What is the point of 144hz?

[TheWrithingVoid]

Okay, so after a little over a year of having a 144hz monitor I can officially say, that I still kinda don't get it. I have an Asus vg248, 144hz 1ms response time, running 144 hz via display port and, I still just kinda don't get it. I don't really notice a difference past 65 fps in the appearance of what I am doing, and honestly the response time is so slight in difference that I don't see a difference between it, and my girlfriends Acer monitor which is IPS.

So, what am I missing?
It seems like color, and contrast ratio, for... what? Did I jump on the hype train to sadness town, or do I just not get the point of the 144hz's? Could someone please explain what I am missing here because I have it in front of me, and it just doesn't seem worth when I could have gotten a nice IPS for the same price.

[LienusLateTips]

For me it looks more smooth than 60hz, but I can't tell the difference between 120 and 144.

Depends on the person tho

[vanished]

Are you sure it's hooked it up right?  60 to 144 HZ should be incredibly obvious, like night and day difference...

[WereCatf]

3 minutes ago, TheWrithingVoid said:

Okay, so after a little over a year of having a 144hz monitor I can officially say, that I still kinda don't get it. I have an Asus vg248, 144hz 1ms response time, running 144 hz via display port and, I still just kinda don't get it. I don't really notice a difference past 65 fps in the appearance of what I am doing, and honestly the response time is so slight in difference that I don't see a difference between it, and my girlfriends Acer monitor which is IPS.

So, what am I missing?
It seems like color, and contrast ratio, for... what? Did I jump on the hype train to sadness town, or do I just not get the point of the 144hz's? Could someone please explain what I am missing here because I have it in front of me, and it just doesn't seem worth when I could have gotten a nice IPS for the same price.

This is kind of what I am debating about with myself: I have been hankering to replace my real-shitty, budget Benq from like 6-7 years ago for a while now, but I don't know if I should go for better colour-gamut or higher refresh-rate. It's not like I have the money to even buy a display right now, but if/when I do, I don't know which would be the better option for me. There's no place where I could even test which one I prefer, I just have to basically guess, which doesn't make things any better.

[Megah3rtz]

8 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Are you sure it's hooked it up right?  60 to 144 HZ should be incredibly obvious, like night and day difference...

Adding onto that, did you increase your refresh rate in windows? 

(w10)

>right click on desktop

>display settings

>display adapter properties

>monitor

>change refresh rate

 

And yes, it should be extremely obvious whether you have it set to 60hz or 144hz. 

[gbergeron]

4 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

This is kind of what I am debating about with myself: I have been hankering to replace my real-shitty, budget Benq from like 6-7 years ago for a while now, but I don't know if I should go for better colour-gamut or higher refresh-rate. It's not like I have the money to even buy a display right now, but if/when I do, I don't know which would be the better option for me. There's no place where I could even test which one I prefer, I just have to basically guess, which doesn't make things any better.

High refresh rates : FPS and Racing games

High resolution : RTS MMORPG RPG etc..

 

Get both if you're rich

 

[gbergeron]

11 minutes ago, TheWrithingVoid said:

Okay, so after a little over a year of having a 144hz monitor I can officially say, that I still kinda don't get it. I have an Asus vg248, 144hz 1ms response time, running 144 hz via display port and, I still just kinda don't get it. I don't really notice a difference past 65 fps in the appearance of what I am doing, and honestly the response time is so slight in difference that I don't see a difference between it, and my girlfriends Acer monitor which is IPS.

So, what am I missing?
It seems like color, and contrast ratio, for... what? Did I jump on the hype train to sadness town, or do I just not get the point of the 144hz's? Could someone please explain what I am missing here because I have it in front of me, and it just doesn't seem worth when I could have gotten a nice IPS for the same price.

Like other said, make sure you're monitor refresh rate in nvidia control panel is set to 144 hz

 

Also, 1 ms vs 4 ms IPS, i do believe you won't never see the difference. Should always go for the IPS since better colors and view angles etc..

 

 

[JMStanley]

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but 60 v 120 is a crazy difference and 60 v 144 is that much more. Do remember, though, that the mHz refresh rate indicates how many frames per second the display screen is producing, so if you're only getting 30 fps from your video card you won't be taking advantage of the refresh rate. 144 mHz means your display will present 144 frames to your eyes every second. If your system can only produce 60 frames to the monitor you won't get 144 unique frames every second. 

[WereCatf]

17 minutes ago, gbergeron said:

High refresh rates : FPS and Racing games

High resolution : RTS MMORPG RPG etc..

 

Get both if you're rich

 

I ain't rich and I wasn't talking about resolution, I was talking about IPS vs. 144Hz. 144Hz IPS-displays cost an arm and a leg, as far as I am aware, so if/when I have the money, the choice'll be only one or the other, not both.

[porina]

I've gamed for a long time at 60 Hz. Then I got a 120 Hz monitor... and I had to run vsync on as I can't stand tearing and it seemed better, but not a huge amount so, likely as most of the time it was running below 120 fps, so with vsync my effective short term rate might have been closer to 60 anyway. Then I saw a 144 Hz G-sync monitor on sale, and got it. Wow, now I feel it. Everything is smooth and responsive. I do run a fps counter, and it varies in my main game from around 90 to 150 fps. I'd say 90 fps with G-sync feels better than 120 Hz without. There is something about the responsiveness that I can't describe. 

[DocSwag]

Try this to make sure it's actually at 144 hz

https://www.vsynctester.com/detect.html

[DocSwag]

10 minutes ago, porina said:

I've gamed for a long time at 60 Hz. Then I got a 120 Hz monitor... and I had to run vsync on as I can't stand tearing and it seemed better, but not a huge amount so, likely as most of the time it was running below 120 fps, so with vsync my effective short term rate might have been closer to 60 anyway. Then I saw a 144 Hz G-sync monitor on sale, and got it. Wow, now I feel it. Everything is smooth and responsive. I do run a fps counter, and it varies in my main game from around 90 to 150 fps. I'd say 90 fps with G-sync feels better than 120 Hz without. There is something about the responsiveness that I can't describe. 

IMO, the adaptive refresh rate techs are the things that really matter 

[-Tz-]

I have the MG248Q, I think its the newer version of the monitor OP is talking about and I love it.

 

OP If you don't notice the difference just using the desktop then something is not setup correctly... also in games if your have V-Sync on it will usually limit your frame rate down to 60FPS meaning you will NOT see any major diff apart from the response time so check everything out and let us know.

 

Now going from 144 ---> 240hz that's a debate on what is "worth" it or not,  If your gaming especially esports titles CSGO, PUBG, LEAUGE etc seeing 144 frames per second apposed to 60 gives you a huge advantage at higher levels I cant even play games without a high refresh rate monitor anymore.  I also have an RX 580 so I can take advantage of the freesync features of the monitor.

 

Good Luck!

 

 

[Vroooom]

Depends on the person. Some people swear by high refresh rate, and others don't care. Same with high resolution, ultrawide, IPS, adaptive sync, or whatever. You just gotta pick the features that are important to you and save some money by leaving out the stuff you don't notice or don't care about

[gbergeron]

1 hour ago, porina said:

I've gamed for a long time at 60 Hz. Then I got a 120 Hz monitor... and I had to run vsync on as I can't stand tearing and it seemed better, but not a huge amount so, likely as most of the time it was running below 120 fps, so with vsync my effective short term rate might have been closer to 60 anyway. Then I saw a 144 Hz G-sync monitor on sale, and got it. Wow, now I feel it. Everything is smooth and responsive. I do run a fps counter, and it varies in my main game from around 90 to 150 fps. I'd say 90 fps with G-sync feels better than 120 Hz without. There is something about the responsiveness that I can't describe. 

That's because Vsync sync at fixed FPS, 15-30-60-120

So whenever you had 110 fps, Vsync was syncing at 60 or in other words, it feels like you have 60 fps instead of 110 or 100 or 119 or anything between 60 and 120

 

If you use adaptive mode instead of vsync on ( in nvidia contorl panel ) it will keep vsync on as long as you have 120 fps or + and as soon as you drop under it will automaticaly turn off vsync so you wont have that 60 fps feeling !!!

 

 

 

[gbergeron]

2 hours ago, WereCatf said:

I ain't rich and I wasn't talking about resolution, I was talking about IPS vs. 144Hz. 144Hz IPS-displays cost an arm and a leg, as far as I am aware, so if/when I have the money, the choice'll be only one or the other, not both.

IPS vs 144 hz ?

I mean.. you can have IPS 144 hz so I don't understand what you mean..

 

Are you talking about TN 144 hz VS IPS 144 hz ?

Then I would say it's an eazy win for IPS. Biggest advantages are lil bit better colors, and image stay clear from almost any angles compared to TN screen where as soon as you look at it form an angle it becomes grey or dark etc...

 

It dep[ends if you are willing to spend that extra 200$ for the IPS

[porina]

7 hours ago, gbergeron said:

If you use adaptive mode instead of vsync on ( in nvidia contorl panel ) it will keep vsync on as long as you have 120 fps or + and as soon as you drop under it will automaticaly turn off vsync so you wont have that 60 fps feeling !!!

And enjoy that lovely screen tearing feeling? No thanks.

7 hours ago, gbergeron said:

IPS vs 144 hz ?

I mean.. you can have IPS 144 hz so I don't understand what you mean..

It was written previously it was more about cost, that they become exclusive choices.

[pyromaniac]

in b4 this dude has been running his 144hz panel @ 60hz for a year

[TheWrithingVoid]

1. I am 100% without a doubt actually pushing 144hz. Figured out everything I needed to do to make that happen before I even bought the monitor.
2. To clarify by IPS vs 144hz, I meant that for most people you kind of have to choose between a high refresh TN panel or a 60hz IPS because the high refresh ones are super expensive. The question was for the same money is it worth.
3. Just because a monitor has a higher refresh rate does not mean it will look any smoother to you. The human eye sees light at 60Hz as a stable beam. That is why in the US our AC current is at 60 hz and why 60fps is always your target fps. Some people might see a little higher, but I seriously doubt more than 5-10hz more. 

4. So it seems like the general opinion here is that it makes things smoother. In that case wouldn't g-sync be a better investment if you had to choose?

 

[pyromaniac]

1 hour ago, TheWrithingVoid said:

3. Just because a monitor has a higher refresh rate does not mean it will look any smoother to you. The human eye sees light at 60Hz as a stable beam. That is why in the US our AC current is at 60 hz and why 60fps is always your target fps. Some people might see a little higher, but I seriously doubt more than 5-10hz more. 

might be time to trade your PC in for a Console mate... pls don't start with the human eye can only see xx amount fps.

 

but in all seriousness if you can't notice a difference in smoothness even just moving a window around on the desktop then something is wrong. 

[General Winter]

it really comes down to personal preference, if you have stupid money to get a 1080ti, you could maxed virtually everything at 144hz, however you (and nethier i) have this kind of money to burn

 

 

so like the answer you accepted, it can also boil down to genre; but personally i enjoy looking at a game as much as i play it, so i can't imagine going through the trouble of a new setup just to get 144hz when im perfectly happy with 60hz

 

also i too have seen 120hz and i can barely tell the difference

 

 

[vanished]

3 hours ago, TheWrithingVoid said:

3. Just because a monitor has a higher refresh rate does not mean it will look any smoother to you.

True: for one thing, you need to make sure you're also running the game at a higher fps.

Quote

The human eye sees light at 60Hz as a stable beam. That is why in the US our AC current is at 60 hz and why 60fps is always your target fps. Some people might see a little higher, but I seriously doubt more than 5-10hz more.

I'm not sure where you heard this but you need to go back to the source and make a list of anything else you also "learned" from it, and then purge everything on that list from your memory.  I try not to deal in absolutes but this may possibly be the most incorrect thing I've ever heard.

[Glenwing]

4 hours ago, TheWrithingVoid said:

3. Just because a monitor has a higher refresh rate does not mean it will look any smoother to you. The human eye sees light at 60Hz as a stable beam. That is why in the US our AC current is at 60 hz and why 60fps is always your target fps. Some people might see a little higher, but I seriously doubt more than 5-10hz more. 

60 Hz electrical systems have nothing to do with human eyes. But even if it did, bear in mind that 1 Hz in electrical waveforms is one peak and one trough, on a display that would be one white frame and one black frame. The flickering caused by a 60 Hz electrical system would be what you would see on a 120 Hz display, not a 60 Hz display.

 

60 Hz refresh rate is standard because LCDs do not flicker between frames; CRTs used 85 Hz as standard specifically because 60 Hz wasn't enough to avoid flickering. Human eyes do not see light at 60 Hz as a stable beam. We can only get away with 60 Hz now because LCDs hold the image on the screen instead of fading to black after each refresh.

[TheWrithingVoid]

It isn't whether or not 144hz makes a difference. The difference is noticable but minimal the real question is whether it is worth the loss of contrast ratio and color. There is improvement and I just don't think it's worth it. I'm just trying to see whether in what instance it is supposed to be worth it, because everything I have been told suggests 144hz is some kind of magical thing that is worth every compromise. 

[vanished]

18 minutes ago, TheWrithingVoid said:

It isn't whether or not 144hz makes a difference. The difference is noticable but minimal the real question is whether it is worth the loss of contrast ratio and color. There is improvement and I just don't think it's worth it. I'm just trying to see whether in what instance it is supposed to be worth it, because everything I have been told suggests 144hz is some kind of magical thing that is worth every compromise. 

The reason we're all still questioning your setup is because you say the difference "is noticeable but minimal", but anyone who's seen or used one will tell you it's a crazy big difference.  Whether or not it's worth the other compromises you mention is up to personal opinion, but you should be able to see a significant difference.  If you can't it's just hard to believe that you're really seeing 144 Hz