There isnt much that can push past 4K 120hz. Short of just plugging in your pc with a 4090ti Unless you want 1440p or 1080 240hz Personally I would want better resolution than hz for my tv

What’s your use cases? 240 is pointless if you’re just watching movies and TV shows.

While 4k 240hz might be available already in PC monitors, I doubt TV s with those specifications exist yet. Your friend is talking nonsense.

I’m not a tech nerd. But… they use these panels that don’t do blacks and contrasts well. They don’t have the best auto dimming zoning, you’ll notice blooming that’s is very distracting. Especially on their lower end models. Visit the 4ktv Reddit and you’ll learn more.

Refresh rate of TV's is vastly overblown. 120Hz support doesn't matter if your TV has a VA panel which has pixel transitions so slow it has ghosting artifacts at 60Hz. IPS is generally faster but you get much less contrast capability. OLED is orders of magnitude faster and has the best contrast, but is also the most expensive.

240Hz is utterly pointless unless you are an e-sports level player, with a PC that can consistent push that kind of FPS. 240Hz TV's aren't even a thing though, monitors only.

You mentioned 86in, which is probably an LG. Please be aware that LG outside of their OLED line… not that great.

Don't listen to these people saying "it doesn't matter", you want a 120hz refresh rate, because most TVs that are 120hz have motion smoothing or some other tech that makes the image look like it's running at a much higher frame rate than what the system is putting out. It's worth it.

Get a gaming monitor for the true 120 refresh, my brother battled for months trying to figure it out till he settled on a monitor instead of a tv

Refresh rate is tied to frames per second. Consoles are locked to 60 fps so there would be no benefit of having a 120 hz tv.

Won’t make any difference on a console. A gaming monitor will lower your input lag though (probably, some TVs aren’t bad)

Console are at best locked at 60fps but usually at 30fps or so.

Also tv fps is not the same thing as computer/monitor fps. Tv’s do a lot of post processing liek interpolating and clever stroboscoping to fake higher refresh rates.

Only relevant stats for TV’s are:

Resolution

Input lag (dont trust the manufacturer for these figures)

60fps.

Most high end TVs max out at 120Hz. High end monitors are typically at least 144 Hz and often 240+.

I have a 144 Hz non-OLED monitor and a 120Hz OLED TV and I really can't tell the difference when it comes to framerate. I'm already happy if I can maintain 60 fps so my standards are not super high.

The super common tv-as-a-monitor that people use when going OLED is the LG C2 which has a 120hz refresh rate and 4k display which is a pretty good combo for pc gaming.

The newer actual pc monitor panels that are OLEDs are all either 1440p/240hz or 4k/144hz if I'm not mistaken. Either the tv or the monitor options are really well suited to pc use at this point. Not sure how non-LG OLED tv's fare as a monitor, but the C2 has a ton of pc centric options that make it so common of a choice.

Acer Nitro 390Hz 25" Monitor + LG C2 42" owner here. On a good season I'm playing at the highest level (top 1.0 - 0.1%) in the games I play competitively.

​

I tried using the LG C2 for competitive play for a while, but sadly it gave me headaches and vertigo after longer sessions. Hence why I still keep my 25" 390Hz for that purpose alone. Don't get me wrong, the C2 is by far the best monitor/TV I've ever owned and I love using it for everything else besides competitive gaming. The input lag on this thing is also crazy good, and surpasses most of the dedicated PC monitors I've owned in the past. It's just a tad too big and the lower refresh rate is definitely noticeable, especially if you are used to 240Hz+. For story based games or simulators its not noticeable at all - I played through Spider-Man Remastered and it was (no pun intended) amazing!

​

If you take competitive gaming seriously, then a dedicated eSports monitor is still the way to go. However, if you are more of a casual gamer that want to get immersed, the 42" C-Lineup from LG is pure perfection. It really takes gaming to another level.

​

Edit: There's also these new 27" 240Hz OLEDs out and about. Might be worth taking a look at those if you want the best of both worlds in one device.

4k/120/HDR is perfection. Face it: you aren't going pro in Valorant.

These are usually 4k, the number of gpus that can keep up with 120fps+ at 4k is rather slim.

4080 with dlss quality on ultra. Will hit 120fps more often than not. 90 with raytracing. Native? 4090!

I think 120hz is worth it, but there are a couple of things to consider. Basically, the resolution you buy it at will have a significant affect on price currently.

The Series can output media at 4K (e.g. Netflix), but not very many games will be there. They will usually be 1080p, and sometimes 1440p. Outputting those lower resolutions to a 4K screen requires a display with good scaling to avoid poor picture quality...

And for 120fps... there are not many games at that refresh rate on Series S. More are available on the Series X, but it's between a dozen or two titles total ATM. But when it's available, totally worth it IMO (preferably with VRR display).

If you want to cover all of your bases on a single display going forward and have the budget, then a 4K/120Hz TV would cover everything. But HDMI 2.1 ports that allow 4K/120hz over HDMI are still fairly new, and more options are becoming available with prices going down. I'm not sure buying the most premium display with a Series S is going to be the best return on investment unless you plan to upgrade later (so even waiting may be a good option). 1080p/120hz will be much more affordable, but you will lost out on 4K.

If you have the budget to splurge, that's one thing. But if you already have a good TV for media (and is 60hz, even at 1080p), then I think waiting or maybe even a 1440p/144hz monitor for competitive multiplayer will take your dollar the furthest with a Series S.

Yes! For around anywhere from $600-$700+ USD, you can buy a 55 inch Hisense U7G/U8G 4K 120Hz ULED TV.

If you can afford to spend an extra $200, you can buy an 48 Inch LG C1 4K 120Hz OLED TV. Would very much recommend but either one of these three are great for current-gen gaming.

Play competitive shooters? No questions get 120hz, it'll transform your gameplay. If you play primarily single players then you want the 4k resolution as fps really doesn't matter for them.

You just have to be careful with TVs because alot of them say 120hz when in actuality it's just 60hz and some digital trickery. My TV said 120hz on the box and it's not even close. Won't allow series s to use 120hz when connected even though it says 120hz right on the box.

Just check for the "actual refresh rate" of the screen. And if it's less than $1400 it probably won't be true 120hz. What you're talking about is a pretty niche enthusiast subset of televisions so be ready to pay up.

There's a reason the vast majority of next gen users use PC monitors. Because you can get 120hz + without taking out a 2nd mortgage.

Granted I'm basing this all on looking at TVs a couple years ago so there's a chance 120hz TVs are priced a little more reasonably now.

Just make sure it's actually 120hz

120hz tvs and monitors are worth it for vrr though. 120hz tvs have better hdr to.

No problem, I'm the same way. Its a big purchase so best to make the right choice since you'll likely be using it for a long time.

Ilike to use Tom's Guide when comparing monitors and TV's. They don't have a review for every TV but they do cover most of the big sellers, and their reviews are pretty comprehensive and explained well.

The difference gets lower the more you go up. 165hz is enough.

Multi?144hz. Solo? 60 is just fine

With large diminishing returns in terms of actual experience, and have multiple high refresh rate monitors including a 240hz display that's currently in my closet.

Agreed, I went from 1080p 240hz down to 1440p 144hz and could feel it. Didn't think I would. I returned it for a 165hz as at the time I as I couldn't do 240hz 1440p with the gpu I had. I'm shopping for that now, waiting for the right deal.

For me, it's 144 frames per second, anything after that has diminishing returns.

Ideally 165hz, 1440p and a 1ms response time.

I'd settle for 144hz if everything else ticks the boxes and it's nice aesthetically though, been really spoiled by my Asus ROG XG32VC on that front.

They're talking about the monitor, not the total, shockingly enough a 1ms response time monitor will be slower than 5ms

Yeah, I hate the elitism regarding 60 fps. If the boys are online, you all got whatever new hit game is out, and you say you can't play because your computer only runs it at 60 fps, I'm never inviting you to play again. It's fine chasing more performance, who wouldn't want more frames? but to say a stable 60 fps is unplayable is ridiculous. But this is coming from someone who thinks 120fps is excellent, and would rather have a higher quality screen (color-wise, contrast, whatever else). Than another 45 Hz

The monitor having 1ms delay is still a significantly smaller overall delay compared to a 5ms screen. It's probably the easiest place to lower latency so i'd sat it's pretty crucial

60 = 16ms

120 = 8ms

144 = 7ms

165 = 6ms

240 = 4ms

Unless you feel the 3ms input lag, the jump from 144 to 240 makes no difference at all.

I start noticing changes at 75 Hz. Changes becoming minimal after 144 Hz. Some people may notice a small change, but I almost always hear them going back and then really noticing the difference.

If you have access to a store with gaming monitors on display, I'd go see if they can show you the difference. I'm lucky with Microcenter and all, but mine has about 4 to 6 stations on the end that are working gaming PCs with nice monitors. You can just pull up testufo.com on them and you'll see a few animations with different FPS synced up to the monitor. For example I see animations at 144, 72, and 36 FPS. It's surprisingly how much more information there is, and really adds to making games feel good in general.

You may be able to overclock your monitor as well. Both AMD and NVIDIA control panels allow you to create custom resolutions, which you can type in custom refresh rates for. Some monitors can't overclock, some can get to 120 Hz. Could be an option to maybe see something like 75 Hz to convince you.

The difference between 60hz and 144hz is night and day. After that I cannot really notice a difference but I know there are people who can.

The thing about the "our eyes only see X amount of FPS" is absolute bullshit. We do not see in FPS at all. Our brain is basically doing 4D content aware fill by rewinding time and filling in the parts that doesn't make sense to our brain. It's absolutely wild stuff and super interesting to read about.

Go for 100+ above around 150ish it starts to make less sense but if there is a good deal on a 240hz then go for it

Unless you are competitive gamer, anything above 165hz is overkill.

Rather get 144hz/165hz monitor with good color accuracy and panel.

Just my 2 cents.

The whole thing about your eyes not being able to see more than 30 or 60fps is an absolute lie. The human brain can technically see a lot more but the higher you get the less noticeable it is. I say 144hz is probably about as high as you would need unless you’re playing competitive then higher is better. You can watch this video about it

Thank you, ChatGPT. But for me personally, 60 fps is enough for single player games and 120 or 144 is enough for competitive shooters (frankly, game sense is more impt to be good).

http://zisworks.com/

Not for the faint of heart, though :P

EDIT: https://www.blurbusters.com/4k-120hz-with-bonus-240hz-and-480hz-modes/

Yeah, the 240hz computer monitors are real, but when you want to flash "yellow/green frames as fast as possible." You've also got to consider actual panel response time (essentially, how long it takes the subpixels in an LCD to change state from one color to another, which can be much slower than the refresh rate of the display) as well as light persistence.

Remember that an using an LCD is basically paramount to just staring at a light source through a filter, and that makes it harder to perceive motion at times. This is why some displays have strobing backlights or black frame insertion along with higher refresh rates to improve this. CRTs are actually the best example of that, with how often the phosphors on the first line of a frame will have already stopped emitting by the time the last line of the frame is being drawn by the electron gun.

Monitors capable of true 240 Hz have recently become available. It is not the fake stuff that TVs use.

The Alienware you linked is def 240hz.. Not sure where you heard otherwise. Theres only one panel technology that can do native 240hz, and it's TN.

There's 600 hz plasma TV screens, but they're useless for gaming and are discontinued.

Video editing could literally be done on a monitor that hand paints the frames in the style of caravaggio.

For gaming you'll want 60 Hz min for slower paced games and 120 Hz+ for fast paced games.

Like others suggested, 144 Hz is a good refresh rate with a lot of options without being too expensive. I personally have an AOC 24G2 1080p 24" 144 Hz monitor that's cheap and decent ($170-ish), but 1440p at 27" would be nicer if your GPU can power it.

If you're going for 1440p, I'd take a 27" model and not larger to benefit from the increased pixel density creating a sharper image. You should be able to find something decent for $250 - $300, I'd recommend checking out Hardware Unboxed on youtube for their monitor roundups (think this is the most recent one: https://youtu.be/15YOh8SqiRc, there's also: https://youtu.be/m40xDD7D1f8)

For fast paced shooters and competitive games it matters alot

It will give a much smoother experience

But for thirdperson or slow games 60 Hz is still fine

I'd go with 144hz max for casual gaming going higher than this will give a competitive advantage in online games but that's it

I'd go with 1440p 144hz

For gaming, yes it does. For ALL games, not just shooters/multiplayer games, and not just if your actual frame rate is above 60 or whatever.

Most 120Hz+ VRR monitors have a feature called low framerate compensation (LFC). This feature allows you to get even frame pacing at any frame rate under the refresh rate maximum. It requires a wide sync range to work, so most 60Hz or 75Hz VRR monitors do not have this.

Outside of buying a good CPU and GPU, getting a good VRR monitor with LFC is the single most important factor in having a good gaming experience.

After scrolling documents and the web at 120, I find 60 laggy and blurry. I agree with /u/badevilbunny 120 vs 144 is negligible. 60 vs 120 is significant.

If you have the hardware to maintain at least over 100 fps in the games you play then it’s totally worth it to get a 144fps monitor over 60. I played ps4 games for its entire life cycle, and when I upgraded to a pc at 144hz it was a massive difference. Even 110 fps over 60 is a massive difference to me, but it matters more in competitive games and FPSs.