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

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...

It's not that simple, there's the whole panel technology and resolution debate.
I was on 120HZ about 2 years ago, and yeah, I loved it, but now I'm on a 21:9 2560x1080 monitor (60HZ IPS), there's simply no 120/144hz option, nor a TN option. My next step up is looking like a 60HZ 3440x1440 monitor.
 
MatTheCat said:
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?
?
Click to expand...

120hz gaming monitors are mainly for FPS games, quake, counter strike, call of duty etc where 120fps is pretty easy to maintain.

I am still using my samsung 700d, lovely monitor and would never even consider an upgrade if it weren't for the impending freesync compatible monitors.
 
nitram100 said:
120hz gaming monitors are mainly for FPS games, quake, counter strike, call of duty etc where 120fps is pretty easy to maintain.

I am still using my samsung 700d, lovely monitor and would never even consider an upgrade if it weren't for the impending freesync compatible monitors.
Click to expand...

This is what I am thinking......G-Sync/Free-Sync or go home.

All this 144 Hz or 4K (requiring 3* SLI GTX 780 for sub 60 fps in any halfway demanding game) is utter nonsense. Or at best, for over indulgent tech consumerist fruit cakes.

But having a monitor that actually syncs with the gfx card, well.....that could be a whole different ball game.
 
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...


That is BS and would be true for 4K, 1x 780Ti will run it, 2 in SLI would be great for a long time.

I am at 2304x1440p now and was for some games on my older 680 4GB (had to drop to 1920x1200 for some like Crysis 3/Metro LL etc).

Also G-Sync means the screen always will refresh at the fastest speed the panel support so on 144HZ panels that is 7ms, so unlike non G-Sync panels if the FPS drops to 30-40 so the HZ will be also be 30-40 the draw rate from top to bottom for the panel is still 7ms not +16ms.

60HZ panel = 16ms.

144HZ panel = 7ms.

G-sync 144HZ panel @ any HZ = 7ms.
 
Last edited:
jh30uk said:
That is BS and would be true for 4K, 1x 780Ti will run it, 2 in SLI would be great for a long time.
Click to expand...

Oh realllly?

This benchmark article of games running at 4K would suggest otherwise.

And this one shows that even a 2* Sli'd GTX 780 Ti falls well short of an acceptable standard!

And here is another one advising that now is not the time to go 4K, simply because the aesthetic experience of stuttering along at 30fps with your high end Sli GTX 780 configuration falls well short of gaming at 1080p with a nice solid frame rate and all eye candy turned up.

If you think forking out thousands of GBP to game with medium graphics settings and/or at 30 fps, then you have a very different set of standards and cost/benefit values to what I have.



I am with you on g-sync/free-sync though, at least in theory....I would have to witness it for myself before making up my mind......if only I could go on a tech forum and get an impartial, informed, and balanced first hand account of these things instead of reading hoards of posts from slobbering consumerist fan boi's, advising that everyone go for the most expensive, totally over the top, and counter productive options at all times.
 
Last edited:
DID you even read what I posted, I stated it was BS that you said that multiple 780Ti's were needed for 1440p not 4k.

That was your response to post#6 when he told you to buy a Rog Swift (do you know its 1440p not 4k)?

I am saying 1x 780Ti will run 1440p not 4k

4k is tomorrow, 1440p is taking over for 1080p for many today.

I agree with the guy above that your attitude is not helping when peeps reply to you especially when you do not read them correctly.

I advise you sign up to Which Magazine in that case.
 
Last edited:
jh30uk said:
DID you even read what I posted, I stated it was BS that you said that multiple 780Ti's were needed for 1440p not 4k.
Click to expand...

My apologies, I did indeed misread that.......


......a 780 Ti will indeed handle 1440p, just. With most games but by no means with all games. And how would it fair in a 64 player online shooter such as BF4, where an easy 30% deduction can be made from the offline benchmarked performance?

From my past experience of moving up the resolutions, a hefty price is paid with every increment up. If it takes a top of the range GTX 780 ti card to 'just' handle (most) games which are now 12-24 months old, then I would suggest that current 1440p gamers are going to need some expensive upgrades to play the hottest titles some 6 months down the line from here and/or simply put up with reduced eye candy or sub 60 FPS stutter (g-sync potentialities notwithstanding).
 
No problem

A single 780Ti is not ideal for a few games that have been out a while like Crysis 3 @ 1080p (30's FPS) is not ideal) and will not in future games even at 1080p.

The new cards will be here soon so its 2x current GPU's to get decent FPS in all current games at 1080p/1440p or wait and see if 1x Next gen GPU will cope.
 
Last edited:
I have a ROG Swift, it's an upgrade from my old 30" 2560x1600 60hz panel.

Games where I couldn't hit 60FPS before, are still better on this. Previously with Vsync on, I'd see either 60 or 30 frames in a second, as it either pushes a frame out in time for the next refresh, or it misses and hits the next one.

Now, I have a 144hz refresh. So, if I'm over 60fps, amazing, I see extra frames. If I'm below 60, then with more refreshes in a second, it's unlikely to go as low as 30 percieved frames. For example, it could push 48 with vsync as that is 144/3. This alone makes it better.

I'm running AMD, so I don't even get Gsync, but Gsync would mean that my 144hz monitor is good for everything from 35fps and up. You don't need to have 144fps as your goal with this screen in the same "60 or bust" way you do with vsync on a 60hz screen.
 
I think if you're playing FPS then grabbing one of the 1080p 144hz GSYNC monitors would be ideal. I've had the 226BW, DELL 3007 (2560x1600 @ 60hz), 120hz iiyama (1080p) and ROG SWIFT and both the iiyama and Asus were really nice upgrades from a gaming perspective. I agree the SWIFT is very expensive and not for everyone but I belive gibbo has more gsync monitors coming which are more affordable.
 
Martini1991 said:
I was on 120HZ about 2 years ago, and yeah, I loved it, but now I'm on a 21:9 2560x1080 monitor (60HZ IPS), there's simply no 120/144hz option, nor a TN option. My next step up is looking like a 60HZ 3440x1440 monitor.
Click to expand...

As someone who is potentially about to make the same transition (144Hz TN 16:9 -> 60Hz IPS 21:9) - how do you find the switch down to 60Hz for playing games - especially first person shooters if you play them?
 
OP: first you need to completely disentangle FPS from Hz in your head. They're not intrinsically linked in the way you're describing. You get the benefits from a 120 Hz panel at 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 and all FPS because they're MONITOR side improvements over a 60 Hz panel.

The requirement for v-sync is diminished on 120 Hz monitors I've found. I get either none or minimal screen tearing on my 120 Hz monitor compared to my 60 Hz monitor. There's certainly no harm in trying with and without to see what it's like for you as well. V-sync adds input lag so unless you're getting excessive tearing there's not much - IMO - point in using it.

That said, if you aren't a really serious gamer (and you don't really sound like it from your snooty comments) then look at getting a monitor with better colours / viewing angles than your average 120/144 Hz monitor.
 
Rusty0611 said:
OP: first you need to completely disentangle FPS from Hz in your head. They're not intrinsically linked in the way you're describing. You get the benefits from a 120 Hz panel at 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 and all FPS because they're MONITOR side improvements over a 60 Hz panel.

The requirement for v-sync is diminished on 120 Hz monitors I've found. I get either none or minimal screen tearing on my 120 Hz monitor compared to my 60 Hz monitor. There's certainly no harm in trying with and without to see what it's like for you as well. V-sync adds input lag so unless you're getting excessive tearing there's not much - IMO - point in using it.

That said, if you aren't a really serious gamer (and you don't really sound like it from your snooty comments) then look at getting a monitor with better colours / viewing angles than your average 120/144 Hz monitor.
Click to expand...

Funny you say this about vsync. I've just bought my first 144hz monitor - a ROG Swift. I am on AMD so can't use GSync, and AMD CCC can't force vsync in DX games (only OpenGL), so I'm running mostly without vsync (as most games seem to cap to 30 or 60 fps with vsync) and I don't see tearing really, very impressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom