60Hz v 120/144Hz... is there really that much difference?

Dave Burton

Dave Burton

Dave Burton

Associate
Joined
29 Oct 2002
Posts
698
As title, I'm pondering a new, larger screen to replace a failing AOC 24" 1080 screen that's a few years old. Considering the huge amount of options, and that I have a tri-monitor setup, I'd probably not look for anything much bigger than 27-28"" but was wondering what people's take on this would be?

I'm aware, through research, that the difference is that 144Hz will draw more frames so would be a "smoother" experience, but when cost is factored in there is an enormous cost difference (~£500 for 60Hz, £1500+ for 144Hz!!!) so the question is, is it worth it?

I don't play and FPS or such, I'm more of an adventure / RPG player, so would 60Hz be sufficient? For the rest, it'll be 1ms refresh and an IPS panel, but I'm questioning how much hurt(z) I would notice by opting for 60Hz panels.

Thanks.

DB
 
I don't believe any IPS has a true 1 ms response time, that's purely TN territory.

I went from a 60 hz IPS to a 100 hz VA and in terms of panel quality I'm very happy, so that may be a cost saving measure if you're willing to consider something other than IPS.

Refresh rate wise I wasn't sure if I could even notice the difference between 60 hz and 100 hz at first. After a few days though I definitely did, and 60 hz @ 60 fps no longer looked smooth despite FreeSync. As time has gone on I've found myself aiming more for 100 fps and certainly noticing when it drops to below about 75 fps. I'm now even wondering if 100 hz is enough and maybe I should've gone for 120 hz :P Though that's probably just madness/greed on my part for a 3440x1440 resolution considering the horse power needed to keep chasing such frame rates when I'm often struggling to hit 100 at the moment.

I tend to play RPG/adventures/racing games more than anything else. At the moment I'm replaying Tomb Raider (2013) to really check out the solid 100 fps at high-ultra settings. I think I'm definitely better at putting arrows in heads at 100 hz than at 60 hz. I've now reached a part of the game (the Shanty Town) where it's dropped to about 65 fps, and it feels more like how I remember 45 fps to be at 60 hz - not nearly as pleasant despite FreeSync. So yes, I think anyone buying now should be aiming for higher refresh rates. Exactly how high is another question.
 
Dave Burton said:
As title, I'm pondering a new, larger screen to replace a failing AOC 24" 1080 screen that's a few years old. Considering the huge amount of options, and that I have a tri-monitor setup, I'd probably not look for anything much bigger than 27-28"" but was wondering what people's take on this would be?

I'm aware, through research, that the difference is that 144Hz will draw more frames so would be a "smoother" experience, but when cost is factored in there is an enormous cost difference (~£500 for 60Hz, £1500+ for 144Hz!!!) so the question is, is it worth it?

I don't play and FPS or such, I'm more of an adventure / RPG player, so would 60Hz be sufficient? For the rest, it'll be 1ms refresh and an IPS panel, but I'm questioning how much hurt(z) I would notice by opting for 60Hz panels.

Thanks.

DB
Click to expand...

The way I always look at it is this...

remember on your old CRT you would move the mouse within the desktop environment and it felt responsive and windows moved with little blurring?
That's what you're getting, something nearer to that. It's not just about gaming and frames matching hurtz.
 
Teh_Next said:
The way I always look at it is this...

remember on your old CRT you would move the mouse within the desktop environment and it felt responsive and windows moved with little blurring?
That's what you're getting, something nearer to that. It's not just about gaming and frames matching hurtz.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you can remember old days changing resolution and therefore refresh rate on CRTs, that's helpful experience when considering LCD refresh rates where you haven't seen the higher refresh displays. Though it's a tad tricky as the biggest plus of making sure you have a decent refresh rate with CRTs was to avoid flicker and eye strain. Back then 60 hz was literally painful, 75 hz was acceptable, and if I remember correctly then 85 hz was a real sweet spot, completely eliminating eye-strain inducing flicker and also being as smooth as lower resolutions at 100 hz+. Albeit we only had the mouse cursor movements and window dragging to test that, as high fps gaming wasn't really achievable in those days IIRC.
 
I think it`s all personal but for me they might aswell stop making 60hz screens because I will never ever buy one again for gaming.
The smoothness and feeling of being connected to the game, and responsiveness of higher refresh rate displays is what makes all the difference, it`s true once you try it you will never go back.
 
High refresh monitors are expensive not only because the monitor itself is expensive but you need more expensive hardware (CPU+GPU) to sustain triple digits fps. Once you try 120/144Hz then 60Hz will look like garbage in comparison.

For my experiens:
  • For FPS/TPS games anything below 90 fps is not smooth above 90 fps it starts to became smooth, at 100 fps becomes smooth, at 120+ fps starts the epic experience with the game becoming ultra smooth and responsive.
  • For RTS games (or similar) I can live with 60fps but still I can see the massive difference immediately from 60fps to 144fps.
  • For racing games honestly I can't really tell the difference from 60fps to 144fps, because you don't make rapid movements with the camera.
  • Even if you just browsing the internet everything looks smoother and more responsive from the mouse movement to scrolling and moving windows around.
 
I can do the Pepsi challenge in any game, as soon as it hits the 60Hz mark I can tell without any frame counter.

Why are you going for 3 panels, wouldn't Ultrawide be an option? The sweet spot is probably 3440*1440 @ 120Hz
 
I bought a 144hz 1080p monitor for my ex many years back, and we sat it side-by-side with my Dell U2412M. The Dell blew it out of the water in colour and viewing angles, but oh my god did the 144hz take a dump on it during games. With a decent enough graphics card you'll never want to go back.

Going from 60hz to 100hz+ is like eating dry toast and then discovering the revelation of butter. It's all delicious from then on.
 
absolutely.

I went from 60hz 1ms g2g monitors to some cheap 240hz ones..night and day,even if I use them at 120 hz the difference in smoothness is games is very apparent ,i could not go back to 60hz now.
 
Sadly, budget would not stretch to 144Hz, had to settle for 60Hz with the aim of getting the higher spec towards the end of the year (son will get the 60Hz panel at this point) but actually I'm pretty happy with it!! Screen real estate meant I had to push the screen back a good bit, but the vibrancy and clarity are superb!!
 
Vexr said:
I don't believe any IPS has a true 1 ms response time, that's purely TN territory.
*snipped
Click to expand...
Funny thing is that TN is not "true" 1 ms either.. some of the very fastest TNs are more on the side of 2-3 ms on average with some transitions going above that average by a few ms. Still fast mind you..
 
Same here, I wouldn't go back to a 60hz monitor now.

There is a HUGE difference between 60hz and 144hz.
The difference is far less noticeable between 120hz and 144hz (but there is one).
But 144hz really is ' t h e ' sweet spot to aim for.
Pro gamers go for 240hz 1080p TN panels, but that is niche and overkill imho.

I'm just waiting for 32" (and bigger) 144hz 4k panels to become mainstream and affordable.
We would probably be there by now if a single graphics card could drive 4k @ max settings @ 144fps+.
No doubt that it will happen in the next year or two. (maybe a RTX 3080ti? who knows).
 
Last edited:
Dave Burton said:
Sadly, budget would not stretch to 144Hz, had to settle for 60Hz with the aim of getting the higher spec towards the end of the year (son will get the 60Hz panel at this point) but actually I'm pretty happy with it!! Screen real estate meant I had to push the screen back a good bit, but the vibrancy and clarity are superb!!
Click to expand...
Well it's always nice to have a new toy and your lad I'm sure will look reward to receiving it.:cool:
 
fastboy said:
yep any new toy is good :)
Click to expand...

The only slight annoyance i had was the location of the VESA mount on the new screen. I have a tri-screen mounting arm which relies on centralized VESA mounts, the new screen has these at the top of the unit! Some major McGyvering later and I had an acceptable solution :)
 
AStaley said:
Out of interest what was the screen(s) you went for in the end?
Click to expand...

It was the Samsung LU28E590DS, chosen quite frankly because the picture was sharp on the demo in the shop. Was an HD feed on all the screens, and the picture quality of this panel blew the others away, and it was also the only screen with no visible "choppiness" so I bought it on a whim :)

The lag of the other screens actually left me feeling a little nauseous but after a week of using it it's great :)
 
Looks a good monitor for the price, see what you mean about the VESA mounting point being in an odd position, but glad you were able to find a solution, are you using 3 of these?
 
AStaley said:
Looks a good monitor for the price, see what you mean about the VESA mounting point being in an odd position, but glad you were able to find a solution, are you using 3 of these?
Click to expand...

Sadly not. It's the centre screen of a tri-monitor setup, with 2 24" 1080 screens in flanking positions. The ultimate aim is to end up with 3 28" panels, but will have to do this when funding allows. All spare cash is currently going into a bathroom and kitchen renovation so once that's out the way we'll see.... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom