Is 120 fps better on a 240Hz monitor than on a 144Hz one?

[peshawa.kurd98]

Also, does 120 fps have lesser input lag on a 240Hz than on 144Hz?

[Muppet among Puppets]

120 frames are 120 frames.
To state the obvious.

You most likely wont be able to notice the difference of "input lag" between 144 and 240, if the fps were like those.

[C7]

120 frames on 240hz lel i think no use 144hz or upgrade ur graphics card to 1080ti

[ReBoot]

Actually it's better because the lag is indeed slightly lower. The question is whether you'll notice thogh, that depends on the game and on yourself. Let me put it this way: the slightly lower potential delay between the GPU rendering a frame and you seeing it raises the ceiling, but it's up to you to reach there. Some games are more sensitive than others as well.

[Iceira]

some games dont like you brake 60fps rule, scripts fail, but i bet this is not one of them games.
but if it is, then it dont matter what you try to fix.

as reboot also explan , some games have limits or use fps to measure something.

[ReBoot]

Iceira님이 먼저 게시:

as reboot also explan , some games have limits or use fps to measure something.

That wasn't what I explained, but you're adding a valid point indeed. It's safe to say that such games don't have built-in FPS settings though.

[Iceira]

ReBoot님이 먼저 게시:

Iceira님이 먼저 게시:

as reboot also explan , some games have limits or use fps to measure something.

That wasn't what I explained, but you're adding a valid point indeed. It's safe to say that such games don't have built-in FPS settings though.

i know , but "Some games are more sensitive than others as well." actual say it all, and we dont know what game it is. ( or just a genral information with no game )

[ReBoot]

Iceira님이 먼저 게시:

ReBoot님이 먼저 게시:

That wasn't what I explained, but you're adding a valid point indeed. It's safe to say that such games don't have built-in FPS settings though.

i know , but "Some games are more sensitive than others as well." actual say it all, and we dont know what game it is. ( or just a genral information with no game )

Nope. Some games are way more REACTION-sensitive than others. Example: both CSGO and Fallout New Vegas don't have any timers tied to the frame rate. Yet in CSGO, every single frame more counts while New Vegas hardly makes a difference between 30 and 60. That's got ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ to do with in-game timers (what you're saying), that's got to do with reaction times.

[Iceira]

Thats not what i said.

what if this is a dota player or other shooter game.

he could play on wifi and with cordless mouse even , so many traps , so what does it matter what FPS he use. ( but lets hope for the best and only OP know or have best in equipment ) and we dont even talk about Latency on network )

ps.
its actual OP faulth lack of infomation, but go ahead Reboot, not sure why you explan that.
that is already said diffrent game engine and ways they work.

[ReBoot]

Iceira님이 먼저 게시:

he could play on wifi and with cordless mouse even , so many traps , so what does it matter what FPS he use.

That statement would be true in the scenario of game streaming, where visual output comes from the server. But in the more common case, network packets and visuals aren't synchronized. And when the server sends you the packet "Hey, an enemy is peeking around the corner", you still get an advantage in reaction times when your system can render the image a tiny winy bit faster.

By the way, I'm playing online games via WLAN myself. That crap that people tend to say, namely WLAN being laggy by default, simply isn't true. Well, it may be true, but you said it like WLAN sucks for games by default. Same with cordless mice. Yes, there are cheap-o crap-o mice out there but anything decent got about as much lag as a USB mouse. Granted, I don't use RF peripherals myself, but that's due to having to charge them every now and then so I need a cord anyway so a decent USB mouse does the trick just fine.

[Iceira]

ReBoot님이 먼저 게시:

Iceira님이 먼저 게시:

he could play on wifi and with cordless mouse even , so many traps , so what does it matter what FPS he use.

That statement would be true in the scenario of game streaming, where visual output comes from the server. But in the more common case, network packets and visuals aren't synchronized. And when the server sends you the packet "Hey, an enemy is peeking around the corner", you still get an advantage in reaction times when your system can render the image a tiny winy bit faster.

By the way, I'm playing online games via WLAN myself. That crap that people always say, namely WLAN being laggy as all hell, simply isn't true. Well, it may be true, but you said it like WLAN sucks for games by default. Same with cordless mice. Yes, there are cheap-o crap-o mice out there but anything decent got about as much lag as a USB mouse.

i think you miss the point, in wifi, if anything block signal or interference it , and whats the point in wifi if router and device is within 2-3meter.

this is not actual about the wifi, but dont forget everything through AIR can get a issue with a jam/interference issue. ( play hardcore games where you die and TOON is gone for good then you might see diffrent on it ) but again now we talk about diffrent game and consept.

and we are back at dont play games with battery,
so online game in softcore ( death dont matter ) and hardcore ( well byebye charector )
i know you did not think over that part, because you dont play such game.
but now you understand why wifi and alot other apps that popup is hated or taskout of game.
and mouse type matter.

maybe a good thing we debat this as off topic. we all have diffrent experience.

[ReBoot]

Iceira님이 먼저 게시:

i think you miss the point

... says the dude claiming playing on WLAN got anything to do with FPS.

Look, we can agree that playing online games on a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ network will suck no matter the FPS. But the OP is talking about FPS. You know, that stuff that get processed locally, about a meter away from your monitor & input, with a high-bandwidth low-latency non-routable (so non-networkable) connection.

You got a mighty valid point about ♥♥♥♥♥♥ games tying their mechanis to the frame rate (and then you got a wrong point tying your point to mine, which is unrelated). Can we just stick with that?

[Iceira]

i will laugh my ass off if OP dont know what he is doing, and Monitor dont even matter and try get a past gen game to run better and have no idea it dont matter. ( i laugh at the case not you )

just so you know Reboot its you that think all steam user know what they are doing, GL with that idea.

[ReBoot]

Iceira님이 먼저 게시:

just so you know Reboot its you that think all steam user know what they are doing, GL with that idea.

I'm talking with someone not knowing what they're doing right now. Here a quote making this abundandly clear:

Iceira님이 먼저 게시:

Monitor dont even matter

Refresh rates matter. Again, it depends on the game. Fallout New Vegas for example doesn't care. But playing Doom Eternal, there's quite the difference between 60Hz and 75Hz. Going up to 120Hz is roughly comparable to SSDs and sex: I never believed how great it is until I felt it myself (I don't even like CSGO, but it's a fantastic benchmark to show how much nuances matter).

And then there's G-/FreeSync. Boy do those matter! Not only do they prevent screen tearing, they again help remove tiniest bits of lag between an image getting rendered and displayed, giving that tiny bit of edge. Then there's the difference between TN and IPS monitors. In the meantime, IPS monitors have caught up to TN in terms of switching times, but a couple years ago, it was either ♥♥♥♥♥♥ colors or crappy movement. Still, a TN panel will have ♥♥♥♥♥♥ colors (when looked at angle that is) nowadays.

The monitor absolutely matters for gaming.

[Iceira]

peshawa.kurd98님이 먼저 게시:

Also, does 120 fps have lesser input lag on a 240Hz than on 144Hz?

nah you lost all here. 120fps on both monitor is still 120fps

so only monitor spec in whats better matter.

Monitor is stupid as a door = a output unit

rest is pc issue. with software and hardware

you debat something and lack so many information.

what if want to buy a monitor and ask this. he might try save a buck or two. it can go so many ways.

and you still dont no nothing in what game he try to run, or later get better pc.
it seen so many times before.

[Supafly]

Iceira님이 먼저 게시:

nah you lost all here. 120fps on both monitor is still 120fps

so only monitor spec in whats better matter.

Monitor is stupid as a door = a output unit

rest is pc issue. with software and hardware

you debat something and lack so many information.

what if want to buy a monitor and ask this. he might try save a buck or two. it can go so many ways.

and you still dont no nothing in what game he try to run, or later get better pc.
it seen so many times before.

Nice to see you talking rubbish. I may have had disagreements with Reboot in the part but Reboot is talking sense. You however are once again accusing other person of not understanding what OP said or not knowing what they are talking about when that person is infact YOU.

Iceira님이 먼저 게시:

peshawa.kurd98님이 먼저 게시:

Monitor is stupid as a door = a output unit

Yes and if it's a 60hz display and you can get 240 fps it is only displaying 1 out of 4 frames. On a 120 display it'd be 2 in 4 and on a 240hz display it'd per 4 in 4 or 100%. For competitive games higher hz help because you see more up to the ms data than if you were on a lower hz display. Plus it'd be smoother.

Now as for games that link things to fps sure higher fps can have issues but that is not affected by using a higher hz display as you can cap the fps and hz if needed.