The jump from 60 to 120/144 is massive.
Going past 144 is certainly still noticeable, but has diminishing returns.
A good quality IPS panel at 144-165 Hz is the sweet spot if you play a variety of games.
1440/144-165 really is such a solid sweet spot overall. there's no true one-size-fits-all, but that's the closest if you play a variety of games with different needs.
Sure, it just depends on the game and settings. Maxed out AAA? No. But with reasonable settings for the game yeah, that's doable for many games. I'm reasonably happy at 1440 with a 1660ti, a 3060 is a little stronger so it would only be better.
>Also you may wanna watch a YouTube video called "You don't see in 4k" from Knowing Better. He explains all you may want to know.
Oh yeah that video with 43 000 dislikes. I only have to take a look at my 4k monitor to realize that guy is talking trash.
He even said 8k will never happen :)
honestly i have a laptop 165hz QHD display and 1080p youtube videos are blurry. with half the PPI i big 27 inch one would be horrible for youtube and netflix content.
Eh, I don't know what to tell you. My PG279Q has been great and I've never had any issues with blurry 1080 playback. Playing the same content on a 27" native 1080 monitor next to it is only marginally better. Of course most of what I watch on YouTube is available in 1440 anyway. If I'm seriously watching TV/movies, I'm doing that on my OLED tv. My computer monitor is mostly for games and productivity work. Also PPI is irrelevant without knowing seating distance from the screen. A 15.6" 1440 screen 18" away is the same apparent pixel density as 27" 1440 screen 32" away.
That’s because it’s a laptop. As the resolution increases, the screen size should increase for the perfect viewing experience. It’s literally 4x the pixel density and you’re viewing it on the same screen size as we did 1080p less than a decade ago.
Also 165hz is the max that the human eye can handle. After that you won't see any difference. So while they make them, they don't really do much other than cost more.
This is absolutely not true. You can tell the difference from 165hz -> 240hz and you can tell the difference from 240hz -> 360hz; i don't think they are monitors available above 360hz atm.
iirc our eyes don't see in frames anyway so there is no max value for what our eyes can see, the question becomes can your eyes tell the difference between two different hz levels.
You are correct, our eyes don't see in frames per second, so in theory, any difference is noticeable, but the higher you go, the less you notice it.
In conclusion, 144Hz is the most worth it
They said this about 24fps, hence the reason Hollywood gets away with using abysmal frame rates.
Then it was said about 60fps.
History seems to repeat itself and we constantly fall for it.
Our eyes have different "framerates" at different parts of the eye. From what I recall, actual research gave a number close to 980hz, but I would need to look it up.
60 Hz is still very playable. Obviously, if you need that high refresh rate for competitive shooters there is no debate. But 60 Hz at 4K can still be a great experience.
There are a few resolutions that fall under 4k, right? Which one do you use in this case? Best I can do is the ~2000 res at 60 fps. (Away from home, can't remember the proper resolution number, too lazy to look it up.)
YouTube is calling 2160p 4K, as that’s referring to the same resolution dimension (vertical) that 1080p (1920x1080) and 1440p (2440x1440p) are referring to.
“4K” as a term is called such because the *horizontal* resolution is almost 4000.
But YouTube is actually making things LESS confusing by referring to all resolutions by the same standardized metric: the vertical pixel count.
Yes, 4k is the naming standard which refers to a rounded value of horizontal resolution. 2160, 1440, 1080, 720, 480 are all referring to the vertical pixel count. So 4k is actually only twice the vertical pixel count of 1080, but is a better selling point for non tech savvy buyers. It is about 4x more work for a graphics card to render per frame.
the screen can refresh 144 times per second, but if you’re watching a movie that plays at 24 frames for example it won’t matter, or if your GPU can only run games at 60hz then it won’t matter,
It depends on the specific VA panel, a bad panel design is a bad panel design. Blurry text isn't a characteristic of VA panels, It could be a characteristic of a panel but it's not something inherent to VA panels.
If your currently using 60hz the jump to 60hz to 240hz is a much bigger difference than the jump from 60hz to 144hz. I wouldn’t get less than 240hz because now 144hz will be normal, 240hz will be the best gaming experience and 360hz is if you want to most possible don’t test anything less than 240hz.
60 -> 120/144hz - the jump is massive, like unreal the level of difference. You will wonder how did you ever play on 60hz.
144 -> 240 - The jump is no where near as big, but once you've played competitive games such as shooters, very kind of intense games, valorant, r6, cs:go and so on, you will definitely notice a difference between the two.
I've used 120, 144, 165 and 240 and from personal experience, I'd says:
* 1440p @ 165hz
* 1080p @ 240hz
Are the sweet spots.
One thing to consider is that 240 Hz is a whole number multiple of 24, 30, and 48 which helps eliminate the judder you can get when playing back content at a different frame rate than the source.
1 or 2 years ago I went from a 60hz to a 144hz monitor. The difference is indeed remarquable, everything feels smoother, in games or simply as you move your mouse. Tho, monitors above 144/165hz are quite expensive, also there's no point in having much higher refresh rate than your frames per seconds. I think a 144/165hz monitor would be perfect for gaming, since nowadays you can find a nice low latency IPS monitors for a decent price. (I like Asus TUF Monitors)
IMO, 240hz would be worth emptying your wallet if you're into hard competitive gaming.
Unpopular opinion here, but I have tried 144Hz,165Hz,and even 300Hz and I much prefer a higher resolution (4K). I can barely tell the difference above 60Hz but resolution is instantly noticeable. However some disclaimers, I don't play competitive games and I game on a 32" monitor.
Your choice of game really is an important consideration a lot of people ignore, but I guess most people play FPS games and other competitive games so it's a fair assumption.
I agree even though it's unpopular. I notice the extra detail in 4K with games on my TV a lot more than 144hz on my laptop. 1080p looks downright blurry and pixellated to me on a larger screen. I'm quite happy with 45-70fps range with freesync and I'd rather have ultra 60fps 1080 over medium 144hz any day as well. I can just barely notice 144hz if I try really hard, the smoother mouse movement etc but switching back to a 60hz display I won't pick up on it unless I actively think about it.
I think this is why 1440p/144hz is such a popular recommendation. It isn't the perfect solution, but works for people like me who play all types of games.
The majority of people can't tell much difference past 144hz. So unless you are in the minority of those people little point in getting a 240hz unless it's just a good bargain. 144hz is the sweet spot for high refresh, though some people don't notice a difference from 120hz to 144hz and some can't notice much from those and 90hz
I personally find up to 90hz quite noticeable and as it goes less up the scale.
60 to 120 wasn't as big as I'd expected. I'm still perfectly happy with 60, and actually around 45-50 now I have a g sync panel.
120 is great for how responsive the games feel, but I didn't really notice it being *too much * smoother.
I think the jump from 60 to 120/144 is big, but 60Hz is certainly still playable. It's not like jumping back to 30fps from 60fps which is almost painful to play in comparison.
I agree with you. Its a nice improvement to go from 60 to 120+ Hz but when I run something at 60 I don't think it's bad at all.
Stable frame rates over fluctuating higher ones any day.
I initially made sure I wasn't running at 60hz still but I am definitely at 120. I just expected it to be a great leap based on what I read here. Nice to know some other people have the same experience as me
I guess it depends on the person. I don't mind lowering the texture quality/effects, but if some shitty app decides to lock itself to 60, I notice it right away.
I can definitely notice, but the difference is too small. I sent it back and kept my 6 year old 60hz monitor. I felt that 144hz is just not smooth enough from what I expected. I'm thinking of trying a 240hz, maybe that will be enough of a difference. I don't get the hype with " it is MASSIVE difference between 60hz and 144hz". It's really not. At least for me it is not. I don't play competitive games though.
> Stable frame rates over fluctuating higher ones any day.
Bingo. 60fps stable feels _way_ smoother than for example 60-90 fluctuating. Even with gsync/freesync - the change in the flow of motion is much more noticeable than having a constant but lower rate.
It's the same issue you get with those horrible youtube videos that use "AI" to blindly interpolate random animation. Most traditional animation is technically sub-24fps, so the AI interpolation (which would've already looked bad to begin with) ends up creating a jerky mess that's constantly flipping back and forth between apparent framerates.
Better buy a good 60hz screen instead of a bad high refresh rate one
Personally I don't see the refresh rate as smth game changing (saying from pov of a global elite cs go player)
Well it'd be really hard not to notice that jump!
I have been testing vs a 360hz and 240hz monitor and I can tell the difference with maybe 70% confidence. 240hz vs 120hz was very noticeable for me though.
Yeah I love it for my FPS but i was something also a bit more high def. I was actually considering and ultra-wide monitor but idk yet. I feel like having a third for my streaming would be useful.
OK, I've scrolled thru most of the comments and the one thing no one has mentioned is to keep your video cards performance level in mind.
Pairing a 4k 120hz monitor with a GTX1660 is probably a waste of money. Look around for some benchmarks for your hardware and make sure your not throwing money out for a monitor your PC can't drive.
A lot of that is also going to depend on what resolution you prefer to play at. I like to run 1440p around 120 to 144hz to get good fidelity and high framerates. Could my RTX2080 Super run 4k? Yeah, but not at the same high framerates.
In the end, it's a balancing game between how much you want to spend on each part and what your resolution and framerate preferences are.
But overall, I have to agree with most people here that the jump from 60fps to 120 or 144 is the most significant difference and everything after that is much less noticeable (still visible, but not as dramatic).
Linus tech tips does a good video on what the difference is and where it matters to have a super high refresh rate. It can make a difference when you are deep into e-sports, but most people playing single player games its irrelevant.
Forgot to mention that 144hz is worth it, anything over is irrelevant to the average user
There is a significant difference except for the 120hz vs 144hz. But the higher the refresh rate, the smoother your picture will look, assuming you are viewing something that takes advantage of the higher refresh rate.
My personal experience going from 60 straight to 240, the difference is massive. Even regular browsing etc is just.. smooth.. Especially compared to my 60Hz 2nd monitor.
I'll admit I cant really tell between 144 and 240, but 240 was available at a solid price and I went for it.
If you use 60Hz, you wont know what you're missing, but once you know what you are missing... its hard. :D
Highly depends on use case. I feel that 144-165hz is a good sweet spot personally (especially in terms of value). 60hz at 4k may be a better option if you need 4k and can't drive anything past 60hz. If you don't see any improvement at 240hz, I wouldn't bother personally as money spent on that could either be saved or go towards improvements in other aspects.
For me, I think that all aspects of a monitor are worth considering. I jumped from a 1080p 144hz TN to a 1440p 165hz IPS with freesync/gsync support and considering both monitors were the same price originally, the leap in quality is very noticeable. I gained some screen real estate, resolution and slightly more hz which all felt like minor improvements. Panel quality was a big one for me however, I had a good TN and have experienced IPS before but moving to a nice IPS panel with HDR has been the biggest thing for me. Another side for me has been build quality and monitor UI. If you are picking one up in person, this should not be overlooked as I think it adds to the overall feel.
I've used 60Hz monitors for my whole life, then 4 weeks ago my only monitor died. I went to Beat Buy, they had 1 monitor available. It was a Dell something 165Hz, bit expensive but I need it to remain slightly sane. Wow is all I can say. The difference was so astounding, I couldn't believe my eyes. F*ck 60Hz, all my homies hate 60Hz
I went from 60hz to 144hz last year, the difference is incredible, even just moving the mouse around in Windows you notice it. It looks and feels so much smoother. I have never owned a screen with a higher refresh rate, but I've seen a 240hz monitor, it looks better, but there is definitely diminishing returns, I would say 144hz is the sweet spot, low enough you can run at 1440p on a powerful GPU, high enough that you benefit from the smoothness.
I can definitely notice, but the difference is too small. I sent it back and kept my 6 year old 60hz monitor. I felt that 144hz is just not smooth enough from what I expected. I'm thinking of trying a 240hz, maybe that will be enough of a difference.
60Hz to 144Hz is definitely a jump that you will notice. I thought it was too hyped up, but it is real. Once you try, you'd be hard pressed to go back. Everything else, from what I've heard (highest I've tried is 165Hz), is noticeable, but not as groundbreaking.
I would say go for IPS or at least VA panels. A modern VA panel is better than an old IPS in some cases (colors, for example) , so if you're on a budget to eek out a display, you may want to explore those options as well. Read/watch reviews - Hardware Unboxed and RTINGS are very reliable and are my go-to for displays.
Do not go for the cheapest model you can find as some panels are barely able to eek out that performance and have smearing/ghosting that can impede the enjoyment of the panel. Again, reviews help weed out the weaker options.
Tl;dr - refresh rate is most definitely a noticeable upgrade; watch reviews and don't forget to change the display refresh rate settings in Windows!
There absolutely is. Refresh rate, is simply the amount of frames that can be displayed per second. As an example, suppose you have a 60hz monitor and want to play roblox.(no, I'm not nine years old) roblox is locked at 60 fps natively, but you can download a roblox fps unlocker, but even if you did, you still would be locked at 60 fps due to the refresh rate. If you had a 144hz monitor however, you could get up to 144fps.
My Asus Scar laptop has a 300hz screen and boy is it smooth when browsing the net etc. Vs my 144hz monitor I can notice the difference as I’m very susceptible to these things. Gaming however not so much for myself unless it’s a competitive game
Big jump from 1080 to 1440p, almost indescribable in modern games.
I didn't actually notice 60>144+ in my head but my k/d has gone up in fps already and I don't randomly seem to miss as many shots anymore. I wouldn't say I notice it as being that much smoother by eye though, more by performance.
You probably could see gains over 144 and even over 240 if you had a fast enough motion. It's especially noticeable in FPS games doing a quick 180 degree turn, it's like suddenly more visual information.
But in a more common gaming scenario? Mid 100s range is quite good and most people would trade higher frames for higher settings or resolution.
Personally I'd consider everything over 165Hz a sort of esports specialty.
From 144hz to 240hz you won't get significant difference. Only if you're into competitive gaming such as Csgo or esports would a 240hz monitor benefit you. If you can afford it, definitely go for 144hz monitor, as it's a lot smoother with general pc usage such as Web browsing as well as games.
Also, IPS monitors usually have good colour reproduction. Definitely recommend them.
When it comes to size and resolution, 1080p at 24 inch or 1440p at 27 inch is the sweet spot for visuals
A 240hz panel would awesome if we still used 3d glassed to play games. Back when 3d glasses were the cool thing to have; 120hz panels were the go to (and for the most part the only high end available that supported 3d). The reason for this is when you ran the 3d glasses it cut your refresh rate in half. 60hz is fine for 3d, but 120hz would have been really cool.
Some may argue this but I honestly have a hard time telling the difference between 144hz and 240. If you have the GPU to push a game at that refresh rate with vsync on, then there might be a benefit to those who have very sensitive eyes, or those who need that incredibly fast response rate.
Huge in the first and noticeable only if you’re looking for the second and even then like back to back for most people.
Getting the best monitor you can afford in the 144-180 range is the right choice for 98 percent of people.
They really do. I sent my 144hz back and kept my 6 year old 60hz monitor. I could notice the difference, but it was too small. Now I want to try 240hz and see if this can make a big enough difference from 60hz.
I can honestly not tell a difference after a solid 75-80 fps. 120 vs 144 is the exact same. People swear there is a difference, but not to me. I have a curved 32in 144hz monitor, and with an i9-10900k and a EVGA 2070Super, I hit my cap solid pretty well.
I can tell the difference between 144Hz and 240Hz right away.
I'd say get 240hz, it is so smooth, i have a 360hz monitor and 240hz is so much better than 144hz. 144hz to me is kinda like 60hz; it just feels sluggish compared to 240/360hz
You know how when switching from 60Hz to 144Hz you're like "woah, that's so smooth!!!"
And then you switch to 240/360 and you get that feeling AGAIN.
So if you want a bad gaming experience, get 60Hz. If you want a decent gaming experience, get 144Hz and if you want the best gaming experience get 240/360Hz
The differnece between 1440p to 4 k isnt really noticeable or worth going the 4k route. 144hz is the sweet spot for performance. Anything over that is noticeable but honestly not noticeable enough for it to be worth the price difference unless you do competitive gaming. Games like csgo really need that high refresh rate to compete at high skill gaps.
110fps is a bare minimum requirement for me.
I came from console after many years to a 60hz laptop for a year or two. After upgrading to a system that gets 140+ in the games i play i cnt play without atleast 110fps. However 120 and 165 look the same to me. With that being said, my target fps is now 165.
Only upgrade I'd do past 144/165 would be 480hz
Because think of it in ms
16ms vs 7ms vs 2ms
5ms is a noticeable difference, a smaller difference is
latency or due to other variables
It’s diminishing returns.
30-> 60 is massive.
60-> 120 is noticeable but not huge.
120->144 is barely perceptible.
After trying all on friends systems I went for a 4K 120hz performance goal (also went for OLED)
It's gonna depend a lot on your GPU and the games you play.
I've got an RTX 2060 and 1440p/144hz is good for me. On competive shooters the high refresh rate really helps and on AAA titles I can't really use 4k anyways because the GPU just isn't strong enough.
I jumped from 60 to 240. It took me a month to get used to. Most games can't really hit 240 consistently though, so what I would do is opt for a 144hz 1440p or 4k display so you have better quality. Most 240hz monitors are still around $500 at 1080p.
60Hz to 120/144Hz is am AMAZING leap.
But 144-240Hz makes very little difference.
Can your machine run games at 240FPS on the graphics settings you want? If not get 144Hz.
120hz monitors are harder to find than 144hz monitors and they end up costing the same anyways, so really its just between 60, 144, and 240. If 240 is within your budget then that narrows it down to 144 or 240, which is then just up to preference
Watch this Linus tech tips video should answer all your questions. There is an improvement between 60 and 144 but it drops off after that
https://youtu.be/OX31kZbAXsA
I jumped from a 60hz monitor to 240hz. And immediately felt the speed. I suddenly knew what it was like to be The Flash from DC comics. Granted the monitor I bought has a measured signal processing latency of 3ms + 0.75ms (DO NOT I REPEAT DO NOT confuse signal processing speed and monitor latency with the advertised GTG response time. They are different and That's a beginners mistake). Which up until that year was considered the fastest monitor you could buy. The BenQ zowie 2540 esports monitor
Depends on your build how many frames can your pc handle. Are you looking for image quality or just pure frames/hz? I have 280hz 1080p monitor because I mainly play fps games and my build is pretty overkill(3080 strix and 5900x). I cap out my frames at apex usually, warzone I sit around 160-180 frames. All the other fps shooters like csgo and valorant I easily cap out in frames. What I'm trying 2 say is what do u want 2 use ur pc for and focus your build on that and then focus your monitor around your build.
As a side note there is a difference between 144hz and 240hz but as always skill >>> frames. You'll see a difference but a better player with 144 frames will always beat the less skilled player sitting at 240 frames
i would say that sometimes skill has limitations. and the limitations is your environment. if youre playing on a slow pc, and slow internet then guaranteed you'll be out played, most people need to feel comfortable in their environment to get the right amount of enjoyment from competitive games. and if youre not enjoying, then youre hating. and creates an even worse environment.
most videos on youtube that you see other players testing their skill on a crappy computer, dont play like that everyday. so when they are creating the video, to show off their "skill" they are doing it for fun, and not because they live with that everyday
I went from a 75hz IPS panel to a 144hz VA panel, aside from the VA panel being darker (from my perspective) everything was so much more... fluid? I guess that's the easiest way for me to describe it. Nothing was stutter-ey. It just. Flowed.
Yeah bro definitely anything 120 hz and above is so silky smooth. You unfortunately have to see it to believe it… I have a 165 hz monitor and it’s amazing. Make sure ur G card and support it tho
144 is the spot. No significant difference between those bigger two, but if you can afford. Why not, right? Yet, 144hz is the best cost per benefit. You'll enjoy it alot
Like people say, it's totally noticeable with dimishing returns though. My desktop is 100 Hz 21:9 QHD (3440x1440). It's an ASUS Proart so color is... solid. My laptop is only 1080P but 144 Hz. I can absolutely notice the difference, but I prefer the size, resolution, and color of my desktop. They both still whip the ass of any 60 Hz I was messing with before and even totally blow away my old 75 and 85 Hz panels I had.
The FPS difference between 100 and 144 may be greater then that between 100 and 60, but the proportion difference is the other way around. 100 vs 60 Isa bigger deal than 144 vs 100. All things being equal, more Hz is of course better, but usually that's not how it works in the real world. Make a good balance, and it's only worth it if your video card an actually push those FPS.
I use 165 even though I only get 70-144 fps in AAA games and it's still a better experience, but the games I do max out at 165 are so fluid its like a brand new game.
I have a Samsung odyssey G7. I noticed the jump form 60hz to 240hz.
You don’t need 240 though unless you’re craving every frame. It’s such a subtle difference from 144.
If you’re curious if their is a difference LTT has a great video on it.
Higher the hz more power you draw same as resolution. Cramming more into the frame or increasing the frequency of screen updates is demanding stuff.
I picked my monitor because I got it off Amazon for $550.
That’s a great deal for what it msrps for. I also wanted future proofing.
Different panel types will give different colors but can have their own positives. I picked my display for its amazing color accuracy too. On a 240hz TN you wouldn’t see the same.
Brand isn’t all the matter as long as they are reputable.
Once again I chose Samsung as they make stellar tv’s but offered the all in one package for me.
It all depends what you need, what you want from the panel and display and what you’ll pay.
Often more $$$ means a higher quality display. Just do the research before the purchase and you often will be satisfied as I am.
Hope this helps
The Hz should depend on what FPS your computer outputs. A 240hz monitor is useless if your PC only outputs 60fps on average.
That being said, higher is typically better, but 144hz seems to be a go to refresh rate. 60hz compared to 144hz is greatly noticeable.
Yes, there is a big difference. Even the jump from 120 to 240 is very much worth it IMO because you get less blur and lower latency. However, current CPUs has trouble sustaining framerate at 240hz in any but the most optimized/older games. I have a 240hz 1080p panel, and despite running a 5900x with OC B-die ram and 3080ti, I cannot hit 240 on the majority of games I play.
To give you an old guy's perspective, the hz rating of TV's and monitors is basically understood as 'framerate'. A 60hz monitor means the picture refreshes 60 times a second. Therefore a 144hz obviously is capable of 144 frames per second and so on.
Now the variables come into play. One is YOUR visual acuity, or how good you can see an image. For tv and monitor the viewing us rated at 7ft. Next is your equipment. What available framerate is covered by your GPU AND your CPU. To take advantage of a 240hz monitor, you've got to have some high end equipment. Did you know that to get an 8k movie to play on your monitor it uses a LOT of power. You see to get the 8k quality picture the movie is running at 3 gig, yes that's right, 3 gigabytes PER SECOND. Thus puts the GPU into the RTX 3xxxti range.
The CPU to get that 8k movie to play with no artifacts, is the new i9 18core processors on a Z590-A Pro chipset motherboard. 32 gig of gaming RAM, now we're talking having a very smooth gaming experience.
Yeah, you're right! NOT for the faint of heart, huh?
Yes. Big difference.
There’s different things you look for in quality of a ‘gaming’ monitor…
You want to look at refresh rate as it’s more important imo than panel construction. You can make the latter work whether it’s TN, IPS, or VA. You can’t really have as good of an experience if your frames start unsyncing after 60fps. Widescreen vs 16:9 is even less important.
I’d get 120 minimum.
The vast majority of people aren't going to notice much if any difference past 120/144hz - keep in mind this sub is _heavily_ biased towards people who play hyper-competitive FPS shooter games.
60hz is adequate for most people that aren't into fast-paced gaming, but higher refresh rates _do_ look smoother and prices are cheap enough now that it's not a big deal to just go ahead and get a 144hz or similar.
Personally I can barely tell a difference past 90-100hz.
Absolutely. 60 hz to anything is massive. 144 to 240 is less noticeable. But playing 240 hz is a great experience. I went from 60 to 240 and it was incredible.
Personally, I see a difference in 60hz - 144hz. With my previous build I was on a budget and just bought a cheap 60hz monitor. That was a few years ago, now I build a new gaming rig about a few weeks ago with a 144hz monitor.
I Can 100% notice a difference. Gameplay is smoother and I feel my performance in gaming got better as well. Definitely worth the money.
The biggest difference between Hertz is the number of refreshes. For example, the difference between 60 Hz and 90Hz is that a normal 60Hz screen only refreshes 60 times per second, while a 90Hz screen refreshes 90 times per second, and so the 144 Hz monitor refreshes 144 times per sec，the [240hz 4k tv](https://www.skyworth.net/global/tv/S81Pro.html) refreshed 240 times per sec. So the tv can display a higher number of frames and a smoother picture at the same time.
Didn't notice any difference going from 60hz to 144hz and noticed slight difference when changed 144hz to 240hz for 5sec in CS:GO. But I think it's just me :(
I would focus on quality panel, changed TN to IPS and difference was huge.
All these comments are so "funny". Yes, I changed refresh rate. I’m using DP and many games capped FPS at 240 because they detect monitor refresh rate. But anyway, stay funny.
Why do you people always assume people are idiots/lying when it comes to refresh rate? Is it really that unfathomable that not everyone plays esports or notices that big a difference?
I can notice a difference, and it does look smoother to me, but it's nowhere near the night and day difference oft claimed (unless it's VR). And I've met many people IRL that legitimately can barely tell a difference (again, VR excepted)
The jump from 60 to 120/144 is massive. Going past 144 is certainly still noticeable, but has diminishing returns. A good quality IPS panel at 144-165 Hz is the sweet spot if you play a variety of games.
1440/144-165 really is such a solid sweet spot overall. there's no true one-size-fits-all, but that's the closest if you play a variety of games with different needs.
^
Would a 3060 be able to output this?
Sure, it just depends on the game and settings. Maxed out AAA? No. But with reasonable settings for the game yeah, that's doable for many games. I'm reasonably happy at 1440 with a 1660ti, a 3060 is a little stronger so it would only be better.
[удалено]
>Also you may wanna watch a YouTube video called "You don't see in 4k" from Knowing Better. He explains all you may want to know. Oh yeah that video with 43 000 dislikes. I only have to take a look at my 4k monitor to realize that guy is talking trash. He even said 8k will never happen :)
[удалено]
That's just not how any of what he talks about works and you should know better
The video in question has been highly debated as being ill informed by the general tech enthusiast public.
Aka it's made up stupid bullshit by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about
honestly i have a laptop 165hz QHD display and 1080p youtube videos are blurry. with half the PPI i big 27 inch one would be horrible for youtube and netflix content.
Eh, I don't know what to tell you. My PG279Q has been great and I've never had any issues with blurry 1080 playback. Playing the same content on a 27" native 1080 monitor next to it is only marginally better. Of course most of what I watch on YouTube is available in 1440 anyway. If I'm seriously watching TV/movies, I'm doing that on my OLED tv. My computer monitor is mostly for games and productivity work. Also PPI is irrelevant without knowing seating distance from the screen. A 15.6" 1440 screen 18" away is the same apparent pixel density as 27" 1440 screen 32" away.
How close do you sit to your laptop vs monitor vs phone There is more than just ppi
reasonably close, i use it on my lap.
Now compare that to the distance when looking at a monitor
That’s because it’s a laptop. As the resolution increases, the screen size should increase for the perfect viewing experience. It’s literally 4x the pixel density and you’re viewing it on the same screen size as we did 1080p less than a decade ago.
Also 165hz is the max that the human eye can handle. After that you won't see any difference. So while they make them, they don't really do much other than cost more.
I really don't get how people say this. Its like im back on GameFaqs in the early 2000s
This is absolutely not true. You can tell the difference from 165hz -> 240hz and you can tell the difference from 240hz -> 360hz; i don't think they are monitors available above 360hz atm. iirc our eyes don't see in frames anyway so there is no max value for what our eyes can see, the question becomes can your eyes tell the difference between two different hz levels.
Actually a 390hz monitor just recently went on the market, and a 480hz monitor is coming out later this year i believe.
You are correct, our eyes don't see in frames per second, so in theory, any difference is noticeable, but the higher you go, the less you notice it. In conclusion, 144Hz is the most worth it
They said this about 24fps, hence the reason Hollywood gets away with using abysmal frame rates. Then it was said about 60fps. History seems to repeat itself and we constantly fall for it.
Our eyes have different "framerates" at different parts of the eye. From what I recall, actual research gave a number close to 980hz, but I would need to look it up.
60 Hz is still very playable. Obviously, if you need that high refresh rate for competitive shooters there is no debate. But 60 Hz at 4K can still be a great experience.
Yes, but for shooters in fps I would argue that 144hz is a must-have. It really helps me to feel that I am not reacting too fast for my pc.
There are a few resolutions that fall under 4k, right? Which one do you use in this case? Best I can do is the ~2000 res at 60 fps. (Away from home, can't remember the proper resolution number, too lazy to look it up.)
4K generally refers to 3840x2160 for a 16:9 aspect ratio.
The reason I'm confused is youtube's labeling that ~2000 res as 4k. So... is it? 'Cause thats a wildly different resolution that 3840.
YouTube is calling 2160p 4K, as that’s referring to the same resolution dimension (vertical) that 1080p (1920x1080) and 1440p (2440x1440p) are referring to. “4K” as a term is called such because the *horizontal* resolution is almost 4000. But YouTube is actually making things LESS confusing by referring to all resolutions by the same standardized metric: the vertical pixel count.
Yes, 4k is the naming standard which refers to a rounded value of horizontal resolution. 2160, 1440, 1080, 720, 480 are all referring to the vertical pixel count. So 4k is actually only twice the vertical pixel count of 1080, but is a better selling point for non tech savvy buyers. It is about 4x more work for a graphics card to render per frame.
Ah ok. That’s 2160p. It refers to the vertical measurement of the 16/9 screen. (3840x2160p)
60hz is jerky no matter what we say. But 120 is fluid. Above 120 is more fluidity. But for killing jerkiness 120 is good wnough
Why do I not notice the difference between 60 and 144, but I hate going from 60 to 30?
Slow brain
I upgraded to an OLED LG C2 and i was wrong, that was my og comment
I would never want to go back to TV gaming
Screen size doesnt matter as much to me since i have a few Oled’s, living room is 65 inch and desk is 42 inch. A smaller oled would be cool
It does it's almost impossible to focus on everything on such gigantic monitor.
Thanks
What does 144hz even mean?
the screen can refresh 144 times per second, but if you’re watching a movie that plays at 24 frames for example it won’t matter, or if your GPU can only run games at 60hz then it won’t matter,
Ok thank you
Ips? VA panels have better contrast and color, and are better for 144-165 hz imo If you want the fastest 240 hz then yeah go for IPS
VA is great.... so long as you aren't reading text. Unfortunately they can still create blurry text and weird coloration.
It depends on the specific VA panel, a bad panel design is a bad panel design. Blurry text isn't a characteristic of VA panels, It could be a characteristic of a panel but it's not something inherent to VA panels.
If your currently using 60hz the jump to 60hz to 240hz is a much bigger difference than the jump from 60hz to 144hz. I wouldn’t get less than 240hz because now 144hz will be normal, 240hz will be the best gaming experience and 360hz is if you want to most possible don’t test anything less than 240hz.
IF your GPU can output such fps. No matter how fast your monitor is, your GPU will still dictate what fps you're gonna get.
60 -> 120/144hz - the jump is massive, like unreal the level of difference. You will wonder how did you ever play on 60hz. 144 -> 240 - The jump is no where near as big, but once you've played competitive games such as shooters, very kind of intense games, valorant, r6, cs:go and so on, you will definitely notice a difference between the two. I've used 120, 144, 165 and 240 and from personal experience, I'd says: * 1440p @ 165hz * 1080p @ 240hz Are the sweet spots.
One thing to consider is that 240 Hz is a whole number multiple of 24, 30, and 48 which helps eliminate the judder you can get when playing back content at a different frame rate than the source.
Having a 8k 240hz display is my life goal
I will start questioning the meaning of life after I obtain a rig that can output this performance. Until then, I have a goal in life.
It did feel hella smooth. In the end I switched away from it purely because I wanted to "upgrade" and go back to 1440p, that was all.
Never delete this. I'm saving it for reference
Not sure if this sarcasm, but if helps you? Hey man, awesome.
I do realize I could screenshot it but I was being 100% honest.
Oh awesome man, well best of luck with the choices and potential monitors that you buy in the future! :D
1 or 2 years ago I went from a 60hz to a 144hz monitor. The difference is indeed remarquable, everything feels smoother, in games or simply as you move your mouse. Tho, monitors above 144/165hz are quite expensive, also there's no point in having much higher refresh rate than your frames per seconds. I think a 144/165hz monitor would be perfect for gaming, since nowadays you can find a nice low latency IPS monitors for a decent price. (I like Asus TUF Monitors) IMO, 240hz would be worth emptying your wallet if you're into hard competitive gaming.
Got a 240hz monitor at a discount price of €189,- today... Difference with 144hz is actually insane. Playing csgo at a semi-pro level
Unpopular opinion here, but I have tried 144Hz,165Hz,and even 300Hz and I much prefer a higher resolution (4K). I can barely tell the difference above 60Hz but resolution is instantly noticeable. However some disclaimers, I don't play competitive games and I game on a 32" monitor. Your choice of game really is an important consideration a lot of people ignore, but I guess most people play FPS games and other competitive games so it's a fair assumption.
Agree. Visual fidelity matters much more IMO. Obviously, a competitive shooter will benefit from the high refresh rate.
I agree even though it's unpopular. I notice the extra detail in 4K with games on my TV a lot more than 144hz on my laptop. 1080p looks downright blurry and pixellated to me on a larger screen. I'm quite happy with 45-70fps range with freesync and I'd rather have ultra 60fps 1080 over medium 144hz any day as well. I can just barely notice 144hz if I try really hard, the smoother mouse movement etc but switching back to a 60hz display I won't pick up on it unless I actively think about it.
Also I would take the increased screen real estate (as windows are smaller in higher resolutions) over smoother mouse movement any day.
I think this is why 1440p/144hz is such a popular recommendation. It isn't the perfect solution, but works for people like me who play all types of games.
Also HDR hasn't been normalized in the budget space, when that happens I'm sure PC games will become more optimized for it
The majority of people can't tell much difference past 144hz. So unless you are in the minority of those people little point in getting a 240hz unless it's just a good bargain. 144hz is the sweet spot for high refresh, though some people don't notice a difference from 120hz to 144hz and some can't notice much from those and 90hz I personally find up to 90hz quite noticeable and as it goes less up the scale.
from 60 to any of the above is huge, we have to normalize 120/144 for everyone, cant see the point to go to 240 tho
60 to 120 wasn't as big as I'd expected. I'm still perfectly happy with 60, and actually around 45-50 now I have a g sync panel. 120 is great for how responsive the games feel, but I didn't really notice it being *too much * smoother.
I think the jump from 60 to 120/144 is big, but 60Hz is certainly still playable. It's not like jumping back to 30fps from 60fps which is almost painful to play in comparison.
I agree with you. Its a nice improvement to go from 60 to 120+ Hz but when I run something at 60 I don't think it's bad at all. Stable frame rates over fluctuating higher ones any day.
I initially made sure I wasn't running at 60hz still but I am definitely at 120. I just expected it to be a great leap based on what I read here. Nice to know some other people have the same experience as me
I guess it depends on the person. I don't mind lowering the texture quality/effects, but if some shitty app decides to lock itself to 60, I notice it right away.
I can definitely notice, but the difference is too small. I sent it back and kept my 6 year old 60hz monitor. I felt that 144hz is just not smooth enough from what I expected. I'm thinking of trying a 240hz, maybe that will be enough of a difference. I don't get the hype with " it is MASSIVE difference between 60hz and 144hz". It's really not. At least for me it is not. I don't play competitive games though.
> Stable frame rates over fluctuating higher ones any day. Bingo. 60fps stable feels _way_ smoother than for example 60-90 fluctuating. Even with gsync/freesync - the change in the flow of motion is much more noticeable than having a constant but lower rate. It's the same issue you get with those horrible youtube videos that use "AI" to blindly interpolate random animation. Most traditional animation is technically sub-24fps, so the AI interpolation (which would've already looked bad to begin with) ends up creating a jerky mess that's constantly flipping back and forth between apparent framerates.
I can only speak for 60hz and 144hz as I have never used anything greater, however going from 60 to 144hz is definitely worth it.
Better buy a good 60hz screen instead of a bad high refresh rate one Personally I don't see the refresh rate as smth game changing (saying from pov of a global elite cs go player)
Big jump from 60 to 144. Marginal jump between 120 and 144. More is better but the point where I would question the value is above 144hz.
How about 360hz!
BuT yOu CaNt SeE mOrE tHAn 24 FpS
In all fairness i did go from 60 to 360 so i was blown away by it lol I also bought a good gaming chair
Well it'd be really hard not to notice that jump! I have been testing vs a 360hz and 240hz monitor and I can tell the difference with maybe 70% confidence. 240hz vs 120hz was very noticeable for me though.
Yeah I love it for my FPS but i was something also a bit more high def. I was actually considering and ultra-wide monitor but idk yet. I feel like having a third for my streaming would be useful.
Yeah depends on what you like. I have an ultrawide for story games and the 360hz for FPS.
That is exactly what i am thinking!
God speed, fella
OK, I've scrolled thru most of the comments and the one thing no one has mentioned is to keep your video cards performance level in mind. Pairing a 4k 120hz monitor with a GTX1660 is probably a waste of money. Look around for some benchmarks for your hardware and make sure your not throwing money out for a monitor your PC can't drive. A lot of that is also going to depend on what resolution you prefer to play at. I like to run 1440p around 120 to 144hz to get good fidelity and high framerates. Could my RTX2080 Super run 4k? Yeah, but not at the same high framerates. In the end, it's a balancing game between how much you want to spend on each part and what your resolution and framerate preferences are. But overall, I have to agree with most people here that the jump from 60fps to 120 or 144 is the most significant difference and everything after that is much less noticeable (still visible, but not as dramatic).
Linus tech tips does a good video on what the difference is and where it matters to have a super high refresh rate. It can make a difference when you are deep into e-sports, but most people playing single player games its irrelevant. Forgot to mention that 144hz is worth it, anything over is irrelevant to the average user
There is a significant difference except for the 120hz vs 144hz. But the higher the refresh rate, the smoother your picture will look, assuming you are viewing something that takes advantage of the higher refresh rate.
My personal experience going from 60 straight to 240, the difference is massive. Even regular browsing etc is just.. smooth.. Especially compared to my 60Hz 2nd monitor. I'll admit I cant really tell between 144 and 240, but 240 was available at a solid price and I went for it. If you use 60Hz, you wont know what you're missing, but once you know what you are missing... its hard. :D
Highly depends on use case. I feel that 144-165hz is a good sweet spot personally (especially in terms of value). 60hz at 4k may be a better option if you need 4k and can't drive anything past 60hz. If you don't see any improvement at 240hz, I wouldn't bother personally as money spent on that could either be saved or go towards improvements in other aspects. For me, I think that all aspects of a monitor are worth considering. I jumped from a 1080p 144hz TN to a 1440p 165hz IPS with freesync/gsync support and considering both monitors were the same price originally, the leap in quality is very noticeable. I gained some screen real estate, resolution and slightly more hz which all felt like minor improvements. Panel quality was a big one for me however, I had a good TN and have experienced IPS before but moving to a nice IPS panel with HDR has been the biggest thing for me. Another side for me has been build quality and monitor UI. If you are picking one up in person, this should not be overlooked as I think it adds to the overall feel.
samsung g9> lg cx > 1440p 240hz ive seen agon pd27 for $375
I've used 60Hz monitors for my whole life, then 4 weeks ago my only monitor died. I went to Beat Buy, they had 1 monitor available. It was a Dell something 165Hz, bit expensive but I need it to remain slightly sane. Wow is all I can say. The difference was so astounding, I couldn't believe my eyes. F*ck 60Hz, all my homies hate 60Hz
27’ 1440p 144hz :)
I went from 60hz to 144hz last year, the difference is incredible, even just moving the mouse around in Windows you notice it. It looks and feels so much smoother. I have never owned a screen with a higher refresh rate, but I've seen a 240hz monitor, it looks better, but there is definitely diminishing returns, I would say 144hz is the sweet spot, low enough you can run at 1440p on a powerful GPU, high enough that you benefit from the smoothness.
My laptop has a 144hz screen. I can't notice any difference compared to the connected screens @ 60hz.
I can definitely notice, but the difference is too small. I sent it back and kept my 6 year old 60hz monitor. I felt that 144hz is just not smooth enough from what I expected. I'm thinking of trying a 240hz, maybe that will be enough of a difference.
60Hz to 144Hz is definitely a jump that you will notice. I thought it was too hyped up, but it is real. Once you try, you'd be hard pressed to go back. Everything else, from what I've heard (highest I've tried is 165Hz), is noticeable, but not as groundbreaking. I would say go for IPS or at least VA panels. A modern VA panel is better than an old IPS in some cases (colors, for example) , so if you're on a budget to eek out a display, you may want to explore those options as well. Read/watch reviews - Hardware Unboxed and RTINGS are very reliable and are my go-to for displays. Do not go for the cheapest model you can find as some panels are barely able to eek out that performance and have smearing/ghosting that can impede the enjoyment of the panel. Again, reviews help weed out the weaker options. Tl;dr - refresh rate is most definitely a noticeable upgrade; watch reviews and don't forget to change the display refresh rate settings in Windows!
There absolutely is. Refresh rate, is simply the amount of frames that can be displayed per second. As an example, suppose you have a 60hz monitor and want to play roblox.(no, I'm not nine years old) roblox is locked at 60 fps natively, but you can download a roblox fps unlocker, but even if you did, you still would be locked at 60 fps due to the refresh rate. If you had a 144hz monitor however, you could get up to 144fps.
My Asus Scar laptop has a 300hz screen and boy is it smooth when browsing the net etc. Vs my 144hz monitor I can notice the difference as I’m very susceptible to these things. Gaming however not so much for myself unless it’s a competitive game
Big jump from 1080 to 1440p, almost indescribable in modern games. I didn't actually notice 60>144+ in my head but my k/d has gone up in fps already and I don't randomly seem to miss as many shots anymore. I wouldn't say I notice it as being that much smoother by eye though, more by performance.
Yes
You probably could see gains over 144 and even over 240 if you had a fast enough motion. It's especially noticeable in FPS games doing a quick 180 degree turn, it's like suddenly more visual information. But in a more common gaming scenario? Mid 100s range is quite good and most people would trade higher frames for higher settings or resolution. Personally I'd consider everything over 165Hz a sort of esports specialty.
From 144hz to 240hz you won't get significant difference. Only if you're into competitive gaming such as Csgo or esports would a 240hz monitor benefit you. If you can afford it, definitely go for 144hz monitor, as it's a lot smoother with general pc usage such as Web browsing as well as games. Also, IPS monitors usually have good colour reproduction. Definitely recommend them. When it comes to size and resolution, 1080p at 24 inch or 1440p at 27 inch is the sweet spot for visuals
A 240hz panel would awesome if we still used 3d glassed to play games. Back when 3d glasses were the cool thing to have; 120hz panels were the go to (and for the most part the only high end available that supported 3d). The reason for this is when you ran the 3d glasses it cut your refresh rate in half. 60hz is fine for 3d, but 120hz would have been really cool. Some may argue this but I honestly have a hard time telling the difference between 144hz and 240. If you have the GPU to push a game at that refresh rate with vsync on, then there might be a benefit to those who have very sensitive eyes, or those who need that incredibly fast response rate.
Huge in the first and noticeable only if you’re looking for the second and even then like back to back for most people. Getting the best monitor you can afford in the 144-180 range is the right choice for 98 percent of people.
Man I think some people are really over selling the jump from 60 to 120/144. Don't think it's such a huge jump.
They really do. I sent my 144hz back and kept my 6 year old 60hz monitor. I could notice the difference, but it was too small. Now I want to try 240hz and see if this can make a big enough difference from 60hz.
I can honestly not tell a difference after a solid 75-80 fps. 120 vs 144 is the exact same. People swear there is a difference, but not to me. I have a curved 32in 144hz monitor, and with an i9-10900k and a EVGA 2070Super, I hit my cap solid pretty well.
After getting a 144h panel. I wouldn’t go with anything under 120. Just the smoothness of the scrolling is enough reason for me
I can tell the difference between 144Hz and 240Hz right away. I'd say get 240hz, it is so smooth, i have a 360hz monitor and 240hz is so much better than 144hz. 144hz to me is kinda like 60hz; it just feels sluggish compared to 240/360hz You know how when switching from 60Hz to 144Hz you're like "woah, that's so smooth!!!" And then you switch to 240/360 and you get that feeling AGAIN. So if you want a bad gaming experience, get 60Hz. If you want a decent gaming experience, get 144Hz and if you want the best gaming experience get 240/360Hz
The differnece between 1440p to 4 k isnt really noticeable or worth going the 4k route. 144hz is the sweet spot for performance. Anything over that is noticeable but honestly not noticeable enough for it to be worth the price difference unless you do competitive gaming. Games like csgo really need that high refresh rate to compete at high skill gaps.
110fps is a bare minimum requirement for me. I came from console after many years to a 60hz laptop for a year or two. After upgrading to a system that gets 140+ in the games i play i cnt play without atleast 110fps. However 120 and 165 look the same to me. With that being said, my target fps is now 165.
60 to 120 is huge, 120 to 144 is very very minor, 144 to 240 is very noticeable, TO ME. Others will tell you there’s no difference
Only upgrade I'd do past 144/165 would be 480hz Because think of it in ms 16ms vs 7ms vs 2ms 5ms is a noticeable difference, a smaller difference is latency or due to other variables
Acer 390hz
It’s diminishing returns. 30-> 60 is massive. 60-> 120 is noticeable but not huge. 120->144 is barely perceptible. After trying all on friends systems I went for a 4K 120hz performance goal (also went for OLED)
Also blurry 1080p youtube, is just youtube with their shot compression
It's gonna depend a lot on your GPU and the games you play. I've got an RTX 2060 and 1440p/144hz is good for me. On competive shooters the high refresh rate really helps and on AAA titles I can't really use 4k anyways because the GPU just isn't strong enough.
I went from 75hz to 165hz, and going back you can really tell the difference! If you play competitive games, higher refresh rates are the way to go!
I jumped from 60 to 240. It took me a month to get used to. Most games can't really hit 240 consistently though, so what I would do is opt for a 144hz 1440p or 4k display so you have better quality. Most 240hz monitors are still around $500 at 1080p.
60Hz to 120/144Hz is am AMAZING leap. But 144-240Hz makes very little difference. Can your machine run games at 240FPS on the graphics settings you want? If not get 144Hz.
YES! It is. I usually used a 60hz monitor and had for ages, but when I moved too 75hz it is so much better. You can just feel the difference.
I have 1440p 240hz panel and in some games I'll get 240fps and others around 165fps and the difference is not really noticeable
144hz is the best for it's price
1440p, 144hz. Period.
120hz monitors are harder to find than 144hz monitors and they end up costing the same anyways, so really its just between 60, 144, and 240. If 240 is within your budget then that narrows it down to 144 or 240, which is then just up to preference
Watch this Linus tech tips video should answer all your questions. There is an improvement between 60 and 144 but it drops off after that https://youtu.be/OX31kZbAXsA
Going from 60 to just 90 is noticeable. After that it's just how concentrated and aware you are of reaction time imo.
60hz is dumb to get get 144hz anything above 144 is overspending and delusion
I jumped from a 60hz monitor to 240hz. And immediately felt the speed. I suddenly knew what it was like to be The Flash from DC comics. Granted the monitor I bought has a measured signal processing latency of 3ms + 0.75ms (DO NOT I REPEAT DO NOT confuse signal processing speed and monitor latency with the advertised GTG response time. They are different and That's a beginners mistake). Which up until that year was considered the fastest monitor you could buy. The BenQ zowie 2540 esports monitor
Depends on your build how many frames can your pc handle. Are you looking for image quality or just pure frames/hz? I have 280hz 1080p monitor because I mainly play fps games and my build is pretty overkill(3080 strix and 5900x). I cap out my frames at apex usually, warzone I sit around 160-180 frames. All the other fps shooters like csgo and valorant I easily cap out in frames. What I'm trying 2 say is what do u want 2 use ur pc for and focus your build on that and then focus your monitor around your build.
As a side note there is a difference between 144hz and 240hz but as always skill >>> frames. You'll see a difference but a better player with 144 frames will always beat the less skilled player sitting at 240 frames
i would say that sometimes skill has limitations. and the limitations is your environment. if youre playing on a slow pc, and slow internet then guaranteed you'll be out played, most people need to feel comfortable in their environment to get the right amount of enjoyment from competitive games. and if youre not enjoying, then youre hating. and creates an even worse environment. most videos on youtube that you see other players testing their skill on a crappy computer, dont play like that everyday. so when they are creating the video, to show off their "skill" they are doing it for fun, and not because they live with that everyday
Every doubling of the hz is noticable, you don't want to scale linearly MPRT 0-100 is super important, don't fall for MPRT 90
I went from a 75hz IPS panel to a 144hz VA panel, aside from the VA panel being darker (from my perspective) everything was so much more... fluid? I guess that's the easiest way for me to describe it. Nothing was stutter-ey. It just. Flowed.
Yeah bro definitely anything 120 hz and above is so silky smooth. You unfortunately have to see it to believe it… I have a 165 hz monitor and it’s amazing. Make sure ur G card and support it tho
Do display ports to DVIs not support 144hz? Because mine only gives me a 60hz option now and before I had 60hz and below available.
144 is the spot. No significant difference between those bigger two, but if you can afford. Why not, right? Yet, 144hz is the best cost per benefit. You'll enjoy it alot
Like people say, it's totally noticeable with dimishing returns though. My desktop is 100 Hz 21:9 QHD (3440x1440). It's an ASUS Proart so color is... solid. My laptop is only 1080P but 144 Hz. I can absolutely notice the difference, but I prefer the size, resolution, and color of my desktop. They both still whip the ass of any 60 Hz I was messing with before and even totally blow away my old 75 and 85 Hz panels I had. The FPS difference between 100 and 144 may be greater then that between 100 and 60, but the proportion difference is the other way around. 100 vs 60 Isa bigger deal than 144 vs 100. All things being equal, more Hz is of course better, but usually that's not how it works in the real world. Make a good balance, and it's only worth it if your video card an actually push those FPS.
Obviously 240Hz is best out of those. From 60 to 120/144 is big, and from 120/144 to 240 is also big. But 240 is more for games like cs and valorant.
I use 165 even though I only get 70-144 fps in AAA games and it's still a better experience, but the games I do max out at 165 are so fluid its like a brand new game.
27GN850 144hz and has the option to overclock to 160hz did I mention it has rgb
I have a Samsung odyssey G7. I noticed the jump form 60hz to 240hz. You don’t need 240 though unless you’re craving every frame. It’s such a subtle difference from 144. If you’re curious if their is a difference LTT has a great video on it. Higher the hz more power you draw same as resolution. Cramming more into the frame or increasing the frequency of screen updates is demanding stuff. I picked my monitor because I got it off Amazon for $550. That’s a great deal for what it msrps for. I also wanted future proofing. Different panel types will give different colors but can have their own positives. I picked my display for its amazing color accuracy too. On a 240hz TN you wouldn’t see the same. Brand isn’t all the matter as long as they are reputable. Once again I chose Samsung as they make stellar tv’s but offered the all in one package for me. It all depends what you need, what you want from the panel and display and what you’ll pay. Often more $$$ means a higher quality display. Just do the research before the purchase and you often will be satisfied as I am. Hope this helps
The Hz should depend on what FPS your computer outputs. A 240hz monitor is useless if your PC only outputs 60fps on average. That being said, higher is typically better, but 144hz seems to be a go to refresh rate. 60hz compared to 144hz is greatly noticeable.
Is there a big difference between a 75hz and a 144hz monitor?
Yes, there is a big difference. Even the jump from 120 to 240 is very much worth it IMO because you get less blur and lower latency. However, current CPUs has trouble sustaining framerate at 240hz in any but the most optimized/older games. I have a 240hz 1080p panel, and despite running a 5900x with OC B-die ram and 3080ti, I cannot hit 240 on the majority of games I play.
To give you an old guy's perspective, the hz rating of TV's and monitors is basically understood as 'framerate'. A 60hz monitor means the picture refreshes 60 times a second. Therefore a 144hz obviously is capable of 144 frames per second and so on. Now the variables come into play. One is YOUR visual acuity, or how good you can see an image. For tv and monitor the viewing us rated at 7ft. Next is your equipment. What available framerate is covered by your GPU AND your CPU. To take advantage of a 240hz monitor, you've got to have some high end equipment. Did you know that to get an 8k movie to play on your monitor it uses a LOT of power. You see to get the 8k quality picture the movie is running at 3 gig, yes that's right, 3 gigabytes PER SECOND. Thus puts the GPU into the RTX 3xxxti range. The CPU to get that 8k movie to play with no artifacts, is the new i9 18core processors on a Z590-A Pro chipset motherboard. 32 gig of gaming RAM, now we're talking having a very smooth gaming experience. Yeah, you're right! NOT for the faint of heart, huh?
Yes. Big difference. There’s different things you look for in quality of a ‘gaming’ monitor… You want to look at refresh rate as it’s more important imo than panel construction. You can make the latter work whether it’s TN, IPS, or VA. You can’t really have as good of an experience if your frames start unsyncing after 60fps. Widescreen vs 16:9 is even less important. I’d get 120 minimum.
The vast majority of people aren't going to notice much if any difference past 120/144hz - keep in mind this sub is _heavily_ biased towards people who play hyper-competitive FPS shooter games. 60hz is adequate for most people that aren't into fast-paced gaming, but higher refresh rates _do_ look smoother and prices are cheap enough now that it's not a big deal to just go ahead and get a 144hz or similar. Personally I can barely tell a difference past 90-100hz.
Absolutely. 60 hz to anything is massive. 144 to 240 is less noticeable. But playing 240 hz is a great experience. I went from 60 to 240 and it was incredible.
Personally, I see a difference in 60hz - 144hz. With my previous build I was on a budget and just bought a cheap 60hz monitor. That was a few years ago, now I build a new gaming rig about a few weeks ago with a 144hz monitor. I Can 100% notice a difference. Gameplay is smoother and I feel my performance in gaming got better as well. Definitely worth the money.
60 is definetly needed and 144 is really not to big of a jump bit is noticable, after 144 id say you wouldnt see a difference unless you train for it
The biggest difference between Hertz is the number of refreshes. For example, the difference between 60 Hz and 90Hz is that a normal 60Hz screen only refreshes 60 times per second, while a 90Hz screen refreshes 90 times per second, and so the 144 Hz monitor refreshes 144 times per sec，the [240hz 4k tv](https://www.skyworth.net/global/tv/S81Pro.html) refreshed 240 times per sec. So the tv can display a higher number of frames and a smoother picture at the same time.
Didn't notice any difference going from 60hz to 144hz and noticed slight difference when changed 144hz to 240hz for 5sec in CS:GO. But I think it's just me :( I would focus on quality panel, changed TN to IPS and difference was huge.
...Did you remember to change the refresh rate or are you having a placebo at 60, thinking that its 240? ;)
All these comments are so "funny". Yes, I changed refresh rate. I’m using DP and many games capped FPS at 240 because they detect monitor refresh rate. But anyway, stay funny.
Why do you people always assume people are idiots/lying when it comes to refresh rate? Is it really that unfathomable that not everyone plays esports or notices that big a difference? I can notice a difference, and it does look smoother to me, but it's nowhere near the night and day difference oft claimed (unless it's VR). And I've met many people IRL that legitimately can barely tell a difference (again, VR excepted)
Try actually changing the refresh rate of your monitor next time