10 replies to this topic

[Justwoo]

Hello Arenajunkies, I have recently taken an interest in the way 120hz monitors look. I was watching khunas stream and everything looked so smooth. Can anyone recommend me a good gaming monitor within the price rance of $350-$400?

I was looking at this monitor, but i really have no clue what I'm doing so i would appreciate some friendly advice.

http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/B0035KC3R0

[Zaephyr]

http://www.amazon.co.../ref=pd_sim_e_2
is amazing if you can afford it

Edited by Zaephyr, 26 December 2012 - 01:56 AM.

[Justwoo]

Looks good, but how much better is it than the one that I linked? There's a 200 dollar price difference, but i'm not sure what I'd be gaining

Edited by Justwoo, 26 December 2012 - 02:16 AM.

[zsuper]

This thread hurts my head.

1. Streamed video has nothing to do with the streamer's video refresh rate. Most streaming software won't let you exceed 60 FPS (for good reason).

2. If someone were actually streaming 120 FPS to you, you wouldn't see the difference, because your monitor would limit it down to it's refresh rate (probably 60 FPS).

3. The maximum number of images a human can process each second (i.e. FPS) is up for debate, but it's most commonly decided to be either 60 or 70. Most people can't tell the difference beyond 60 hz and any higher number.

[downedlolidiot]

acer monitor you posted has shit colours supposedly

[Justwoo]

thanks almost ordered that shit, that's probably why its like cheaper than all the other monitors

Edited by Justwoo, 26 December 2012 - 05:34 AM.

[Justwoo]

that's interesting, i'm probably going to buy http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/B006HIKIG0

thanks for your input yenpanda

[Pharaun]

Can your computer consistently drive 120FPS?  If not, there's no point in buying a 120Hz monitor.

zsuper, on 26 December 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

This thread hurts my head.

1. Streamed video has nothing to do with the streamer's video refresh rate. Most streaming software won't let you exceed 60 FPS (for good reason).

2. If someone were actually streaming 120 FPS to you, you wouldn't see the difference, because your monitor would limit it down to it's refresh rate (probably 60 FPS).

^ This.  The logic just does not flow.

zsuper, on 26 December 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

3. The maximum number of images a human can process each second (i.e. FPS) is up for debate, but it's most commonly decided to be either 60 or 70. Most people can't tell the difference beyond 60 hz and any higher number.

The human eye doesn't really see in discrete FPS.  Hell, different regions of the human eye don't see in the same way as other regions of the same eye.  In a high contrast environment, near your center of vision, a human eye can distinguish between 60Hz and 120Hz without much issue.  In a low contrast environment, in your peripherals (or even just close to it), or under a variety of other situations sometimes you can't even detect 1FPS - as in, you won't even know if something is moving or not.  The human eye is actually spectacularly bad in a lot of places, but that's ok, because the human brain is amazing at painting a beautifully covered up picture of the fucked up data it gets from the eye.

So it depends on what you're doing.  For an FPS where you're mostly just tunnel visioning, a 120Hz+ monitor can be nice.


But it all hinges on whether or not your computer can even render >60FPS.

[Laccehz]

lol
stop regurgitating the 'human eye cant see over x fps' myth please. it's bullshit.

[downedlolidiot]

the people who say it have obviously never used 120hz

[Hyrmine]

i dont care about what science tells you about the human eye, 120hertz DOES LOOK BETTER than 60. i dont care why or if i can 'see' it, it just does look better.
120hertz also removes screen tearing