120hz monitor

[Wooky64]

So, exactly how important is a monitor with a higher refresh rate? If I have a 3000 series GPU that will do UHD and I have a true 4K monitor, will a 60hz monitor still look amazing or is the 120/144hz monitor necessay?

[AdahnGorion]

引用自 btrommler84：

Okay so what do you guys think of a monitor that has "Freesynch'?

Do you have an AMD card? If not, don´t bother.

With that being said, as I stated before priority for me

Hz (atleast 144) then resolution (1440p is sweetspot for me at 27-32") then type (I use IPS because I want proper colour, TN is good if you don´t care about colour and Va is the compromise, but I dislike those)

Then after all that. You have extra features such as G and Freesync. (I have gsync on mine and I like it alot) but it is not high on priority list.

[AustrAlien2010]

Why not bother? Doesn't that work or something?

[Dutchgamer1982]

basicly the issue is this :

your screen cannot display more FPS as the Hz of your display.
so having a beefy GPU with lots of FPS with a screen with only 60FPS tops.. is basicly wasting all that extra performace you got...
-> you would have been better of either spending more on a better screen or less on a less awesome gpu.

so it all depends on WHAT 3000 series cpu are you talking about... a 3090 is about 175% the performance of a 3060 and the upcoming 3050 will be even lower than that.

what resolution..
4k has 270% times the pixels as 1440p... and 1440p has 180% the pixels of 1080p.
this influences your FPS a lot, as it scales pretty linear... meaning upping your res will likely lower your FPS by about the same amount with the same settings.

-> meaning a 3090 at 1440p will run about the same fps as a 3060 at 1080p

type of game and grafic settings ofcourse influence your fps too.

*** if all this combined gets you often above 60fps than yes buying a screen with a higher refresh rate is a good idea...

does this mean that having more Hz for your screen is always needed though..
no..
there is a point where it is mute.. as the human brain at that point cannot process images that fast.. (we observe the world also as a series of pictures.. not as a steam..)
**this can be merely as a tiring of the eyes because of a subconsiously observed "flicker"

where this point is is depending on the brightness of the image.. and how fast and stongly it's color changes / movement are...

-movies at first were originally made with 8 fps.. or hz.. but incremental moved up to 24hz.. most television you watched in the 90s would have been 16hz.. most after that 24hz..

**and for a long time in gaming getting values of around 20-30hz was totally fine..
many consoles operate at that level..... as they are hardcoded to never exceed 60Hz/60FPS..

so some people say meh.. the human eye cannot see more than 60FPS.. and it is true that it cannot be observed.. but it does tire the eyes more as one can still notice the flicker..
not a point for a 2-3 hour movie.. but when sitting hours upon hours gaming.. it matters...

still most agree even this fysical uppoer limit lies somewhere between 100 and 200 hz..
most place it towards the lower end of this...
*personally this is why I want my FPS to be above 100 but see over 120 as excessive and unneccecairy..

but those screens with 240Hz or even 360hz.. totally useless.....
good luck finding a grafic card even cabale of running that many fps (you won't) and the human eye cannot even remotely see those frequencies...

-> having g-sync of freesync on the other hand.. IS a good idea...
**it equalises the space between the rendered images.. making it look more as a movie with equalised time intervals between the pictures...
without syncing.. 80 fps could mean 79 frames in the first 0.5 second.. than a pauze and than the last 1 image.... that kind of irregulair intervals is tiring for your eyes.. though more noticable at lower framerates...

-> so granted without syncing.. there is merit to these 200+ fps people.. as just toss in an overkill amount of fps also is easier on the eyes.. though likely adding sync would feel more calm than increasing 120fps to 240fps..

[Dutchgamer1982]

引用自 Darkie：

引用自 btrommler84：

Okay so what do you guys think of a monitor that has "Freesynch'?

Do you have an AMD card? If not, don´t bother.

With that being said, as I stated before priority for me

Hz (atleast 144) then resolution (1440p is sweetspot for me at 27-32") then type (I use IPS because I want proper colour, TN is good if you don´t care about colour and Va is the compromise, but I dislike those)

Then after all that. You have extra features such as G and Freesync. (I have gsync on mine and I like it alot) but it is not high on priority list.

nvidea cards now DO support freesync too.. and the older models upto the 1xxx series have got a driver update alowing them to support it too.

[Dutchgamer1982]

so in short :

if you have fps below 30 -> do not play this game at these settings... lower them..
if you have fps between 30-60.. -> sync is an absolute must, monitors with more than 60Hz are moot.
if you have fps between 60 and 120 -> sync is hightly advised, you will need a 100hz or better monitor
if you have fps above 120 -> you can likely do without sync.. you do want a monitor with at least 120hz..

[AdahnGorion]

引用自 AustrAlien2010：

Why not bother? Doesn't that work or something?

Some works with nvidia card or rather, they often do have issues anyway with the adaptive sync, some does not work at all.. My point is that you might as well go for g sync if you have an nvidia card.

So it is not like this anymore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rxFxdvO3fQ

This might help you as well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vnsjvJJVpQ


Again, some of the newer monitors do support using a nvidia card, but again, in my experience you really have to be certain on what you are getting and what you have.

[AustrAlien2010]

Those look like sales videos. Advertisements by shills, with a whole bunch of branding in them. Just look at the expression of enthusiasm on their faces. They are clearly trying to sell us their crap.
Besides, if we do not bother, he may never find the answer.

[AdahnGorion]

引用自 AustrAlien2010：

Those look like sales videos. Advertisements by shills, with a whole bunch of branding in them. Just look at the expression of enthusiasm on their faces. They are clearly trying to sell us their crap.
Besides, if we do not bother, he may never find the answer.

There is no sale about it, it was to showcase that you could not use them together earlier, but some monitors do allow usage now, but you have to be rather wary.. Besides.. you asked me for specifics on why I wrote what I did, I simply answered.

[Jelly Donut]

引用自 brett：

So, exactly how important is a monitor with a higher refresh rate? If I have a 3000 series GPU that will do UHD and I have a true 4K monitor, will a 60hz monitor still look amazing or is the 120/144hz monitor necessay?

Here's my 2 cents and based on my experience.

4K is a gimmick because the only time you will see a *big difference* is if you sit really close to the screen. If you are sitting far away from the screen and have a *small monitor* at 1080p it will still do. But, if you'd like a better resolution monitor for things to be clearer, go for 1440p because the difference from 1080p to 1440p is better than 4K. So unless you really like to play a game to admire 4K details or watch 4K content, it's still a bad buy till today for me. Not to mention, the scaling of Windows and etc is horrible -- You either end up with tiny windows, task bars, etc, unless you wanna upscale them and they look awful.

As for high refresh rate monitors, I still think it's more worth getting it than higher resolution monitors -- the pixel response and reduced input lag (depending on the quality of the panel) is still a better overall experience than more pixels on the screen.

So if you have the money, my suggestion is to go for 1440p 120/144hz. That's a better buy than 4K 60Hz.