monitor 144hz or 165hz?

[GANGS]

dse

[Dunkler Messias]

144 hz

[SkuLwlakasVen]

144

[Start_Running]

144
the returns on monitor refresh diminish very quickly.
Heck anything beyond 120 is basically a waste of time and energy.

[76561199039823861]

144 hz

[Meatloaf Cocktail]

+1 for 144Hz

Most of the time I have it set to 120Hz in demanding games for efficiency and heat output reasons. Don't really notice the 24Hz difference outside esports titles anyway.

[Magma Dragoon]

depends on color coverage, response time, brightness, brightness uniformity, darkness uniformity overdrive tuning, size and stand ergonomics

[Autumn_]

Originally posted by Magma Dragoon:

depends on color coverage, response time, brightness, brightness uniformity, darkness uniformity overdrive tuning, size and stand ergonomics

This.

Sp long as you're getting above 144hz it's fine.

[_I_]

only go fro a 144+hz display if it supports gsync or freesync

[Illusion of Progress]

One aspect does not a panel make. Between the two, 165 Hz is more. In a vacuum, this is the only correct answer as the ideal. In reality, other variables exist. If 165 Hz panels are typically much more expensive, then they may not be worth it. The difference is also relatively small. It'd be like asking between 120 Hz and 144 Hz. It's close enough to where either is acceptable, depending upon other factors. Presuming similar cost, I wouldn't intentionally look at 144 Hz and tune out 165 Hz options, and likewise the inverse applies.

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

Don't pay more for such a tiny difference between 144hz vs 165hz, as the diminishing return kicks in once go above 100hz, so to make a noticeable difference we have to compare 144hz to 240hz, or even higher to tell the difference unless have them side by side comparison then can see the difference indefinitely. Also this depends on the person, as not everyone the same.

If one was to do this for eSports, or trying to become very competitive in said game such as CSGO, Valorant, or etc then getting highest refresh rate the way to go which ideally 240hz, or higher which we're talking about spending a pretty penny. But of course you need the hardware to back up the FPS, as having FPS no where near the montior Hz would be silly.

For doing it just to get satisfactory for visual purpose ideally 120hz and up be good, and if aim for OLED then it be really good.

-edit-
Fix the confusion sentence.

[Der tüddelige Fußgänger]

very small difference.
I personally only see a very small difference between 60 nad 75 hertz on my monitor.
And the higher you go, the smaller the difference will become.
I would say, choose the monitor not by hertz.
Just decide, if one of them has freesync or not, or the genera build quality, how bright it can get.
A night mode with a yellow-ish filter which is just so much better for your eyes in the evening etc.
The difference between those 2 should be very small as i said, don't let the hartz decide

[Illusion of Progress]

Originally posted by Dr.Shadowds 🐉:

But of course you need the hardware to back up the FPS, as having FPS below the montior Hz would be silly.

I don't entirely agree with this. If anything, the inverse might be something I agree with more. You automatically benefit from something as soon as you can do even 1 FPS more than it is capable of showing, and you are automatically limited once you reach the refresh rate. The idea that you have to FULLY reach the refresh rate all (or almost all of) the time in order to justify something isn't something I entirely agree with.

On the other hand, if you're chasing a consistent frame rate and performance in a given game is erratic without a cap, then sure, a lower value might be considered more preferable if the higher is too impractical to reach. If you're playing games that can't reach really high values much, then yeah it might be considered a pointless expense (especially when you consider you probably need to trade off other factors, like panel type, when considering some very high refresh rate options). I do agree on that.

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

Originally posted by Illusion of Progress:

Originally posted by Dr.Shadowds 🐉:

But of course you need the hardware to back up the FPS, as having FPS below the montior Hz would be silly.

I don't entirely agree with this. If anything, the inverse might be something I agree with more. You automatically benefit from something as soon as you can do even 1 FPS more than it is capable of showing, and you are automatically limited once you reach the refresh rate. The idea that you have to FULLY reach the refresh rate all (or almost all of) the time in order to justify something isn't something I entirely agree with.

On the other hand, if you're chasing a consistent frame rate and performance in a given game is erratic without a cap, then sure, a lower value might be considered more preferable if the higher is too impractical to reach. If you're playing games that can't reach really high values much, then yeah it might be considered a pointless expense (especially when you consider you probably need to trade off other factors, like panel type, when considering some very high refresh rate options). I do agree on that.

When trying to push for higher FPS but falling incredibly short of montior high refresh rate it defeats the purpose of trying to go for 240hz or higher. Such as wanting a 380hz montior for 60 FPS games, year not exactly ideal at all.

There a different when wanting something that has high refresh rate just for the sake of it, compare to actually utilizing it properly.

[etn]

obviously 165hz is better but keep an eye out for smaller details like colours, response time, screen size etc. the price increase might not be worth it for such a small upgrade

[freakshowfreak]

What resolution are we talking about?

And what is the gpu you are using