1080p @ 120hz vs 1440p/1600p @ 60hz for FPS games

[Nvidiaguy07]

The other thing to consider is that you can basically duplicate what the higher resolution would look like, to an extent, by simply turning up AA and Anisotropic filtering. Personally I would rather have a smoother lower rez game with AA and Anisotropic filtering than a super high res game with AA and Anisotropic filtering turned down super low. That's just me though.

Also as mentioned above the higher your resolution gets, the more beefy your GPU will have to be in order to compensate.

Thought it might look a little smoother, theres no way to duplicate those extra pixels, and the ability to see how clear the battlefield is. I know its not as dramatic difference, but 720p vs 1080p gaming is like night and day. Id imagine going from 1080 to 1440 isnt as dramatic, but still very noticeable.

 

[BD231]

The only draw back is jaggies while browsing the net at 1080p resolutions or lower, going to a lower res monitor that's made for gaming will increase detail and color vibrancy. If you do more reading than you do gaming extra pixels is the way to go, if you do more gaming/watching video than you do reading or you're half and half on usage then I'd forgo the space and get a 120hz monitor. Using a GTX 560 @ 1440p isn't going to be pretty on the more demanding titles and whatever benifit you get from added pixels is negated by having to drop details. Poor performance will make a game look far worse than 1080p over 1440p.

 

[Pia]

Ideally you want 85-120fps just to avoid the worst visual problems like blurring backgrounds when you turn around fast. Some competitive gamers crank arcade style games like Quake up to 180fps just to smooth out any bumps in the programs and give themselves that extra edge over the competition. However, in each the case the game itself has to be designed for 60fps to begin with for it to have the maximum benefit.

Quake is not an "arcade style" game in any way, and there is no "smoothness" benefit from having a higher minimum FPS than your display can handle. The actual reason some people pushed towards ludicrous FPS numbers in Quake was that in Quake the game physics were affected by the framerate. Players with certain FPS values could jump higher, etc.

http://www.funender.com/quake/articles/fps.html

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Quake is not an "arcade style" game in any way, and there is no "smoothness" benefit from having a higher minimum FPS than your display can handle. The actual reason some people pushed towards ludicrous FPS numbers in Quake was that in Quake the game physics were affected by the framerate. Players with certain FPS values could jump higher, etc.

http://www.funender.com/quake/articles/fps.html

I believe the sweet spots were 33, 66, 85, 125, 250, and 333. I know that the physics bugs extended to COD1 - COD2. Everyone know that you move faster and jump higher at 125fps.

 

[lavaheadache]

Best thing for a game for smoothness is for your frame rate to be locked to your refresh rate (or derivative).

I typically just dismiss anyone who says they went from 60 Hz/fps to 120 Hz/fps and noticed a difference, because it's always bullshit.

There's a reason movies are 24fps, and it ain't because people like them choppy.

yeah ok, lol.

there is simply no comparison of fluidity between 60hz and 120hz lcds.

Maybe you should try using them side by side. I have a asus vg236h and dell u3011 on my desk and everytime I switch back to the 120hz I am mezmerized by the smoothness.

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

yeah ok, lol.

there is simply no comparison of fluidity between 60hz and 120hz lcds.

Maybe you should try using them side by side. I have a asus vg236h and dell u3011 on my desk and everytime I switch back to the 120hz I am mezmerized by the smoothness.

what games do you play that you notice the smoothness? That dell series is something id be looking at if i upgraded(sidegraded) to IPS.

And how much better do those games look with the higher res compared to 1080p?

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Depending on the size of the monitor the pixel density is not going to be that much different so they will look basically the same. I have a 23" samsung 120hz lcd and I don't even need to use AA anymore.

For me the majority of the jagged edges I was witnessing were from screen tearing due to my prior 60hz monitor. 120hz monitors actually reduce the appearance of jagged edges because there is less tearing.

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

Depending on the size of the monitor the pixel density is not going to be that much different so they will look basically the same. I have a 23" samsung 120hz lcd and I don't even need to use AA anymore.

For me the majority of the jagged edges I was witnessing were from screen tearing due to my prior 60hz monitor. 120hz monitors actually reduce the appearance of jagged edges because there is less tearing.

How is screen testing and AA related at all?

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Like I said, you need less AA when there are fewer jagged edges on screen caused by tearing.

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

im failing to see the relation.

AA:

to this

Screen tearing:

 

[lavaheadache]

what games do you play that you notice the smoothness? That dell series is something id be looking at if i upgraded(sidegraded) to IPS.

And how much better do those games look with the higher res compared to 1080p?

Any game that you can push the frame rate high enough really. Also there is far less tearing on the 120hz screen. I was an avid v sync user prior to getting my asus, now I seldomly use it, unless I am on the 30.

They both have their merits and I couldn't get rid of either one

 

[aaksheytalwar]

To benefit from either you would need core i5 2500k plus 680 oc or 7970 oc even stock may not do

 

[VulgarDisplay]

im failing to see the relation.

AA:

to this

Screen tearing:

I'm just saying that in my case now that I don't see screen tearing the appearance of jagged edges is reduced. To me the majority of the jagged edges I saw were a result of screen tearing. Now when I play BF3 with no aa, or fxaa the game appears like I'm using 2xAA on a 120hz monitor.

 

[Ichigo]

People who've never compared a 60hz monitor to a 120hz monitor need to stop talking about it.

When you see it, the difference is very clear.

Now, given that I've never used an IPS monitor, I have no idea how I'd react to seeing that compared to my current, 120hz TN monitor.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

People who've never compared a 60hz monitor to a 120hz monitor need to stop talking about it.

When you see it, the difference is very clear.

Now, given that I've never used an IPS monitor, I have no idea how I'd react to seeing that compared to my current, 120hz TN monitor.

TN vs IPS is similar to 60hz vs 120hz in terms of magnitude of difference between them, especially when viewed side by side.

I went back and used my old Iiyama 20" CRT the other day which happily runs at 120Hz+ at lower resolutions and it's crazy smooth, it was awful to know just how accustomed I'd become to my 60Hz LCD, I think I may very well come to invest in a 120Hz LCD at some point in the near future specifically for gaming, for both smoother gameplay and the ability to fiddle with 3D as well. Retire my 30" LCD for just general desktop use and work.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

I went from a 27" 60Hz TN panel (one of the crappiest ones) to Dell U2711 and the Dell is much better in terms of colors etc. But it is less smooth (to some extent at least) and the difference in graphic quality isn't night and day. The difference exists but is like comparing a 7950 to 7970 sorta upgrade. So it is noticeable at best, but definitely not night and day.

Yea, the viewing angles are perfect now. And going from a IPS back to regular TN may be very difficult for most people, but upgrading to IPS isn't as huge as many think.

 

[PliotronX]

Best thing for a game for smoothness is for your frame rate to be locked to your refresh rate (or derivative).

I typically just dismiss anyone who says they went from 60 Hz/fps to 120 Hz/fps and noticed a difference, because it's always bullshit.

There's a reason movies are 24fps, and it ain't because people like them choppy.

Ahhhh, the ol' film movie argument. This takes me back to the CRT days. The reason why feature films were solidified to 24 frames is because that is the lowest frame rate until double digit percentages of viewers become nauseous. You see, it was to conserve film not because it was smooth or realistic. It is also like comparing apples and oranges because the frames are naturally blurred by motion whereas post processing simulates it in games. There is also the matter of input to the game. Using a mouse, the higher the refresh rate, the better. I would use 160Hz with my 19" aperture grille monitors back in the day and it did indeed make a difference. I would hack the inf files to 125Hz just to synchronize with Quake 3. With a controller, since it has a typically lower polling rate with its joystick, it just doesn't make as much of a difference in aiming but in motion it still does. In the end, it doesn't matter as much these days with LCD panels but to dismiss opinions that differ from yours for the reasons you stated is fairly humorous.

 

[sandorski]

The difference between 60hz and 120hz is probably actually realized around 80(ish)hz. Meaning, that visually speaking there is some room above 60hz where things are still noticeable to the eye.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

FPS higher than 60 on a 60hz screen is actually beneficial with vsync off, while it can only display 60 discrete screen refrehses per second having a higher frame rate essentially means that parts of the screen refreshes that tear to a new image are giving you more up to date information than you'd otherwise get.

For example if in 1 refresh the image buffer flips in the middle of the draw then the top half might be something like 20ms old information where as the bottom half is brand new information, that incurs the tear line between the 2 images.

Now, if objects span that tear line and are divided in half your brain can infer the movement direction of that object based on how its tearing, great for fast moving objects that you might not even see if you have Vsync on.

When you have frame rates up in the 100's you'll have refreshes that made up of multiple frames and each part of the screen further down is slightly newer than the one above, while tearing is ugly and downright offputting for some I do happen to think it's conveying more information than 60 perfect frames, the brain is a fantastic thing and is no doubt subconsciously extrapolating the movement of a lot of things on screen and that up to date information helps.

I also personally think in fast paced games such as playing the scout in TF2 or something old like Quake/UT that very high frame rates just feel smoother and more responsive and they are really, you're getting more up to date visual feedback from your physical input on the mouse/keyboard so control feels tighter.

This doesn't mean that I think 120Hz monitors are useless, quite the opposite I like the idea and I think it helps even more but I'm just sick of this assumption going around that anything over 60hz is a waste, I don't think it is, you only need to cap your frame rate at something like 60fps, play a twitch shooter then cap your frame rate at 300fps to see the difference, it's significant for sure.

 

[Dkcode]

Any game that you can push the frame rate high enough really. Also there is far less tearing on the 120hz screen. I was an avid v sync user prior to getting my asus, now I seldomly use it, unless I am on the 30.

They both have their merits and I couldn't get rid of either one

I am pretty much kitted out the same as yourself.

30inch monitor for everything else except gaming which is done on the 120Hz ASUS.

I was pondering one of these 27inch Dells just to replace both monitors as I am a sucker for the quality IPS panels kick out. I fired up HL2 @ 60Hz on my ASUS monitor to see what I would be getting myself back into and immediately knocked that idea on the head.

120Hz or nothing when it comes to games now. I'll put up with TN until something worthy comes along that can replace it.

To the OP; if you go with a 1600P/1440P panel you will also have some input lag to put up with as well. I fired up Battlefield 3 on my 30" Sammy and I found it almost unplayable after a year gaming on the 120Hz ASUS. The frame rates were crap as well and I have a GTX 580. Honestly the upkeep of keeping games smooth on higher res panels is too much hassle.

I proved to myself that having better frame rates and less input lag improved my performance than having more pixels to shoot at.

 

[ss284]

120hz is going to trump anything when it comes to gaming, and you wont find anything at 1440p+ that has similarly high refresh rates simply due to lack of data rate from the DVI cables involved.

I personally have my u2311h's at 72Hz and it most definitely makes a positive difference in gameplay fluidity compared to 60Hz.

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

Can anyone comment on how PC games work when hooked up to a Large screen with some rediculous refresh rate? for example: plasmas with 600hz refresh rate, or lcd's with 120 or 240hz?

I know a 3d 120hz monitor is not the same as any of the above, but why? I havent tried, but my friend has a really crappy computer hooked up to his brand new LED 3d samsung tv (newest model?). To me, it looks like the mouse pointer is super smooth - like it was moving on a 120hz+ screen. He got rid of that PC, so no way to check. (TV was hooked up with HDMI btw) It would be nice to be able to set my living room PC to 120hz for gaming if possible.

Also - if this TV had a DVI input, would it be able to do nvidia 3d vision? just wondering.

 

[Pia]

Can anyone comment on how PC games work when hooked up to a Large screen with some rediculous refresh rate? for example: plasmas with 600hz refresh rate, or lcd's with 120 or 240hz?

I know a 3d 120hz monitor is not the same as any of the above, but why?

The difference is the PC 120Hz monitor actually refreshes at 120Hz and takes 120Hz input. "120Hz", "240Hz" etc on TVs is bullshit, the terms are being used to describe processing effects instead of actual refresh rates.

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

The difference is the PC 120Hz monitor actually refreshes at 120Hz and takes 120Hz input. "120Hz", "240Hz" etc on TVs is bullshit, the terms are being used to describe processing effects instead of actual refresh rates.

even the new ones? Could have sworn this tv was more than 60hz. And what aboout 600hz plasmas. same thing? Do they even make tvs that can use nvidias 3d?

 

[Destiny]

even the new ones? Could have sworn this tv was more than 60hz. And what aboout 600hz plasmas. same thing? Do they even make tvs that can use nvidias 3d?

Most HDTV's add extra frame to refresh at their state hz... the main reason is that blu-ray movies are 24FPS and the TV processing adds extra frames to make it 60hz or more = "soap opera" effect.