Monitor Question 60Hz vs. 144Hz for non-gaming machine

[mikeynavy1976]

I built a machine for normal productivity use and it has a Asus Nvidia 1050Ti card. Right now it is hooked up via HDMI to a Samsung CF398 1080p curved monitor. A couple of curiosity questions:

- For non-gaming would it be very noticeable to use a 144Hz monitor vs. current 60Hz monitor?
- On most monitors I've read that the only way you can get 144Hz is via DVI...HDMI only outputs at 60Hz no matter what graphics card and monitor setup you have (HDMI standard I guess)...is this correct?

I still have a few days to return this Samsung monitor even though I'm enjoying it. Just curious if it is worth it to pay a little extra for same size (27") in a 144MHz (such as Viotech)

I'd appreciate any feedback. Thanks

 

[jdcranke07]

I built a machine for normal productivity use and it has a Asus Nvidia 1050Ti card. Right now it is hooked up via HDMI to a Samsung CF398 1080p curved monitor. A couple of curiosity questions:

- For non-gaming would it be very noticeable to use a 144Hz monitor vs. current 60Hz monitor?
- On most monitors I've read that the only way you can get 144Hz is via DVI...HDMI only outputs at 60Hz no matter what graphics card and monitor setup you have (HDMI standard I guess)...is this correct?

I still have a few days to return this Samsung monitor even though I'm enjoying it. Just curious if it is worth it to pay a little extra for same size (27") in a 144MHz (such as Viotech)

I'd appreciate any feedback. Thanks

If you are in production, then as long as you are using a program and a GPU that can produce 144FPS at a minimum you would be fine. The problem is that your current GPU is not good for that setup, especially if you plan to do anything over 1080p. If you end up keeping the 144hz monitor and have a GPU in your system that is only putting out 60FPS, then you are wasting your money and might as well be using a 60hz monitor and only getting 30FPS out of it or worse. You will not have the butter smooth performance unless you have the GPU match the capability of the monitor. Also, you should look for DisplayPort since it can handle the high FPS/Hz and high resolutions all at the same time.

 

[cryoburner]

For most non-gaming productivity uses, a 144Hz monitor wouldn't make much difference. The main advantage in higher refresh rates is that they can provide smoother motion in a 3D-rendered environment, particularly when quickly panning your view, since they are updating more times per second. For desktop use, that's not something that would typically be noticeable, and even if you're playing back video, they are almost never presented at any frame rate higher than 60fps.

Many newer 144Hz screens also support 144Hz over HDMI 2.0, or DisplayPort, connections that your graphics card likely has. Again though, unless you are gaming, a 144Hz monitor won't likely provide much benefit.

@JD He doesn't have a 144Hz screen. He was asking whether he should return his 60Hz monitor and get a 144Hz one, though that would likely be pretty unnecessary for his needs.

 

[jdcranke07]

For most non-gaming productivity uses, a 144Hz monitor wouldn't make much difference. The main advantage in higher refresh rates is that they can provide smoother motion in a 3D-rendered environment, particularly when quickly panning your view, since they are updating more times per second. For desktop use, that's not something that would typically be noticeable, and even if you're playing back video, they are almost never presented at any frame rate higher than 60fps.

Many newer 144Hz screens also support 144Hz over HDMI 2.0, or DisplayPort, connections that your graphics card likely has. Again though, unless you are gaming, a 144Hz monitor won't likely provide much benefit.

@JD He doesn't have a 144Hz screen. He was asking whether he should return his 60Hz monitor and get a 144Hz one, though that would likely be pretty unnecessary for his needs.

@cryo: My point still stands. He wouldn't benefit unless he has the GPU to push that many frames and if he was utilizing programs/games that actually will be rendering a lot in terms of 3D figures and motion. A 1050Ti won't get much higher than 60FPS at 1080p, so a 144hz panel would be the same or worse than gaming on a 60hz panel while the GPU can only push 30FPS was all I was saying.

 

[mikeynavy1976]

Thanks to you both for valuable info. I'll stick with the current GPU/monitor setup as it is plenty "snappy" with the non-gaming use it will most likely see. I do intend to play some "games" but not to the heavy extent that enthusiasts do. I couldn't find what HDMI version (or displayport version for that matter) the 1050Ti uses, but I assume it would be most current as 10-series isn't that old. Maybe in a year, if necessary, I'll upgrade. Thanks again for clarifying.

 

[cryoburner]

@cryo: My point still stands. He wouldn't benefit unless he has the GPU to push that many frames and if he was utilizing programs/games that actually will be rendering a lot in terms of 3D figures and motion. A 1050Ti won't get much higher than 60FPS at 1080p, so a 144hz panel would be the same or worse than gaming on a 60hz panel while the GPU can only push 30FPS was all I was saying.

It would depend on what you were displaying. If someone were trying to play a modern game with demanding graphics, then sure, a 1050ti would not be able to put out much more than 60fps. If, however, they were playing an older, or otherwise less demanding game, then a 1050ti could easily put out upward of 144fps.

Either way, it doesn't matter, because he isn't planning to use the screen for gaming. Again, just displaying applications on the Windows desktop is not demanding on the GPU at all, so for those purposes, the 1050ti should have no problem outputting 144fps. However, there wouldn't be much point to it, since it wouldn't be particularly noticeable for those uses, so I agree that it would be a waste.

And of course, just because it's possible to find a 144Hz screen for the same price, that doesn't necessarily mean the screen is better. If they've put more of the cost of the screen into the 144Hz parts, then they most likely had to cut corners in other areas, like features and image quality. Samsung tends to make pretty good screens, while Viotek isn't all that well-known.