Still worth buying 120hz?

[WixHD97]

I found today old samsung 2233rz from 2010, so i was interstend cuz im playing on 60hz for many years, thats monitor is pretty cheap 60e only, but only what worry me is how old is that monitor, so should i buy or not i dont have money for 144hz its 250e in my country? thanks in advance.

 

[feelinfroggy777]

The difference between 144hz and 120hz is not very noticeable. Once you move past 120, you start to have diminishing returns. So I would not worry about that. The only issue you may have is it is a 16:10 panel and not the more standard 16:9. So it will be more of a box and less of a rectangle. That may or not matter to you, but games should not give you too much trouble for support.

Not sure where you live, but 144hz panels have gone down a lot in price, at least in the US. May want to check your location on pcpartpicker and see if you can find a budget 144hz 16:9 panel that is a little more modern.

 

[SkyNetRising]

Samsung 2233rz - is 22" with resolution 1680x1050.
Personally I wouldn't buy a monitor with less than 1080p and less than 27".

And is your GPU capable of delivering 120fps? If 250 € is too much for a monitor, then probably gpu is not up to the task either.

 

[velocityg4]

The price is cheap enough. Color accuracy and brightness likely won’t be as good as when it was new. It’s still a big improvement in Hz. Odds are you’ll still get a few years out of it. Seems worth it to me at a quarter the new price.

 

[BlueCat57]

Sometimes I like to use logic to answer some questions.

If you can't afford a 144 hz monitor, it is unlikely that you have built a computer capable of playing games at that refresh rate. And since you are asking about an "older" monitor, I assume that you didn't build your own PC by meticulously researching every component, so a "good" monitor you can afford will be just fine.

I concur with SkyNetRising when they recommend a 1920 x 1080 monitor of less than 27". And feelingfroggy777 offers good information.

1080 because that is "HD". Check out any article on resolution to understand that specification. If you are watching "TV" on your monitor then 1080 is important. And that should be the "native" resolution.

Under 27" because at typical desktop viewing distances anything 27" and larger it "too" big. You will be able to notice all sorts of "flaws" in the image.

The "sweet spot" in monitors right now is the 23" to 24" size. You should be able to find many highly rated ones for well under $100.

I may be wrong with my initial analysis of your PC's capabilities, but most gamers would advise putting money into the graphics card to boost your frame rates rather than the monitor. On the other hand, if your monitor is "ugly" then you are not going to enjoy the visual aspects of the game.

Buy a monitor that will display a pleasing picture within your budget. The sit back and enjoy.

 

[gasaraki]

16:10 is not "a box". 16:10 was the standard before people thought 1080p was the hotness and didn't know that 1920x1200 was actually better. 16:10 have been out way before 16:9, 1080p. 16:10 and 16:9 is very close, you can't even tell the difference if you didn't know the actual resolution.

LikeBlueCat said, if you have played at 60Hz and don't notice anything wrong, 120Hz is not going to do anything for you. You need a powerful video card to run games at 120FPS. All those are pricey.

 

[velocityg4]

16:10 is not "a box". 16:10 was the standard before people thought 1080p was the hotness and didn't know that 1920x1200 was actually better. 16:10 have been out way before 16:9, 1080p. 16:10 and 16:9 is very close, you can't even tell the difference if you didn't know the actual resolution.

LikeBlueCat said, if you have played at 60Hz and don't notice anything wrong, 120Hz is not going to do anything for you. You need a powerful video card to run games at 120FPS. All those are pricey.

As I recall. What really sold 1080p was the price. Once LCD HDTV 1080p production really ramped up. 16:9 panel production became far cheaper than 16:10. Laptops and monitors with a 16:9 ratio were cheaper. Most consumers didn't notice the difference or really care. Both were widescreen. Eventually price disparity got so bad only the most stalwart individual bought 16:10. So, 16:9 won out.

 

[feelinfroggy777]

16:10 is not "a box". 16:10 was the standard before people thought 1080p was the hotness and didn't know that 1920x1200 was actually better. 16:10 have been out way before 16:9, 1080p. 16:10 and 16:9 is very close, you can't even tell the difference if you didn't know the actual resolution.

LikeBlueCat said, if you have played at 60Hz and don't notice anything wrong, 120Hz is not going to do anything for you. You need a powerful video card to run games at 120FPS. All those are pricey.

Yeah, 16:10 is more of a "box" than 16:9

 

[WixHD97]

im csgo player i have solid pc for csgo i5 2500k 8gb rams gtx1050ti, i have good fps 150-300 minimum fps around 130fps.