Is there a visible difference between 60 FPS vs 120 FPS gaming?

Not open for further replies.


Jan 23, 2013
I know that 30 fps vs 60 fps theres a huge difference but as I am gaming on a 60 hz tv I am not capable of seeing more than that.
Does worth to change my tv / monitor for a 120 hz one or I wouldn't see any difference?



Feb 7, 2013
There is one catch however.. In order to get 120fps@120hz you need ALOT more GPU power than 120fps@60hz. When you run a game at 120hz it uses more gpu power.


Sep 4, 2012
In gaming not really. especially if your monitor only has 60Hz.
The human eye cannot descern more then approx~76 frames a second...

The only advantage would be highly noticed while watching sports... or things like that. 120Hz tvs are common for sports because it provides a smoother appearence, but as i said before, the human eye really cant see more then 76~ FPS. also, if you are gaming, and using a computer, 120 is overkill.. just lock in V-Sync, and save your GPU the work. (longer lastsing GPU and coolertemps overall in your case. if you are using a console... they barely get 60FPS in most games, trying to pull 120 out of it would be unreasonable of the system.

A lot of people can tell the difference in high-paced games such as some FPS games. The human eye is capable of seeing much more than 76FPS. Not every individual can, but it's still common. So, no, 120Hz is not overkill for gaming. Furthermore, it's also worth stating that most supposedly 120Hz TVs are not even truly 120Hz, but 60Hz with a black flash between refreshes.


Jan 15, 2012
Me, personally I cannot see any difference, even between 40 and 60 fps. Can I FEEL the difference between the two when I'm playing? Yes. I don't think many people will see any difference between 40 and 60 fps in a blind viewing test. However, 60 fps feel more fluid when playing and that you may notice.

Changing to a 120Hz display might help make things smoother for you, but it might not too. You need to have hardware capable of getting a steady FPS over 60 and especially over 120 for the best experience and that's also assuming that you can tell the difference. Not everyone can. So, the best that I can say is that it might help. It most certainly isn't necessary for any game, at least unless you're playing in 3D.

Like whyso said, you're probably not going to see the difference as much as you'll feel it.
My eyes are terrible so I win by not having to crank out as many fps to be happy...

Oh, OP - think most folks say that 120Hz is a noticable change from 60 but as said, you need hella hardware to get there on ultra setting in the current crop of games. That's why I bury my head in the sand and tell myself how sweet 1080, 60fps is :)



You will never get a for certain answer to this because everyone is different.

For the most part, 60fps seems to be the sweet spot as it looks smooth, feels smooth and is within the reach of most video cards with the right settings.

A lot of people can tell the difference in high-paced games such as some FPS games. The human eye is capable of seeing much more than 76FPS. Not every individual can, but it's still common. So, no, 120Hz is not overkill for gaming. Furthermore, it's also worth stating that most supposedly 120Hz TVs are not even truly 120Hz, but 60Hz with a black flash between refreshes.
For real?(honest question) Most TV's I have seen just seem to interpolate the extra frames. It almost gives it a over-smooth quality on some content.



"^^He nailed it, a 60Hz monitor can only display 60 frames on the screen per second because the screen displays one frame per refresh (or Hz). However it may "feel" smoother due to latency decreases."

Did you even bother to read the whole post?

Yes you can tell the difference even with a 60 hz monitor, thanks to lower latency/smoother animations.

I have a 60hz monitor, and find that capping my fps to 75 results in a significantly better experience.



one other thing besides what your eyes can see, is when a comp has weak inards but can show 30fps it wont throw in as much "eye candy" like particle effects and ssao and bloom and whatnot. i checked this on a 7770. went igp and i got 18fps. playable but not pretty. very litle effects. went to a 7770 and ultra i got 30fps and very little effects. went to low @720p andgot 80fps and effects were all over the place! very nice. this was on hitman absolution. so in short: no effects and high fps or lotsa effects and a slow fps.


There is always so much misinformation in these threads. You eyes don't see in frames and is very situational. But I'd always suggest higher res vs 120hz but this is a personal opinion; 60fps is enough. Black flashes causes strobing and more jerkiness, those "120hz" tvs frame blend. Video editors can do the same kind of frame blending, although better quality, and you still get a robotic look.


Aug 31, 2012
I use a 120Hz panel and put my vote down for 'meh sort of'. In games, you can certainly tell the difference is there, but its nothing like the difference between say 30 and 60, just don't feel its that significant, don't miss it if a game drops to 60.

An undeniable difference however is responsiveness, it just feels better, even at 60FPS, you also don't get anywhere near the amount of tearing with a 60Hz monitor. Overall its nice to have but if you have enough GPU power to be pushing 120FPS consistently then I think its better used on a higher res or 3D.
I pretty much experience it the way cookybiscuit explained.

I don't see a huge difference, though I do see a difference, but its subtle. However, the responsiveness is huge. I get simulator sickness, which causes me to get nauseated at lower FPS. At 30 it is awful, at 60, it isn't so bad, and I can game about 30-60 mins in 1st person, but if I get to 80+ FPS on a 120hz monitor, I no longer get nauseated.

Another benefit is v-sync does not hurt performance nearly as much as on a 60hz monitor.

But as cookybiscuit mentioned, the best part is 3D Vision. 3D vision brings a game to life. I'll play a game in DX9 with medium settings in 3D over DX11 maxed out any day of the week. There is no comparison, but I have to take breaks after 30-60 mins. due to my simulator sickness.

That is what I mean by it feels more responsive. The time between moving your mouse and the display updating is much faster.

You do see a common answer, one that is not subjective, as it is a fact. 120FPS lowers latency, as it takes half as long to render and display a frame. That lower latency is what most people here have noted. Without v-sync, even 200 FPS does come across as a bit lower latency, as those partial images bring you updates faster than if they were ignored, or forced to wait for the next refresh.
If you can't detect the 60Hz latency to start with, tho, only you can decide if it's worth the cost to move up to a system capable of rendering 120Hz minimums. If you do move up, and like what you see/feel, then you're kinda stuck there in the gaming hardware stratosphere since it would be hard to go back to 60. Kinda like watching VHS after years spent watching DVDs - you're probably not going to like it.



joe blow doesnt know this...ask anyone off the street to look at a 32" ips and play avatar the movie at 200fps.. hes not concerned with fps or anything...just smoothness. BUT ask a tech guy that has gamed on a crt for years then move to a lcd. big difference.

just saying...subjective matter.

Not open for further replies.