120Hz greater than 144Hz

[geo3]

I've come to the conclusion that 120Hz is superior to 144Hz

Not numerically obviously, but as a usable and enjoyable refresh rate. 

 

Why? Well lets start off with why 144Hz is not better. Unless you put them side by side, I SERIOUSLY doubt anyone could tell the difference. Even side by side it would be difficult to tell. So being marginally faster is not really a practical advantage for 144. So now what advantages does 120Hz have? Well lets break out the math for a second and look at how those numbers factor out. Here's a list of all the factors of 120 and 144.

 

[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 24, 30, 40, 60, 120]

[1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 16, 18, 24, 36, 48, 72, 144]

 

Oh. 120 has more of them. Neat. Why does that matter?

 

Well let's assume your not in an adaptive sync situation. Your monitor doesn't support it, you've mismatched your monitor and GPU, the application your using doesn't support it(a video for example, more on that later). With more factors there are more stopping points for content that doesn't support the full refresh.  If you can't hit 144, you're doping to 72. Lets amuse you don't want screen tearing, and even if you do, each individual pixel will only be updating 72 times a second. This is because the updates come at set intervals, and if you miss one then the update is being seen on the screen at the next interval.

 

Any way, this is less of an issue in game where the fps fluctuates and can be adjusted with settings or better hardware. The real advantage comes in watching video where the frame rates are hard fixed. Look at those lists. Notice any common numbers relating to video? There are 4 of them. 24,30,48 and 60. These are common frame rates for all kinds of video. 24 being most film, 30 and 60 the vast majority of NTSC TV and YouTube and pretty much and video online, and 48 being... uh... the Hobbit trilogy.  

 

So if you exclude 48 which almost nothing uses (except the Hobbit), 3 of the 3 major frame rates for video will factor into 120 nicely, and only 1 will factor in to 144. No this doesn't mean you can't view 60fps video on a 144Hz monitor, but the motion quality will be reduced. By not factoring in evenly what you will get is jitter or uneven frame duplication. Frame duplication is just showing the same image for multiple refreshes of a monitor, say a 30 fps video on a 60Hz monitor will duplicate each frame twice. If it doesn't go in evenly you may get something like 2,2,3,2,3,3 just for example. Jitter. As human perception goes, we perceive this unevenness as being less smooth, even less smooth than something that's technically slower refreshing but completely even. 

 

So, that's my case for 120Hz over 144Hz. 

 

Indecently, if you have a 240Hz monitor it will take all 4 of the common video refresh rates. 

[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 20, 24, 30, 40, 48, 60, 80, 120, 240]

 

And if your trying to watch PAL content set your refresh for 100Hz. 

[1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, 50, 100]

[Blackhole890]

i'll get 144hz anyways

[Ayala]

Just now, Blackhole890 said:

i'll get 144hz anyways

 

6 minutes ago, geo3 said:

I've come to the conclusion that 120Hz is superior to 144Hz

Not numerically obviously, but as a usable and enjoyable refresh rate. 

 

Why? Well lets start off with why 144Hz is not better. Unless you put them side by side, I SERIOUSLY doubt anyone could tell the difference. Even side by side it would be difficult to tell. So being marginally faster is not really a practical advantage for 144. So now what advantages does 120Hz have? Well lets break out the math for a second and look at how those numbers factor out. Here's a list of all the factors of 120 and 144.

 

[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 24, 30, 40, 60, 120]

[1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 16, 18, 24, 36, 48, 72, 144]

 

Oh. 120 has more of them. Neat. Why does that matter?

 

Well let's assume your not in an adaptive sync situation. Your monitor doesn't support it, you've mismatched your monitor and GPU, the application your using doesn't support it(a video for example, more on that later). With more factors there are more stopping points for content that doesn't support the full refresh.  If you can't hit 144, you're doping to 72. Lets amuse you don't want screen tearing, and even if you do, each individual pixel will only be updating 72 times a second. This is because the updates come at set intervals, and if you miss one then the update is being seen on the screen at the next interval.

 

Any way, this is less of an issue in game where the fps fluctuates and can be adjusted with settings or better hardware. The real advantage comes in watching video where the frame rates are hard fixed. Look at those lists. Notice any common numbers relating to video? There are 4 of them. 24,30,48 and 60. These are common frame rates for all kinds of video. 24 being most film, 30 and 60 the vast majority of NTSC TV and YouTube and pretty much and video online, and 48 being... uh... the Hobbit trilogy.  

 

So if you exclude 48 which almost nothing uses (except the Hobbit), 3 of the 3 major frame rates for video will factor into 120 nicely, and only 1 will factor in to 144. No this doesn't mean you can't view 60fps video on a 144Hz monitor, but the motion quality will be reduced. By not factoring in evenly what you will get is jitter or uneven frame duplication. Frame duplication is just showing the same image for multiple refreshes of a monitor, say a 30 fps video on a 60Hz monitor will duplicate each frame twice. If it doesn't go in evenly you may get something like 2,2,3,2,3,3 just for example. Jitter. As human perception goes, we perceive this unevenness as being less smooth, even less smooth than something that's technically slower refreshing but completely even. 

 

So, that's my case for 120Hz over 144Hz. 

 

Indecently, if you have a 240Hz monitor it will take all 4 of the common video refresh rates. 

[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 20, 24, 30, 40, 48, 60, 80, 120, 240]

 

And if your trying to watch PAL content set your refresh for 100Hz. 

[1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, 50, 100]

So this won't be a problem with G-Sync?

[shadowbyte]

oh well

 

[emosun]

2 minutes ago, geo3 said:

I've come to the conclusion that 120Hz is superior to 144Hz

honestly I've come to the conclusion anything over 60hz is good enough

if the twitchyest , most hardcore difficult NES games and game masters can pull off amazing feats using a 60fps NES console , then i see no reason why average joe needs 144hz to play cs or pubg.

if you cant play at 60hz then maybe it's you that sucks and not the monitor.

[geo3]

2 minutes ago, Ayala said:

So this won't be a problem with G-Sync?

I'm pretty sure G-sync doesn't trigger on videos. Maybe there are some players that support it? I doubt any browser based player does it. IDK. Also isn't there a minimum rate at which it works?

[Oshino Shinobu]

1 minute ago, Ayala said:

 

So this won't be a problem with G-Sync?

144Hz is better for GSync as it gives you a larger effective range (24FPS more). For example, if you're running 130FPS, GSync will be turned off on a 120Hz monitor but will still be active on a 144Hz monitor. 

[Oshino Shinobu]

Just now, geo3 said:

I'm pretty sure G-sync doesn't trigger on videos. Maybe some there are some players that support it? IDK. Also isn't there a minimum rate at which it works?

I believe it somewhat depends on the monitor. Some will state 30-144Hz (or something like that) range, which means it cannot adjust the Hz below 30Hz, but I don't think that's a limit for GSync itself, just particular monitors. 

[Adreyu]

1 minute ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

144Hz is better for GSync as it gives you a larger effective range (24FPS more). For example, if you're running 130FPS, GSync will be turned off on a 120Hz monitor but will still be active on a 144Hz monitor. 

Not to highjack this, but that avatar is AWESOME. I would love to see a different version of the same thing with like a Vincent Valentine type cape.

Also I would say you are both right honestly. G-sync would benefit from the extra headroom, but in the niche he is talking about 120hz does seem to have a mathematical advantage. Plus its easier on your system to reach.

[Glenwing]

Yup. I would point out though that a 144 Hz monitor can be set to run at 120 Hz if you prefer. So it's not a reason to stop producing 144 Hz monitors and instead limit them to 120 Hz.

[emosun]

I think your not understanding that even though the monitor isn't at a frame rate that is a 2x multiple , it doesn't matter. The monitor will display any frame rate up to it's maximum.

you're under the impression that the game only supports frame rates that match the monitors incremental steps. and or , that jittering is a problem at those frame rates which it definitely isn't.

You might notice a 30fps video plays back strangely at 24hz. but a 120fps game on a 144hz monitor? no , just no.

[Sakkura]

24FPS video looks fine on a 60Hz monitor, but you're saying 60FPS video will look bad on a 144Hz monitor? No man. It's really not noticeable when you aren't controlling the input, AND the content has motion blur built in anyway.

[emosun]

2 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

24FPS video looks fine on a 60Hz monitor, but you're saying 60FPS video will look bad on a 144Hz monitor? No man. It's really not noticeable when you aren't controlling the input, AND the content has motion blur built in anyway.

I almost think this type of problem is limited to very low framerates or refresh rates.

like videos at 15/24/30fps being play on low hz monitors. but not an issue when the monitor is 60hz+

[geo3]

1 hour ago, emosun said:

I think your not understanding that even though the monitor isn't at a frame rate that is a 2x multiple , it doesn't matter. The monitor will display any frame rate up to it's maximum.

you're under the impression that the game only supports frame rates that match the monitors incremental steps. and or , that jittering is a problem at those frame rates which it definitely isn't.

Incorrect. Only if it has some kind of adaptive sync will it display at any refresh and that adaptive sync needs to be active and functioning for that content piece of content. Which for many reasons it may not be. Without it the monitor only displays AT exactly it's refresh rate, noting more, nothing less. The content will update at some integer division (factors) of that rate due to frame duplication. 

[geo3]

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

24FPS video looks fine on a 60Hz monitor, but you're saying 60FPS video will look bad on a 144Hz monitor? No man. It's really not noticeable when you aren't controlling the input, AND the content has motion blur built in anyway.

It's noticeable. Definitely more noticeable than the difference between 120 and 144.  Jitter is noticeable because it's an inconsistency. Our brains like to pick up on inconsistencies. 120Hz is just slower, marginally, than 144Hz, so you don't notice it.  So I will gladly give up an imperceptible amount of speed to get rid of somewhat noticeable jitter. 

 

Not all content has built in motion blur BTW.

[emosun]

 

23 minutes ago, geo3 said:

The content will update at some integer division (factors) of that rate due to frame duplication.

Yeah..... exactly. 

I dont think you get that this isn't an issue for anyone beisdes you.

maybe if it was a 30-24hz monitor more people would care becuase a human being might actually notice duplicate frames at such a low rate. But after 60 nobody cares about duplicate frames during a 120fps game on a 144hz monitor. that's just wayyyyy overthinking it.

[geo3]

Just now, emosun said:

120fps game on a 144hz monito

Nobodies talking about that.

[emosun]

2 minutes ago, geo3 said:

Nobodies talking about that.

you're talking about inconsistency which isn't a problem with such a high framerate and refreshrate. nobody cares at these rates.

[Sakkura]

11 hours ago, geo3 said:

It's noticeable. Definitely more noticeable than the difference between 120 and 144.  Jitter is noticeable because it's an inconsistency. Our brains like to pick up on inconsistencies. 120Hz is just slower, marginally, than 144Hz, so you don't notice it.  So I will gladly give up an imperceptible amount of speed to get rid of somewhat noticeable jitter. 

 

Not all content has built in motion blur BTW.

It's judder, not jitter.

 

And judder is not even really noticeable when running 24FPS movies on 60Hz TVs, so the judder from 60FPS on 144Hz... forget about it. It's not an issue.

[Glenwing]

On 10/29/2017 at 7:14 PM, emosun said:

 

Yeah..... exactly. 

I dont think you get that this isn't an issue for anyone beisdes you.

maybe if it was a 30-24hz monitor more people would care becuase a human being might actually notice duplicate frames at such a low rate. But after 60 nobody cares about duplicate frames during a 120fps game on a 144hz monitor. that's just wayyyyy overthinking it.

The judder comes from the fact that the integer factor changes constantly which causes some frames to be displayed longer as the others. Whether it's noticeable or not is a different issue, but from personal experience I can say that 60 fps looks noticeably choppier on a 144 Hz monitor than on a 60 Hz monitor.

[emosun]

2 hours ago, Glenwing said:

but from personal experience I can say that 60 fps looks noticeably choppier on a 144 Hz monitor than on a 60 Hz monitor.

yeah but in order for that to happen a game would have to be at exactly 60fps.

So a 60fps video would be what would show that effect best. but if 60fps video looked bad on 144hz monitors that would be a massive problem that more people would notice as 60fps videos tends to be the standard these days. Seeing as now nobody else seems to have an issue with 60fps video on 144hz monitors ,  it's a silly thing to focus on.

I'm not oblivious to what you're describing as just being inconsistency with duplicate frames but i'm sorry it's just a dumb concern when the framerate doesn't have a locked speed or is so high in the first place.

You also have to consider that , a video or game doesn't need to have a constant repeating number pattern to look smooth. A pattern of 1 , 2 ,1 , 3 , 1 , 2 , 1 , 3 frames is just as smooth as 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 frames. So long as it repeats that's all that matters. it doesn't matter the monitors final rate as a constant source will be broken up evenly not mater what anyway.

Ugh , maybe at lower hz and frames this would be a fun topic but at such high rates it's not even a topic worth discussion.