Hz gaming :)
 
anthony566 said:
I think 60Hz screens for gaming are almost at the end of there time ..... I think anyone looking for a gaming screen that has the PC to support it should be looking at 120 or 144 now IMO

PS I am 60Hz gaming :)
Click to expand...

60 fps will be the industry standard for as long as the current gen (PS4 XBone) consoles are around.....and they have only just arrived and are far from being mainstream, yet.

I suspect that for future juicy DX 11 titles such as the Witcher 3, and then DX 12 titles that will come after it, not many will have PCs capable of maxing such AAA titles out whilst holding a steady 60 fps at 1080p, let alone 120 fps at 1080p, or even 1440p....and most certainly not at 4K.

However, if a 120Hz screen made a 60FPs so much more fluid and enjoyable without any little bug-a-bears akin to running a game outwith the native resolution of a specific monitor, then that might be a different story. Also, having read into G-sync, perhaps that would do away entirely with the need for the holy grail of 'v-sync + 60 fps' altogether. Certainly the reviews that I am reading would suggest that it does.

==================================

I have been a bit shirty with some of the responses on this thread (despite it being a thread where I am asking for help), because if their is one thing that ****es me off on tech forums, it is the prevailing philosophy of advising people to go spunking massive amounts of cash on the highest spec equipment available just for the sake of it.......and in my case, shelling out for the 'top of the range' screens could mean me ending up with exactly the sort of situation I don't want, just as I described in my OP. i.e. going back to the bad old days of dicking around for ages with games gfx settings and 3rd party driver software trying to achieve as high quality stable performance as possible without ever being entirely satisfied.

From reading through various threads on this forum subsection I am reading things like:

"Meh, 4K is the way to go now. Anything less is obsolete tech. Of course, you might need to double up that GTX 770 to get max details and smooth frame rates"

And various other utter idiocy on toast pronouncements that can only serve to spread a false image of the reality.

In the case of skuko, he jumps in with his; "Meh, just buy the ROG swift and be done with it" comment. Despite me voicing my concerns of even very capable hardware not being able to max current and up and coming games at 1440p, let alone at v-sync'd 144 fps. His knee-jerk 'advice' was for me to ***** over £700 on a 1440p monitor, which runs at 144Hz! I am sorry, but these sort of posts aren't helpful, they are just annoying. Worse than annoying. They are spam.
 
Last edited:
My current 3 24" 1080p's are fine but if I was looking now I would look at the next gen stuff as I have seen 120Hz screens and they do look very crisp and if there was only a slight hike in price then It might be an obvious choice but I am with you on the NOT buying more than you really need subject :) ( apart from when you want something because it looks good .... )
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom