100hz VS 144hz ...Is there a big difference?

[jinroh10]

Ok so Asus is coming out with their 34" Swift 3440x1440 GSYNC and 100hz. My question is will you see a big difference in frame rate vs a 27" Swift at 2560x1440 and 144hz?

[Paralectic]

Depends on your perceptive capabilities.

[JefferyD90]

Ok so Asus is coming out with their 34" Swift 3440x1440 GSYNC and 100hz. My question is will you see a big difference in frame rate vs a 27" Swift at 2560x1440 and 144hz?

44% difference to be exact.

[Kirky2k15]

Depends on your perceptive capabilities.

Totally agree  - I will argue that 30 fps on FC4 my 660m @ 1080 @ ultra is very playable

[DarkBlade2117]

75hz looks great to me. I can barely tell a difference from 75-144 so 100-144 to me would be almost un noticeable.

[IMPERIUS]

For most people no. The difference between 30 and 60fps is huuuge for most, but I think the difference between 100 and 144hz won't be AS noticable as 30-60. Also keep in mind you have to have enough gpu power to get those 144fps in-game to make the monitor even worth its money

[daniellearmouth]

Well, it depends.

 

If you're like me and don't really care about something being 30FPS or 300FPS, then you may not be bothered by it at all.

But if you're someone who really favours framerate over resolution, then 100Hz is a very high benchmark, and 144Hz - whilst it will give you a chance to outperform with regards to refresh rate - is arguably overkill. Hell, I game on 60Hz monitors and have not had a bad thing to say about them.

[Guest]

For most people no. The difference between 30 and 60fps is huuuge for most, but I think the difference between 100 and 144hz won't be AS noticable as 30-60. Also keep in mind you have to have enough gpu power to get those 144fps in-game to make the monitor even worth its money

This^

144hz is only needed for highly competitive gaming like CSGO. Also its easy to get 144fps in CSGO even at 1440p and 4k.

It would be very hard to tell the difference between 100-144hz.

After 75Hz I can hardly tell any difference and 60fps 60hz is butter smooth to me. 

[Praesi]

To be honest, i cant see a differenze between 100 fps and 144fps. With Gsync it doesnt matter anyway.

[Manny Calavera]

100hz would be enough even for VR, so no.

[Guest Strangerbob]

They are making the oculus 90hz so they clearly get that 60 and 75hz is trash.

 

100 is good, VERY good. 100 vs 144 wont be noticable 99.9% of the time and 100hz will be so smooth anyway, that you would never complain.

 

If you want a NOTICABLE improvement in framerate - want the acer z35 - the first 200hz monitor. 100hz vs 200hz WILL be noticable however, and will feel very different on fast games.

But the resolution will be lower on that.

 

 

The 100hz 3440x1440 monitor really is the best of EVERYTHING.

 

Yes, you can make a monitor with burning the bandwidth on just one aspect, but that will result in a tech-demo monitor, not something you can actually buy and not be disappointed in some way.

[typographie]

Ok so Asus is coming out with their 34" Swift 3440x1440 GSYNC and 100hz. My question is will you see a big difference in frame rate vs a 27" Swift at 2560x1440 and 144hz?

 

Any framerate difference will come down to the fact that 3440x1440 is 1.2 million pixels (about 35%) more than 2560x1440. Framerates tend to scale pretty regularly and linearly with pixel counts, so at the same detail settings and on the same hardware you may see up to a 35% reduction in framerate.

 

Whether or not 100 Hz vs. 144 Hz matters comes down to whether or not you are able to reach 144 FPS in the games you're playing. The refresh rate doesn't affect your game's framerate, it's just the amount of your framerate that you will actually see displayed on your monitor.

 

My personal opinion is that 3440x1440 @ 100 Hz with Gsync sounds like a pretty amazing combination. Tons of games are capped or poorly optimized to run at 144 FPS anyway.

[jinroh10]

They are making the oculus 90hz so they clearly get that 60 and 75hz is trash.

100 is good, VERY good. 100 vs 144 wont be noticable 99.9% of the time and 100hz will be so smooth anyway, that you would never complain.

If you want a NOTICABLE improvement in framerate - want the acer z35 - the first 200hz monitor. 100hz vs 200hz WILL be noticable however, and will feel very different on fast games.

But the resolution will be lower on that.

The 100hz 3440x1440 monitor really is the best of EVERYTHING.

Yes, you can make a monitor with burning the bandwidth on just one aspect, but that will result in a tech-demo monitor, not something you can actually buy and not be disappointed in some way.

I saw that....only down fall is it is only 2560x1080 and a VA Panel.

[Timmy-P]

This^

144hz is only needed for highly competitive gaming like CSGO. Also its easy to get 144fps in CSGO even at 1440p and 4k.

It would be very hard to tell the difference between 100-144hz.

After 75Hz I can hardly tell any difference and 60fps 60hz is butter smooth to me. 

If I had a dollar for every time I saw this argument...  I'm sorry, but it's not true.  Higher framerates makes for a smoother, and subjectively better, experience overall, in game and out.

 

OP, if you have access to a 144Hz display, test it out yourself.  After using 144Hz myself, a quick test in Windows between 100 and 144 tells me there is a noticeable difference, *granted if you look for it.*  This type of tech is slowly growing, and 1440p @ 144Hz is hard enough to drive already.  If you want to go "all the way" then wait for Ultrawide @ 144Hz (and for AMD/NVIDIA to come out with stronger chips to drive it), if not go for the Ultrawide 100Hz now.

[shirokado]

Depends on your eyes. I can clearly tell 144 and 120 from 100, but I can't tell the difference between 60 and 75 though... they both look cancerous to me.

[Falkentyne]

100 hz is exactly 10.0 ms pixel sample and hold response time, which adds 10 ms of frame/input lag with vsync on at 100 fps also. 

144 hz is 6.9ms of pixel response time (which also adds 6.9ms with vsync at 144 fps)

 

ms=(1000 / refresh rate).
Yes it is a substantial difference.

 

However 125 hz (if you are NOT using a gsync monitor) might be better than using 120hz or 144hz if you have the choice, at least if you are using vsync.

Because 125 is evenly divided into 500 and 1000.  And what are the two popular mice polling rates among gamers?  500 hz and 1000 hz.  So optimally (if you are using vsync), this will create a smoother image than either 120 hz at 120 fps or 144hz at 144 fps.  But while 125hz isn't any sort of standard (like 144hz is double 72, and 72 was a popular movie standard, and 120 is double 60, etc, you can create it as a custom refresh rate.  Almost every 144 hz gaming monitor in existence will run at 125hz with normal timings without having to use LCD Reduced.

 

For motion blur reduction fans, the only monitor that can strobe in sync at 125hz are the benq blur reduction 1.0 monitors, via edid overrides.  The EIzo Foris FG2421 "might" be able to do it; it CAN strobe at 105 hz via a custom refresh rate (with an EDID override; this is the lowest it can strobe); ULMB monitors won't as far as I know (someone can test it and see if it works).

[jinroh10]

Ok....with all that being said...which of the new Asus monitors would you go with, the 34" 100hz or the 27" 165hz? Let's make it even more fun and throw in the Acer Predator at 200hz...also keep in mind the Acer is a VA Panel.

[jinroh10]

100 hz is exactly 10.0 ms pixel sample and hold response time, which adds 10 ms of frame/input lag with vsync on at 100 fps also.

144 hz is 6.9ms of pixel response time (which also adds 6.9ms with vsync at 144 fps)

ms=(1000 / refresh rate).

Yes it is a substantial difference.

However 125 hz (if you are NOT using a gsync monitor) might be better than using 120hz or 144hz if you have the choice, at least if you are using vsync.

Because 125 is evenly divided into 500 and 1000. And what are the two popular mice polling rates among gamers? 500 hz and 1000 hz. So optimally (if you are using vsync), this will create a smoother image than either 120 hz at 120 fps or 144hz at 144 fps. But while 125hz isn't any sort of standard (like 144hz is double 72, and 72 was a popular movie standard, and 120 is double 60, etc, you can create it as a custom refresh rate. Almost every 144 hz gaming monitor in existence will run at 125hz with normal timings without having to use LCD Reduced.

For motion blur reduction fans, the only monitor that can strobe in sync at 125hz are the benq blur reduction 1.0 monitors, via edid overrides. The EIzo Foris FG2421 "might" be able to do it; it CAN strobe at 105 hz via a custom refresh rate (with an EDID override; this is the lowest it can strobe); ULMB monitors won't as far as I know (someone can test it and see if it works).

Well said ...

[Guest]

If I had a dollar for every time I saw this argument...  I'm sorry, but it's not true.  Higher framerates makes for a smoother, and subjectively better, experience overall, in game and out.

Smh you state the obvious. 

Obviously 144fps will look better than 100fps my point is that the difference is so minor it's only worth it for competitive gaming. (Just to point out I have played on 75hz monitors and a 144hz monitor in the past) 

That's my opinion and you have yours. 

[Timmy-P]

Smh you state the obvious.

Obviously 144fps will look better than 100fps my point is that the difference is so minor it's only worth it for competitive gaming. (Just to point out I have played on 75hz monitors and a 144hz monitor in the past)

That's my opinion and you have yours.

My initial argument wasn't about what is better, it's about it's applicable uses; Higher refresh rates should not be restricted to competitive play.

[TheConverter]

Ok so Asus is coming out with their 34" Swift 3440x1440 GSYNC and 100hz. My question is will you see a big difference in frame rate vs a 27" Swift at 2560x1440 and 144hz?

 

Yep sadly, going back from 144hz is gonna feel weird, let alone that the new Swift is going to be 165hz...

[TheConverter]

For most people no. The difference between 30 and 60fps is huuuge for most, but I think the difference between 100 and 144hz won't be AS noticable as 30-60. Also keep in mind you have to have enough gpu power to get those 144fps in-game to make the monitor even worth its money

 

Lmao why would I need my 144FPS in Witcher 3 I only need it in FPS games (especially online ones)

 

I can't even play Fallout 3 first person view at 60FPS.

[Guest]

Lmao why would I need my 144FPS in Witcher 3 I only need it in FPS games (especially online ones)

 

I can't even play Fallout 3 first person view at 60FPS.

How do you get less than 60 in Fallout 3, I have a 7950 and a 6300. I have tons of mods and a heavy ENB and cap at 60? 

[IMPERIUS]

Lmao why would I need my 144FPS in Witcher 3 I only need it in FPS games (especially online ones)

 

I can't even play Fallout 3 first person view at 60FPS.

 

Well if I pay extra 100eur or more to get 144hz I want to have that experience in all my games. Having 144hz in only 1 game is not worth the trade from ips to a tn panel or an ultrawide monitor or whatever (assuming you don't want to pay THAT much to get an ips 144hz monitor...)

[TheConverter]

How do you get less than 60 in Fallout 3, I have a 7950 and a 6300. I have tons of mods and a heavy ENB and cap at 60? 

 

Because somehow it's broken and sometimes I get 90FPS and drops to 40FPS instead of locked 144FPS.

 

I think I know the problem, need to set my the game to Maximum Performance mode in Nvidia Control Panel.