Did I make the wrong choice going for 120hz?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kieran
  • Start date Start date
blackoctagon said:
That's completely correct of course. But 120fps on a 120Hz monitor is MANY MORE MILES smoother and responsive than 60fps on a 120Hz monitor...

...so I stand by my initial statement. If you're running 60fps on a 120Hz monitor, you're not even using half of your monitor's potential
Click to expand...

False. The benefits of a 120 Hz panel almost come entirely from the monitor side as opposed to just running more FPS.
 
You could have gone IPS in your case but anyway a good LED 120Hz is not a bad thing (those screens have less latency) in any way not to mention a good real IPS screen costs £400+. No matter how many FPS you have in-game, your screen works at 120Hz. This means that the monitor will show you twice as many images as a 60Hz screen no matter how many FPS you have in a game. Though I can guess the result is a smoother, more fluid display of the images that are to be displayed.
 
Last edited:
Only worth going 120hz if you're a highly competitive online gamer and don't care about eye candy from your games. Otherwise you are far better off going for a higher res IPS screen.
 
Sin_Chase said:
Quote:

Originally Posted by blackoctagon

...so I stand by my initial statement. If you're running 60fps on a 120Hz monitor, you're not even using half of your monitor's potential

It does not work like this.

120FPS on a 120Hz is not twice as good as 60FPS on a 120Hz.
Click to expand...

my eyes beg to differ. but to each their own.


Posted from Overclockers.co.uk App for Android
 
I turned the detail down in BF3 when I first got my 144hz monitor. Then I bought a Titan so I could turn the detail back up, as it is one game that really does benifit from higher detail settings.

I agree completely with the people saying lower fps on a 120hz screen looks much better than on a 60hz screen. I was surprised the first time I ran unigine with my new screen on my old 580gtx. I was averaging 40 or 50fps (can't remember now but I think it was down there somewhere) yet the picture seemed far smoother, far more stable. I assumed it was because with the 40fps on a 120hz screen a single frame which would be rendered in 3 screen refreshes would be gradually displayed over those 3 frames as appossed to some bits of the screen only being updated every 2 frames at 60hz, and these little bits making more noticeable jerkiness everytime you miss a bit. That is, if partially rendered frames are pushed to the framebuffer at every refresh? I assumed that was the point of v-sync to avoid such issues.

I'm also considering getting an IPS panel too. I would like to play some games, single player stuff mostly, at 1440p. Obviously keep 120hz/144hz for online first person shooters :)
 
Last edited:
60hz is already plenty for PC exclusives such as Company of Heroes, Age of Empires, X-series etc.
Consoles games such as Crysis 3 and BF3 are awful compared to their PC counterparts Crysis 1 and BF2 respectively so 120hz would be pointless anyway.
 
I've got a Dell U2412M and I can't recommend it for gaming when there's dark scenes. It's very hard to see anything even with the room lights turned off. I'm not sure if it's just my monitor but I've heard this is typical of IPS. I'm considering getting a BenQ specifically for gaming.
 
PanMaster said:
60hz is already plenty for PC exclusives such as Company of Heroes, Age of Empires, X-series etc.
Consoles games such as Crysis 3 and BF3 are awful compared to their PC counterparts Crysis 1 and BF2 respectively so 120hz would be pointless anyway.
Click to expand...

Have you played Crysis 3 and BF3 at 120Hz?
 
Jordeh said:
I've got a Dell U2412M and I can't recommend it for gaming when there's dark scenes. It's very hard to see anything even with the room lights turned off. I'm not sure if it's just my monitor but I've heard this is typical of IPS. I'm considering getting a BenQ specifically for gaming.
Click to expand...

...and it's posts like this that once again put me back to square one.
I see person after person telling me that the Dell U2412M is more than adequate for gaming and then I see a post that categorically says "no" to gaming on said display.

I need the quality of ISP - I will not accept the poor quality that TN offers, so I guess I'm just gonna have to take my chances on the gaming capabilities.
 
Personally, I like the viewing angles of IPS and the color of it.
60Hz is the limit to my eyes tbh, if you can see 120Hz, stay with what you hv.
But I hate the colors of TN panels, so I would never go 120Hz :)

As for 1440p, you might want one if you have a large PC station and can fit in a 27".
If not, (like me), I would stay with an 23" 1080p and that is nice for pixel density as well :)
 
stoofa said:
...and it's posts like this that once again put me back to square one.
I see person after person telling me that the Dell U2412M is more than adequate for gaming and then I see a post that categorically says "no" to gaming on said display.

I need the quality of ISP - I will not accept the poor quality that TN offers, so I guess I'm just gonna have to take my chances on the gaming capabilities.
Click to expand...

Dell 2412M is not for gaming, but 2413 is :) (AH-IPS)
You can also get U2312HM, both are nice for gaming.

If not, ASUS P249Q is also AH-IPS panel, these should serve you well :)
I myself own a U2312HM and very happy with it :)
 
deFiniLoGy said:
Dell 2412M is not for gaming, but 2413 is :) (AH-IPS)
You can also get U2312HM, both are nice for gaming.

If not, ASUS P249Q is also AH-IPS panel, these should serve you well :)
I myself own a U2312HM and very happy with it :)
Click to expand...

However 2413 is 1920x1080 and not 1920x1200.
I think I'm still going to purchase the 2412. I'm currently using a Dell 2408WFP and have never worried about the ghosting/lag - and that is a 5yr old panel.
If I find a 5yr old panel fine to look at then something 5yrs newer can only look better.
 
I'm not sure why you are being told the U2412M is 'not for gaming' and the U2413 is. That is completely the wrong way around. The U2413 is designed for colour-critical work using extended colour spaces. It is NOT a gaming monitor nor is it a particularly good monitor for gaming. The levels of overshoot (inverse ghosting) are obnoxious during some transitions and there is nothing you can do to change that. The U2412M on the other hand is very similar indeed to the U2312HM, aside from resolution.

Oh and the resolution of the U2413 is 1920 x 1200. You can't get any 1920 x 1080 IPS panels that are 24".
 
Depends on what you want it for; if you play competitive FPS then a 144hz screen is the way to go, if you are more of a casual gamer then I can see the appeal in 60hz panels.

Personally I run a 120hz screen and adjust settings so that I get framerates solidly over 120fps for multiplayer and something around the 75fps+ mark (so average will be over 100) for single player. Occasionally I've had issues after installing new drivers where it reverts to 60hz and I can detect it fairly quickly in FPS games.
 
Oh well - decided at last to gives things a punt.
So I've just ordered the Dell U2412M and we'll see how we get along.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom