Does a 144hz Display makes sense for 60fps gaming?

Cinerir

Reputable
May 21, 2014
33
0
4,540
2
Hi all.

I am currently thinking about buying a new Display. And this one : Asus VG248QE, seems cool.
Has a rather low reaction time. But it has 144hz, and I won't be playing with that much fps, because then my PC will probably go up in flames.

So my question is: Does it make even the slightest sense to play with 60 fps on a 144hz display? Will it give me disadvantages?

I expect my PC to be able to run with enough fps at normal work, like office and photoshop, but gaming is probably out of reach.
 
people would say that at 60 fps exact, the difference between a 60hx and 144hz monitor is hard to differentiate, but above 60 fps, and then there will be visible differences between 2 monitors so if you know your pc can only hit 60 fps max, then a 60hz monitor would be fine, but if you know that your pc can hit above 60fps, then a 144hz monitor would be the way to go
 

Cinerir

Reputable
May 21, 2014
33
0
4,540
2


Well....I do think my PC can go above 60fps...but then I will have serious heat problems, I think.

I have an i7-3770k and 2x GTX780 SLI.

So will my gaming experience with 60fps be the same as now (except with better reaction times) and office work will be smoother?
 


Oh will sli 780 you will definitely be hitting more than 60fps, like 80-90fps on modern games maybe, so I'd say you would be able to notice a difference between a 144hz monitor and a 60hz monitor, so you would be able to take advantage of the 144hz monitor, then again, you say you have heat problems, but if you can hit more than 60 fps on games, go for a 144hz monitor, but if you only want to play a 60 fps ish, then you won't notice the difference between a 60 hz monitor and a 144hz monitor at that frame rate
 

VincentP

Distinguished
If you use the computer mostly for games, the 144Hz monitor will give you less motion blur and less input lag.
If you use the computer mostly for other applications, you are better to choose a monitor with a higher resolution and better image quality. Examples are the Asus PB278Q and Dell U2713HM.
 

Msi_Junu

Reputable
Sep 22, 2014
89
0
4,630
0
I find it funny how you say that gaming would be out of reach and you have SLI GTX780's......You should be able to run anything at 60fps and depending on the game a lot more the that. Your PC would go up in flames you say?? Hehehe unless you have bad thermals and like no fans or something I can see it going up in flames.

Correct me if I'm wrong but maybe you think the 144hz monitor would produce more heat at higher then 60fps to your PC internals or? I'm curious to know why you think you would experience heat problems if you ran things at higher then 60fps?

I personally went for 32" Sony TV running at native 1080p 60hz and 32ms of response. I went for bigger size and resolution rather then lower input lag and refresh rate. Since I mostly play sim racing games I can deal with the higher input lag because I believe its not all that relevant to racing games but more to first person shooters and twitchy games like that. I do notice some picture tear "occasionally" when watching my races in camera moving replay mode because of the higher fps to refresh rate i guess but really no bother. The biggest reason I went for tv's though is the picture quality. I believe it is better on tv's then monitors because monitors produce ashy washed out colors something I cant stand.

Anyways its nice to have 120hz tv's or 144hz monitors and I wanted to go for something like that for the longest time but hard to find it on 32" tv's and at the same time have quality picture.
 

VincentP

Distinguished


If you see a TV specified above 60 Hz, this is just an interpolated value. The actual input is 50 Hz or 60 Hz and the TV then calculates frames to insert in the middle. This helps reduce blur for watching sports but really isn't suited to games.

Cheap monitors have poor color. A good monitor has much better color than a TV.
TVs typically have slow response times leading to ghosting.
The response time also contributes to input lag, but this made far worse by the TV circuitry to accept many different types of video input and process this.
Monitors also typically have smaller pixel pitch so that you can sit closer and the image will still be clear. 1920x1080 is a good resolution for monitors 21 to 24 inches. 2560 x 1440 is a good resolution for monitors 27 to 32 inches.
TVs don't make very good computer monitors.
 

Msi_Junu

Reputable
Sep 22, 2014
89
0
4,630
0
I noticed I have a thing called LED Motion Mode on my tv that supposedly boosts it to 120hz. It is really nice and unique but picture is way too dark in that mode and you cant up the brightness enough in that mode to find use of it - that plus like you said its probably only interpolated. I use it at the normal 60hz.

I have a Sony W650A 32". Maybe I'm doubting my self but this tv might as well be called a tv/monitor. It is reviewed by many as pretty much a top of the line 32" tv you can buy when it comes to picture quality, dark levels, contrast, bright room performance etc. You can literally set this tv in the brightest room and still get great picture. It has 32ms of response time (which is pretty much the lowest you can go with a tv) in game mode. I know its not very good but neither horrible.

To be honest this tv has very good color - sharp, crisp and looks like any monitor at windows screen and if not exact then pretty darn close. It also has 12bit color production or something like that.

I've been playing a game recently called The Evil Within and its quite something just plain eye candy. Been playing it in game mode which has the Black Corrector on Off, Adv. Contrast Enhancer on Off, Detail Enhancer on Low, and Edge Enhancer on Medium as well as dozen other settings like Reality Creation for adjusting fineness and noise for realistic picture.

It also has this thing called Auto Light Limiter which controls the backlight to reduce excessive brightness which is great for regular surfing on the web.

The only thing bad about this tv is the price. It is expensive at around 550 retail for 32". Got it for 450 on sale but its been discontinued shortly after I bought it. Expense I guess.....

Edit: I have to say though when playing The Evil Within at 60fps its smooth but the picture does feel like its trying to catch up a bit unlike at 30fps I guess its the input laq or maybe I wouldn't have this issue with native 120hz....I have to say though the game has a cinema feel to it and so I keep it at 30fps but then again I could be full of sh*t. :p

Don't have none of this in sim racing games even at 120fps plus

IGN did a comparison test recently between XboxOne, PS4 and PC for Assassins Creed Unity and I believe the PC version had best graphics but you can definitely tell the washed out color on the PC by the monitor I presume. Whether or not IGN is full of sh*t too and used a cheap monitor we would probably never know
 

VincentP

Distinguished


I'm glad you are happy with the screen you are using, but I wouldn't encourage others to do the same.
Brightness is rarely a problem for TVs or monitors. Most people rarely want to use it in a brightly lit room, so a brightness setting of 50% is pretty normal.
Minimum black level is usually more of a problem. Traditionally Plasma TVs excelled at this but some LED/LCD TVs aren't too bad.
Contrast is usually pretty poor on a TV though. Dark shades tend to be crushed and detail is lost.

Typical computer monitors have 8 bit color or 6 bit + FRC.
Professional monitors have 10 bit colour or 8 bit + FRC, but to actually take advantage of this you need a work station graphics card and specialised software.
Your TV probably has the same colour depth as a typical monitor, but where it suffers is in deviation from the correct gamma and color gamut. It probably looks fine in your lounge room, which is what it was designed for but put it next to a good IPS monitor and you will notice the difference.

Typical response times for IPS monitors are around 5ms to 8ms. TN monitors are often 2ms. This is also just part of the input lag. The response time of the TV may be 32ms, but the total input lag will be over 60ms. At 60 FPS, this is more than 3 frames delay.

The benefit you do get from using a TV as a display is large screen for a low price. $550 may be expensive compared to a typical 24 inch monitor, but it is cheap when compared to a decent 32 inch monitor, or even a good 27 inch monitor. Unless you are sitting on the couch watching it from a distance though, you are better to buy a good computer monitor.
 

Msi_Junu

Reputable
Sep 22, 2014
89
0
4,630
0
I'm sure people won't find this an encouragement.

I can up the black and contrast in game mode from off, to low, medium and high as well as detail and edge enhancer but don't know how relevent it is to input lag.

I have my tv in the bedroom just thought the brightness part might have some relevance. I actually have 2 more of these in triple screen and I obviously have it further away from view then would have 27" monitors.

This is one of those tv's that comes pre calibrated out of the box so I'm sure it has correct gamma and so forth like said by critics. It's nice when manufacturer's actually take time in calibrating your tv because it shows that they care at least in admiration for the product because this is one good looking tv. The bezel is thinner then my index finger another big reason I went for this tv.....
 

Msi_Junu

Reputable
Sep 22, 2014
89
0
4,630
0
For single player story driven games like Uncharted and The Last of Us as well as movies plasma is king. Its just amazing how much better plasmas are next to led's when it comes to black level and lushness of color. I doubt they will ever be toped by any led at least till the OLED's come out at a reasonable price. It's a shame they don't make them anymore.....
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS