120-144hz vs 60hz eye candy for my build! Going nuts.

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Pole

Pole

Honorable
Mar 24, 2013
42
0
10,530
Here is the build I am ordering tomorrow: http://pcpartpicker.com/user/pole/saved/1rjz

First of all will my system be able to benefit from 120-144hz monitors in games like crysis 3, Bioshock infinite.

Second I will be playing WoW, Dota 2 most time after I have played through games like The Witcher 2 , Skyrim, Bioshock Infinite, BF 3, Dark Souls.
Will I see noticeable difference in none FPS games with LED monitors?

It will be 20"-24" screen 1920x1080 resolution, now is it possible to get a 120-144hz monitor but get closer to IPS picture quality by sacrificing input lag if that is even possible?

I don't mind viewing angle much as I will be gaming on a single monitor in a fixed position, I can also dim lights in room while I game.

Well it comes down to dilema of IPS vs LED 120-144hz , lets start this without a budget restriction.
 
Solution
L
I would stick with the 60 Hz screen, as new titles at highest details with a resolution of 1920x1080 won't run well above 60 FPS (or even above 60 FPS) with the gaming rig, that you're ordering.

However that isn't to say you're ordering a bad gaming rig, but if you aim to play those latest games that demand a lot, then it makes no sense. If you're playing games like CS:GO and can enjoy games that isn't that graphically demanding then I'd say go for it, in those titles the refresh rate will really help you a lot.

Bottomline:

If you're not on a budget and do have the money to spend, then go for it. It's always good to have such a high refresh rate. It will also solve a lot of screen tearing or choppy gameplay because of the high...
Sort by date Sort by votes
L

lostgamer_03

Honorable
Aug 4, 2012
1,820
1
12,160
I would stick with the 60 Hz screen, as new titles at highest details with a resolution of 1920x1080 won't run well above 60 FPS (or even above 60 FPS) with the gaming rig, that you're ordering.

However that isn't to say you're ordering a bad gaming rig, but if you aim to play those latest games that demand a lot, then it makes no sense. If you're playing games like CS:GO and can enjoy games that isn't that graphically demanding then I'd say go for it, in those titles the refresh rate will really help you a lot.

Bottomline:

If you're not on a budget and do have the money to spend, then go for it. It's always good to have such a high refresh rate. It will also solve a lot of screen tearing or choppy gameplay because of the high refresh rate. Those problems occur with not using vsync and using normal vsync, adaptive vsync solves this problem, which Nvidia offer.

If you want to know more about the issues with vsync, then check this video out, it will explain it better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEYf_yUvwhQ
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
Pole

Pole

Honorable
Mar 24, 2013
42
0
10,530
So I will not experience screen tearing as long as my fps sticks below 60 if it goes beyond that then my card is feeding more fps than my screen can handle and tearing occurs? This can be remedied by Nvidia adaptive Vsync or going for 120hz monitor on AMD cards ? Am I about right?

I would like to keep my screen under or around £300 if possible which would cover cost of BenQ XL211T or on par ASUS which seem to be mainstream ones.

Still what do you reckon with this build, im open to quality IPS monitors too.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Z

ZippyPeanut

Honorable
Dec 26, 2012
338
0
10,860
Pole:

With that graphics card and an overclocked 3770k, yeah, you’ll be able to achieve more than 60fps on reasonable settings with a 20-24” 120/144hz monitor. As long as you don’t insist on high anti-aliasing, you’ll see 60 plus fps.

And, yes, you must compromise color reproduction quality if you get the fast monitor. Unfortunately, all 120/144hz TN monitors just cannot do what an IPS monitor can when it comes to picture quality. I had the same dilemma. I finally settled on a 144hz monitor because I spend more time with fast onscreen motion than I do with static images. If I were a graphic designer or a professional photographer, then I would definitely have chosen an IPS. My only bottleneck was my 60hz monitor; now that I have the 144hz Asus, that bottleneck is gone. And, yes, at high settings in Crysis 3, I get more than 60fps, and it makes a visual difference. Most important for me was the 8.3ms frame rendering time of a 120hz monitor; and this, combined with a 1ms response time, eliminates motion blur.

By the way, most 120+ hz monitors come out of the box with horrendous color. You will have to calibrate your monitor’s colors to get decent color reproduction.

-----------
i7 3770K OC @ 4.2Ghz / ASRock Extreme 4 Z77 / evga FTW 670 2X-SLI / Creative SB Audigy SE PCI Sound Card / 32 GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 / 128 GB OCZ Vertex 4 / 2 TB WD Caviar Black / 2 TB Seagate Barracuda / Asetek 510LC Liquid Cooling System / LG 14X Blu-ray R/W / Corsair 1000w PS / AzzA Genesis 9000 full tower / Windows 7 Professional 64 / 144hz 1ms 24-inch Asus monitor
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Pole

Pole

Honorable
Mar 24, 2013
42
0
10,530
Thank you for that detailed response zippy and yes I have looked and am prepared to calibrate TN panels, there seems to be lot of advice a recommended setting available online right now.

I guess I will be borderline 60 fps with single card, and considering I wont be into competitive FPS and more into games like Far cry 3 and Tomb raider & MMO/Dota the wise could be IPS monitor, then again having AMD card were back to ghosting motion blur I guess. I will be using this rig for gaming and gameplay editing. Strange an hour ago I was really leaning towards LED 144hz monitors and now leaning towards IPS like ezio.

This has been going on for better part of last couple of days. Maybe should settle for average monitor and wait for 120-144hz IPS which hopefully is not too far away !
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Z

ZippyPeanut

Honorable
Dec 26, 2012
338
0
10,860
Pole:


"This has been going on for better part of last couple of days. Maybe should settle for average monitor and wait for 120-144hz IPS which hopefully is not too far away !"


This was my thinking exactly. I'm still keeping my eyes wide open for a 120hz IPS monitor with a decent response time. But I HAD to upgrade from my old OptiQuest 60hz monitor that I got six years ago. Given the low price of the Asus--half the budget I was prepared to spend--I couldn't resist. Meanwhile, I'm saving money now for that glorious date when a good 120hz IPS gaming monitor is introduced to the market.

Good luck!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
jared426

jared426

Honorable
May 5, 2013
42
0
10,540
I just bought an Asus VG248 24" 144hz LED and I have a crappy HD5850 I play BF3 on low settings @ 1080p and get an average 98 fps....wow you can definitely tell the difference and anyone who says different hasn't used a 120-144hz monitor. The picture isn't as sharp as a professional IPS screen, but it does have really outstanding picture quality. You will be totally fine with that HD7970GHz (med-high settings). I mean lets face it Crysis 3 pretty much kills a 7990 @ 1440p on Very high settings.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I

ibycfota

Honorable
Mar 9, 2013
54
0
10,640
I always bring this up in these kinds of threads, but one of the great things about a 120 hz monitor is the flexibility it affords you in terms of your gaming experience. In Far Cry 3 I could run the game on Ultra with 4x SMAA and get around 50-60 FPS on my 7970. But if I put the settings down to Medium and turned off all anti-aliasing I would get a steady 100+FPS, and honestly the graphics difference was not that significant. Also, the 7970 is a very powerful card, so it can run many newer titles at well over 60 FPS with settings maxed or close to it. For example in Tomb Raider I have everything maxed except for disabling TressFX (pointless feature since it only applies to Lara's hair, huge performance hit). Depth of Field (decent performance hit and all it does is blur the backdrop), and FXAA instead of MSAA (does a more than adequate job of smoothing out jagged lines while costing practically nothing in terms of performance), and I get around 110 FPS average on the Tomb Raider benchmark.

Bottom line is that if you're willing to make a few minor graphical sacrifices you can get a massive performance / smoothness bump and fully utilize the capabilities of your 120hz+ monitor. Whether that's better than a higher resolution IPS monitor depends on your preferences as a gamer. If smooth gameplay is something you strive for or you play games competitively, a 120hz monitor is ideal for you. If running games maxed out with perfectly accurate colors and extreme detail are more your thing, then a 1440p IPS is probably your best bet. Me? I chose the BenQ XL2420T 120hz monitor and I love it. Best monitor I've ever owned. The only drawbacks are the less than stellar colors, and personally it's not something I even notice. To each his own, though.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom