Is 144hz actually 144 fps?

[ShadowWolf810]

I'm having an argument with a friend of mine about IPS panels with refresh rates higher than 60 Hz. The way I've always understood monitors with high refresh rates is that its equivalent to how many frames per second it can display. So if you're playing a game and getting 100 fps, but your monitor is only 60 Hz that would mean that you were only seeing 60 fps, whereas if you had a 144 Hz monitor with a game running at 100 fps, then you'd be seeing 144 fps but some of the frames would be duplicated to make up for the difference.

 

My friend believes that you can't actually get an IPS monitor that is capable of displaying more than 60 fps, even if the refresh rate is higher than 60 Hz. He says that LG makes every monitor brand's panels, and the ones they make can only display 60 fps. He argues that a 144 Hz monitor would take the 100 fps the GPU was putting out in the previous example, but only actually display 60 of them. Essentially saying that the refresh rate is just how many times per second the monitor checks the GPU to see if a new frame was generated, but not what it's actually displaying, and really the only benefit of higher refresh rates would be lower input lag.

 

So who's right?  

 

 

[SCHISCHKA]

your friend is wrong. give him a No1 dumb ass trophy

[duckwithanokhat]

4 minutes ago, ShadowWolf810 said:

I'm having an argument with a friend of mine about IPS panels with refresh rates higher than 60 Hz. The way I've always understood monitors with high refresh rates is that its equivalent to how many frames per second it can display. So if you're playing a game and getting 100 fps, but your monitor is only 60 Hz that would mean that you were only seeing 60 fps, whereas if you had a 144 Hz monitor with a game running at 100 fps, then you'd be seeing 144 fps but some of the frames would be duplicated to make up for the difference.

 

My friend believes that you can't actually get an IPS monitor that is capable of displaying more than 60 fps, even if the refresh rate is higher than 60 Hz. He says that LG makes every monitor brand's panels, and the ones they make can only display 60 fps. He argues that a 144 Hz monitor would take the 100 fps the GPU was putting out in the previous example, but only actually display 60 of them. Essentially saying that the refresh rate is just how many times per second the monitor checks the GPU to see if a new frame was generated, but not what it's actually displaying, and really the only benefit of higher refresh rates would be lower input lag.

 

So who's right?  

 

 

No idea, but if going by your friend's logic, does that mean there are 40 frames missing? Surely there would be a noticeable difference.

 

Also isn't there an as fast as possible video on refresh rate?

[ivan134]

You're both wrong on different things

 

1. If you're getting 100 fps on a 144 Hz monitor, you're going to see 100 fps, not 144 fps. There won't be any duplicated frames.
2. Your friend is wrong that IPS panels higher than 60 Hz don't exist. I'm not even sure where the he got that from.

[stationvsbox]

7 minutes ago, ShadowWolf810 said:

I'm having an argument with a friend of mine about IPS panels with refresh rates higher than 60 Hz. The way I've always understood monitors with high refresh rates is that its equivalent to how many frames per second it can display. So if you're playing a game and getting 100 fps, but your monitor is only 60 Hz that would mean that you were only seeing 60 fps, whereas if you had a 144 Hz monitor with a game running at 100 fps, then you'd be seeing 144 fps but some of the frames would be duplicated to make up for the difference.

 

My friend believes that you can't actually get an IPS monitor that is capable of displaying more than 60 fps, even if the refresh rate is higher than 60 Hz. He says that LG makes every monitor brand's panels, and the ones they make can only display 60 fps. He argues that a 144 Hz monitor would take the 100 fps the GPU was putting out in the previous example, but only actually display 60 of them. Essentially saying that the refresh rate is just how many times per second the monitor checks the GPU to see if a new frame was generated, but not what it's actually displaying, and really the only benefit of higher refresh rates would be lower input lag.

 

So who's right?  

 

 

u are right, neck his ass next time you see him

[ShadowWolf810]

Just now, duckwithanokhat said:

No idea, but if going by your friend's logic, does that mean there are 40 frames missing? Surely there would be a noticeable difference.

 

Also isn't there an as fast as possible video on refresh rate?

I'm not sure if there would be a noticeable difference or not. Take for instance watching a Blu-Ray at 24 fps on a 60 Hz monitor. It must be duplicating frames to get up to the refresh rate so I imagine taking some frames out, especially if they're taken out at different times over a single second instead of in one big chunk then I think there wouldn't be a difference. 

[DELTAprime]

I'm not sure you are 100% right as I'm not sure about frame duplication at high frame rates. But you can absolutely have a display show up to 200hz/FPS which is the current highest on the market.

[Glenwing]

11 minutes ago, ShadowWolf810 said:

I'm having an argument with a friend of mine about IPS panels with refresh rates higher than 60 Hz. The way I've always understood monitors with high refresh rates is that its equivalent to how many frames per second it can display. So if you're playing a game and getting 100 fps, but your monitor is only 60 Hz that would mean that you were only seeing 60 fps, whereas if you had a 144 Hz monitor with a game running at 100 fps, then you'd be seeing 144 fps but some of the frames would be duplicated to make up for the difference.

 

My friend believes that you can't actually get an IPS monitor that is capable of displaying more than 60 fps, even if the refresh rate is higher than 60 Hz. He says that LG makes every monitor brand's panels, and the ones they make can only display 60 fps. He argues that a 144 Hz monitor would take the 100 fps the GPU was putting out in the previous example, but only actually display 60 of them. Essentially saying that the refresh rate is just how many times per second the monitor checks the GPU to see if a new frame was generated, but not what it's actually displaying, and really the only benefit of higher refresh rates would be lower input lag.

 

So who's right?  

The refresh rate on a monitor is the number of frames the monitor draws every second. You are correct, if the monitor is operating at 144 Hz, it is drawing a new frame to the screen 144 times every second. If your framerate is lower, some of the frames will be duplicated, and if your framerate is higher, some of the frames will be dropped. The monitor is always drawing exactly 144 frames every second if it is set to 144 Hz, regardless of the framerate.

 

IPS panels were not available at 120+ Hz for many years because no one had yet created an IPS panel that could operate at 120+ Hz reliably with high yields for mass production. We now have 120+ Hz IPS panels because someone was able to create such panels. It is just called progression of technology, nothing particularly special. "IPS panels can only go 60 Hz" was a statement of the current situation a few years ago, it is not some kind of universal law of physics that is impossible to move beyond.

 

Currently the highest mass production panels from LG operate at 75 Hz, although plenty of LG IPS panels have been successfully operated at 120+ Hz by some people via EDID overrides. The 144 Hz IPS panels currently on the market in the ASUS PG279Q, Acer XB270HU, etc. are manufactured by AU Optronics, not LG.Display, although it is rumored that LG.Display will be getting their own 120+ Hz IPS panels onto the market in due time as well.

[ShadowWolf810]

2 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

You're both wrong on different things

 

1. If you're getting 100 fps on a 144 Hz monitor, you're going to see 100 fps, not 144 fps. There won't be any duplicated frames.
2. Your friend is wrong that IPS panels higher than 60 Hz don't exist. I'm not even sure where the he got that from.

For my part of being wrong, is that only on monitors with G-sync where the refresh rate is being dynamically shifted based on what the GPU puts out? Or is that true for any panel? 

 

To be clear he does know that refresh rates of higher than 60 Hz exists, he just believes that their existence doesn't automatically translate to panels which can show more than 60 individual frames per second. 

[SCHISCHKA]

3 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

• If you're getting 100 fps on a 144 Hz monitor, you're going to see 100 fps, not 144 fps. There won't be any duplicated frames.

I thought a monitor outputs at a set frequency. you will see 100fps but your monitor will draw them at 144fps which means some frames will get drawn twice or you will get screen tearing

[ivan134]

2 minutes ago, ShadowWolf810 said:

For my part of being wrong, is that only on monitors with G-sync where the refresh rate is being dynamically shifted based on what the GPU puts out? Or is that true for any panel? 

 

To be clear he does know that refresh rates of higher than 60 Hz exists, he just believes that their existence doesn't automatically translate to panels which can show more than 60 individual frames per second. 

That's true for any panel regardless of whether it's GSync or FreeSync. With a non adpative sync monitor, the refresh rate will remain at 144 Hz, but you're only going to see the 100 fps from your example. I'm pretty sure you have a 60 Hz monitor (correct me if I'm wrong) and that at one point in time at least, you've played a game where you got below 60 fps and it looked and felt choppy. Obviously that effect is less noticeable at 100 fps, but it's the exact same thing that is happening when getting 100 fps on a 144 Hz monitor.

[ShadowWolf810]

3 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

Currently the highest mass production panels from LG operate at 75 Hz, although plenty of LG IPS panels have been successfully operated at 120+ Hz by some people via EDID overrides. The 144 Hz IPS panels currently on the market in the ASUS PG279Q, Acer XB270HU, etc. are manufactured by AU Optronics, not LG.Display, although it is rumored that LG.Display will be getting their own 120+ Hz IPS panels onto the market in due time as well.

I see, I don't know very much about monitors and panel manufacturers, etc, (which is why I'm asking of course) but I'm curious about a specific example. Word on the street is that one of the most fantastic monitors available right now is the Predator x34 which advertises a 100 Hz refresh rate. You had mentioned that 75 Hz was the highest on the market currently, so is the panel on the x34 different, or is it a 75 Hz display with what would be essentially a factory overclock? 

[Glenwing]

4 minutes ago, ShadowWolf810 said:

To be clear he does know that refresh rates of higher than 60 Hz exists, he just believes that their existence doesn't automatically translate to panels which can show more than 60 individual frames per second. 

If they still only show 60 individual frames every second then they are not higher than 60 Hz.

[Glenwing]

1 minute ago, ShadowWolf810 said:

I see, I don't know very much about monitors and panel manufacturers, etc, (which is why I'm asking of course) but I'm curious about a specific example. Word on the street is that one of the most fantastic monitors available right now is the Predator x34 which advertises a 100 Hz refresh rate. You had mentioned that 75 Hz was the highest on the market currently, so is the panel on the x34 different, or is it a 75 Hz display with what would be essentially a factory overclock? 

I said highest from LG was 75 Hz. Other IPS manufacturers offer higher.

[ShadowWolf810]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

That's true for any panel regardless of whether it's GSync or FreeSync. With a non adpative sync monitor, the refresh rate will remain at 144 Hz, but you're only going to see the 100 fps from your example. I'm pretty sure you have a 60 Hz monitor (correct me if I'm wrong) and that at one point in time at least, you've played a game where you got below 60 fps and it looked and felt choppy. Obviously that effect is less noticeable at 100 fps, but it's the exact same thing that is happening when getting 100 fps on a 144 Hz monitor.

Well its been quite some time since I've gotten less than 60 fps, that was back in my console pleb days haha. But you're correct I do have a 60 Hz display, but the argument came about just because I was drooling over these new monitors and complaining to my friend about how many technology upgrades I needed to make. And I mentioned I wanted a 4k, or higher resolution than 1080p, monitor with a refresh rate above 60 and he thought it wasn't possible. 

[ShadowWolf810]

3 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

I said highest from LG was 75 Hz. Other IPS manufacturers offer higher.

So with that example, is Acer the manufacturer of the panel for the x34? Don't really know much about the big players in that industry. And was sort of operating under the assumption that my friend was correct in saying that all monitor brands used LG panels. 

[ivan134]

3 minutes ago, ShadowWolf810 said:

Well its been quite some time since I've gotten less than 60 fps, that was back in my console pleb days haha. But you're correct I do have a 60 Hz display, but the argument came about just because I was drooling over these new monitors and complaining to my friend about how many technology upgrades I needed to make. And I mentioned I wanted a 4k, or higher resolution than 1080p, monitor with a refresh rate above 60 and he thought it wasn't possible. 

What GPU are you planning to get and what games do you play? If you play mostly fps, 1440p 144Hz is the current enthusiast sweet spot. If you play open world games like Witcher and GTA 5, I would go 34 inch curved ultrawide. I'm personally not a big fan of 4k 60 Hz for now, but that's up to you.

[ShadowWolf810]

Just now, ivan134 said:

What GPU are you planning to get and what games do you play? If you play mostly fps, 1440p 144Hz is the current enthusiast sweet spot. If you play open world games like Witcher and GTA 5, I would go 34 inch curved ultrawide. I'm personally not a big fan of 4k 60 Hz for now, but that's up to you.

Well I just upgraded to a GTX 1080 when they came out, and was feeling a little sad seeing myself getting 200+ fps at 1080p with ultra settings, and only seeing 60 on my current monitor. I do play mostly FPS, but am an all around gamer for sure. You say 1440p at 144 Hz is the sweet spot, does that mean that there aren't any 2160p monitors with higher refresh rates than 60 out there right now? Do you have any recommendations on specific monitors for 1440p 144 Hz? 

[ivan134]

5 minutes ago, ShadowWolf810 said:

Well I just upgraded to a GTX 1080 when they came out, and was feeling a little sad seeing myself getting 200+ fps at 1080p with ultra settings, and only seeing 60 on my current monitor. I do play mostly FPS, but am an all around gamer for sure. You say 1440p at 144 Hz is the sweet spot, does that mean that there aren't any 2160p monitors with higher refresh rates than 60 out there right now? Do you have any recommendations on specific monitors for 1440p 144 Hz? 

I could be wrong, but I don't think there are any 4k monitors that offer higher than 60 Hz.

 

Both of these are IPS and GSync monitors

http://pcpartpicker.com/product/ttnG3C/acer-monitor-xb271hubmiprz

 

http://pcpartpicker.com/product/XvfmP6/asus-monitor-pg279q

[Glenwing]

28 minutes ago, ShadowWolf810 said:

So with that example, is Acer the manufacturer of the panel for the x34? Don't really know much about the big players in that industry. And was sort of operating under the assumption that my friend was correct in saying that all monitor brands used LG panels. 

The X34 panel is manufactured by AU Optronics. LG.Display, SDC (Samsung Display Co.), and AUO are the main players. Sharp is also a smaller manufacturer, generally they make panels for themselves, and there are a number of other smaller manufacturers (Innolux, BOE, and others).

 

LG manufactures their own panels

Samsung manufacturers their own panels

Dell uses almost exclusively LG panels, although some of their recent ones have used Samsung panels

BenQ uses almost exclusively AU Optronics panels.

Apple uses LG panels

Acer uses a mix, mainly AUO panels, some LG

ASUS uses a mix

[ShadowWolf810]

17 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

I could be wrong, but I don't think there are any 4k monitors that offer higher than 60 Hz.

 

Both of these are IPS and GSync monitors

http://pcpartpicker.com/product/ttnG3C/acer-monitor-xb271hubmiprz

 

http://pcpartpicker.com/product/XvfmP6/asus-monitor-pg279q

I see! My current monitor is listed as TFT Active Matrix, on the panel type on newegg, I'm not sure how this compares to IPS, VA, and TN, but I know its on the lower end of things. 

 

I'm wondering if I might even consider something like the Predator Z35 (should the upgrade budget appear somehow) since its a 2k monitor, but with up to 200 Hz refresh rate: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIAAVC49K0066&cm_re=acer_predator_z35-_-24-009-874-_-Product

I think that would be a well optimized choice for a single GTX 1080 if smoothness was the top priority. Since I'm not used to an IPS display anyway, I wonder if going to a high end VA panel like that would be a smart idea? In theory the increase in refresh rate, resolution, and panel quality (even if not going all the way up the spectrum to IPS) would still make it feel like a welcome upgrade, no? 

[ShadowWolf810]

14 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

The X34 panel is manufactured by AU Optronics. LG.Display, SDC (Samsung Display Co.), and AUO are the main players. Sharp is also a smaller manufacturer, generally they make panels for themselves, and there are a number of other smaller manufacturers (Innolux, BOE, and others).

 

LG manufactures their own panels

Samsung manufacturers their own panels

Dell uses almost exclusively LG panels, although some of their recent ones have used Samsung panels

BenQ uses almost exclusively AU Optronics panels.

Apple uses LG panels

Acer uses a mix, mainly AUO panels, some LG

I see, thanks for the information! What's the best way to check what manufacturer created a panel for a specific display? On Newegg for example you basically just get specs on the panel type, not the manufacturer.  

[ivan134]

 

3 minutes ago, ShadowWolf810 said:

I see! My current monitor is listed as TFT Active Matrix, on the panel type on newegg, I'm not sure how this compares to IPS, VA, and TN, but I know its on the lower end of things. 

 

I'm wondering if I might even consider something like the Predator Z35 (should the upgrade budget appear somehow) since its a 2k monitor, but with up to 200 Hz refresh rate: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIAAVC49K0066&cm_re=acer_predator_z35-_-24-009-874-_-Product

I think that would be a well optimized choice for a single GTX 1080 if smoothness was the top priority. Since I'm not used to an IPS display anyway, I wonder if going to a high end VA panel like that would be a smart idea? In theory the increase in refresh rate, resolution, and panel quality (even if not going all the way up the spectrum to IPS) would still make it feel like a welcome upgrade, no? 

Hell no. Not only is that an obscene amount of money for 2560 x 1080, but that resolution would look terrible on a screen that big.

[Glenwing]

8 minutes ago, ShadowWolf810 said:

I see, thanks for the information! What's the best way to check what manufacturer created a panel for a specific display? On Newegg for example you basically just get specs on the panel type, not the manufacturer.  

Look for a detailed review of it by www.tftcentral.co.uk or www.pcmonitors.info.

[ShadowWolf810]

8 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

 

Hell no. Not only is that an obscene amount of money for 2560 x 1080, but that resolution would look terrible on a screen that big.

Hmm I suppose that is true, at the same viewing distance a bigger monitor with a lower resolution to size ration would look worse or maybe equivalent to my current display in terms of quality. 

For those two monitors you linked, do you know of a good resource for seeing the color accuracy?