Is a 144Hz monitor better than 75Hz without even getting 144FPS?

[Hip]

Hey guys,

 

I wonder if there is any benefit by getting a 144Hz alone, or is it a must to get 144FPS?

 

Planning to get a GTX 1080 but I wonder if there is any improvement even without a better graphics card just by the more Hz?

 

Thanks in advance!

[Origami Cactus]

Well normal desktop use will also feel much smoother.(mouse movements etc)

 

But if it is a 1080p monitor then with the gtx1080 you should be able to hit 144hz in almost any game.

[AskTJ]

If you don't have the hardware to run 144Hz, don't buy the monitor. Most games will be under 144Hz with slower hardware. All content will be maxed out at 60FPS as well.

[Hip]

Just now, Origami Cactus said:

Well normal desktop use will also feel much smoother.(mouse movements etc)

 

But if it is a 1080p monitor then with the gtx1080 you should be able to hit 144hz in almost any game.

It would be a WQHD monitor.

My CPU is just a i5 4670

[Origami Cactus]

1 minute ago, Hip said:

It would be a WQHD monitor.

My CPU is just a i5 4670

What games are you planning on playing with that monitor?

If esports then you should hit 144hz, but that cpu is kinda weak, so AAA games maybe not.

 

I mayself dont see much difference in 144hz and 75, so i would recommend going to some pc store and trying out a 144hz monitor before buying.

 

But if you dont have the hardware to run it i would recommend saving your money, because 144hz 1440p monitors tend to be very expensive.

[Hip]

1 minute ago, Origami Cactus said:

What games are you planning on playing with that monitor?

If esports then you should hit 144hz, but that cpu is kinda weak, so AAA games maybe not.

 

I mayself dont see much difference in 144hz and 75, so i would recommend going to some pc store and trying out a 144hz monitor before buying.

 

But if you dont have the hardware to run it i would recommend saving your money, because 144hz 1440p monitors tend to be very expensive.

I would play Squad, Battlefield 1 and Elder Scrolls Online.

 

Yeah, most of them cost at least 380 USD and not even G-Sync.

[Hugs12343]

In answer to your question. No, if you're not getting more than 75 fps, it will feel the same as on a 75hz monitor.

 

But you have a 1080 so it will be fine.

[Hip]

1 minute ago, Hugs12343 said:

In answer to your question. No, if you're not getting more than 75 fps, it will feel the same as on a 75hz monitor.

 

But you have a 1080 so it will be fine.

Thanks! I'm not sure if it's worth the price. Because I won't get any G-Sync monitor with my budget. The only option could be a FreeSync monitor from Acer with 144Hz. But I'm not sure how much FPS this system could give me, if it's even worth to get this monitor or rather get a 75Hz that costs like 60 USD less.

[Hugs12343]

2 minutes ago, Hip said:

Thanks! I'm not sure if it's worth the price. Because I won't get any G-Sync monitor with my budget. The only option could be a FreeSync monitor from Acer with 144Hz. But I'm not sure how much FPS this system could give me, if it's even worth to get this monitor or rather get a 75Hz that costs like 60 USD less.

Put it this way. If you switch to 144Hz, you won't be able to go back. But if you stay with 60Hz/75Hz then it won't cost you.

People say it makes a big difference and it probably does but I don't really think it's worth the money.

[Toby Tanfield]

Although it is correct, that the monitor will only use 1 frame rendered by the game 144 times per second at its fastest (144Hz), the time the monitor has to wait for the rendered frame can make a large difference in input latency because the rendered frame isn't always made just before the monitor is ready to refresh, hence the monitor has to wait, which creates latency.

 

i.e If your getting 60fps, on a 60Hz monitor, you will feel much higher latency compared to having

 

> 300fps on a 60Hz monitor. (5 times more frames to chose from, thus more likely to be rendered close to the displayed frame)

 

Or

 

>60fps on a 120Hz monitor (Increases the likely hood of a frame being rendered in time for it to be displayed).

 

Both do the same thing, but since monitors only really go up to 144Hz without breaking the bank, your better off getting a better GPU, displaying a lot more frames, and decreasing the frame latency more.

 

I guess its all about frame latency to cost ratio for best value, providing you have more fps than the refresh rate of the monitor.

 

Or just get a monitor with G-Sync which makes sure the monitor's refresh rate is adapting as fast as possible to the fps, although even that doesn't always work perfectly (when fps is below the refresh rate), since it can never be right on the money, since fps is constantly changing usually.