What is the appeal of 120Hz?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for thom_maytees
thom_maytees

3668

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 thom_maytees
Member since 2010 • 3668 Posts

I am told that gamers prefer the 120 Hz refresh rate over 60 Hz in playing PC games. What is about 120 Hz that makes it appealing for gaming?

Avatar image for the_bi99man
the_bi99man

11465

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#2 the_bi99man
Member since 2004 • 11465 Posts

It's just a smoother picture because of the higher framerate. Takes a beast of a system to run modern games even close to that, though, and alot of monitors can't even do it. Either way, I think it's overkill, because a solid 60fps is already beautifully smooth.

Avatar image for Masenkoe
Masenkoe

4897

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#3 Masenkoe
Member since 2007 • 4897 Posts

DAt smooth

Avatar image for kraken2109
kraken2109

13271

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 kraken2109
Member since 2009 • 13271 Posts

Faster response, next to no input lag, next to no screen tearing.

Avatar image for Lox_Cropek
Lox_Cropek

3555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 0

#5 Lox_Cropek
Member since 2008 • 3555 Posts

Faster response, next to no input lag, next to no screen tearing.

kraken2109

There's still screen tearing.

Also, it's so smooth!!

Avatar image for thphaca
thphaca

202

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#6 thphaca
Member since 2005 • 202 Posts

If you find yourself playing games at a framerate of over 120fps, it's incredibly smooth and responsive. With FPS games it makes a huge difference at times, but not so much nowadays as it did with oldschool twitch-shooters like Q3. Even 85hz is pretty good, but 120 will be kinda "dreamy smooth." So smooth that your eyes will generate it's own motion blur like in real life, yet it even seems smoother than real life..

The only catch is that the game needs to update physics at over 60fps. It's not uncommon for some to only render physics at 60fps on older titles. There used to be a server-side command for that. It's probably autoamated nowadays.

Avatar image for -Unreal-
-Unreal-

24650

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 1

#7 -Unreal-
Member since 2004 • 24650 Posts

You can turn v-sync off and avoid screen tearing.

It's a requirement for good 3D.

Avatar image for thom_maytees
thom_maytees

3668

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 thom_maytees
Member since 2010 • 3668 Posts

Thanks for the repsonses. What is "screen tearing" and what does it looks like (through an image)?

Avatar image for gfmetal
gfmetal

94

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 gfmetal
Member since 2003 • 94 Posts

It's a requirement for good 3D.

-Unreal-

that was my first thought. 3d needs it

Avatar image for Lox_Cropek
Lox_Cropek

3555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 0

#10 Lox_Cropek
Member since 2008 • 3555 Posts

Thanks for the repsonses. What is "screen tearing" and what does it looks like (through an image)?

thom_maytees

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_tearing

Basically is when the display and the GPU are not synchronized.

To avoid it, you use Vsync, which synchronizes the frames produced by the GPU with the refresh rate from the monitor.

Avatar image for deactivated-59b71619573a1
deactivated-59b71619573a1

38222

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 deactivated-59b71619573a1
Member since 2007 • 38222 Posts

Thanks for the repsonses. What is "screen tearing" and what does it looks like (through an image)?

thom_maytees

This

capture7.png

That line in his face or chopped section that you see, the bottom of the frame doesn't line up with the top thefore it's tearing

Avatar image for YoshiYogurt
YoshiYogurt

6008

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 YoshiYogurt
Member since 2010 • 6008 Posts
3D and getting 80+ fps in some games and 120fps in old games.
Avatar image for JigglyWiggly_
JigglyWiggly_

24625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#13 JigglyWiggly_
Member since 2009 • 24625 Posts
It makes it way smoother great for fast fps like quake live pretty much everyone uses one or a CRT
Avatar image for YoshiYogurt
YoshiYogurt

6008

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 YoshiYogurt
Member since 2010 • 6008 Posts
[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]It makes it way smoother great for fast fps like quake live pretty much everyone uses one or a CRT

Can you explain the appeal of CRTs for gaming?
Avatar image for NamelessPlayer
NamelessPlayer

7729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 NamelessPlayer
Member since 2004 • 7729 Posts
Can you explain the appeal of CRTs for gaming?YoshiYogurt
-No input lag (even the best LCDs have some added input lag) -No native resolutions to rescale to (more relevant for retrogaming, but it does mean you can drop the resolution to keep performance up and not have to deal with a badly-scaled image) -High refresh rates (up to 160 Hz on 21" monitors, depending on resolution) -Perfect viewing angles (more relevant to TrackIR users or anyone who likes to have other people watch or play in the same room) I still think CRTs make the best gaming monitors, bulk be damned, but finding a 21" or larger model (like the renowned Sony GDM-FW900) for a reasonable price and in working condition can be challenging. Fortunately, I have a working Sun GDM-5410 (FD Trinitron G1) sitting in front of me right now, and it'll stay there until it fails or I find a working FW900 I can afford.
Avatar image for thphaca
thphaca

202

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#16 thphaca
Member since 2005 • 202 Posts

+1 to NamelessPlayer on CRTs

When I first started gaming on LCDs.. I couldn't. It felt unbarably choppy and looked terrible on non-native resolutions. It still does, but I've adapted and I never change my resolution now. I find that the colors are more vibrant on LCDs, but there's infinitely more shades of contrast on CRTs.

Avatar image for JigglyWiggly_
JigglyWiggly_

24625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#17 JigglyWiggly_
Member since 2009 • 24625 Posts

+1 to NamelessPlayer on CRTs

When I first started gaming on LCDs.. I couldn't. It felt unbarably choppy and looked terrible on non-native resolutions. It still does, but I've adapted and I never change my resolution now. I find that the colors are more vibrant on LCDs, but there's infinitely more shades of contrast on CRTs.

thphaca

i play at 1024x768 at 122hz on my asus vg236h
runs great.
Sure it doesn't look pretty, but most QL players also play at low res'z like 800x600 and 1024x768 even on LCD'z.

Feels better imo than 1920x1080

There is no real reason to use a CRT anymore with these nice 120hz displays. Get dat smoothness. And the input lag I can't tell, I've used CRT displays and they just suck for everything that isn't gaming. They might do it maybe a 1% better, but I highly doubt it would change your accuracies. Not to mention in every tourny they use 120hz lcds.


however for old school gaming like PS2 and stuff, you pretty much want a 480p lcd or a tube tv, as I am sure every1 here already knows. Thankfulyl I have a 480p LCD spare, they are so rare now ;x

Avatar image for NamelessPlayer
NamelessPlayer

7729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 NamelessPlayer
Member since 2004 • 7729 Posts
Too bad all those 120 Hz LCDs are TN, so the viewing angles and color accuracy suck compared to a CRT monitor in top shape. It could be argued that those 120 Hz TN LCDs suck for everything that isn't gaming as well because of that, far moreso than a good CRT monitor. Oh, yeah, and 1920x1080 max resolution on all of them. Screw that, I expect 1920x1200 at minimum, both directions. The Sony GDM-FW900 can pull off 1920x1200 at 100 Hz with no input lag and perfect viewing angles, so I'd expect no less. 120 Hz IPS/PLS/AFFS+ with 1920x1200 res or greater, on the other hand? Now we'd be getting somewhere for an all-around use monitor, at least to the point where I'd even think about replacing my CRTs.
Avatar image for JigglyWiggly_
JigglyWiggly_

24625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#19 JigglyWiggly_
Member since 2009 • 24625 Posts
[QUOTE="NamelessPlayer"]Too bad all those 120 Hz LCDs are TN, so the viewing angles and color accuracy suck compared to a CRT monitor in top shape. It could be argued that those 120 Hz TN LCDs suck for everything that isn't gaming as well because of that, far moreso than a good CRT monitor. Oh, yeah, and 1920x1080 max resolution on all of them. Screw that, I expect 1920x1200 at minimum, both directions. The Sony GDM-FW900 can pull off 1920x1200 at 100 Hz with no input lag and perfect viewing angles, so I'd expect no less. 120 Hz IPS/PLS/AFFS+ with 1920x1200 res or greater, on the other hand? Now we'd be getting somewhere for an all-around use monitor, at least to the point where I'd even think about replacing my CRTs.

uh have fun w/ more input lag and moar ghosting also what ru talking about the asus vg236h has good color reproduction, is 430 nits which is really bright, and good contrast. http://www.anandtech.com/show/3842/asus-vg236h-review-our-first-look-at-120hz/7