High refresh rate display
High refresh rate display
The ideal balance lies around 240, but once you go past that it loses relevance. That’s when the extra refresh rate no longer matters much.
I think 120 or 144 works best. It seems unlikely most people can distinguish between 60 or 80fps, 100 or 120, so why go higher? 240 might be overkill. Possibly someone who plays regularly on a 240Hz panel can tell if they switch back to 144. The resolution is another factor, isn't it? Most budget 240Hz screens are only offered in 1080p. Personally, I use a 1440p @144hz monitor and find that to be the optimal setting.
I've heard 240 only if you're a seasoned esports PvP shooter gamer. The gap between 144 and 240 isn't really noticeable. It comes down to the edges of hit boxes and tricky scenarios like a character jumping over a crack in a wall and shooting through it. Human vision usually sits around 90, though it varies by person. My guess is the practical visible range lies between 90 and 120, with some edge cases possibly reaching up to 144. There might be invisible advantages in certain situations or for specific individuals, somewhere between that and 240. When 144 was pushed past 120, comparisons tended to stay between 60 and 144—not directly 120 to 144. One is below 90 and the other is above. I haven't seen any proof of a real improvement between 120 and 144 yet. People say a 144 monitor at 120 can be great, but I'd like to see a comparison that actually demonstrates a change.
Looking for a 1440p display with smooth performance. Seeking recommendations for laptops supporting 1440p at 120fps.
Oh no, sorry about that, buddy. I didn’t know it was meant for a laptop. I’m not very familiar with what those screens can do. Hope you’re doing okay!
It's funny how some folks are chasing 120 fps on consoles, but it doesn't really add up. Honestly, higher frame rates like 4K at 60 fps matter more than just hitting 120 fps, especially since most players aren't serious gamers. Pushing for more frames only makes developers keep making the same stuff with more points, not better performance. I don't see why next-gen consoles would push this when PC gaming has been held back in the meantime. People actually want something different now, not just faster numbers.
144hz displays are built to run at 144fps by design. Some TVs advertising 144hz often rely on shortcuts and can only reach around 120fps, but I haven’t noticed any that confidently claim 144hz performance. It seems anything capable of 4k should also support 1440p, which could expand your options. Many high-end laptops feature 4k 240 monitors. Usually the internal hardware supports either 4k or 240, though not both simultaneously in most cases. Challenges vary depending on the application—some devices can show a 4k display at 240hz, but struggle with fast-paced games. A typical (but misleading) method treats video quality as “k” 1080@60Hz, equating to 1k. Thus, 1040p at 60Hz would be considered 2k, and 4k at 30Hz would also fall into that range. To meet your needs, you’d likely need a device above 4k, which would be more expensive.
I see, you're thinking about something similar to the Alienware area-51m.
On the Alienware site, a r3 model priced over $2,000 seems capable of handling the task. The performance relies more on the GPU than the CPU, which I believe. It’s not difficult to locate a CPU that can deliver sufficient frames. A suitable screen and enough GPU power are also needed.