120 hz worth it?

[CliffTerios]

Heyo,

 

I'm currently shopping for a new monitor. I've been considering moving from a 60hz to a 120hz panel, but are they even worth it? I've heard time and time again that going from 60hz to 144hz makes a difference so I am not too worried about me not noticing a difference (I'm pretty certain my GPU can handle) but I don't remember ever seeing 120hz support in any game menus I checked. Do I necessarily need game support for 120hz? Would be kinda pointless if it runs at 60hz because most games don't support it. Any experience on that?

[Dubesta11]

Heyo,

 

I'm currently shopping for a new monitor. I've been considering moving from a 60hz to a 120hz panel, but are they even worth it? I've heard time and time again that going from 60hz to 144hz makes a difference so I am not too worried about me not noticing a difference (I'm pretty certain my GPU can handle) but I don't remember ever seeing 120hz support in any game menus I checked. Do I necessarily need game support for 120hz? Would be kinda pointless if it runs at 60hz because most games don't support it. Any experience on that?

 

IMO its worth it, but VERY hard to go back. It's that good.

[Godlygamer23]

If your monitor only supports 60Hz and that's what it's set to, I doubt a lot of games will allow you to go above 60Hz.

[PlayStation 2]

Most games aren't refresh rate locked so you'd be fine at 120 Hz as long as you get 70FPS or more in the games you aim to play.

[Xaphiir]

I have a 144Hz monitor myself. Even for everyday desktop work, it makes it SO much more comfortable. Honestly, I believe it's 100% worth it, especially if you're into FPS. Most games support 120 Hz so you won't have to worry about that honestly.

[cfair766]

get 2k or 4k monitor 60hz-higher is not that noticeable while switching to 2k and 4k is very noticeable

[Majestic]

FX-8350, stick to 60hz.

[Notree]

get 2k or 4k monitor 60hz-higher is not that noticeable while switching to 2k and 4k is very noticeable

Not that noticeable? Everyone who play's fps competitively will tell you different. I would never game on 60hz again.

 

Heyo,

 

I'm currently shopping for a new monitor. I've been considering moving from a 60hz to a 120hz panel, but are they even worth it? I've heard time and time again that going from 60hz to 144hz makes a difference so I am not too worried about me not noticing a difference (I'm pretty certain my GPU can handle) but I don't remember ever seeing 120hz support in any game menus I checked. Do I necessarily need game support for 120hz? Would be kinda pointless if it runs at 60hz because most games don't support it. Any experience on that?

Mostly all new games have support for higher refresh rates. I cant actually remember one that hasn't. At least for fps games where it going to make the biggest difference.  If you are a competitive player I absolutely recommend 144hz monitor.

[CliffTerios]

get 2k or 4k monitor 60hz-higher is not that noticeable while switching to 2k and 4k is very noticeable

It seems pretty pointless to me if I'm not going to game in 4k. I don't have a high-end rig that could support 60+ FPS at 4k resolution. 

 

If your monitor only supports 60Hz and that's what it's set to, I doubt a lot of games will allow you to go above 60Hz.

Oh so that's why it never showed anything above that in my options?

 

Thanks to everyone who replied!

[Godlygamer23]

It seems pretty pointless to me if I'm not going to game in 4k. I don't have a high-end rig that could support 60+ FPS at 4k resolution. 

 

Oh so that's why it never showed anything above that in my options?

 

Thanks to everyone who replied!

That very would could be the reason. Pretty much every game I play supports an FPS above 60, save for Crysis 2. That is one example that for me is locked to 60FPS.

[Majestic]

The games supporting it is one thing, being able to drive 90-120fps is another. Again, 8350..stick to locked 60fps. You don't want your performance being dictated by the CPU, it's not a great experience.

[Godlygamer23]

The games supporting it is one thing, being able to drive 90-120fps is another. Again, 8350..stick to locked 60fps. You don't want your performance being dictated by the CPU, it's not a great experience.

Depends on the game. The increased load on the GPU makes the game less CPU bound.

[Majestic]

Depends on the game. The increased load on the GPU makes the game less CPU bound.

 

What, that makes no sense Godly. Increasing the framerate only makes the game more CPU bound. Changing your monitor doesn't somehow shift the balance between CPU and GPU, nor does it somehow make an 8350 reach 120 fps where it normally doesn't.

 

I already have issues recommending them for 1080p60fps, but they mostly scrape by. But 120hz scenario it's just not even remotely an option.

[Godlygamer23]

What, that makes no sense Godly. Increasing the framerate only makes the game more CPU bound. Changing your monitor doesn't somehow shift the balance between CPU and GPU, nor does it somehow make an 8350 reach 120 fps where it normally doesn't.

 

I already have issues recommending them for 1080p60fps, but they mostly scrape by. But 120hz scenario it's just not even remotely an option.

The CPU does not generate the frames. The GPU does.

[CliffTerios]

The games supporting it is one thing, being able to drive 90-120fps is another. Again, 8350..stick to locked 60fps. You don't want your performance being dictated by the CPU, it's not a great experience.

I don't exactly understand why my CPU should be the bottleneck in my system. Honestly, most of the games I play easily surpass 60 FPS, my main shooter runs at 90-140 FPS (varies strongly due to performance/optimization issues, avg. of about 100) it is only newer Tripple A titles my system struggles with every so often. If we're talking about 90-120 FPS that is. 

 

Also, monitoring usage, the games that don't go easily above 60 FPS usually max out the GPU, not CPU. I guess I'm just playing more GPU intensive games when moving away from my main titles. 

[Majestic]

The CPU does not generate the frames. The GPU does.

 

But your CPU still has to be able to generate the drawcalls for said frames, which only increases on a higher framerate. If you adjust your settings to aim for 120hz, you will be CPU bottlenecked, as the 8350 simply can't reach those framerates in modern games. If your GPU load increases when unlocking the framerate, you weren't saturating it in the first place...

 

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2015/core_i5_locked/charts/oc/c3_r.png

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2015/core_i5_locked/charts/oc/fc4.png

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2015/core_i5_locked/charts/oc/w3.png

 

Just no. 8350-> 60hz

 

Still want to go for it, go ahead man. But your performance will be determined predominantly by the CPU if you try to aim for higher framerates. And it will be a stuttery mess.

[Godlygamer23]

But your CPU still has to be able to generate the drawcalls for said frames, which only increases on a higher framerate. If you adjust your settings to aim for 120hz, you will be CPU bottlenecked, as the 8350 simply can't reach those framerates in modern games.

 

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2015/core_i5_locked/charts/oc/c3_r.png

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2015/core_i5_locked/charts/oc/fc4.png

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2015/core_i5_locked/charts/oc/w3.png

 

Just no. 8350-> 60hz

I did not say the 8350 would not be a bottleneck. I said that games becomes less CPU bound(not less CPU heavy) because the load on the GPU increases. Lowering resolution and detail settings will not magically give you 600FPS or what have you. You will eventually hit a wall where you limited by the performance of the CPU.

[Majestic]

I did not say the 8350 would not be a bottleneck. I said that games becomes less CPU bound(not less CPU heavy) because the load on the GPU increases. Lowering resolution and detail settings will not magically give you 600FPS or what have you. You will eventually hit a wall where you limited by the performance of the CPU.

 

If unlocking the framerate increases the GPU load you weren't saturating it. Your scenario only works if the Vsync was keeping the GPU at 50-75% load.

Unlocking the framerate and aiming for 120 instead of 60hz, makes the CPU a more important factor...not a lesser one. Especially a 8350, which doesn't have a large overhead to begin with. 

 

And tbh, many games are so constricted by design decisions for consoles and drawcall limited that even 4.5ghz i7-6700K only manage 70fps in fallout 4 for example. 

[GER_T4IGA]

The CPU does not generate the frames. The GPU does.

That is correct however it is not that easy.

[Godlygamer23]

If unlocking the framerate increases the GPU load you weren't saturating it. Your scenario only works if the Vsync was keeping the GPU at 50-75% load.

Unlocking the framerate and aiming for 120 instead of 60hz, makes the CPU a more important factor...not a lesser one. Especially a 8350, which doesn't have a large overhead to begin with. 

I'm going to question your benchmark numbers for Crysis 3:

https://teksyndicate.com/videos/crysis-3-benchmarks-amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-i7-3770k-both-overclocked

[Majestic]

I'm going to question your benchmark numbers for Crysis 3:

https://teksyndicate.com/videos/crysis-3-benchmarks-amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-i7-3770k-both-overclocked

 

HD7970. PCLab.pl tested on a 980TI. Bit more capable

 

And look at those framerates. Sub 40. Logan is a hack when it comes to CPU benchmarking. This is just GPU-bound.

[CliffTerios]

If unlocking the framerate increases the GPU load you weren't saturating it. Your scenario only works if the Vsync was keeping the GPU at 50-75% load.

Unlocking the framerate and aiming for 120 instead of 60hz, makes the CPU a more important factor...not a lesser one. Especially a 8350, which doesn't have a large overhead to begin with. 

 

And tbh, many games are so constricted by design decisions for consoles and drawcall limited that even 4.5ghz i7-6700K only manage 70fps in fallout 4 for example. 

I don't know much about monitors, and obviously not as much about PCs as the rest of you, but aren't you being too restrictive in your scenario? I'm not on a high-end rig, I do not aim for the newest Tripple A titles on max settings at 144 FPS with the hardware I use. Literally every single game you brought up as examples are games I do not play. And if I was to play them, I wouldn't go for max settings anyway. I rather turn the graphics down in favor of higher framerate anytime and I know I can't have both with my PC. 

 

So, given the games I play, which are usually more GPU bound; Again: My CPU rarely ever maxes out on anything I play. Would it still be absolutely pointless to get a 120hz Panel? I mean, I'm monitoring usage and FPS very often because I cover a lot of the games I play on a channel, so I know which components are utilized more than others and how many frames per second I'm getting. Would switching to a 120hz Panel really increase the load that drastically?

[Majestic]

I don't know much about monitors, and obviously not as much about PCs as the rest of you, but aren't you being too restrictive in your scenario? I'm not on a high-end rig, I do not aim for the newest Tripple A titles on max settings at 144 FPS with the hardware I use. Literally every single game you brought up as examples are games I do not play. And if I was to play them, I wouldn't go for max settings anyway. I rather turn the graphics down in favor of higher framerate anytime and I know I can't have both with my PC. 

 

So, given the games I play, which are usually more GPU bound; Again: My CPU rarely ever maxes out on anything I play. Would it still be absolutely pointless to get a 120hz Panel? I mean, I'm monitoring usage and FPS very often because I cover a lot of the games I play on a channel, so I know which components are utilized more than others and how many frames per second I'm getting. Would switching to a 120hz Panel really increase the load that drastically?

 

No i'm not, i'm trying to prevent you from being disappointed. Maybe in some games it works, but in others the CPU will be the limiting factor. So it will be a total hit&miss on what games it will work on. And lowering the settings won't always work, since you're only reducing the load on the GPU, and only making the CPU more and more the limiting factor (what godlygamer is trying to say). 

 

So which games do you play.

[Godlygamer23]

HD7970. PCLab.pl tested on a 980TI. Bit more capable

 

And look at those framerates. Sub 40. Logan is a hack when it comes to CPU benchmarking. This is just GPU-bound.

We are comparing the same games, save for Far Cry 3.

[CliffTerios]

 

 

So which games do you play.

Main games include: Dirty Bomb, World of Warcraft, The Elder Scrolls: Online, Heroes of The Storm and several survival games. 

 

Currently in addition to that: Rainbow Six: Siege, The Long Dark, CS:GO, Killing Floor 2, Mad Max... 

 

I think this gives a good roster of games I play. If it enhances my experiences with DB, WoW and HoTS alone I would consider it worth it already, since I am spending most of my time with these games.