# Does 120hz give FPS gamers online an advantage? if the game supports 120 fps



## Phusius (Sep 9, 2012)

and the person is able to run it at 120 fps, does that person get an advantage in FPS games online?


----------



## newlife (Sep 9, 2012)

From what i know 120fps gives better response(keyboard mouse and etc) but 120hz doesnt mater


----------



## INSTG8R (Sep 9, 2012)

newlife said:


> From what i know 120fps gives better response(keyboard mouse and etc) but 120hz doesnt mater



You realize that statement is almost a contradiction?

120hz=120fps (V-synch limited) I would get no pleasure out of playing at 120fps on a 60hz monitor because V-synch would have to be disabled to achieve it so it would be tearing something awful(double the FPS the monitor can render)

That is the purpose of 120hz monitors. To be able to smoothly render frames higher than the "standard" 60hz. That is where the responsiveness comes in to play getting it above 60fps


----------



## Jetster (Sep 9, 2012)

It would take two of his 7970 to run most new games at 120fps. And with V-synch it will drop his frame rate if he cant maintain it right?


----------



## Phusius (Sep 9, 2012)

yes jet


----------



## Mussels (Sep 9, 2012)

Jetster said:


> It would take two of his 7970 to run most new games at 120fps. And with V-synch it will drop his frame rate if he cant maintain it right?



Vsync doesnt make you 'drop' FPS, it just caps the maximum.


the old days of it halving to 30FPS when you cant do 60 are long gone.




Does this give you an advantage: yes. just like a better mouse, or keyboard, or bigger screen, or higher resolution...


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 9, 2012)

depends on the gamer, but yes...

for longest time competitive FPS gamers used CRT monitors for this reason.

Most serious FPS peeps don't use vsync because there is a noticeable lag in control response.


----------



## manofthem (Sep 9, 2012)

phanbuey said:


> Most serious FPS peeps don't use vsync because there is a noticeable lag in control response.



this is great, I'm going to start using vsync as my excuse for low k/d ratio in competitive multiplayer 

OT, I'd like to try 120hz but my Korean is doing fairly well, so I'm in no rush


----------



## INSTG8R (Sep 9, 2012)

phanbuey said:


> depends on the gamer, but yes...
> 
> for longest time competitive FPS gamers used CRT monitors for this reason.
> 
> Most serious FPS peeps don't use vsync because there is a noticeable lag in control response.



See I couldn't stand the tearing. I would take that lag(that very rarely I have I noticed personally) over my screen tearing with every move I make. Maybe I'm just used to "the lag" because I ALWAYS run V-Synch.


----------



## qubit (Sep 9, 2012)

Phusius said:


> and the person is able to run it at 120 fps, does that person get an advantage in FPS games online?



Short answer, yes. It helps in single player against bots, too.

In the end though, it tends to be a subtle difference at best and the particular game being played and the skill of the player are just as importent. However, the improvement in rendering smoothness is very noticeable. All this of course, depends on the system being able to render at a constant 120Hz/FPS with vsync locked.


----------



## NC37 (Sep 9, 2012)

INSTG8R said:


> See I couldn't stand the tearing. I would take that lag(that very rarely I have I noticed personally) over my screen tearing with every move I make. Maybe I'm just used to "the lag" because I ALWAYS run V-Synch.



My sentiment as well. The tearing gets so bad it detracts from the game itself.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Sep 9, 2012)

I use a 120Hz screen in TF2 and get 120 FPS VSYNC 98% of the time with the game maxed out, and I wouldn't use anything less ever again. Had to upgrade from a Phenom II X4 to do it too as it was such a weak CPU compared to my 2600K.

I think many of the people disagreeing about the benefits 120Hz monitors bring haven't actually used one. You wouldn't buy a sound card with a low sample rate, or pick a 100mb LAN connection over a 1000mb LAN connection, would you? How is that any different from buying a faster monitor?

Take your mouse and watch the cursor move across the screen. See how you can observe all the little stutters in the cursor? Those at 120Hz are pretty much gone. 

120Hz isn't necessarily about seeing every single frame. In reality, it decreases the time between frame updates which makes the entire game look smoother and more responsive. In the case of VSYNC being enabled, higher framerate = less input lag.


----------



## manofthem (Sep 9, 2012)

@Phusius: are you thinking again of getting rid of your 2560.1440 for a 120hz 1080?


----------



## naraku (Sep 9, 2012)

What happens if vsync is on 60hz and your gpu doesn't have enough power to produce 60fps? And what happens if your monitor is limited to 60hz and your gpu can produce so much more? Sorry for the newbie question.


----------



## newlife (Sep 9, 2012)

INSTG8R said:


> You realize that statement is almost a contradiction?
> 
> 120hz=120fps (V-synch limited) I would get no pleasure out of playing at 120fps on a 60hz monitor because V-synch would have to be disabled to achieve it so it would be tearing something awful(double the FPS the monitor can render)
> 
> That is the purpose of 120hz monitors. To be able to smoothly render frames higher than the "standard" 60hz. That is where the responsiveness comes in to play getting it above 60fps



no i am talking about control response not what the screen is running higher fps is better but can give tearing if above refresh rate as the pc is able to process more info per second giving better responce times


----------



## newlife (Sep 9, 2012)

naraku said:


> What happens if vsync is on 60hz and your gpu doesn't have enough power to produce 60fps? And what happens if your monitor is limited to 60hz and your gpu can produce so much more? Sorry for the newbie question.



if ur frame rate is under 60 fps and vsync is on it drops ur fps.
and the more fps the more info ur computer can process per second give better responce in controls


----------



## INSTG8R (Sep 9, 2012)

naraku said:


> What happens if vsync is on 60hz and your gpu doesn't have enough power to produce 60fps? And what happens if your monitor is limited to 60hz and your gpu can produce so much more? Sorry for the newbie question.



Short answer: If it's "under" it's gonna lag. If it's "over" it's gonna tear(with v-synch off)


----------



## newlife (Sep 9, 2012)

INSTG8R said:


> Short answer: If it's "under" it's gonna lag. If it's "over" it's gonna tear(with v-synch off)



good way of putting it


----------



## Finners (Sep 9, 2012)

Will I get tearing if I'm running at ~80fps on a 120hz screen?


----------



## 1nf3rn0x (Sep 9, 2012)

In cod 4 when going for bounces or strafe jumps I change my FPS to 125/333 which allows for smoother movement to hit the correct spot. So yes it does.


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Sep 9, 2012)

yes it will, specially in fast paced games like quake 3/ quake live. After a while you will even noticed the difference on desktop when dragging windows or moving the mouse pointer.


----------



## INSTG8R (Sep 9, 2012)

Finners said:


> Will I get tearing if I'm running at ~80fps on a 120hz screen?



No not at all. You just have some "overhead" 

The "Deal" with 120hz monitors is to get past that 60hz "wall" I mean my card can easily run most games well over 60fps with eye candy on to my liking. But once you get over that 60hz mark with V-synch off the tearing starts because the monitor can't render anymore than 60FPS

Switch that 120hz it no longer becomes an issue the "wall" is now alot further away. Can still keep the eye candy on, the card gets to stretch it's legs and you get a smoother experience out it because the game can run that much faster. without consequences


----------



## MatTheCat (Sep 9, 2012)

INSTG8R said:


> No not at all. You just have some "overhead"
> 
> The "Deal" with 120hz monitors is to get past that 60hz "wall" I mean my card can easily run most games well over 60fps with eye candy on to my liking. But once you get over that 60hz mark with V-synch off the tearing starts because the monitor can't render anymore than 60FPS



I can remember being forced to run games with V-sync OFF, because my GFX card wasn't fast enough to handle them otherwise, and I still got tearing with frame rates never reaching above 30FPS on a 60Hz monitor.


----------



## qubit (Sep 9, 2012)

Finners said:


> Will I get tearing if I'm running at ~80fps on a 120hz screen?



Tearing is an artefact of having vsync off, not the framerate being rendered, so yes you will see it. Using triple buffered vsync gives you the best of both worlds, where tearing is eliminated and lag minimised.


----------



## INSTG8R (Sep 9, 2012)

MatTheCat said:


> I can remember being forced to run games with V-sync OFF, because my GFX card wasn't fast enough to handle them otherwise, and I still got tearing with frame rates never reaching above 30FPS on a 60Hz monitor.



Which is why we are still "stuck" with the 60hz standard still. It USED to be "tough" to hit/maintain 60fps and Auntie Mabel checking her email on her Dell is neither going to know or care about her FPS or refresh rate. Outside of us gamers it's a non-issue. 

GFX cards have advanced pretty quickly in Features and Power. Monitors are not keeping pace


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 9, 2012)

On a 120hz display theoretically you see the next frame about 8.3 milliseconds faster than at 60hz. The only problem is that your braining isn't running any faster and your reaction time isn't going to be improved at all so regardless of how quickly it displays the next frame, it won't give you an "edge" in FPS games. It will look smoother, less ghosting might help, but that is about it. But when push comes to shove, it's a matter of skill and practice more than what hardware you're using.


----------



## INSTG8R (Sep 9, 2012)

qubit said:


> Tearing is an artefact of having vsync off, not the framerate being rendered, so yes you will see it. Using triple buffered vsync gives you the best of both worlds, where tearing is eliminated and lag minimised.



The Triple Buffering you have in your Control Panel is only for OGL  The program you used to be able to Force D3D Triple Buffering doesn't work anymore(I can't think of the name of iit, Need Sleep) DXOverrider?

But alot more games have it "baked in"


----------



## Phusius (Sep 9, 2012)

manofthem said:


> @Phusius: are you thinking again of getting rid of your 2560.1440 for a 120hz 1080?



No, I sold my 1440p on Ebay for $30 more than what I paid for it because ran in to some financial issues.  Picked up the third best rated monitor off Newegg.com an Acer for $129.99 free ship no tax, at least until I get back on my feet financially someday.  Honestly It is not bad for an old non-LED, I like it so far.


----------



## qubit (Sep 9, 2012)

INSTG8R said:


> The Triple Buffering you have in your Control Panel is only for OGL  The program you used to be able to Force D3D Triple Buffering doesn't work anymore(I can't think of the name of iit, Need Sleep) DXOverrider?
> 
> But alot more games have it "baked in"



Damn, I thought it worked with DX now? Maybe it doesn't, I'll double check it at some point.


----------



## manofthem (Sep 9, 2012)

Phusius said:


> No, I sold my 1440p on Ebay for $30 more than what I paid for it because ran in to some financial issues.  Picked up the third best rated monitor off Newegg.com an Acer for $129.99 free ship no tax, at least until I get back on my feet financially someday.  Honestly It is not bad for an old non-LED, I like it so far.



Acer FTW!  Mine is sitting next to my bed


----------



## Kreij (Sep 9, 2012)

A really good player on a 60Hz monitor is still going to pwn you even if you have a 4 gazillion Hz monitor.
Patience and practice makes you better and gives you the edge, not your monitor.
Just saying.


----------



## qubit (Sep 9, 2012)

Kreij said:


> *A really good player on a 60Hz monitor is still going to pwn you even if you have a 4 gazillion Hz monitor.*
> Patience and practice makes you better and gives you the edge, not your monitor.
> Just saying.



Ya had to rub it in, didn't ya. 

That's exactly what happens at our lan party. Some 13 year old boy pwns me every time and he's playing UT on some crappy laptop that's doing 20-40fps, while mine is doing a nice steady 60fps. I can nail him at times too, though. 

Just for a laugh, we swapped laptops and this predictably made my humiliation total!  It was the funniest thing you ever saw.

On top of that, he said he felt more comfortable on his laptop than mine.


----------



## INSTG8R (Sep 9, 2012)

Kreij said:


> A really good player on a 60Hz monitor is still going to pwn you even if you have a 4 gazillion Hz monitor.
> Patience and practice makes you better and gives you the edge, not your monitor.
> Just saying.



Not that I am a N00B PWNER!!111 by any means I haven't touched BF3 in 6 months not even to test out my 7970. But I ALWAYS have V-sycnh on. I bet if I turned ioff I would be WORSE because I am totally "tuined" to 60fps


----------



## CDdude55 (Sep 10, 2012)

I never touch V-Sync unless tearing is very noticable ,i can deal with a low level of tearing but once i see entire frames being noticably tore then i can't live without it. 

But as stated, overall player skill is most important then how fast your monitor updates.


----------



## MatTheCat (Sep 10, 2012)

INSTG8R said:


> Which is why we are still "stuck" with the 60hz standard still. It USED to be "tough" to hit/maintain 60fps and Auntie Mabel checking her email on her Dell is neither going to know or care about her FPS or refresh rate. Outside of us gamers it's a non-issue.
> 
> GFX cards have advanced pretty quickly in Features and Power. Monitors are not keeping pace



My point was, that V-sync off = tearing. No matter what the refresh rate of the monitor is or how fast the GFX card is.


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 10, 2012)

MatTheCat said:


> My point was, that V-sync off = tearing. No matter what the refresh rate of the monitor is or how fast the GFX card is.



It depends on the engine.  Some tearing is worse than other.  For instance, Rage (id soft's) looks like an untracked VHS tape, while Source games and BF3 barely have any tearing (IMO).

I personally don't notice tearing unless its REALLY bad - to me, as an FPS gamer, control input LAG is a death sentence, especially if you are going online.  Your performance just plummets.

When you say FPS gamers, I am assuming someone like me, who has a mouse-pad the size of a couch pillow, low to mid DPI DeathAdder or some other high speed sensor mouse and plays FPS for that bit of adrenaline.  FPS gamers to me are people that can, in the middle of a run, jump up, do a full 180, and hit someone in the head with a shot in far under a second, and that complain about shot reg on servers with a low TIC rate.  

These are the type of people that back in the day used to hack their intellipoint to get the USB to poll at 1000hz instead of 250 to get that bit of a microsecond edge.  And have entire forum threads on optimum sensitivity, and also are developing a time machine to go back and assassinate the people responsible for mouse acceleration and mouse smoothing.

For those people, being able to see and control to 120 FPS is much more important than not having any tearing, so yes, it gives a noticeable advantage.  For everyone else - i am sure that it is nice to have, and it makes things a bit smoother - but an advantage if any is minimal.


----------



## INSTG8R (Sep 10, 2012)

MatTheCat said:


> My point was, that V-sync off = tearing. No matter what the refresh rate of the monitor is or how fast the GFX card is.



Preaching to the choir


----------



## D007 (Sep 10, 2012)

INSTG8R said:


> You realize that statement is almost a contradiction?
> 
> 120hz=120fps (V-synch limited) I would get no pleasure out of playing at 120fps on a 60hz monitor because V-synch would have to be disabled to achieve it so it would be tearing something awful(double the FPS the monitor can render)
> 
> That is the purpose of 120hz monitors. To be able to smoothly render frames higher than the "standard" 60hz. That is where the responsiveness comes in to play getting it above 60fps



I had to lol after I read what he said too..  120 hz requires 120 fps and vice versa. Otherwise you're stuk, limited..


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 10, 2012)

Kreij said:


> A really good player on a 60Hz monitor is still going to pwn you even if you have a 4 gazillion Hz monitor.
> Patience and practice makes you better and gives you the edge, not your monitor.
> Just saying.



I can tell you that FPS does matter. A few of the guys in the BF3 clubhouse noticed their games improved when they gained more FPS. I was one of them. The reaction time was far better and my score per minute sky rocketed. So I gotta say yeah......120Hz monitor is gonna improve your skill in SOME games.


----------



## Millennium (Sep 10, 2012)

Any options for 120hz IPS 27" high res low latency? I'm thinking only modded / old catleap will come close? 

cheers


----------



## INSTG8R (Sep 10, 2012)

Millennium said:


> Any options for 120hz IPS 27" high res low latency? I'm thinking only modded / old catleap will come close?
> 
> cheers



Yes there IS 

There is some great info there as well.


----------



## Drone (Sep 10, 2012)

Sometimes higher framerate can affect gameplay in a bad way, lol.


----------



## qubit (Sep 10, 2012)

Drone said:


> Sometimes higher framerate can affect gameplay in a bad way, lol.



Yeah, framerate can certainly affect a game engine negatively all right. For example, running the original Unreal Tournament on fast modern hardware with vsync unlocked can cause the game to run too fast, unevenly too. It tends to happen above around 6-700fps or so if I remember correctly.


----------



## n-ster (Sep 10, 2012)

Millennium said:


> Any options for 120hz IPS 27" high res low latency? I'm thinking only modded / old catleap will come close?
> 
> cheers



IIRC it wasn't actually doing 120hz... it strted to double or wtv after ~82 hz or something


----------



## Kreij (Sep 10, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I can tell you that FPS does matter. A few of the guys in the BF3 clubhouse noticed their games improved when they gained more FPS. I was one of them. The reaction time was far better and my score per minute sky rocketed. So I gotta say yeah......120Hz monitor is gonna improve your skill in SOME games.



Technically, No. You (and the other BF3 players) already had the skill, a better frame rate just allowed for you to use that skill more effectivley. Same with any hardware.
The monitor (or FPS increase) didn't improve your skill ... at all.

That being said, having greater response and higher accuracy from your hardware is always an advantage when gaming if you're good enough to take advantage of it.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Sep 11, 2012)

Yes, it gives you an advantage.

Im running on a 120hz. Switched to it back in BFBC2. Significantly raised the clarity when moving the camera (provided I was above 80 fps, which was doable with bfbc2). That amount of clarity made enemies more decipherable. Tested it out with CoD, and it was capping at 120fps which made stuff really clear and less blurry.

Bf3, good experience overall (but was getting just 70fps from it, and dipping to the low 40s on huge maps).

Good pc horsepower, hi fi headphones, responsive mechanical keyboard, accurate gaming mouse, fast monitor... combine those, and it would narrow the bottleneck down to the player and his skills.


----------



## xBruce88x (Sep 11, 2012)

my moniter kills me in gaming... its getting to where some of the colors seem to bright while others are too dark. Darker colors tend to blur together... makes playing CS1.6 a PITA. its also at a low 60hz... back when i had my high end crt I could score kill after kill... now i'm lucky to hit the guys at all. so i just stick to single player games now. the poor view angle doesn't help any. Its a really old viewsonic from 2004-2005.

I had a set of Tritton AX 51s... the rounded ones not the newer square shaped ones. those helped my gaming quite a bit too.. so much that i was constantly accused of hacking lol


----------



## qubit (Sep 11, 2012)

xBruce88x said:


> my moniter kills me in gaming... its getting to where some of the colors seem to bright while others are too dark. Darker colors tend to blur together... makes playing CS1.6 a PITA. its also at a low 60hz... back when i had my high end crt I could score kill after kill... now i'm lucky to hit the guys at all. so i just stick to single player games now. the poor view angle doesn't help any. Its a really old viewsonic from 2004-2005.
> 
> I had a set of Tritton AX 51s... the rounded ones not the newer square shaped ones. those helped my gaming quite a bit too.. so much that i was constantly accused of hacking lol



It sounds like that monitor has significant input lag. I'll bet if it was run side by side with a CRT monitor that it would be very obvious.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 11, 2012)

naraku said:


> What happens if vsync is on 60hz and your gpu doesn't have enough power to produce 60fps?



Just to clarify on this: 
With normal VSync on, if the card can't reach 60 FPS it will drop to 30 FPS, next step is 20 FPS.

from one of my reviews: "Traditional V-Sync merely sends frame data to the screen after every full screen refresh. This means if a frame arrives slow, because the GPU took longer to render it, it will have to wait a full screen refresh before it can be displayed, effectively reducing frame rate to 30 FPS. If rendering a frame takes longer than two full refreshes, the frame rate will even drop down to 20 FPS."

NVIDIA adaptive VSync or one of the FPS limiter tools out there will use a different approach, which doesn't cause the drop to 30 FPS


----------



## Mussels (Sep 12, 2012)

i thought triple buffering was what made it not drop to 30.


i always run with Vsync on, and i get FPS all over the place. only in old openGL games without triple buffering, did it have to be divisible (EG, 15/30/60)


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 12, 2012)

Kreij said:


> Technically, No. You (and the other BF3 players) already had the skill, a better frame rate just allowed for you to use that skill more effectivley. Same with any hardware.
> The monitor (or FPS increase) didn't improve your skill ... at all.
> 
> That being said, having greater response and higher accuracy from your hardware is always an advantage when gaming if you're good enough to take advantage of it.



One could argue that by allowing to use the skill more effectively, the FPS improved our skill because of more effective practice.


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 12, 2012)

Kreij said:


> That being said, having greater response and higher accuracy from your hardware is always an advantage when gaming if you're good enough to take advantage of it.



That's why by the time your brain even has received the information from any given frame, on a 120hz monitor, (8.3ms between frames) and lets assume your reaction time is better than the average person, say 100ms (I think average is something like 150-200ms, I need to find some sources on that one though). By the time your brain even processes that first frame, your computer has already displayed the next 12 frames (or 20-25 if you're an "average human")! Sorry, but frame rate isn't going to help a typical non-genetically enhanced human being. 

Oh yeah, that's not including the time it takes to tell the muscles in your arm and hand to move the mouse or press some keys.

The only thing that I can see a 120hz display helping with is reduced ghosting and providing a more fluid picture for rapidly changing events and that only helps you if you can decipher everything going on at any given moment.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 12, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> That's why by the time your brain even has received the information from any given frame, on a 120hz monitor, (8.3ms between frames) and lets assume your reaction time is better than the average person, say 100ms (I think average is something like 150-200ms, I need to find some sources on that one though). By the time your brain even processes that first frame, your computer has already displayed the next 12 frames (or 20-25 if you're an "average human")! Sorry, but frame rate isn't going to help a typical non-genetically enhanced human being.
> 
> Oh yeah, that's not including the time it takes to tell the muscles in your arm and hand to move the mouse or press some keys.
> 
> The only thing that I can see a 120hz display helping with is reduced ghosting and providing a more fluid picture for rapidly changing events and that only helps you if you can decipher everything going on at any given moment.



Play BF3 at 30 FPS and then play it at 60 FPS and tell me the same. Never mind 120FPS.


----------



## 3870x2 (Sep 12, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Play BF3 at 30 FPS and then play it at 60 FPS and tell me the same. Never mind 120FPS.



30 to 60 will make a huge difference.

I cant say that 60 to 120 would make nearly as much of a difference, but I could see it doing some good.

I remember seeing 75 back when I had a CRT, and it was very noticeable.


----------



## qubit (Sep 12, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> That's why by the time your brain even has received the information from any given frame, on a 120hz monitor, (8.3ms between frames) and lets assume your reaction time is better than the average person, say 100ms (I think average is something like 150-200ms, I need to find some sources on that one though). By the time your brain even processes that first frame, your computer has already displayed the next 12 frames (or 20-25 if you're an "average human")! Sorry, but frame rate isn't going to help a typical non-genetically enhanced human being.
> 
> Oh yeah, that's not including the time it takes to tell the muscles in your arm and hand to move the mouse or press some keys.
> 
> The only thing that I can see a 120hz display helping with is reduced ghosting and providing a more fluid picture for rapidly changing events and that only helps you if you can decipher everything going on at any given moment.



You can try figuring it out by working out all those milliseconds and concluding that it doesn't help, but you need to actually try it to see the benefit. Twice the temporal resolution really does make a difference to your gameplay. Of course, your system must be able to animate at 120fps too, or it's a bit wasted. Another positive effect of this, is that if the system drops a few frames, so goes down to 100 or even 90 fps, then the judders aren't nearly as noticeable as on a 60Hz monitor, because they're so much smaller and happening at a much higher frequency already.

I have a 120Hz monitor and will vouch for this.


----------



## newconroer (Sep 12, 2012)

Show me the top one hundred shooter players in any given game and have them all use CRT vs LED at 60 or 120 hz and they'll be no discernable pattern in their performance.

120hz is mainly useful for 3d gaming. The percentile of people that can notice the difference visually between 120 and 60 is even less than that of 24 to 60 and it depends on the rendering engine in question and the software being displayed.

I find that most people convince themselves there's a difference so they can justify spending the money on multiple high end GPUs and spiffy 'backlit LED' 3d monitors alongside.

Sounds almost like you're hinting at suggestion on whether you should buy one?
If so you should be more worried about other pertinent factors.



Having a VG278 as well, I can attest that 60hz on my 30" at 1600p is still more enjoyable than having a handful of games running true 120 on the 27"


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 12, 2012)

newconroer said:


> Show me the top one hundred shooter players in any given game and have them all use CRT vs LED at 60 or 120 hz and they'll be no discernable pattern in their performance.
> 
> 120hz is mainly useful for 3d gaming. The percentile of people that can notice the difference visually between 120 and 60 is even less than that of 24 to 60 and it depends on the rendering engine in question and the software being displayed.
> 
> ...



Yeah because pro gamers didn't stick with CRT's well into the LCD era because they loved lugging around 1337 CRT's.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Sep 12, 2012)

No its more people how use vsync give there selfs a disadvantage, I play a lot of FPS and also live with the Tearing for more smooth movement and i use a 120hz screen and pop 200+ frames.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Sep 12, 2012)

Phusius said:


> and the person is able to run it at 120 fps, does that person get an advantage in FPS games online?



My answer would be... it depends on the game. Fast paced FPS games, it really does help. Games like Quake (any of them), TF2, Tribes Ascend, CoD series, etc. When I was playing quakelive on a regular basis, it helped my overall accuracy about 5-6%. Most notably, it helped my lightning gun percentage a good 6-8%. 30-32% to 35-40%.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 12, 2012)

johnnyfiive said:


> My answer would be... it depends on the game. Fast paced FPS games, it really does help. Games like Quake (any of them), TF2, Tribes Ascend, CoD series, etc. When I was playing quakelive on a regular basis, it helped my overall accuracy about 5-6%. Most notably, it helped my lightning gun percentage a good 6-8%. 30-32% to 35-40%.



Quake.......when I was playing Quake 3 I was if I may say epic. Never was really that good at a game before or since. Quake 3 and TheMailman were one.


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 12, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> That's why by the time your brain even has received the information from any given frame, on a 120hz monitor, (8.3ms between frames) and lets assume your reaction time is better than the average person, say 100ms (I think average is something like 150-200ms, I need to find some sources on that one though). By the time your brain even processes that first frame, your computer has already displayed the next 12 frames (or 20-25 if you're an "average human")! Sorry, but frame rate isn't going to help a typical non-genetically enhanced human being.
> 
> Oh yeah, that's not including the time it takes to tell the muscles in your arm and hand to move the mouse or press some keys.
> 
> The only thing that I can see a 120hz display helping with is reduced ghosting and providing a more fluid picture for rapidly changing events and that only helps you if you can decipher everything going on at any given moment.



See you're right - so if I have the same reaction time as an average human, but i just got the first frame 8.3ms faster than the guy next to me, i have that extra time to react.  He has to wait 8.3ms before he can even start to react.

It is precicely because you're the bottleneck that you need to be constantly fed ahead of time, since the speed of the game depends entirely on you.

Now he can compensate for that 8.3ms with skill and and reflexes, but it is harder.  Also if i am in mid aim, and i am trying to intersect my crosshairs with the other guys face, and I get notice 8.3ms earlier that i have reached my target, I will be less likely to overshoot and my accuracy will increase.  So not only do i have more time to react, but also better accuracy, and that is an advantage.  

I also have more information regarding the speed and pattern of motion - i have double the datapoints with which to predict a moving target, and any patterns with which it moves.  All of these things added up make a noticeable difference.  And yes, any pro FPS gamer will tell you how they cried when they went to LCD.


----------



## de.das.dude (Sep 12, 2012)

NO NO NO. anything above 30-40fps your eye or brain cant detect.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Sep 12, 2012)

de.das.dude said:


> NO NO NO. anything above 30-40fps your eye or brain cant detect.



Maybe your brain.


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 12, 2012)

de.das.dude said:


> NO NO NO. anything above 30-40fps your eye or brain cant detect.



That is absolute nonsense.


----------



## qubit (Sep 12, 2012)

I "can't detect" anything above 20fps, but no matter.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 12, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Oh yeah, that's not including the time it takes to tell the muscles in your arm and hand to move the mouse or press some keys.



just a note that the time it takes for your brain to tell any muscle in your body to move is not currently measurable.


----------



## Drone (Sep 12, 2012)

de.das.dude said:


> NO NO NO. anything above 30-40fps your eye or brain cant detect.



If you sit in pitch black room in absolute darkness and then suddenly for 1/100th of a second light turns on and off would you see it? I know I would see it. Some trained pilots can identify 200 fps.


----------



## erocker (Sep 12, 2012)

Drone said:


> If you sit in pitch black room in absolute darkness and then suddenly for 1/100th of a second light turns on and off would you see it? I know I would see it. Some trained pilots can identify 200 fps.



Very good example.


----------



## D007 (Sep 12, 2012)

I lol.. Been playing games since games were games.. Talking pong here.. It is noticeable.. A drop from 60 to 50 IS noticeable.. Once you learn how to perceive 120 hz.. The drop to 60 is noticeable as well.. Try it yourself if you really want to know. Speculation doesn't cut it.. Go play at 120, then play the same game at 60.. Tell me you don't see it.. I'd have to call shenanigans though..


----------



## qubit (Sep 12, 2012)

D007 said:


> I lol.. Been playing games since games were games.. Talking pong here.. It is noticeable.. A drop from 60 to 50 IS noticeable.. Once you learn how to perceive 120 hz.. The drop to 60 is noticeable as well.. Try it yourself if you really want to know. Speculation doesn't cut it.. Go play at 120, then play the same game at 60.. Tell me you don't see it.. I'd have to call shenanigans though..



Yup, of course you can see it: 50fps on 60Hz = judder, since frames are being dropped. Annoying, uneven judder at that.

Of course driving a 60Hz screen at 60fps will of course look super smooth. However, what do you think happens if you drive a 120Hz screen with a 120Hz video signal, but with 60fps animation? (You can do this in nvidia's latest drivers.)

You get judder too, only now that it's at 60Hz, you perceive it as a doubled picture instead, smoothly animated! And the faster the motion is the more obviously doubled the image is. This perception is accurate too, because doing this actually means that the motion stops every other frame, since it's shown twice and that's exactly what you see.


----------



## D007 (Sep 12, 2012)

qubit said:


> Yup, of course you can see it: 50fps on 60Hz = judder, since frames are being dropped. Annoying, uneven judder at that.
> 
> Of course driving a 60Hz screen at 60fps will of course look super smooth. However, what do you think happens if you drive a 120Hz screen at 60fps? (You can do this in nvidia's latest drivers.)
> 
> You get judder too, only now that it's at 60Hz, you perceive it as a doubled picture instead, smoothly animated! And the faster the motion is the more obviously doubled the image is. This perception is accurate too, because doing this actually means that the motion stops every other frame, since it's shown twice and that's exactly what you see.



I feel a little smarter after reading this...


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 12, 2012)

your brain doesn't work in FPS, it is constantly taking in light data, there is no real FPS limit that you intake, there is a certain FPS that looks like smooth motion.  But you are constantly taking in input so you see a change right away, it just takes those ms to register.

Thats why 120 FPS is more about control input and reaction times than it is about 'smoothness'.


----------



## cmaxvt (Sep 12, 2012)

Plain and simple, YES, it is the biggest upgrade to First Person Shooter gaming you will ever make.  If you have the power to do it (big strong GPU, a good setup, etc) you will notice a massive amount of improvement in accuracy, speed, etc.  There is a massive improvement in how well the game plays.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 12, 2012)

Kreij said:


> That being said, having greater response and higher accuracy from your hardware is always an advantage when gaming if you're good enough to take advantage of it.




Hrm. I agree with you, but...


We have differnt input devices, mice, monitors, keyboards, etc..and all of these "refresh" data with different intervals.


I play Bf3 right now on a 60 Hz, 2560x1600 monitor, and I literally feel a difference all the way up to over 120 FPS.

My mouse polls at 1000 Hz.

My keyboard @ 125 Hz.

My screen @  60 Hz.


Do the math, so that all those refresh rates sync up, and you have "The SECRET NUMBER OF GAMING LIFE".

THen, find out the user's "Hz", and then match that up to the periphrials...


DO you get where I am going here?


NOw, does a 120 Hz monitor make a differnece?


YES!!! It changes that special number!!!

It does NOT matter who is viewing it! 

It does NOT matter where your "EYE" can perceive that difference.

It matters in that it changes the sync'd polling rate between all devices!!!


Now ,tell me what marketing dude has said anything remotely similar, and point me in the direction of that company, so I can buy their stuff, since they get "it".


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 12, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> Hrm. I agree with you, but...
> 
> 
> We have differnt input devices, mice, monitors, keyboards, etc..and all fo these "refresh" data with different intervals.
> ...



except all of you devices go to a central hub that does the processing... so its is not like they need to 'sync' up as if they were in a chain.  Also your screen gets input from the hub at maximum speed, it is limited only by what it can display, irrespective of the other device polling speeds (hence benchmarks rendering 100+fps on a 60hz screen, and games responding at 100FPS on a 60 Hz screen).

The input devices I agree with, but again - it is a hub and spoke model, so your keyboard will not affect your mouse.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 12, 2012)

It's NOT that simple, phan.


At least, I do not beleive so.

It's not about one affecting another in the PC... It's much more complex and involved than that.




Otherwise, why does 120 FPS let ME play better, on a 60 Hz monitor? The monitor is just not at all capable of displaying anything over 60...


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 12, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> It's NOT that simple, phan.
> 
> 
> At least, I do not beleive so.
> ...



I believe because the game responds to your commands at 120 FPS, because your hub is fast enough to process the I/O and turn it into a tangible command for the application/engine.   Your rate of command never changes - 1000hz - but the rate of response to command processing is what dictates the entire system.

I agree with you that the system is complex - but because it is central, with a single output, and it becomes simple since the output is what matters (as you even say, on a 60FPS monitor, my hub output of 120 makes the game more responsive) - the monitor is being fed 120fps and your I/O is captured at 120 FPS, the display itself is not as relevant as the 120FPS hub output (but it would be better at 120hz).


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 12, 2012)

phanbuey said:


> the monitor is being fed 120fps



Nope, it isn't. The videocard is simply rendering that 120 FPS, and discarding the frames that are not needed to send the monitor it's 60 Hz signal.


So, you need to sync input with output, right? How do you sync up the input, keeping those frames that are discarded in mind?


----------



## Depth (Sep 12, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> So, you need to sync input with output, right? How do you sync up the input, keeping those frames that are discarded in mind?


Tsk, you put it in a different cable, silly


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 12, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> Nope, it isn't. The videocard is simply rendering that 120 FPS, and discarding the frames that are not needed to send the monitor it's 60 Hz signal.
> 
> 
> So, you need to sync input with output, right? How do you sync up the input, keeping those frames that are discarded in mind?



That is my point - you dont need to sync - my assumption based on a very light bit of research into this - is that FPS (or the output of the console or device or hub) is highly correlated to game responsiveness and control/actions being registered.  You game better i.e. the game is more responsive at 120 FPS - FPS is measured at the rendering level - not so much at the display level - so if I turn my display down to 30 hz, but my game is running at 120 fps, my response rate will get worse, but it will still be better than 30 hz and 30 fps.

Because even though the frame did not render, the command (click) registered already, and even though the video card dropped the first 3 frames, I am at the same place in the action as I would have been had it rendered all of them.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3725/measuring_responsiveness_in_video_.php?print=1

We may be talking about different things, but to me the 200+ FPS in counterstrike feels better than 100 - ever so slightly, on a 60 hz display.  My eyeballs are still getting the full glory of 60 pictures per second, but the engine is reading me at 200.

"Graphics Lag

The granddaddy of all lag, this is the result of a general slowdown in graphics, and is a common occurrence for any gamer. Basically, your system just can't produce enough Frames Per Second (FPS) to make everything feel nice and smooth.* Anytime graphics lag happens, you'll typically get a reduction in the responsiveness of your controls.* Your actions take a fraction longer to be reflected in the graphics on-screen because it takes your system a bit more time to create each new frame of graphics and send it to your monitor."

http://www.geforce.com/optimize/guides/how-to-get-rid-of-lag-guide/#1\

^ basically - all lag happens at the hub.  The reason 120 FPS is better at 60hz is it responds faster than 60 fps at 60 hz.  There is slightly less lag.


----------



## cadaveca (Sep 12, 2012)

phanbuey said:


> all lag happens at the hub.



What hub? Where is this located in the PC? Yes,  Ido think we are looking at two different aspects here, although similar. I am NOT talking about rendering lag, or input lag, per se.


Let me put it this was 120 FPS will take 6 seconds to properly sync with 125 Hz polling rate of USB, and most polling will be out of sync.


125 FPS, woudl sync PERFECTLY with 125 Hz * notcounting input lag and rendering lag, which is to say, the time taken for that input to be processed and travel to it's destination.)

Like the nVidia article says, there are many types of lag, and lag of some sort is always going to occur. But, you cna optimize that lag in certain ways, and when considered all together, it becomes a very complex issue.*


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 12, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> What hub? Where is this located in the PC? Yes,  Ido think we are looking at two different aspects here, although similar. I am NOT talking about rendering lag, or input lag, per se.
> 
> 
> Let me put it this was 120 FPS will take 6 seconds to properly sync with 125 Hz polling rate of USB, and most polling will be out of sync.
> ...


*

Right - I understand what you are saying - somewhere in those 6 seconds of not syncing, several commands from your mouse could have made it to the frame before, but had to wait for the next one (which is why we now have 1000hz mice, so that the sync gap is minimal)

I agree with this, what i was saying is that it has nothing to do with the hz of your monitor or keyboard, as you had listed, but that all those devices depend on FPS at the center. So there are actually 3 separate "Secret gaming numbers of life" that are not related to one another.  I think i might have muddled that a bit initially though lol.*


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 13, 2012)

phanbuey said:


> Right - I understand what you are saying - somewhere in those 6 seconds of not syncing, several commands from your mouse could have made it to the frame before, but had to wait for the next one (which is why we now have 1000hz mice, so that the sync gap is minimal)



I don't believe the human brain is capable of taking advantage of this extremely minor improvement. You're talking about seeing the difference between turning 3 degrees on one frame per given time frame (1/60th of a second in our case) and 1.5 degrees, two times in that same 60th of a second. So taking all the other advantages of 120hz such as no apparent ghosting, more vivid colors due to the newer panels, brighter LED back lighting, and higher pixel density, tell me, what about 120hz really helps you play better?

All in all, modern games usually have user input polling on its own thread, so rendering has no impact on the quality of the input by the user, assuming CPU power is plentiful. 120hz really is just more aesthetically pleasing because it's a smoother transition between the frames.

Cadaveca: +2 for you.


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 13, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> I don't believe the human brain is capable of taking advantage of this extremely minor improvement. You're talking about seeing the difference between turning 3 degrees on one frame per given time frame (1/60th of a second in our case) and 1.5 degrees, two times in that same 60th of a second. So taking all the other advantages of 120hz such as no apparent ghosting, more vivid colors due to the newer panels, brighter LED back lighting, and higher pixel density, tell me, what about 120hz really helps you play better?
> 
> All in all, modern games usually have user input polling on its own thread, so rendering has no impact on the quality of the input by the user, assuming CPU power is plentiful. 120hz really is just more aesthetically pleasing because it's a smoother transition between the frames.
> 
> Cadaveca: +2 for you.



well me and dave are saying the same thing: that ur brain can and does... what we are talking about is how the system delivers it to us and the internal timings - he has a point - a synced system would be realtime - but I am saying that the controls are independent because of the game engine.

What you just said makes it even more independent so....?  an independent thread makes the system even less interrelated...

not following :|


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 13, 2012)

phanbuey said:


> What you just said makes it even more independent so....? an independent thread makes the system even less interrelated...
> 
> not following :|



You don't need to stop polling for user input because another thread wants to read memory that the other is using. It just reads what is going on with the input and processes it accordingly. There is no locking or memory when you're only reading, so saying it is "out of sync" doesn't mean much of anything because it is more responsive than how quickly frames are getting rendered and your not preventing the application from reading user input.

Lets say your game is polling at 1000hz, just because the display isn't showing all the changes as smoothly doesn't mean that the input is slow. You're trying to tell me that seeing a frame 8ms earlier is going to help. Also just because a thread is running asynchronously doesn't mean it has to synchronize, because nothing would change if it had to. Weather or not your running at 60hz or 120hz, you're still polling for user input at 1000hz. Your ability to react to an external stimuli is completely unchanged because of the display your using, let me put it that way.



phanbuey said:


> he has a point - a synced system would be realtime


No, just because a system is in sync doesn't mean it is real-time. Real-time implies time restrictions on how quickly something needs to be processed. You may want to learn your terms before using them.



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> In computer science, real-time computing (RTC), or reactive computing, is the study of hardware and software systems that are subject to a "real-time constraint"— e.g. operational deadlines from event to system response. Real-time programs must guarantee response within strict time constraints.[1] Often real-time response times are understood to be in the order of milliseconds and sometimes microseconds. *In contrast, a non-real-time system is one that cannot guarantee a response time in any situation, even if a fast response is the usual result.*



Games are definitely not real-time applications. 



phanbuey said:


> but I am saying that the controls are independent because of the game engine.


 That is when you're doing the same thing in parallel because everything eventually has to sync up. Input and graphics are two completely different things, which aren't going to block each other because they don't write to memory that the other will need to write to.

I believe you've been misinformed.


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 13, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> You don't need to stop polling for user input because another thread wants to read memory that the other is using. It just reads what is going on with the input and processes it accordingly. There is no locking or memory when you're only reading, so saying it is "out of sync" doesn't mean much of anything because it is more responsive than how quickly frames are getting rendered and your not preventing the application from reading user input.
> 
> Lets say your game is polling at 1000hz, just because the display isn't showing all the changes as smoothly doesn't mean that the input is slow.



Yes that is exactly what I have been saying - read my stuff again.  I go on to say that FPS is what actually SHOWS the input to the user.  Input gets taken>action applied to game>user sees rendered result.  What I am saying is super basic: the game is applying your commands to frames as it draws them.  Now read what dave said about syncing... 



Aquinus said:


> You're trying to tell me that seeing a frame 8ms earlier is going to help.


Yes, it is a proven fact, look at the USAF research.  The brain can react to to something around 1/200th of a second. Your brain is not on a refresh, my 1/200th starts 8ms earlier in this case.
http://whisper.ausgamers.com/wiki/index.php/How_many_FPS_human_eye_can_see




Aquinus said:


> Also just because a thread is running asynchronously doesn't mean it has to synchronize, because nothing would change if it had to. Weather or not your running at 60hz or 120hz, you're still polling for user input at 1000hz. Your ability to react to an external stimuli is completely unchanged because of the display your using, let me put it that way.



That is correct, I have been saying they don't have to sync.  Again, when you move the engine registers it, but then it has to do something with that information right?  It has to make the game behave... how fast does it make it behave? - that is your FPS.  And yes if your external stimuli is giving you images faster, your ability to react is faster so.  The second part is wrong.



Aquinus said:


> No, just because a system is in sync doesn't mean it is real-time. Real-time implies time restrictions on how quickly something needs to be processed. You may want to learn your terms before using them.



OK you're right - I didnt use "Real Time Computing," the named concept, I actually meant "real time" it to describe it the temporal nature, but fine.  Sorry if I misspoke.



Aquinus said:


> Games are definitely not real-time applications.



I didn't say they were, who said they were? First of all it was Dave's hypothetical that has nothing to do with you or your knowledge of real time computing, second, it was a very lofty hypothetical with a ton of assumptions that would never happen in the real world.  



Aquinus said:


> That is when you're doing the same thing in parallel because everything eventually has to sync up. Input and graphics are two completely different things, which aren't going to block each other because they don't write to memory that the other will need to write to.
> 
> I believe you've been misinformed.



So you're saying that a game at 30FPS should then be just as responsive as a game at 60, which never ever happens - so inform me - why is it that a 30 FPS game exhibits input lag?


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 13, 2012)

phanbuey said:


> Yes, it is a proven fact, look at the USAF research. The brain can react to to something around 1/200th of a second.
> http://whisper.ausgamers.com/wiki/in...an_eye_can_see


Nothing on that link has a source to the USAF. 



phanbuey said:


> So you're saying that a game at 30FPS should then be just as responsive as a game at 60, which never ever happens - so inform me - why is it that a 30 FPS game exhibits input lag?


I highly doubt you're experiencing input lag if there is plenty of CPU power and it's limited by the GPU unless your playing a single-threaded game from 10 years ago where input has to wait on the frame being drawn. It may feel less responsive because you're seeing it happen all at once in 2 times the rate as you did before, but if you tell the mouse to move, weather its at 30fps or 120fps, it's still moving the same amount in the same time. It's a matter of when you see it and how quickly it takes your brain to register that something did happen.

I'm not saying it takes 150-200ms to see something change. It takes that long to process what you're seeing, think about what you're going to do, then actually tell your hand to do it. So weather you see an enemy on one frame or another, you're still talking about responding to something that goes from showing up 32ms later to 8ms later. That 24ms edge doesn't give you a whole lot of working room, and is small enough where you could attribute chaos and human error in any fluctuation at speeds that quick.

Please find a credible source and I will be happy to read it because these sites are what your link cited and they have no data, no sources, and no proven empirical research. I also don't like trusting wikipedia for this kind of information. Even more so from an Australian gaming website. 


> http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
> http://amo.net/nt/05-24-01FPS.html


----------



## Easy Rhino (Sep 13, 2012)

lol this thread is hurting my brain. the hz rate of things like a mouse and keyboard are irrelevant since the CENTRAL PROCESSING UNIT takes care of all that. all you need to be concerned about is matching the hz rate of the monitor with your cpu and gpus ability to talk to eachother properly and hit that hz target in the form of FPS.


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 13, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Nothing on that link has a source to the USAF.
> 
> 
> I highly doubt you're experiencing input lag if there is plenty of CPU power and it's limited by the GPU unless your playing a single-threaded game from 10 years ago where input has to wait on the frame being drawn. It may feel less responsive because you're seeing it happen all at once in 2 times the rate as you did before, but if you tell the mouse to move, weather its at 30fps or 120fps, it's still moving the same amount in the same time. It's a matter of when you see it and how quickly it takes your brain to register that something did happen.



Here you can try this yourself: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/featur...o_.php?print=1



Aquinus said:


> I'm not saying it takes 150-200ms to see something change. It takes that long to process what you're seeing, think about what you're going to do, then actually tell your hand to do it. So weather you see an enemy on one frame or another, you're still talking about responding to something that goes from showing up 32ms later to 8ms later. That 24ms edge doesn't give you a whole lot of working room, and is small enough where you could attribute chaos and human error in any fluctuation at speeds that quick.



Yeah but that chaos and human error can be applied to the guy that is 24ms behind - in no scenario do I want to be 24 ms behind.  It gives a slight edge that is magnified when you apply it to a chain of actions.


----------



## 3870x2 (Sep 13, 2012)

Easy Rhino said:


> lol this thread is hurting my brain. the hz rate of things like a mouse and keyboard are irrelevant since the CENTRAL PROCESSING UNIT takes care of all that. all you need to be concerned about is matching the hz rate of the monitor with your cpu and gpus ability to talk to eachother properly and hit that hz target in the form of FPS.



Thank god someone spoke up, I was beginning to lose my faith in humanity.


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 13, 2012)

3870x2 said:


> Thank god someone spoke up, I was beginning to lose my faith in humanity.



I think this thread is proof that I need to work on the clarity of my writing, or something.


----------



## Phusius (Sep 15, 2012)

phanbuey said:


> I think this thread is proof that I need to work on the clarity of my writing, or something.



Glad my topic helped advance the human species.


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 15, 2012)

Phusius said:


> Glad my topic helped advance the human species.



if you don't get a 120 hz monitor after this I will find your ass and kill it....



... in Borderlands 2.


----------



## Wrathier (Sep 18, 2012)

On my monitor the Asus 27" VG278H LED / 3D / 120Hz it gives a great picture even running below 120Mhz. It can be seen while turning fast ex. BF3. However, that can also be, that the screen just is pretty good? Even in 2D, desktop etc, it is said that 120Mhz screens just gives a better more fluent experience. I for once totally agree.


----------



## newlife (Sep 18, 2012)

Im just going to put this out there


----------



## Wrathier (Sep 18, 2012)

newlife said:


> Im just going to put this out there



I have been playing with that a little, but havent really had much success with it besides in 3D Mark benchmark. - I do not use it anymore. 

If my RIG cant handle it, it must be upgraded.


----------



## newlife (Sep 18, 2012)

Wrathier said:


> I have been playing with that a little, but havent really had much success with it besides in 3D Mark benchmark. - I do not use it anymore.
> 
> If my RIG cant handle it, it must be upgraded.



im not not fan of it, it tends to course more probs then anything, just wanted to use it as example


----------

