No, 120 FPS isn't automatically noticeable in every game.
No, 120 FPS isn't automatically noticeable in every game.
Hey everyone! I recently switched from an Asus VG248QE to a Korean 1440p monitor that runs at 60Hz. It’s been three months now, and I’m really happy with it. The performance difference in games like Battlefield 4 is incredible. But I’m curious—does the gap become less obvious when playing non-FPS titles? For instance, if you were to play Tomb Raider or FIFA 15, would you opt for the higher resolution 27" 1440p screen but only 60 FPS, or would you prefer a lower resolution on your 1080p monitor for smoother 120 FPS? What are your thoughts?
In MMOs such as Starcraft, RTS similar to Civ 5, strategy titles like Company of Heroes and the ARMA series I barely perceive the distinction. The only games where I notice the 120hz are FPS titles like BF4, BF3, PAYDAY, Crysis 3, Crysis 2, etc., plus racing games such as DiRT.
In certain games you might not see much change since it runs at a fixed update rate. However, you'll still experience consistent smoothness above 60fps. My take is to wait for higher resolution monitors that support 120/144Hz—current models are aimed at early adopters needing more screen space. I think an ASUS model offering 1440p at 120Hz could be a good option.
It's worth noting that the distinction tends to be more apparent in early-persona shooters, while differences become less obvious in later titles.
For handling 1080p or 1440p at 120/144hz, you'd likely be fine with 4K, which appears significantly better. The only titles with high refresh rates that really matter are first-person games such as Skyrim. TN panels can also cause poor color quality, and even a 120hz IPS panel might not overcome input lag issues. I don't believe they're widely available, and 4K offers much more if you can afford a decent IPS display. Most noticeable improvements are seen in FPS games.