Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

60 FPS (60 hz) vs 120 FPS (120hz)

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 11, 2012 3:53:18 PM

Hello Lads,
When I was choosing my monitor, I really didn't notice the refresh rate because I wanted a bigger screen. So I looked only to the screen size. When i read my manual, it said that this is 60hz monitor and I really didn't care, but now I watched a comparison between 120 FPS and 60 FPS and it looked the same.
So is the difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS visible?
Thanks in advance!

P.S.: I really didn't know in which Sub-category I had to put this so sorry if I did a mistake :??: 

More about : fps 120 fps 120hz

September 11, 2012 6:29:49 PM

Quote:
No, the human I can only see a max of 60fps. Its only necessary to have 120 if you are running it in 3D.


You'll notice a difference in FPS shooting games... The higher the refresh rate, the smoother the gameplay will seem. I even noticed a difference going from 60 to 75 and that's not a big jump in refresh rates.

The human eye doesn't see a max of 60FPS; it can see much more. It perceives everything at once and not in FPS like a computer monitor. You contradicted your statement about the human eye when you said you need 120 to see 3D. That just proves that the human eye is not limited to 60FPS.
Score
0
a c 91 C Monitor
September 11, 2012 7:31:51 PM

Fps perception is logarithmic and starts to get hard to distinguish at around 100 fps to the average person. But we can see a flash of light even 1/300 of a second, essentially 300fps. This is because, as aylafan pointed out, we don't see in frames, we essentially see all the time.

Unless you were in a store actually looking at the 2 monitors at 60hz and 120hz, your monitor is most likely only 60. Also keep in mind videos tend to be 30fps and tvs are frame blending to reach 120fps. So if you are comparing at the store, make sure it's actual 120hz. IMO 60 is fine, it's fast enough to be competitive in fast paced games and is quite smooth. Sure 120 is better but it's a personal opinion if it's worth the money right now.
Score
0
Related resources
a b C Monitor
September 11, 2012 7:36:35 PM

Quote:
No, the human I can only see a max of 60fps. Its only necessary to have 120 if you are running it in 3D.

Actually its believed by some to be more like 70 frames per second.

Quote:
The necessary bounds for true photorealism are set by the physical limits of the human eye, Sweeney explained, which can only process the equivalent of a 30 megapixel image at about 70 frames per second.


http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/02/how-close-are-we-...
Score
0
a c 91 C Monitor
September 11, 2012 11:41:15 PM

This whole fps thing is very situational, even the color of what you are looking at affects how many fps you can perceive. Every time I see a discussion about it, someone says something different even with a legit study source.
Score
0
September 12, 2012 12:09:00 AM

As a few already said, the average person may not notice the difference, but there will be a few people that can. If you're a gamer, i would worry more about refresh rate, as in 2ms refresh rate, and how well it can display colors.
Score
0
a c 128 C Monitor
September 12, 2012 12:15:13 AM

The biggest difference for me is not the smoothness, but latency. When a frame is created, it has to wait twice as long before it's sent to the monitor on average when using a 60hz monitor compared to a 120hz monitor. A 120hz monitor's refreshes happen twice as often, meaning most frames don't have to wait as long before seen on the screen. You can also set v-sync on, and avoid tearing, and still get well over 60 FPS.

Not only does it feel smoother, with less latency, for many people who suffer simulator sickness (much like motion sickness), the reduce latency, also reduces and even removes the symptoms as you get higher FPS. At about 80-90 FPS, I no longer get nauseated when playing a 1st person game controlled by mouse.
Score
0
a c 128 C Monitor
September 12, 2012 12:16:33 AM

computertech82 said:
As a few already said, the average person may not notice the difference, but there will be a few people that can. If you're a gamer, i would worry more about refresh rate, as in 2ms refresh rate, and how well it can display colors.


I think you meant to say response time. The thing is, 60hz compared to 120hz causes more input latency than the difference in response time in most cases. There is about 8ms of extra latency caused by the lower refresh rate on a 60hz monitor compared to a 120hz monitor. A 120hz monitor updates its image once every 8ms compared to 16ms for a 60hz monitor.
Score
0

Best solution

a b C Monitor
September 12, 2012 12:38:12 AM

Monitor size is a poor criteria to pick a screen by. The human eye can see pixels at pixel pitched smaller than about 96 pixels per inch (ppi).

1920×1080 on a 23.6" screen has a ppi of 93.3 .... perty decent
1920×1080 on a 27.0" screen has a ppi of 81.6 .... will appear grainy at normal viewing distances

120 hz provides faster frame rates, reduces ghosting, better response times ... read about it here:

http://www.digitalversus.com/guide-120-hz-screens-a481....

If ya don't like reading ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CML9GaMSdg


Share
September 12, 2012 3:59:57 PM

I have a 27.0" monitor 1920x1080 resolution. I'm pretty happy with my monitor (S27A650D) and it's refresh time and response time! I don't really tell the difference between 60hz and 120hz while playing BF3 and League of Legends. I guess I will stick to my lovely Samsung monitor for now!
Thanks for the help guys!
Score
0
September 12, 2012 4:02:40 PM

Best answer selected by R3alityzzzzz.
Score
0
September 12, 2012 4:09:40 PM

R3alityzzzzz said:

So is the difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS visible?

Of course it is visible, but the real question is, it is worth it?
That depends from the individual, are you picky about fps and want your game to be ultra smooth?, can your pc get 120fps with max settings on most games?, etc
Score
0
September 12, 2012 4:17:22 PM

k1114 said:
Fps perception is logarithmic and starts to get hard to distinguish at around 100 fps to the average person. But we can see a flash of light even 1/300 of a second, essentially 300fps.

With persistence of vision, you can see 1/5000th flashes if they are bright enough. This is the fundamental principle behind stroboscopic freeze-motion. But after exposure, the retina still requires the better part of 1/40th of a second to "reset" itself so if that flash occurs more frequently than that, you never notice that it ever turned off. Some LED gadgets/flashlights use this trick for power saving.

The eye is not really "seeing" 60+ fps, since frames beyond the retina's "reset" speed simply blur together much the same way that you are practically blind while your sight shifts from one rest location to another because sight during eye-line travel is blurred by persistence. This also makes fine print nearly unreadable unless you can hold it steady.
Score
0
a c 91 C Monitor
September 12, 2012 5:08:13 PM

Rods and cones send info at different intervals, rods being faster at about every 20ms. Every rod (and cone) doesn't send info at the same time also. If the retina were to "reset" every 1/40th second, that implies it being similar to a refresh rate or in other words we see in frames. Of course this isn't right. I am unsure of where this 1/40th came from and I know I remembered it somewhere. So I looked it up and found 1/40th shutter speed is the min to get rid of strobing at 24p. You also mention blurring when our brain blends. Maybe this was a camera/eye mix up as these are similar but different mechanics.
Score
0
a b C Monitor
September 12, 2012 5:12:44 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!