Crazy to overclock a 100 hz ultrawide monitor?

Vexr · 14 Mar 2019 at 09:47

I've come across someone with the same monitor as myself (Samsung C34J791) who's overclocked it to 110 hz.

Having heard of some with 100 hz native UW panels that are marketed as being overclockable to 120 hz, and then experiencing issues creeping in over time in the overclocked mode or even the monitor being insta-bricked on first trying the OC, is it crazy attempting it on a monitor that makes no claims about being overclockable? There much benefit to be had from it if it does work?

Considering these high refresh 34" 1440p ultrawides aren't exactly cheap, personally I'm leaning toward not OCing and instead attempting to ensure it has a long life.

Kelt · 15 Mar 2019 at 14:58

Zero point in overclocking from 100 to 100+ if the monitor doesn't support it.

Minstadave · 15 Mar 2019 at 14:59

The benefit doesn't seem worth it if you already can run 100hz.

Vexr · 15 Mar 2019 at 21:59

Yeah I think I agree. I'm reminded of a linustechtips review of a 75 hz ultrawide in 2015, where he says it's possible but difficult for him to discern the difference between 100 hz and 144 hz, but the difference between 60 hz and 75 hz is "night and freaking day". It's in the video below at 2m 26s+

Though he did end up O/Cing it to 85 hz.

As my own experience seems to match with ~75 fps being the new minimum smooth fps where it's not all that obvious fps has fallen from 100 until it goes below that, it suggests to me that risking a 100 hz monitor and its lifespan hoping to get 110-120 hz (if lucky) isn't worth it.

Vexr · 16 Mar 2019 at 00:21

Vexr said:
he says it's possible but difficult for him to discern the difference between 100 hz and 144 hz, but the difference between 60 hz and 75 hz is "night and freaking day".

Contradicting himself 2 years later he claims the difference between 100 hz and 144 hz is "night and day", this time in the context of 144 hz vs 240 hz. Vid @ 3m 30s:

I think I'll go by his 2015 opinion, the fickle git