Is 144hz worth the upgrade?

LeMson · 12 Mar 2019 at 22:55

Really happy with my 27 inch 144hz 1440p screen, 144hz really does make a difference in games, no way I could go to a low hz now for main monitor

just Scott · 12 Mar 2019 at 23:24

willhub said:
I think it's all psychological, you want to believe 144Hz is better, your body will trick you to cause that desired effect. Companies also want you to believe so you shell out extra for the Hz.

This is so blatantly false. I'm so confident I could pass an a/b/x test with 60hz vs 144hz that I'd bet my house on it.

You probably forgot to set your Windows to 120hz in display properties.

peterhc · 12 Mar 2019 at 23:27

totally worth, especially with g-sync

willhub · 12 Mar 2019 at 23:53

H2F Scott said:
This is so blatantly false. I'm so confident I could pass an a/b/x test with 60hz vs 144hz that I'd bet my house on it.

You probably forgot to set your Windows to 120hz in display properties.

Nope was at 120Hz.

tyler_jrb · 14 Mar 2019 at 15:33

H2F Scott said:
This is so blatantly false. I'm so confident I could pass an a/b/x test with 60hz vs 144hz that I'd bet my house on it.

You probably forgot to set your Windows to 120hz in display properties.

For me 60-144hz is massive. I could tell it’s at 144hz with nothing more than a single mouse movement.

I remember going from 1080p then to 4k thinking wow this is really quite nice. Then I went to 1440p 144hz more as a test and nearly feinted.

In bf4 I was just in pure awe of how good it looked, ultra smooth. Even today I prefer high refresh over everything.

Sure there gets to a point where say 165hz to 200hz is very very minimal but 60-120/144 is huge.

just Scott · 14 Mar 2019 at 16:46

tyler_jrb said:
For me 60-144hz is massive. I could tell it’s at 144hz with nothing more than a single mouse movement.

Same

Amnesia · 15 Mar 2019 at 08:44

willhub said:
Nope was at 120Hz.

must have been something not setup right, the difference between 60hz and 120hz is noticeable just by moving your mouse on the desktop.
there is a world of difference in fast paced games.

Nasher · 15 Mar 2019 at 11:00

H2F Scott said:
This is so blatantly false. I'm so confident I could pass an a/b/x test with 60hz vs 144hz that I'd bet my house on it.

You probably forgot to set your Windows to 120hz in display properties.

It is false, switch a 120hz monitor down to 60hz and you can INSTANTLY see the difference. Even on the desktop. Input delay increases and everything feels less smooth.

yashiro · 15 Mar 2019 at 13:12

Aye. 60Hz is tragic when the primary input is a mouse.

VaderDSL · 15 Mar 2019 at 13:16

Find it really difficult to go back to 60hz now, it seems so jittery even browsing. The only regret going 144hz is I didn't upgrade my GPU, my 970 really really struggles on some games at 2560X1440, thankfully a lot of games I play are strategy, but would be nice to have a 2080ti for the few modern games I play.

Random Guy Esq. · 15 Mar 2019 at 21:01

I've never owned a monitor that ran at less than 100Hz. Went from high end CRT to a 120Hz TN in 2011, and have been enduring it ever since. I wanted to upgrade a few years ago, but I thought I could wait it out until OLED/Micro Led became common place. Oh young Random Guy, you were so naive. The fact that a lot of nicely specced monitors seemed to have QC issues was also a deterrent. Anyway, I can't imagine going to a lower refresh rate now.

aoaaron · 15 Mar 2019 at 22:52

I'm so tempted to go 144hz. Its just the cost associated and the fact if I'm going to do it, I might as well throw the extra £200-300 and go ultrawide too.. and then I need to buy a new PC.

Drollic · 15 Mar 2019 at 23:03

aoaaron said:
I'm so tempted to go 144hz. Its just the cost associated and the fact if I'm going to do it, I might as well throw the extra £200-300 and go ultrawide too.. and then I need to buy a new PC.

I wouldn't bother, just stick to 2560*1440. You ideally need a 2080ti for anything more with the latest games and the eye candy on as well as high hz. Just look at metro exodus as an example. Playing on uw at 60-70 fps defeats the purpose of having a high hz monitor.

aoaaron · 15 Mar 2019 at 23:05

Drollic said:
I wouldn't bother, just stick to 2560*1440. You ideally need a 2080ti for anything more with the latest games and the eye candy on as well as high hz. Just look at metro exodus as an example. Playing on uw at 60-70 fps defeats the purpose of having a high hz monitor.

I'm on a 4k TV at the moment (2080/8086k).

So the monitor route does look attractive eventually.

Megahurtz400 · 1 Apr 2019 at 20:35

Drollic said:
I wouldn't bother, just stick to 2560*1440. You ideally need a 2080ti for anything more with the latest games and the eye candy on as well as high hz. Just look at metro exodus as an example. Playing on uw at 60-70 fps defeats the purpose of having a high hz monitor.

I run a Sapphire Vega 64 and can play elite dangerous, PUBG etc on high/ultra and get between 120-200fps

marktruman · 1 Apr 2019 at 21:39

Any diff between 100 and 144?

ic1male · 1 Apr 2019 at 23:06

It’s going to be interesting when the next gen consoles come along with a better Zen CPU. If developers max it out with games at 4K30, will it actually make it harder to run PC ports at 60/120/144Hz without some sort of compromise in resolution or graphics settings. Or am I spouting rubbish?

Colonel_Klinck · 1 Apr 2019 at 23:36

I went from 60hz 1080p to 3440x1440 100hz and it blew my mind. It wasn't cheap but I don't regret it for a second!

agnes · 2 Apr 2019 at 01:18

marktruman said:
Any diff between 100 and 144?

This is a bit of a 'per person' thing. I can see a difference, not a huge one. But a difference.

'Wes · 2 Apr 2019 at 06:45

I've been on 144Hz for well over 4 years on 1080p, it's definitely worth upgrading to if you're on a 60Hz monitor.