144hz - how much fps required to notice it

[IllogicalGlory]

I'm buying a 144hz monitor from Asus (pretty sure it's the only one) and I just want to know how high my FPS should be to notice the difference in games.

I'm told there's a major difference around 80 or so.

 

[taq8ojh]

I don't know, 144 maybe? Using logic.

 

[Ben90]

I'm personally very sensitive to frame rates. I would say the side by side threshold for being able to tell a difference is slightly under 5fps at ~60. In blind testing, it's hard to tell a difference under 10fps. 80 fps is a nice comforting step up from 60, but still feels jarring after being used to 150.

Honestly just drop the settings on a game you like to play and test for yourself, everyone has a different tolerance to these things. I went over to my friends house who has the same monitor as myself and his computer just felt terrible moving the mouse around and navigating Windows Explorer. It took around 15 seconds of confusion until I realized he was running at 60Hz. He had absolutely no idea the whole time. FWIW he tears me up in all things video game related.

 

[poundruss]

honestly, i'd say look at around 100 FPS minimum for the nicest difference. everything above that is great as well, but i would aim for at least 100. i'm sure you can tell a nice difference at 80 as well, but i don't really play games at lower than 100. i'll lower the quality if need be, it's worth it.

 

[lehtv]

Any framerate significantly over 60 will be noticeably smoother on 144hz than 60fps @ 60hz/Vsync. Of course, the more the better. But if you compare side by side, you will notice 80fps on 144hz vs 60fps on 60hz

 

[taq8ojh]

Could someone provide a link with explanation what the deal with 120/144Hz monitors is, and how does it relate to all the lag/stuttering/whatever? I am fairly confused.

 

[lehtv]

120hz is just the monitors refresh rate. Instead of updating the image 60 times a second or 16.67ms apart, it updates it 120 times a second or 8.33ms apart. The higher frequency results in a smoother image and higher responsiveness / lower lag. It doesn't relate to stuttering in any sense.

 

[taq8ojh]

Don't you need to run a game at 120FPS minimum to benefit from the refresh rate at all?

 

[lehtv]

No, of course not. On 60hz, you can't see the frames beyond 60fps because the monitor doesn't update more than 60 times a second. On 120hz, you can, because the monitor updates 120 times a second. Think of the refresh rate as a maximum number of frames per second that you can benefit from, not a minimum.

 

[Ben90]

Even when running sub 60FPS on a 120Hz monitor, it pulls another 8ms off the time it takes to completely draw the frame when the buffer flips (along with untearing the image after the second pass).

That 8ms isn't the end of the world when it comes to input delay, but things add up really fast.

 

[looper]

I have just started researching this topic.

The Asus TN panel 'VG248QE' for @ $263. would be a possibility. A step up would be the BenQ 'XL2420TE' for @ $399.

With an nVidia card and LightBoost hacked for 2D FPS gaming, you get even faster with one of those monitors, AFAIK to this point.

I'm considering getting the EVGA GTX 770 (4GB) card and the above BenQ monitor.

 

[jackstar7]

An nV card is no longer a requirement for Lightboost.

 

[mango123]

i have the asus 144 hz monitor btw, and let me tell you.... you notice a difference even sub 60 fps at 144hz VS 60hz.

It's sort of hard to explain, you need to see it yourself in person to be able to feel it. Not so big of a deal when you have a TV with lower refresh rate, but as other poster said as far as input lag goes.... much higher on 60fps.

For me personally nowadays when I play on other setups that are not 144hz it feels like my mouse is not connected to my hand nor the screen, its almost as though the computer "feels slow" visually.

hey cool. i didn't know that. can someone link to a how to or article on setting up lightboost for amd cards?

last time i checked i needed a nvidia gpu running physyx to do it.

 

[Sheep221]

120hz is just the monitors refresh rate. Instead of updating the image 60 times a second or 16.67ms apart, it updates it 120 times a second or 8.33ms apart. The higher frequency results in a smoother image and higher responsiveness / lower lag. It doesn't relate to stuttering in any sense.

Well, let's correct this abit, the LCD screen only updates at the places where the change occurs, it's not like CRT which is redrawn 50-120 times per second depends on the refresh rate(it's infact stolen from there, because they had refresh rate) regardless if the image is changing or not. This means that 120Hz LCD screen has shorter input lag and shorter response time, but technically nothing else, as the image is not updating itself just like that, even if the whole scene is changing very fast, the screen is updating nowhere this much.
The reduced lagging in 120Hz LCD makes the framerate appear smooth same way, or very close to how they are seen on CRT.

At the time I played games on CRT screen I found it quite smooth to play at 100Hz or more. At 80 FPS and over, games often start to render trails around animations and moving objects, which is also some sort of eye candy.
To answer the OP:
100 FPS is enough for everything

 

[Ben90]

Well, let's correct this abit, the LCD screen only updates at the places where the change occurs, it's not like CRT which is redrawn 50-120 times per second depends on the refresh rate(it's infact stolen from there, because they had refresh rate) regardless if the image is changing or not. This means that 120Hz LCD screen has shorter input lag and shorter response time, but technically nothing else, as the image is not updating itself just like that, even if the whole scene is changing very fast, the screen is updating nowhere this much.

As politely as possible, your post has some wording that might confuse someone trying to learn about the subject. If you are talking about the controller not "redrawing" a pixel that hasn't changed states, you are probably correct and I cannot comment because I don't know that part of LCD technology. To me, the post is talking about general LCD mechanics which is slightly misleading.

For clarification, LCDs that don't use displayport operate almost exactly the same as CRTs. The only difference is the infinite pixel persistence. The actual frame buffer itself is scanned in the exact same way as a CRT every time, even if nothing changes. The legacy blanking space is even sent in its whole wasteful glory. I'm not exactly sure how display port does things because it is the first packet based display technology we have. If I were to take a guess, due to compatibility reasons, I would say they operate fairly similar except using packet based transmission vs whatever the old method is called. If someone knows the above, it would be awesome if they chimed in.

In regards to input lag, non displayport (and possibly displayport) LCD technology can only be as good as a CRT at the same refresh, never faster. This is due to the above where the framebuffer is scanned line by line at the horizontal refresh rate.

LCDs do have the benefit that they can run their native resolution at the full refresh rate. As such, these new 144Hz monitors are pushing twice the pixels per second of the best CRTs ever created. Over four times the amount that mainstream monitors could do. The holy Iiyama 514 would have to drop down to 1152x864 to keep up. It is no doubt that enthusiast monitors will keep raising the refresh rate as well.

 

[Sheep221]

As politely as possible, your post has some wording that might confuse someone trying to learn about the subject. If you are talking about the controller not "redrawing" a pixel that hasn't changed states, you are probably correct and I cannot comment because I don't know that part of LCD technology. To me, the post is talking about general LCD mechanics which is slightly misleading.

I know what you mean, but let's describe the mechanics of both technologies so you have better insight.
Refresh rate is something that is not entirely set by the screen, refresh rate is set by computer, it means that graphics card generates the image set amount of times per second and send it to screen, this works same way regardless of the connector type monitor uses.
The refresh rate on CRT screen means that image is redrawn same amount of times, because the cathode picture tube in CRT screen is source of light itself and the image is constantly redrawn by moving electron beam in order to retain the information on the screen, without it, the monitor would go off.
The LCD screen receives the information from computer same way but it handles it differently, because LCD panel in your monitor is not the source of light itself, it's backlighted by array of LEDs or CCFL lamps that are behind and LCD pixels are using liquid crystals that move inside pixels to block more or less light from the back in order to create image, which means if only part of the image changes, the other pixels remain intact because they are not required to change position.
If you are ordered to travel from place A to place B you will do that, but if you arrive at the place B and you will be ordered to go to same place B it means you will stand still.
Basically LCD receives the commands to update the screen same as CRT, but it ignores them because there is nothing it can do with them on the places that present no change.

For clarification, LCDs that don't use displayport operate almost exactly the same as CRTs. The only difference is the infinite pixel persistence. The actual frame buffer itself is scanned in the exact same way as a CRT every time, even if nothing changes. The legacy blanking space is even sent in its whole wasteful glory. I'm not exactly sure how display port does things because it is the first packet based display technology we have. If I were to take a guess, due to compatibility reasons, I would say they operate fairly similar except using packet based transmission vs whatever the old method is called. If someone knows the above, it would be awesome if they chimed in.

This is not correct, LCD is same everywhere and it operates on same principle regardless the connection it has. Connections such as HDMI and Display port were featured in order to carry both audio and video signal in one cable and be able to transfer higher bandwith, to transfer higher resolution image. The mechanics of carrying signal via specific cable type may be different, but at the end they represent same data as any other connection used.

In regards to input lag, non displayport (and possibly displayport) LCD technology can only be as good as a CRT at the same refresh, never faster. This is due to the above where the framebuffer is scanned line by line at the horizontal refresh rate.

I never mentioned the LCD is faster than CRT, CRT has 0 input lag and 0 response time, just because the screen is electrical source of light rather combination of mechanically changing screen and backlighthing source.
Than again using displayport has no effect on the refresh rate.

LCDs do have the benefit that they can run their native resolution at the full refresh rate. As such, these new 144Hz monitors are pushing twice the pixels per second of the best CRTs ever created. Over four times the amount that mainstream monitors could do. The holy Iiyama 514 would have to drop down to 1152x864 to keep up. It is no doubt that enthusiast monitors will keep raising the refresh rate as well.

It's because the pixels on the LCD screen have fixed size and cannot by changed to smaller or bigger in order to accommodate other than native resolution as opposed to CRTs. Which in turn means that these screens are optimized to display not just highest resolution as native but are also able to handle the highest refresh rate on that resolution, but then again, it works same way as I said earlier.

 

[jackstar7]

hey cool. i didn't know that. can someone link to a how to or article on setting up lightboost for amd cards?

last time i checked i needed a nvidia gpu running physyx to do it.

Looks like no one answered, so here you go:

http://www.monitortests.com/forum/Thread-Strobelight-LightBoost-Utility-for-AMD-ATI-and-NVIDIA

 

[Saffron]

Kind of off the beaten path, but...

Play a few games on a plasma screen, you will never want to play on any LCD again even if it's 240Hz. I've been gaming on my 50" LG Plasma for a few years now and I doubt I can ever own another LCD screen in my life. LG states my Plasma TV @ 600Hz, but it's just a marketing scheme. Because of the design in a plasma screen motion blur and jitter is completely nonexistent. A plasma cell can switch about 1,000 times faster than crystal in an LCD screen. The response time on it, about 1 micro second, ZERO input lag. Don't forget that you won't need Vsync because you won't get ANY screen tearing.

Plus for the price you pay for some of these high refresh rate and high resolution screens you might as well get something bigger and better. Hang that baby on your wall and enjoy the good life.

As stated before, 30FPS on a 120Hz+ screen is definitely better than on a 60Hz screen, know that.

 

[BrightCandle]

Around 40 fps answers the original question. The 144Hz monitors with light boost all have incredibly low motion blur and its immediately noticeable even at frame rates below 60fps. I find lower fps more playable on my Benq XL2411T than I did with my Dell 2410 before it due to the enormous reduction in motion blur, even without running the light boost trick.

I don't think you need 120 fps to get benefit from 120hz on these monitors, you get benefit from the screen technology that makes the image that much cleaner in motion.

 

[taq8ojh]

Too bad we will probably never see 120/144Hz monitors with 16:10 aspect ratio (that have whatever-IPS panel).

 

[DigDog]

this is a bit complicated because it has nothing to do with you seeing an image;

in first person shooter games (unconveniently ALSO called FPS), you need to point at the model to shoot it.the server tells you where the model is, the gpu draws it for you, you aim and send a message back to the server.

if you are playing at 1frame per second, you are pointing at where the model was one second earlier, because it took the gpu one whole second to draw it. Essentially, you are one second late with your shot.

if you are gaming at 50fps, you are 1/20th of a second late. and so on.

if you are watching a film at 24fps, the classic "smooth motion beyond which the eye cannot differentiate", it doesn't really matter if you are seeing something 40ms later than it happens, because you don't need to aim at it.

the same happens with 60fps, it's still smooth, but if you point at the model, you are closer to where the server/cpu thinks the model is.

tbh, there is little gaming difference between 100hz and 60hz - with one your response is .. or rather, your tracking - is 16ms late, with the other you are 10ms late; it's 6ms and its below what humans can detect; and remember, sight isn't the only way we perceive the world. a 30ms delay in audio is enormous.

the reason behind why higher frame rates are better is both because they need more power to get, leading to less framerate drops and more stability, and because the image itself tends to be more crisp. just because we don't consciously perceive a difference, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist... our eyes can see it, it's just that the portion of our cortex which analyzes that stymulus believes it's a single motion instead of multiple objects.

likewise, a 100+hz monitor will produce a more fluid, more realistic picture, smoother, easier on your brain and your eyes, and more importantly, closer to the invisible CPU-residing model which you have to point at.
also, monitors and gpus which can reproduce such framerates tend to have less imput lag -these are simply parallel technologies where one doesn't exist without the other.

TLDR

144hz good. high framerate good. the higher the better. 1ms respone + 1Khz refresh: best korea.
when we get there.
http://www.scan.co.uk/products/24-a...-port-hdmi-dvi-vga-350cd-m2-1ms-height-adjust

 

[Ben90]

Kind of off the beaten path, but...

Play a few games on a plasma screen, you will never want to play on any LCD again even if it's 240Hz. I've been gaming on my 50" LG Plasma for a few years now and I doubt I can ever own another LCD screen in my life. LG states my Plasma TV @ 600Hz, but it's just a marketing scheme. Because of the design in a plasma screen motion blur and jitter is completely nonexistent. A plasma cell can switch about 1,000 times faster than crystal in an LCD screen. The response time on it, about 1 micro second, ZERO input lag. Don't forget that you won't need Vsync because you won't get ANY screen tearing.

Plus for the price you pay for some of these high refresh rate and high resolution screens you might as well get something bigger and better. Hang that baby on your wall and enjoy the good life.

As stated before, 30FPS on a 120Hz+ screen is definitely better than on a 60Hz screen, know that.

Keep in mind a 60Hz display with zero input delay, actually takes longer to display a frame than a 120Hz with 1-4ms input delay. Since modern 120Hz displays have been measured with an oscillope to having sub 3ms delay, you would need a 60Hz monitor that breaks the laws of physics to keep up.

And my opinion is 60Hz just flat out sucks, it doesn't matter how clear, accurate, or big the display is.

 

[Mark Rejhon]

Well, let's correct this abit, the LCD screen only updates at the places where the change occurs, it's not like CRT which is redrawn 50-120 times per second depends on the refresh rate

That's true except for LightBoost LCD's, which use a strobe backlight (FAQ). The backlight turns off while waiting for the LCD to refresh, and then the backlight is strobed on fully refreshed frames. LightBoost LCD's (at setting LB=10%) have less motion blur than medium-persistence phosphor CRT's such as Sony FW900 CRT's.

1000fps high speed YouTube videos of displays refreshing:
CRT's refresh like this: high speed video of CRT
Older LCD's refresh like this: high speed video of LCD
LightBoost refresh like this: high speed video of LightBoost (setting LB=100%, not LB=10%)

Too bad we will probably never see 120/144Hz monitors with 16:10 aspect ratio (that have whatever-IPS panel).

One exists: The Viewpixx Scientific Research LCD.
1920x1200 with 120Hz, 16:10 aspect, and scanning backlight (provides the CRT effect / LightBoost effect).

 

[Ben90]

To keep with the fastidious (learned a new word) nitpicking, the actual pixels won't refresh themselves if they don't change; although, the decoupled back light will still "refresh everything". I know you know that though =].

Are the next gen lightboost monitors working on the backlight brightness? Lightboost makes an insane difference on my XL2420T, but ironically I wish they were able to boost the light emitted. I'm not going to lie, I can't complete PixPerAn. I get to around 20 and start getting nauseous. I think that's the only time I've ever felt that way from computer graphics.

 

[Mark Rejhon]

Are the next gen lightboost monitors working on the backlight brightness?

LightBoost actually boosts light that makes it through 3D shutter glasses. Pre-LightBoost monitors had extremely dark 3D, and LightBoost made everything so much brighter for 3D glasses.
....but wasn't intended to boost light for 2D, when LightBoost is used for the now-more-popular-purpose of motion blur elimination.

Tests have shown that some LightBoost monitors are dark at ~80cd/m2 during LightBoost=100%, while others are twice as bright at ~150cd/m2. There is a way to modify a VG248QE / XL2411T to increase the current surge through the LED's for brighter LightBoost. I heard someone successfully got ~90cd/m2 during LightBoost=20% (wow), which is quite bright for a screen that's turned off more than 80% of the time between refreshes. The schematic diagrams of Marc Repnow's reverse engineering, was taken advantage by a HardForum member. One resistor was changed, to create a brighter LightBoost. It will wear down the backlight LED's faster, but you can double or triple the brightness of the LightBoost strobe pulses without too much problem (see Pulsed Over-Current Driving of Cree® XLamp® LEDs: Information and Cautions for information about over-driving LED's). So if you are daring and want to hack your LightBoost monitor for a brighter LightBoost, there you go -- enough information to make you dangerous!

For off-the-shelf _brighter_ 2D LightBoost (without modding), I'm awaiting the new BENQ XL2420TE, to hear if it will have a much brighter LightBoost 2D ability.