60hz or 120hz for gaming?

phill1978 said:
says you really need about 100fps at least to get that creamy experience. which when newer games come out you really wont be pushing.
Click to expand...

But thats just it,as the newer graphics cards come out and we are more and more console lead with games, it`s gonna be increasingly easier to maintain these higher frame rates.Already an ati 5870 is able to get very close to maintaining 120 on its own,in x-fire only the likes of crysis don`t make it....and thats a 3 year old PC lead title.Dead space 2,the cod titles,darksiders,lfd 1 and 2 are all capable of running at a consistant 100-120 fps,in fact pretty much all console titles are.And thats not gonna change any time soon because this console life cycle is gonna be the longest ever (lot of people saying another 4 years or so left in them).

Obviously During this time pc`s will increase in power even more while console hardware will be static.Within around a years time you will probably see pc`s going for around £300 pound that not only match but exceed the console performance and are able to to run at 60 FPS pretty much constant (we arent far of that time already some would say).If anything,as the newer games come out it`s gonna be the opposite of what you say.....it will become easier to hit those 120 fps and so these new 120hz monitors will really begin to shine.
 
Dash RipRock said:
But thats just it,as the newer graphics cards come out and we are more and more console lead with games, it`s gonna be increasingly easier to maintain these higher frame rates.Already an ati 5870 is able to get very close to maintaining 120 on its own,in x-fire only the likes of crysis don`t make it....and thats a 3 year old PC lead title.Dead space 2,the cod titles,darksiders,lfd 1 and 2 are all capable of running at a consistant 100-120 fps,in fact pretty much all console titles are.And thats not gonna change any time soon because this console life cycle is gonna be the longest ever (lot of people saying another 4 years or so left in them).

Obviously During this time pc`s will increase in power even more while console hardware will be static.Within around a years time you will probably see pc`s going for around £300 pound that not only match but exceed the console performance and are able to to run at 60 FPS pretty much constant (we arent far of that time already some would say).If anything,as the newer games come out it`s gonna be the opposite of what you say.....it will become easier to hit those 120 fps and so these new 120hz monitors will really begin to shine.
Click to expand...

well if we want to run these console games at console res then yes its easy.

however, if we want to add some nice dx11 features, supersampling AA, move upto 1080p or 1200p or even 1440/1600p and still maintain 100+ FPS its not going to happen as easy. all that it means is that your spending £$£$£ on beefier graphics cards more often.
 
I just got rid of my 3d setup, 120hz monitor and glasses.

The glasses i used only a few times, they hurt my eyes, it did look good but theres no way i could have played long with them.

I cant really tell much difference between 120hz and 60hz both maxed out, so i ended up selling my monitor too and going back to 60hz.
 
phill1978 said:
there is a NEC 26" 1200p screen that has 0ms input lag tested min and 15ms max with tn panel and 60hz. so input lag is very low, further more looking at the benq 120hz model for sale on here shows weird ghosting issues even on 120hz vs a good 60hz panel..

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/benq_xl2410t.htm

scroll to responsiveness and gaming section, the 60hz is more stable (but displays less frames)

also input lag is indeed low on th 120hz benq at 6ms but 60hz lowest is 8ms hardly earth shattering differences and id wager not actually noticeable, if you were that bothered you would be running ultra low settings and low res on a crt.


120hz is definatley a keeper feature but at the moment the benq doesnt seem to be the best implementation of the tech.
Click to expand...

Not everyone has space for a CRT any more. The best panel I have for input lag is a 60Hz (6.8ms max, 1.7ms average) but the residual image issues make it a no no for serious gaming. Anything under 16ms is generally not an issue but at 16ms and above it does quickly start to become noticeable for serious fps gaming.
 
As has been said, 120hz offers more fps headroom provided that your rig/gpu can sustain high minimum frames in your chosen game(s).

As in, generally higher than 60fps, and with all the candy at max, we are talking about very few systems :p
 
Last edited:
Im having a dilema at the moment whether to keep my 2 week old asus 120Hz monitor or plunge for one of the 30" hazro IPS panel monitors. I dont remember seeing much difference in games between a 60 and 120Hz monitor but do like working with pictures also so think the Hazro will be the way to go.
 
Can someone explain why 60Hz is ok for single player and 120Hz for on-line?
I don't claim to understnad exactly how monitors work, but surely that is a generalization?
 
What's the justification for 120Hz having an advantage for fast-paced games? As far as I am aware, the difference between a steady 60Hz and 120Hz is imperceptible to the human eye, so at this point the bottleneck to gameplay is latency, not framerate.

Why am I wrong?
 
Was just wondering aswell, what with vsync on a 60hz monitor making the game run at a constant 60fps to stop tearing, would this mean that if you enabled vsync on a 120hz monitor it would make your game run at a constant 120fps (if it could) to stop tearing (if you got it).?
One good thing about a 120hz monitor is that it can do 3d gaming as it needs two 60hz picture.
 
redrooster303 said:
Was just wondering aswell, what with vsync on a 60hz monitor making the game run at a constant 60fps to stop tearing, would this mean that if you enabled vsync on a 120hz monitor it would make your game run at a constant 120fps (if it could) to stop tearing (if you got it).?
One good thing about a 120hz monitor is that it can do 3d gaming as it needs two 60hz picture.
Click to expand...

VSync forces an output of an integer factor of the refresh rate, so you'd only get 120fps if your graphics card can manage >= 120fps as it is, otherwise the next even factor is 60fps so it wouldn't actually make any difference.
 
Thats why I run GTX470 SLI at 1680x1050 - so I can get 120fps constantly in single player with VSync on (and games like eve online) - would never use VSync in multiplayer especially fps tho.
 
I think that 60fps is fine for gaming.

The reason that people say that multiplayer might benefit from 120fps is because it refreshes more often, therefore you can see something very slightly sooner, and therefore have a competitive advantage.
 
TheCenturion said:
The reason that people say that multiplayer might benefit from 120fps is because it refreshes more often, therefore you can see something very slightly sooner, and therefore have a competitive advantage.
Click to expand...

This is what I take issue with. Even if we assume that a game is running constantly at 120fps (which is rare enough in itself on almost all systems), then a given frame would have to fall between the 1/60sec mark and the 1/120sec mark in order to be output 1/120th of a second earlier. That's a difference that is entirely imperceptible to the human eye and is grossly outweighed by latency anyway, which will vary (by much larger intervals) from system to system.

By using a 120Hz monitor, you can expect on average half of the output frames to be displayed 1/120th of a second faster, on the assumption that you are getting a consistent framerate of >=120fps. To say that's negligible would be an overstatement.

I can see a small benefit in that the effects of screen tearing will appear reduced, but with triple buffering that isn't really an issue anyway.
 
Last edited:
^^ Anyone serious about FPS gaming will have VSync off anyhow, theres quite a lot of ground between 60fps and 120fps before you hit 120fps where the extra information is useable to a competitive gamer (over 60fps) and the average human eye can detect changes upto 1/200th of a second, tho for most people once you get over 80-100th of a second not really any significance to it.

Theres a lot more to it than that tho, your not just dealing with the visual information but the feedback (control input response) from that to.
 
And there IS a noticeable increase in general smoothness that can be seen when running constant 120 fps vs 60 fps.Perhaps not as prononced as 60 fps vs 30 fps due to deminishing returns but dont let ANYONE tell you that your eyes can`t see above 24/30/60 fps and the rest of the Bs because as anyone with a 120 hz display will tell you even moving your mouse/windows around on your desktop is smoother.

Best way to think about it i`ve heard is this....60 fps is very very nice and smooth,but 120 fps feels and looks like liquid smooth.It`s really hard going back to 60 hz once you`ve witnessed 120hz.All imho of course ;)
 
hmmm im still not convinced that 120Hz is going to be a better option for someone who uses a PC for more than just gaming. I e. general office purposes.
Would I notice a difference between 120hz and 60hz for say desktop publishing, MS applications and MS Flight Sim X?
 
sybaris said:
hmmm im still not convinced that 120Hz is going to be a better option for someone who uses a PC for more than just gaming. I e. general office purposes.
Would I notice a difference between 120hz and 60hz for say desktop publishing, MS applications and MS Flight Sim X?
Click to expand...

Yes to flight sim x and probably for the others aswell,my example of the desktop being smoother is just a nice little extra thats not intended to convince people to buy 120hz monitors it`s just there to illustrate that it can be seen and felt in even the relative basic environment of a windows desktop.

I certainly wouldnt advise anyone to buy a 120hz monitor solely for desktop usage,i think a nicer ips panel with some good colours would suit them better than the admittedly nice smooth windows/mouse movement ;).

Oh btw my recommendation of 120hz displays is subject to having enough oomph to display between 80-120 fps on a regular basis on a lot of games (obviously a solid 120 fps is the most desirable) and i would certainly not be so quick to recommend one if you spend most of your gaming life between 30-50 fps.Maybe if you planned to update your graphics card(s) soon but not if your planning on keeping the same card for a while.
 
Personally I can perform just fine in FPS games (online of course) on a 60Hz monitor - even a sluggish VA panel is fine if you get used to it. Different people are different, however, and I can completely understand how some titles would benefit much more from the additional smoothness (provided your GPU(s) can keep up!). Although I consider my performance 'just fine' on a 60Hz monitor I can absolutely feel the difference when gaming - the biggest thing for me is usually that the textures remain sharp when you turn/move quickly or when fast moving objects appear on the screen. I can understand how this would make aiming easier and there is less 'clutter' for your brain to process so you can theoretically make the shot that little bit sooner and more accurately. The extra smoothness can also be appreciated on other genres - on flight sims I doubt it would improve your performance all that much but it's nice to have fast moving aircraft and other objects retain a good degree of sharpness.

You can read about some of our experiences with the XL2410T (which is not the most responsive 120Hz monitor but is still gives a good experience) in this review. Although the comments mainly focus on the FPS genre there are mixed driving and flying elements chucked in there that could apply equally to other genres. The general principle is the same.
 
I'd say it would be a little smoother in FSX but not really a game where its needed, for general desktop useage the difference is negligible - I doubt 9/10 could even notice the difference in windows in blind testing.

In terms of playing something like Call of Duty or the Quake series the difference in terms of fluidity and response is massive - quite often on 60Hz panels I feel "I should have made that shot" whereas on 120Hz I rarely feel that - I feel like my best is going into the game and mistakes are more down to my inability to play at that level rather than my hardware holding me back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom