120Hz for non-FPS gaming?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

Afterglo

Honorable
Aug 10, 2012
14
0
10,510
Just finished my build, and now I'm looking to top it off with a new 23"-27" 1920x1080 LCD monitor for MMO/RPG/RTS gaming and general web browsing. I'm trying to decide if a 120Hz monitor is worth the premium or not for my type of gaming, which is generally not FPS or racing games. My budget is rather low, and I am looking at the Samsung S23A700D for ~$380, which is really pushing my wallet, but if it is worthwhile I could manage. It is also worth noting that I am not interested in 3D gaming in the least, and I am aware the Samsung only does 3D with AMD cards. I've been reading endlessly conflicting information over the last few days, and I really need to make a decision soon. Any help is really appreciated, really torn at this point. Taking into consideration that I am running a single GTX 670, and that I play mostly MMO/RPG/RTS games, would the 120Hz be a noticeable improvement and really be worth the increased cost?

Samsung 120Hz:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001537&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=

Asus 60Hz:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236174
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
not just 3d gaming to think about. you also have movies, some web content, etc. In gaming the 120Hz monitors just make everything run smoother. Apps on screen will "drag" nice. it's just a better overall feel. If you have to make a purchase why not cover all ground ? and before somebody chimes in and says 60Hz is all you need or that's all the human eye can see....... NUTZ!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
not worth it. I don't see a point in a 120hz monitor even in FPS games since you really don't get that much of a advantage... And your rig also has to be able to run the game above 60 fps (kind of hard even with a GTX 670 at 1080p with all the bells and whistles turned on)

only tangible benefit for 120hz is for 3D (to achieve 60 fps in each eye)

Smoother doesn't really mean much... The TVs make it smoother since it inserts frames in between the pre-rendered frames since all video content is set at 24/30/60 fps. (which it doesn't do for games)...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Some argue that there is a noticeable difference, others do not. I mainly play FPS games and have a 60Hz LED and love it.

If you do not care about getting maximum fps (frames per second) then 60Hz is fine. With Vsync on it will stay at 60fps in which case a 120Hz display might as well be a 60Hz (from what I understand).

I would go check out two types of displays at some store to see the differences (if any). It boils down to how how much you really care.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks everyone. Well, before I posted this thread I was leaning towards 120Hz, but you guys are making me think I'd be better off with a 60Hz.. I still have time to think it over though so if anyone has any other thoughts I could really use some more input.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


The monitors you're looking at for 120hz also includes 3D glasses and other ***.

a 120hz monitor usually costs around $300.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Can you elaborate? Not that I think you're lying, I'm just curious as to why it wouldn't do 120Hz.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Traditional 3d (the type you see with home theatre TV's) works at 60hz. Both the left and right image for is sent togther. The TV then splits the image and displays them serperately. Even though the panel is operating at 120hz the initial link between the gpu and the TV is agreed at 60hz.

Nvidia uses a seqential method where the left image is sent, then the right one. This means the link is negotiated at 120 hz between the monitor and the GPU. The extra bandwidth is why it requires dual link DVI cables and why it can do 120hz in 2d mode.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

i5-3570k
Asus p8z77 V
GTX 670
8gb 1600 DDR3 Corsair Vengeance LP
128gb samsung ssd
1 TB 7200 rpm Seagate Storage Drive
Seasonic X750

EDIT: PsyKhiqZero:
Traditional 3d (the type you see with home theatre TV's) works at 60hz. Both the left and right image for is sent togther. The TV then splits the image and displays them serperately. Even though the panel is operating at 120hz the initial link between the gpu and the TV is agreed at 60hz.

Nvidia uses a seqential method where the left image is sent, then the right one. This means the link is negotiated at 120 hz between the monitor and the GPU. The extra bandwidth is why it requires dual link DVI cables and why it can do 120hz in 2d mode.
Click to expand...
Forgive me if this is irrelevant, but I've read that the Samsung monitor I listed uses dual link DVI to support that bandwidth. Does that not mean that it too can operate at true 120Hz in 2d?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpFKxTrF3K8&feature=player_detailpage#t=96s It appears in this test that it is displaying at 120Hz, but I could be completely wrong.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The 120hz is useful in most 1st person or over the shoulder games that are controlled by mouse, from my experience.

Do you ever notice yourself feeling headaches, eye strain or nausea when playing games? I used to, and a lot of people do to some extend. I have learned over the past few years that this nausea was a result of low FPS. At 30-40 FPS, I get motion sickness badly. I found at 60 FPS, the nausea is tolerable, but I still get it after 30-45 mins. Last year, I have learned that it goes away completely when I reach 80-90 FPS with a 120hz monitor. It's possible that without v-sync, it would have gone away without the 120hz monitor (never test this), but even if it did, that means I have to live with screen tearing, which I don't like. I have realized it's not actually the FPS causing the motion sickness, but the latency, because if I'm not controlling the action, I don't experience any motion sickness (cut scenes or other people playing).

I don't think I could ever go back to 60hz now. As far as the smoothness, it is there, and seen quite clearly if you spin around fast, but most the time I didn't notice a big difference going up to 120hz, until I got used to it. Now 60hz feels a little choppy in comparison.

Then there is 3D Vision, which I got mostly just to experiment with, but learned it's completely awesome. I generally use it any chance I get. Unfortunately, this puts my max FPS at 60 FPS, which brings back mild nausea, and 30-45min sessions.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You dont understand bigmack. 3d or not the computer will only see the monitor at 60hz. Thats all the speed it needs as far as the gpu is concerned. The gpu doesnt know that the panel can do 120. You would need a special driver which would combine 2 frames before sending them out. In a 2d enviroment that would introduce unwanted latency.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


That's completely untrue unless using HDMI and frame packing. With displayport or dual-link DVI, the input changes from 60 to 120hz, causing the monitor to update the image 120 times per second. Then it's just up to the GPU to generate more than 60 FPS for the monitor to take advantage of it's 120hz.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

It's this smoothness that interests me, but like I said most games I play are third-person RPG's/MMO's, with the occasional RTS so I'm not sure if the difference would justify the extra money spent or not. I don't really get that motion sickness, so that's not really an issue for me.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


You didn't answer the first question. Do you ever experience symptoms of motion sickness? If so, you may find it helps more than just how it looks.

FPS gamers tend to make a big deal of the 120hz, but from my experience, it's quite helpful in any 1st person or over the shoulder game that has you control your view with the mouse, which most MMO's and RPG's do. The isometric view gains the least by 120hz, but I noticed that Diablo 3 felt quite a bit smoother on 120hz than 60 (the in game v-sync capped FPS AT 60, comparing it to the Nvidia control panel forced v-sync was much smoother to me, though this may be because I'm used to 120hz now).

Just be aware, that even though a lot of people who have never used 3D Vision say it's a gimmick and junk, there is a very high chance you'll love it if you try it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


The monitor linked is an odd monitor, but it does have a DL-DVI connection. What is really odd about it is that it uses AMD HD3D but through the DL-DVI connection.

Don't be confused by the details section of newegg, they often do not list the specifics about a connection. The picture shows clearly that it does have a DL-DVI-D hookup. I also have seen a few posts on this specific monitor, which I learned that it supports HD3D through DL-DVI-D, unlike any other HD3D I've ever heard of and goes against all the "what is needed for HD3D" requirement lists.

Edit: I realize that the picture doesn't really say much, as 60hz monitor use the same connections, as I can see on my old 60hz monitors, but if you read the reviews on the monitor, you'll learn that it is a DL-DVI connection. I am not sure about the cable, however.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


You'll find many of the newer 120hz/HD3D monitors now come with displayport, which also will work as 120hz monitors. However, Samsung 700 model is unusual with it's DL-DVI connection. My monitor is also pretty unusual. It had DL-DVI and HDMI 1.4a which works with both brands (DVI works with Nvidia, HDMI works with AMD).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

I did say that I don't experience motion sickness symptoms if that's what you mean. But if I were to go with the 120Hz, even though I don't think I would be interested in 3d, but if I was.. How would this monitor compare to the Samsung?

Asus:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236092

Samsung:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001537&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=

The only differences I've noticed is the Samsung has LED backlighting and the Asus does not, plus the $20 difference, and the supposed 1,000:1 (Samsung) vs. 100,000:1 contrast ratio difference.

Edit: If someone can link a comparable or decent 120hz with decent response time for around $300, that would be even better. I'm just not finding that many options.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I personally would advice to go with the ASUS, even though I don't know which is truly best in 120hz. Unless you've used 3D Vision and know you don't like it, there is a good chance you will after trying it. I personally love it. Keep in mind, that is the old 3D Vision standard without lightboost. That means it'll be darker than their 27" 3D Vision 2 monitor: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236206
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Yeah I read that about that particular monitor also. That was actually the first one I looked at because it's around $265 on Tiger Direct. At the moment I am leaning towards the Asus just for the possible 3D with my GTX 670, but the Samsung is still on the back of my mind too.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Having used a 120hz monitor for quite some time now, it's the ASUS one listed in this thread, all i can say it's worth it.

It's mostly noticeable in fast moving games obviously, like FPS and Racing. Might the smoothness transcends into all application in some form or another. Not to mention your also, albeit slightly, reducing the perceptive lag due to the increase in frames.

You also have a machine that's capable of pushing over 60fps in many games, even BF3 for example.

As for comparing the monitors, the Acer is one of the first generation 120hz monitors, not much point getting on so old in the tech now. The ASUS is newer, but now with the nvidia 3d vision 2.0, if you can afford on of those monitors that'd be the best scenario. However it has the receiver for 3d built thus increasing the price.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom