Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

120HZ monitor really important for gaming ?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 1, 2013 4:39:01 AM

My spec :

Gtx 670 2gb windforce oc version
750w psu cooler master
120 intels ssd hard disk
cooler master 212 evo
sabertooth 990fx
amd fx6100 six core processor
60hz monitor X193HQ

I will normal lag in BATTLEFIELD 3 on high in Border map and Khang island ... Gulf of oman OF COURSE :(  I didnt download porn ............. :sweat: 

Any ideas ?
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 1, 2013 5:05:55 AM

depends on you really. 60hz monitors using vsync will drastically cripple your mouse movement if enabled. Vsync, visually looks better, eliminating screen tearing to allow the monitor to keep up, but with an induced lag on your mouse, it's precision becomes notably slower to allow syncing with the monitor.

120hz should nullify the lag effect quite considerably allowing vsync for better visual smoothness on screen.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 1, 2013 5:09:11 AM

You could try overclockign the CPU if you play multi-player in BF3. It's not weak, but it's no powerhouse at stock.

As for the monitor's refresh rate, 120Hz is only important if you use standard V-Sync AFAIK. I think that regardless of V-Sync, it is smoother than 60Hz so long as the graphics and CPU can keep up in the frame rates, but I wouldn't go as far as calling it important based on that.
m
0
l
Related resources
January 1, 2013 5:20:57 AM

boju said:
depends on you really. 60hz monitors using vsync will drastically cripple your mouse movement if enabled. Vsync, visually looks better, eliminating screen tearing to allow the monitor to keep up, but with an induced lag on your mouse, it's precision becomes notably slower to allow syncing with the monitor.

120hz should nullify the lag effect quite considerably allowing vsync for better visual smoothness on screen.

I off Sync but still get laggy on high in battlefield 3 ... so the problem of laggy cause is my monitor ?
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 5:26:52 AM

blazorthon said:
You could try overclockign the CPU if you play multi-player in BF3. It's not weak, but it's no powerhouse at stock.

As for the monitor's refresh rate, 120Hz is only important if you use standard V-Sync AFAIK. I think that regardless of V-Sync, it is smoother than 60Hz so long as the graphics and CPU can keep up in the frame rates, but I wouldn't go as far as calling it important based on that.

Yeah , I tried to overclock my CPU 3.31 ghz to 4.01 ghz but battlefield 3 still same laggy ... Like didnt improve anything . can 120hz monitor make gaming more smooth or wont ? :o 
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 1, 2013 5:31:31 AM

If you don't use V-Sync, then the monitor is probably not the problem. I won't guarantee that it won't help to get a good 120Hz display, but I don't think that it would help you. What resolution, AA, and other settings are you playing at?
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 5:34:13 AM

blazorthon said:
If you don't use V-Sync, then the monitor is probably not the problem. I won't guarantee that it won't help to get a good 120Hz display, but I don't think that it would help you. What resolution, AA, and other settings are you playing at?

I set settings on [ high ] not [ custom ] ... beside that , my old laptop had a 540m will not lag 0.1s while move the screen around or running around OR talk in TESV sometime , but my gtx 670 will.... That is sucks. :fou: 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 1, 2013 5:36:21 AM

ihopeuguyscanhelpme said:
I off Sync but still get laggy on high in battlefield 3 ... so the problem of laggy cause is my monitor ?


No, like blazorthon says, if the pc isn't powerful enough to push the frame rate of a demanding game such as battlefield above 120fps then you wont be getting the most out of a 120hz monitor itself alone as the computer needs to fluently drive the frame rate to display at the levels of 120hz for better visual.

Although if you're achieving in the vicinity greater than 60fps, then an 120hz monitor will look better without vsync enabled compared to 60hz monitor with vsync also off.

So in hindsight, an 120hz screen is an investment for the future.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 1, 2013 5:37:03 AM

Are you using the most recent graphics drivers? Are you running anything intensive in the background? Have you made sure that temps aren't causing throttling in your graphics and/or CPU?

If nothing else, it is possible that your graphics card is defective, but poor performance is a rare defect.
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 5:40:49 AM

blazorthon said:
Are you using the most recent graphics drivers? Are you running anything intensive in the background? Have you made sure that temps aren't causing throttling in your graphics and/or CPU?

If nothing else, it is possible that your graphics card is defective, but poor performance is a rare defect.

Yes , 310.70 nvidia driver . I turned off background changing too . My temperature below 55 while gaming I confirmed . :( 
Edit : I use Ai suite II to check temperature , nt guess .
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 1, 2013 5:41:41 AM

ihopeuguyscanhelpme said:
Yeah , I tried to overclock my CPU 3.31 ghz to 4.01 ghz but battlefield 3 still same laggy ... Like didnt improve anything . can 120hz monitor make gaming more smooth or wont ? :o 




Its probably your processor, the 6100 is fairly terrible for gaming without serious overclocking.

We talking about 4.5ghz or better here...

m
0
l
January 1, 2013 5:47:45 AM

maxalge said:
Its probably your processor, the 6100 is fairly terrible for gaming without serious overclocking.

We talking about 4.5ghz or better here...

:ouch:  OMG , I tried overclock to 4.5 ghz just now and restart pc . BUT suddenly my screen become blue and auto restart and stucked at starting window :ouch:  I am using laptop posting . :sweat: 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 1, 2013 5:50:51 AM

ihopeuguyscanhelpme said:
:ouch:  OMG , I tried overclock to 4.5 ghz just now and restart pc . BUT suddenly my screen become blue and auto restart and stucked at starting window :ouch:  I am using laptop posting . :sweat: 



>.>



Reset the bios, check your mobo guide on how to do so, I forget not everyone has gigabyte motherboards with dual bios. XD


Afterwards check this out:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?2758...!


Overclock slowly, its a gradual process finding the proper settings.
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 6:04:24 AM

maxalge said:
>.>



Reset the bios, check your mobo guide on how to do so, I forget not everyone has gigabyte motherboards with dual bios. XD


Afterwards check this out:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?2758...!


Overclock slowly, its a gradual process finding the proper settings.

Must 4.5 ghz most out the gtx 670 ? :heink:  AND I have noticed that my processor cannot go 4.5 only 4.4 -_-
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 1, 2013 6:25:31 AM

If even 4GHz isn't noticeably better than about 3GHz, then I doubt that 4.5GHz will be much better at all.
Double and triple check temps with multiple temp reporting programs. Some of them are defective with some systems and which ones don't work seems random, so it's best to go with the temps that are reported by the most programs on your system unless they look ridiculous.

Also, what system memory kit are you using? Are you motherboard drivers and BIOS all up to date? You might want to try making sure that all other drivers, no mater how seemingly insignificant, are up to date too. Even mouse drivers can cause bad lag if they are faulty.

You could also try running a good disk defrag program, running some anti-malware scans, and deleting any junk on your storage if you have a lot of it. Honestly, at this point I'm pretty much just throwing anything that comes to mind into light.
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 6:52:10 AM

blazorthon said:
If even 4GHz isn't noticeably better than about 3GHz, then I doubt that 4.5GHz will be much better at all.
Double and triple check temps with multiple temp reporting programs. Some of them are defective with some systems and which ones don't work seems random, so it's best to go with the temps that are reported by the most programs on your system unless they look ridiculous.

Also, what system memory kit are you using? Are you motherboard drivers and BIOS all up to date? You might want to try making sure that all other drivers, no mater how seemingly insignificant, are up to date too. Even mouse drivers can cause bad lag if they are faulty.

You could also try running a good disk defrag program, running some anti-malware scans, and deleting any junk on your storage if you have a lot of it. Honestly, at this point I'm pretty much just throwing anything that comes to mind into light.

Yes , I just upgrade yesterday and defrag . I had ccleaner too .

Edit : I play battlefield 3 about 30 minutes and get error blue screen because i set to 4.2 ghz -_-
m
0
l
a c 85 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 1, 2013 7:06:55 AM

I have an i5-3570k @ 4.4GHz and a heavily overclocked 670, and run most games at 120fps and ultra settings (minus, say, supersampling, which doesn't do a thing at 1080p anyways), and I gotta tell you, I love it.

No, it's not essential for gaming, but when I go to a friends' house (bringing my desktop and peripherals, but using his 60Hz monitor), I notice definite screen / imput lag, and I get fewer kills because of it.

EDIT: Basically what I'm saying is it's one of those luxury things that only makes a difference once you've tried it, like a mechanical keyboard. I wouldn't dream of using a normal keyboard to game again; it would be like running in a pool of glue... but I didn't know that till I used a mechanical keyboard for about 2 minutes... and then tried a normal one again. You don't notice it as much when you have it - just when you lose it. (And then you miss it like hell.)
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 1, 2013 7:08:32 AM

Not sure what you're trying to achieve here now, overclocking perhaps might give you an extra frames in battlefield 3 but sorry to say, an FX6100 was a poor choice for this kind of intense application.

Your video card on the otherhand 10 out of 10.

Will need to look at replacing your cpu if you want any drastic change in performance.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150_8120_6...

Best you could do is either stick a Phenom II x4 980 or upgrade to FX8150 with that motherboard.
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 7:14:47 AM

DarkSable said:
I have an i5-3570k @ 4.4GHz and a heavily overclocked 670, and run most games at 120fps and ultra settings (minus, say, supersampling, which doesn't do a thing at 1080p anyways), and I gotta tell you, I love it.

No, it's not essential for gaming, but when I go to a friends' house (bringing my desktop and peripherals, but using his 60Hz monitor), I notice definite screen / imput lag, and I get fewer kills because of it.

EDIT: Basically what I'm saying is it's one of those luxury things that only makes a difference once you've tried it, like a mechanical keyboard. I wouldn't dream of using a normal keyboard to game again; it would be like running in a pool of glue... but I didn't know that till I used a mechanical keyboard for about 2 minutes... and then tried a normal one again. You don't notice it as much when you have it - just when you lose it. (And then you miss it like hell.)

U means play with the 60hz monitor will lag ? and I know the feeling . ;) 
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 7:16:54 AM

boju said:
Not sure what you're trying to achieve here now, overclocking perhaps might give you an extra frames in battlefield 3 but sorry to say, an FX6100 was a poor choice for this kind of intense application.

Your video card on the otherhand 10 out of 10.

Will need to look at replacing your cpu if you want any drastic change in performance.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8150_8120_6...

Best you could do is either stick a Phenom II x4 980 or upgrade to FX8150 with that motherboard.

Thanks ! I will change to Phenom II x4 980 or FX 8150 maybe .

Edit : :o  largest resolution reduce fps ?
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 1, 2013 7:23:40 AM

If your going to stick with amd cpu get FX-8350 you be better off with a i5-2500k or i5-3570k for gaming imo.
m
0
l
a c 85 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 1, 2013 7:38:40 AM

Larger resolutions DRASTICALLY reduce FPS. I mean, think about it... you're going from a million pixels to double that, or more. That's double the workload on the graphics card.

Yes, you want an i5 3570k. AMD's chips are decent if you disable the second cores per module, giving yourself more overclocking headroom, but the i5 runs great out of the box, and still overclocks like a beast.

Also yes - if you go to a 120 Hz monitor, and ever have to play at 60 for whatever reason, it will feel very very noticeably laggy.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 1, 2013 7:49:41 AM

Agreed for going the FX8350. Otherwise the intel suggestions would be a consider.
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 8:01:29 AM

boju said:
Agreed for going the FX8350. Otherwise the intel suggestions would be a consider.

But do i need change motherboard to use i5-3570k?
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 8:02:16 AM

bigcyco1 said:
If your going to stick with amd cpu get FX-8350 you be better off with a i5-2500k or i5-3570k for gaming imo.

But do i need change motherboard to use i5-3570k?
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 1, 2013 8:04:50 AM

ihopeuguyscanhelpme said:
But do i need change motherboard to use i5-3570k?
Yes
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 1, 2013 1:44:49 PM

THere's no need to change the CPU in this situation. BF3 is one of the games that actually favors AMD's six and eight core models. If anything, overclocking it should help and it that doesn't help, then changing the CPU is unlikely to help because the CPU is not the bottle-neck. In BF3, the FX-6100 (at stock) can catch the cheaper i5s with ease. If it helps, then it is because a different bottle-neck was inadvertently removed, not because the CPU wasn't fast enough.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 1, 2013 4:13:43 PM

blazorthon said:
THere's no need to change the CPU in this situation. BF3 is one of the games that actually favors AMD's six and eight core models. If anything, overclocking it should help and it that doesn't help, then changing the CPU is unlikely to help because the CPU is not the bottle-neck. In BF3, the FX-6100 (at stock) can catch the cheaper i5s with ease. If it helps, then it is because a different bottle-neck was inadvertently removed, not because the CPU wasn't fast enough.
Then what's his issue the 670 don't lag in BF3 @ 1080p so what could it be ?
m
0
l
January 1, 2013 4:49:45 PM

I would argue a badly done overclock can be detrimental performance wise than no overclocking. Based on his responses and panic attacks, to put it bluntly any overclocking attempts were half ass. If he is CPU bound, we wouldn't see any performance gains unless he benchmarked and confirmed his overclock was stable. I mean he first tries to go 4.5 and OMG IT DONT WORK and that was minutes after someone suggested overclocking. 15 minutes later he is declaring the best his processor can do is 4.4, which sounds like half a multiplier and a sneeze away from crashing. We know he is on air cooled so he is probably hitting thermal peaks past 4ghz.

I wouldn't throw out the arguments of CPU bottlenecking just yet. Not until he can get a good stable overclock.
m
0
l
January 2, 2013 5:25:57 AM

Now i reached 4.5ghz ... but the temperature is going to 58C when i am playing battlefield 3 in ULTRA SETTINGS just now , just abit lag... it is fine ?
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 2, 2013 5:35:49 AM

ihopeuguyscanhelpme said:
Now i reached 4.5ghz ... but the temperature is going to 58C when i am playing just now... it is fine ?
Yes that is fine if it goes over 75c i would lower your overclock it's not good to run a 24-7 OC at such high temps anything in the 60's and lower is solid imo ;)  Did you stress test it to make sure it's stable if not do that A.S.A.P. check you clock settings with CPUZ and I recommend running a stability test such as Prime95. Another great one is LinX which is very intense. You can run it as long as you want and there are many different opinions as to how long you should run the tests to do some research online and make your decision.I usually run LinuX for two hours or i run prime 95 for twelve hours so far those are what work best for me they might not for you.


That is basically it.
m
0
l
January 2, 2013 5:40:42 AM

bigcyco1 said:
Yes that is fine if it goes over 75c i would lower your overclock it's not good to run a 24-7 OC at such high temps anything in the 60's and lower is solid imo ;) 

I wont 24-7 starting pc ... But if i keep 4.5 ghz and 60C , can u please guess how long my cpu survive ? :sweat: 
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 2, 2013 11:16:03 AM

It shouldn't die within the next few years unless you set the voltage too high or let those temps dip into the 70s C. CPUs are usually among the most resilient of computer components and often last for decades if taken care of.
m
0
l
January 2, 2013 11:47:25 AM

blazorthon said:
It shouldn't die within the next few years unless you set the voltage too high or let those temps dip into the 70s C. CPUs are usually among the most resilient of computer components and often last for decades if taken care of.

My CPU voltage is 1.38750.
I just changed this.
:na: 
Or do i need change to 8350 for less stress in overclocking ?
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 2, 2013 11:59:48 AM

ihopeuguyscanhelpme said:
I wont 24-7 starting pc ... But if i keep 4.5 ghz and 60C , can u please guess how long my cpu survive ? :sweat: 
I run my 24-7 @ 4.8GHZ 1.36v my temps on full load are 64C idle at 39C i been running it like this over a year i been overclocking and building custom rigs since the late 1990's it's a bunch of bs about it reducing life span significantly it does decrease life span but if you know what your doing and overclock safely you have nothing to worry about i do not care what sites claim i know from over ten years of overclocking better then the bs most claim.
m
0
l
January 2, 2013 12:05:20 PM

my q9550 is on stock 2.83ghz and in bf3 it gets to 55, now i played metro 2033 and it got to 57 somehow, but normally its around 40C first 2 cores, 44C remaining 2 cores, i have vortex plus cooler therefore the difference.

i mean you are not under full load 24/7 so if you game 3-4 hours a day, I exuperate :) , you wont break your cpu :) 

best
revro
m
0
l
January 2, 2013 12:10:11 PM

bigcyco1 said:
I run my 24-7 @ 4.8GHZ 1.36v my temps on full load are 64C i been running it like this over a year i been overclocking and building custom rigs since the late 1990's it's a bunch of bs about it reducing life span significantly it does decrease life span but if you know what your doing and overclock safely you have nothing to worry about i do not care what sites claim i know from over ten years of overclocking better then the bs most claim.

Do u think overclock my gtx 670 windforce 2gb is good choice too ? I still having slightly lag in battlefield 3 in ultra settings ... I cant imagine the games come out this year ( 2013 ) can my pc handle or not ... I means I like my games looking good , not perfect . :( 

Please help me out of this question !

Is gtx 670 windforce 2gb require 4.0ghz above or not the problem of ghz ?
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 2, 2013 12:17:00 PM

Well overclocking with the 670 is different then what i am normally use to it took me about a week to fully understand just what the hell NV did lol. To be honest if you want to do it you need to understand it first http://www.overclock.net/t/1265110/the-gtx-670-overcloc... Try this tutorial, it goes over EVERYTHING needed for GTX 670 overclocking, and takes into account that each chip is different.
m
0
l
January 2, 2013 12:24:08 PM

revro said:
my q9550 is on stock 2.83ghz and in bf3 it gets to 55, now i played metro 2033 and it got to 57 somehow, but normally its around 40C first 2 cores, 44C remaining 2 cores, i have vortex plus cooler therefore the difference.

i mean you are not under full load 24/7 so if you game 3-4 hours a day, I exuperate :) , you wont break your cpu :) 

best
revro

2.83ghz ? Are u on high settings or medium ? How did u get 55 fps in bf3... Sorry to my stupid question for expert person :( 
m
0
l
January 2, 2013 3:32:21 PM

i was talking about temperatures if you read entire sentence to the end. so i ment 55 celsius grade
i get avg fps in bf3 ultra in 64player mp map 43fps, when i go to 16p maps where i play more cause i get more flag captures :)  its averaging somewhere between 53-55fps, it runs 50-60fps but i havent

but the q9550 is great intel quad core chip, i know i should OC it but with my evga 660ftw getting such results i dont know why, and i mostly play on 16p maps so as long as its over 40 i am happy :) 

best
revro
m
0
l
January 2, 2013 8:03:12 PM

revro said:
i was talking about temperatures if you read entire sentence to the end. so i ment 55 celsius grade
i get avg fps in bf3 ultra in 64player mp map 43fps, when i go to 16p maps where i play more cause i get more flag captures :)  its averaging somewhere between 53-55fps, it runs 50-60fps but i havent

but the q9550 is great intel quad core chip, i know i should OC it but with my evga 660ftw getting such results i dont know why, and i mostly play on 16p maps so as long as its over 40 i am happy :) 

best
revro

I playing 64players map will reach 59 with 4.51ghz ... but skyrim only reach 42-44...i hope that wont damage too much... thanks for your reply .
m
0
l
January 2, 2013 8:17:10 PM

now i dont know how much cpu dependent is skyrim because that one runs perfect for me. i have enb mods, high textures and it runs like 60-80fps, tough in castle draco mod i was suffering fps drops when using tfc command and flying around. card vram got to 2.55gb and fps to 10-12 cause of large area and alot of buildings in the mod.

but usually when i am in cities i am running around 60fps and in battles 45-60 upwards to 60. somehow skyrim is working for me superbly @ stock frequency of q9550

best
revro
m
0
l
January 3, 2013 6:12:14 AM

revro said:
now i dont know how much cpu dependent is skyrim because that one runs perfect for me. i have enb mods, high textures and it runs like 60-80fps, tough in castle draco mod i was suffering fps drops when using tfc command and flying around. card vram got to 2.55gb and fps to 10-12 cause of large area and alot of buildings in the mod.

but usually when i am in cities i am running around 60fps and in battles 45-60 upwards to 60. somehow skyrim is working for me superbly @ stock frequency of q9550

best
revro

I means 42-44 temperature .... beside that if i dont overclock to 4.51ghz ... i will always lag 0.1 second while running around or battle or talk but after overclocked still have little but not always . :(  Only dlc from steam
m
0
l
!