120hz monitor?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
i think some of you might have misunderstood
we all know 120hz is need for 3d gaming for the shits and giggles, so lets skip that

you might say human eye can only see 60hz, but there is a huge difference between 60hz and 100hz that will definitly feel it.
i mean if you are not that serious about playing a fps game, 35+ fps is good enough for you which means you have a ok video card and a 60hz monitor

if you are seriously about fps gaming then buy the top of the line video card and tweak your setting where you get 100+fps constantly, heres where your 120hz lcd comes in.

when you swipe your mouse quickly across your screen as you are turning fast in game, you eyes will be able to pick up more things than if you have a 60hz lcd, meaning you will spot people a bit more clearly.
thats if you are really that good and have the reflex, i had a samsung 226BW, then upgraded to a acer gd235, i mean, sure lcd is a lcd, its only slightly better, but when you are at that level of gaming, every little millisecond counts, so to me, 120hz with 100+fps in game, is a huge difference, to some others? might not be as much.

i will find bf3 as unplayable at 60fps, with gtx590 and lower some settings i can get 100fps minimum as the graphic doesnt matter to me. but some people will think running it at 30fps is pretty good so i guess i can tell you there is a difference, but does it worth the money? its really up to you
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
sorry forgot to mention one thing, the acer 120hz lcd is really nice, i love it but that was almost a year ago since i bought it, at that time what was lack is that the monitor's size, however with the nvidia 3d vision 2, there are 120hz lcd with bigger size like 27inches. i dont know if that big is good for gaming or not since i never had one...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



Already been disproved.

"60hz" is one frame per 0.0166~ seconds, "120hz" is one frame per 0.00833~ seconds. Your human brain doesn't see things in frames, it analyzes light patterns and does object recognition. Your not a cyborg, your brain simply isn't capable of doing that faster then 20 to 30 times per second. Thus any still light patterns faster then 20~ish times per second is perceived as motion. At 50 times per second your at fluid motion, anything faster won't change anything. Thus 50/60/120/1000/10,000 images per second is perceived the same by the human brain. Not only that, but your human reaction time is such that it takes you much longer then 0.0166 seconds to do object recognition to even know what your looking at.

The whole "100hz for gamers!!!010101" is just a myth that started getting spread around the internet. People noticed their new shiny 120hz monitors looked cleaner and better then their old dirty 60hz monitors. The fact that 120hz screens are usually better quality then 60hz ones (other then professional displays) never crossed their minds. I could take two acer 120hz screens and put them in front of you, one at 60hz and one at 120hz, both running the same game / demo / video and you would be unable to tell them apart.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A friend has this monitor and really likes it. I have read it has pretty poor input lag compared to other more expensive 120hz monitors, and about equivalent input lag to decent 60hz. Unless your framerate is usually above 80 or so I don't think it would be worthwhile.

btw, it is easy to tell when my games slow down from the 60fps limit to 50fps. So that is total bs that you cannot tell a difference above 50. Just because your brain perceives motion does not mean all motion will be perceived the same. You are just wrong and small amounts of input lag are noticeable.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Read this: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

The eye certainly sees beyond 20-30 FPS.

The brain certainly feels a difference as well. How else can you explain why games below 50 FPS give me motion sickness, and games above 60 FPS do not.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote



if thats what you think, people who did those experiments, i wonder if they really did on a computer with a computer game and if the guy was a pro gamer thats able to distinguish the difference between 60 and 120hz. if im playing bf3 at 100+fps, i can run and jump around as if im playing cs1.6, even with the much more detailed map, spot enemies with my eyes in a direction doesnt take much more than a half of a second, because all the images came into my brain are crispy clear. and with 60hz i feel stranded, the feeling of unease as it takes longer to spot people and during a game one second is way too long already. but like i said the difference is subtle.
you said put a 120hz and a 60hz beside each other and compare, its true that ur eyes might not noticed the difference if your just standing there watching, how the comparison should've done is give a person whos been using 120hz for years a 60hz lcd and ask him for the difference.
so you cant say just because someone else's brain cant feel/see the difference doesnt mean no one else can, human are all different, if you do something for a long time, you get better at it and your body and mind will make changes for it....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l57UtSplDRU
this was done around 50-60fps because of fraps, and i've been looking for a solution that records without losing fps, because when i have 100+fps, i can do way better.

can you hear the sound of waving when an E string and a A string are slightly not in tune on the guitar? to a musician yes, to someone else prob not
best example would be watch someone play live and he adjusts the tuning knob of a string while playing because it was just very slightly out of tune, but to most of the audience, it make no difference at all...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You did make a good point about change and how our brain and body get used to different frame rates.

For example, recently I was playing Dragon Age 2 and was playing at 90+ FPS on a 120hz monitor. All of a sudden, I noticed everything looked a little bit choppy, as if it was a slide show (a mild one). I looked at my monitors info and noticed it dropped out of 120hz and was at 60 hz with 60 FPS.

It was very apparent the difference between the 2. Another odd thing was 3D vision vs normal gaming. After using 3D vision for a few months, when I played games in normal mode that I had previously played in 3D vision, my eyes felt strained. I realized what would happen was anytime I looked at a different object that was at a different depth, my eyes would refocus, because in 3D vision, objects require you to refocus if they are at different depths. My mind got used 3D vision, and changing back caused my mind to have to readjust.

I know when I first started using 120hz, I didn't notice much of a difference. It just kind of felt smoother, but nothing major. However, going from 120hz down to 60hz is very different. I notice huge differences in smoothness.

One last thing. A few years ago, I used to game at 30-40 FPS, mostly because my machine could only manage that many. I always felt motion sickness when I played, but as I got more used to a game, it would lessen.

Later, after having put together a better machine, I found that higher FPS reduced the effects of motion sickness. It also continues to lessen as I go beyond 60 FPS.

After doing some reading, one of the probable causes to this motion sickness otherwise known as simulator sickness, is input lag. As your FPS go higher, input lag is generally reduced. I don't know if it's the increased FPS, or the reduced input lag, but the difference between 60-90 FPS, on a 120hz monitor at least, is very noticeable when it comes to simulator sickness. (others feel eye strain, I usually feel nausea).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ahhhh so many posts above, sorry, I didn't read em..

I just bought a 120 hz monitor and here is my honest opinion:


120 HZ...
People will say various things about what the human eye can perceive. I notice increased smoothness up to about 80 FPS.. and I will sometimes turn my settings down from Ultra if it means getting an average FPS of 80+

Anything below 40 FPS is EXTREMELY noticeable, and uncomfortable for me to play.



Also for those thinking about 3D: I'm still trying to get into it, it does make me feel sick after 10-15 minutes. That being said I had a couple mind-blowing moments playing it, and hope I can adjust to it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'll tell u what I wouldn't have spent $700 on a monitor makn $10 an hour if it wasn't a definitive improvement over 60hz. The difference in Quakelive with 120fps on a 60hz monitor and 120fps on a 120hz monitor is unequivocally pronounced.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm currently reading this on a CRT Viewsonic p225f 20" (viewable) 3:4 monitor at 1024x768 @ 120 Hz. I bought it for $50 used (last year) after my $1000 (in 2002) 20" CRT monitor exploded.

A long time ago I lowered my resolution to make things bigger (bad eyesight) and upped the refresh rate from 60 to 120 to reduce eye strain.

I play older games because I'm more into fun/fast game play over fancy graphics. I synced up my television on (my DVI out) to watch a movie once and when I went to play a game even though the monitor was still at 120Hz it was only showing 60 fps, and I could totally tell the difference.

The biggest difference was when moving and especially turning. There was a horrible 'choppyness' when turning fast. Mind you, this is the EXACT SAME MONITOR, just something in the vsync was misconfigured.

I then configured everything correctly so that my monitor was at 120Hz while my 720p television was at (it's max) of 60Hz in clone mode (they are side by side) and watched while playing a game demo and it was totally apparent. This is not some subjective psychological thing, it's REAL.

My problem is that I've been looking for a new flat monitor that can do REAL 120Hz (not TV interpolation) and I still can't figure out what's what. Also I'm pretty sure that some of the interfaces used (DVI?,HDMI?,DisplayPort?) can't actually support over about 72Hz even at really low resolutions.

Until then I guess I'll just cruise Craigslist for old CRTs, because 60Hz at any resolution is just unacceptable for gaming. 🙁
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I notice the difference to, in the same ways you do, but it is much more noticeable going from 120hz after getting used to it, back to 60hz.

As far as monitors go, I don't know if there are any interpolated versions. That's a TV thing. Also, to make sure you can interface with it in 120hz, the monitor must either have a dual link DVI connection, or a displayport connection, otherwise you will be limited to 720p or lower resolutions.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
@palladin9479

As good as some of your information sounds, it's hard to believe any of your facts when you don't seem to know about vsync, the input lag it causes, and screen tearing.

Seriously, how do you spout all the information you're spouting as fact yet you don't even know about the input lag vsync causes?

Like gmcizzle said, vsync off is preferred to not have any input lag, but this can also result in screen tearing, but 120 hz helps eliminate tearing so you can play without tearing AND have no vsync on.

Not even gonna touch the whole brain recognizing 60 vs 120 debate, cause I think the main advantage to 120 is the vsync off+no tearing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Except ... mouse input's have zero to do with the GPU driver. What your describing is bad programming, the game itself is not processing your mouse input until after it renders a frame. A common practice in console games is to limit the input processing to only happen in-between screen refreshes. Sounds like programmers are porting this habit to PC games.

The biological fact remains, your human brain can't discern between light patters at 0.016s vs 0.0083s. There is no getting around this part.

All V-sync does is lock screen draws to monitor refreshes, nothing else, this is to prevent subsequent frames from being overlaid on a frame during mid-draw.

I've only ever seen the "input lag" your talking about in console ports or poorly programmed games. Everything else I play doesn't show this. The game is waiting on multiple frames to be processed before updating your games actions, thus while your fraps display is at 60s your actually only getting ~30 fps.

I have 2 x GTX-580 Hydros to go with my Acer 1920x1080x120 screen. I've tried BF3 @120 vs @60 and there is no difference.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Fact 1: With VSync ON you get mouse lag.
Fact 2: With VSync OFF you get screen tearing.

I don't know if tearing is fixed with 120hz monitors because i haven't tried any. But the above apply in every game i have ever tried for the last 12-13 years.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Triple buffering adds to input lag and always has because the image shown has been in queue for 1 frame. All tweak guides warn about it. Triple buffering has the advantage of smoothing out the FPS when your FPS are below your monitor's refresh rate. Without it, your FPS will always be a multiple that can divide evenly into the refresh rate. I.E. a 60hz monitor will either work at 60 FPS, 30, 20, or 15 FPS without triple buffering.

That said, a 120hz monitor does not eliminate tearing, although it is reduced. Also, vsync still increases input lag, but that too is reduced as the higher your FPS are, the less time there is between the queued frames.

EDIT: Theoretically, I'm not as sure if there really is increased lag with triple buffering. Most tweak guides mention it, but if you consider the steps used to make triple buffering happen, I'm not sure why it would increase input lag anymore than v-sync already does.

In the triple buffer system, you have the buffer that the monitor updates its image from, and alternating frames it generates the frames on which get flipped to the 1st one when ready. All you are doing with triple buffering in place of normal two buffer systems is add a frame the card can start generating the next frame on without interfering with any delay imposed by v-sync.

So basically I believe it should be noted that v-sync adds the input lag in part due to lowering FPS which triple buffering helps minimize.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
^really ive never noticed/had a problem with it, maybe its the perceived smoothness but I run it 100% of the time and can't notice any problems,

not that im an expert of triple buff but it seems to run just fine.

I understand what your saying but it was sold to me as counteracting the input lag of vsync which I also always use
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I was updating my thoughts while you posted, I think you might find my edit make more sense to what you are experiencing.

Understanding the mechanics does make me believe it probably does reduce input lag compared to v-sync without triple buffering, however, it likely still imposes more input lag than a system without v-sync on at all if it could have more FPS than the monitor can display.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Perception of input lag, image tearing, refresh rates, etc. really depends on the person, some notice it more than others. I've played competitive FPS's for many years so for me the input lag is extremely noticeable, but for some others it may not be felt at all.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hands down, yes buy a 120hz monitor. One of the best upgrades I've ever done. I guess I have sensitive eyes but I notice a huge difference in smoothness. It's twice the hz/fps per second and I notice it. I love it. Going back to 60hz drives me crazy now. I'm not really convinced it'll help you in FPS games, maybe a tiny bit in really twitchy situations. I bought a benq xl2410t, love it. The colors could use a little work, but overall the amazing non existent input lag with 120hz is simply amazing. I play a lot of Left 4 Dead 2, BFBC2, and BF3.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

The 2ms and 120Hz isn't always true. Not everyone plays FPS competitively, so the 60Hz won't be the end of the world. Input lag, aspect ratio, and contrast ratio are more important.

Here is why response time isn't crucial to a point:

Response times are not an exact science, it's more of a marketing ploy. Basically the manufacturer tests the panels by displaying colors on the screen, the short amount of time recorded to change from one color to another is the response time.

In the past response times were measured in BWB which is going from black to white and then back to black again. Fairly simple and straight forward, but it have high response time results. As a marketing ploy response times switched to GTG or grey to grey. GTG measures the smallest amount of time it takes the pixels to change from one shade of grey to another. As a result you can report lower response times. So... if company ABC makes single monitor and then markets it as two different monitors like... Model A (20ms BWB Response Time) and Model B (2ms GTG Response Time), guess which one would be flying off the shelves.

Okay, so the lowest recorded times are used to advertise response times. So what about the other recorded times? They are thrown out the window. It is quite possible there could be the following situation:

Monitor ABC: Lowest time recorded = 2ms, highest time recorded 300ms
Monitor XYZ: Lowest time recorded = 5ms, highest time recorded 250ms

Monitor ABC seems to be faster because of the 2ms response time measured. But it also peaked at 300ms which is a lot worse than Monitor XYZ. Since those high numbers are tossed out with the trash consumers don't know any better.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


The largest source of input lag would be the Human.

I'm assuming the definition your using is the delay from when you make a movement to when it's displayed on screen? Which becomes a factor of input drivers (keyboard / mouse) only. The only way your game is going to have any noticeable delay is if it's delaying processing till after current frame is rendered.

When people talk FPS they really should be using time notations, 60fps sounds small when compared to 120 until you look at the time denominations. 0.016 vs 0.0083 seconds. Inserting a 1 frame delay doesn't add anything perceptible to humans. Also render times are not static. It's really becoming a case of placebo effect.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


For some of us, there is another factor that comes into play with FPS and input lag. Simulator sickness. While it's hard to see a difference between 40 fps and 75 fps, there is a big difference on how my stomach handles it. At 40 fps, I get motion sickness within 30 mins or less. At 75 fps, I don't get motion sickness, at 30 fps, I get motion sickness in about 5-10 mins. It seems to be a scale on how fast I get motion sickness from games, going to about 75 to 90 FPS removes motion sickness from games. That's not a placebo.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom