Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

High Resolution Display vs. 120Hz

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 28, 2013 4:25:16 PM

I am currently running a GTX 670 system on an HP 2311x, a 23-inch, max resolution is 1920 x 1080 @ 60Hz monitor. I was planning on upgrading my monitor and have heard good things about 120Hz refresh rate monitors being something that's a requirement in fast-paced gaming such as fps' (like BF3 and Counter-Strike). Something like BenQ's XL2420T.

But then I just watched a video from LinusTechTips and he reviewed a high resolution monitor that ran 2560 x 1440 and said he preferred a display like this because not only did it have a vibrant picture and was a fantastic gaming monitor because the high resolution did so well to hide jaggies with AA off, he said the sheer amount of pixels per inch was beneficial for having multiple docs open for multi-tasking. So I find this would be a good thing to have just to have it when I'm doing paperwork or just when comparing spreadsheets and such.

But I'm a hardcore gamer and I want to the best monitor for gaming sessions. I do play a lot of fps games on pc. Budget wise, I'd look at anything below $500. Any thoughts? Opinions? Owners of one or the other, or maybe even both?

Thanks ahead of time!

Best solution

February 28, 2013 7:16:31 PM
Share

It's really a matter of opinion, but I'd say as a hardcore gamer who enjoys FPS (especially if your super competitive) to go with 120hz. You will now extend your viewing speed at a cap of 60hz to 120hz, making things much more fluid and less strain on the eyes.

Whereas if you would rather see more pretty (at a higher tax on your gpu) go for the high resolution, It will span your view a decent amount bigger, and make for a sharper image.

Personally I never used anything above 1920x1080 and have limited experience with 120hz though. But basically what it comes down to is bigger resolution -> prettier, bigger viewing range. 120hz faster screen refresh, so your seeing more of those frames that your gpu is pumping out.
February 28, 2013 7:40:35 PM

yeah, i did a little more poking around too and noticed there werent that many 2560 x 1440 res monitors that were < 5ms response times, which I've also read were some requirements/preferences of fps gamers. I also realized that anything above 1080p was going to cost much more than a 120hz monitor. I think I browsed amazon and saw most 1440p monitors started at $600 while i could get a 120hz monitor for $250-$400.

it's a real tough decision for me haha.
Related resources
a b C Monitor
February 28, 2013 7:50:41 PM

I would not recommend 2560x1440 resolution monitor for gaming if you're not using SLI/Crossfire. To get playable framerates in most games you would have to turn down your visual settings quite a bit, which in my opinion is never worth it. Turning down the resolution instead sort of beats the purpose of having a super hi-def monitor and will look worse than native 1080p would.

The same recommendation can be extended to 120Hz as well unless you're seeing well over 60FPS in games with your current setup. If you think that having slightly more FPS makes you a better player in competitive shooters then you are gravely mistaken.

Just something to consider. Could be your money would be better spent somewhere else.
February 28, 2013 8:10:16 PM

I'd agree with Hizodge, That resolution monitor is kind of pointless in today's gaming world, We are at least a gen or two away from stably running games at that resolution on one card, it's really not needed.

120hz is also not needed if your aren't seeing over 60fps in your games! However if you are seeing it, it's def an advantage on your opponents. Be careful of response times! A lot of times companies will say like 1ms response time, but they are measuring gray to gray, and not actual lag input! Not to say i think that it is even worth looking into as input time is something hyped by REALLY picky people imo.

IMO if your looking for bigger resolutions, your probably better off snagging a second card first, or getting a second card plus 2 other monitors to run surround, which can give you a big advantage by increasing your FOV by a lot, though it is a big performance hit and not for everyone I love it!
February 28, 2013 8:32:15 PM

I'm not really that competitive, but with v-sync off I do notice considerable screen tearing on various games. Some people say they don't notice screen tearing, but I definitely notice it. Some games I do play, like BF3, will go over the 60fps, but not by much, maybe 70-80 sometimes when the there's no action, 110fps. But I do understand the richer res vs graphics now. Thanks!
March 6, 2013 11:18:12 PM

So I decided to go for Asus's VG248QE which is a 24" 144hz rated monitor. So far it's done well. My reasoning behind getting the higher refresh rate was to eliminate the screen tearing without the need for v-sync. I honestly think 144hz may be overdoing it, but it fell more into my budget vs. competitors monitors.

Just to be clear as well, my GTX 670 doesn't perform nearly as high as running even 120fps, it sometimes never reaches 100 during calm moments. But with the 144hz, it does noticeably run much much smoother. But I can now be assured other less tasking games will run just as smooth. I do play other fps titles, so BF3 isn't my only test game.

Thanks everyone for your input! It did help a lot!
March 6, 2013 11:19:08 PM

Best answer selected by Oipractechie.
!