yea

it's twice as many hertz

double the hertz double the dpm

gonna put this on a t-shirt

If you want a mini demo and your monitor is capable you can overclock to 96hz pretty safely. If you appreciate the extra smoothness then, just imagine how delicious 120hz is.

Eggfart, it's hard to explain how much of a difference it will make. You really need to play on one to truly understand the impact it can have on your gaming experience. Will it make you an invite level player? No. It will help you improve your aim, which in turn will help you improve as a player.

I do recommend buying one even if you aren't able to give it a test run. The verdict is pretty much unanimous among gamers.

Those that say it will make you significantly better are crazy, though. You can increase your skill ceiling with better stuff (opinion), but you can't buy a fix for poor decision making.

Also, don't listen to me. I'm fucking terrible.

it makes the game more smooth and a lot easier to see whats happening. also, you should probably have at least 120 fps to fully utilize the 120 hz.

the worst people are the ones that say that your eyes won't be able to tell the difference.

u see double the image!

It makes the game appear smoother, which allows you to make judgements related to your hand-eye coordination better because you have more information to work with, which in turn will improve your aim.

i don't think it made my aim any better, but the only way i can put it is that it made the game look like an endless frag video

it just looks a lot better, which could help (it certainly doesn't hurt it), but there are a lot of players out there who are good and are still using 60hz monitors

it's just a luxury, like a big mouse pad

I would recommend getting one if you have the money but i would not call it a priority, the smoothness makes any game feel so much better. In particular fast movements like rocket jumps i found were maybe somewhat improved by the smoothness of it, but even then i think it just looks better. At the end of the day i don't think you are gonna plug it in and beat better players that are using 60Hz. So i would say it does not significantly improve your aim, it just makes everything really smooth, which is really nice but not essential.

as stated above it makes the game much more smoother and feel "less clunky" compared to the feel of 60hz.
double the refresh = more smoothness
more smoothness = more control over your aim.

that said i dont even 120hz

75hz here

pretty sure his name was eggtart

I played on 60hz for the longest time until the i49 final where multiplay finally had 144hz monitors, and holy fuck was it amazing. as soon as I got home I bought one myself.

If you want to be the best you need a 144 hertz. While we're on the topic does anyone know when more hertz starts becoming redundant?

The most notable thing it helped with is twitch shots - it has a very smoothing effect and makes movement feel more natural (at least to me). The higher end monitors you can even go further and do the lightboost hack, which makes an LCD/LED as close to CRT smoothness as possible (i.e. lag free). It's essentially keeping the 3D strobelight on to reduce all 2D blur.

Apparently the new BenQ "Z" series monitors will be the first to actually include this as a feature instead of having to hack it. They're calling it "Motion Blur Reduction", which is just a fancy way of saying, oh hey you can now pay for something that should have been included all along.

My CRT does 200hz, and it's definitely smoother than 144hz IMO

lightboost is way better than 144

What led you to that conclusion? 120 hertz with lightboost does significantly decrease motion blur but 144 hertz without lightboost is so much more smooth and responsive.

I'm going to be deciding on a 120hz monitor soon, but one huge question I have is whether or not I be able to attempt to recreate my current resolution on the monitor. I've been playing on a laptop with a 17.3" screen in 1600X900 for almost 4 years now, and if possible I'd like to be able to continue doing that. Is something like this possible? Or will I just need to get used to playing in whatever the native res of the monitor is?

You can play at 1600x900 on a bigger monitor.

do you actually have one? There is a noticable difference in smoothness with 120 to 144, but its not nearly as noticable as lightboost imo. everything is so much clearer

No one has mentioned the latency aspect. A 120Hz monitor will pick up any new event twice as quickly as a 60Hz monitor. Anywhere you can lower latency is a good thing.

I have tried both for extended periods of time (months) and 144 hertz is vastly superior for the application of fast-paced gaming. You, like many others who talk about this topic, are confusing image clarity with responsiveness. You tell me, nevermind the method of how the image is rendered, which is more responsive; 120 hertz or 144 hertz? As an advocate of the scientific method I invite you to play with 144 hertz for a day, assuming you get a minimum of 144 fps, and come back to us with your conclusion.

I switched back to 144hz from 120hz lightboost as it seemed like it affected my mouse responsiveness and the 144hz mode was already pretty dang clear. I'm not sure if it is something to do with the specific hack on my system or what. There is very small increase in input lag when using lightboost but I wouldn't think it would be noticeable to the degree I experienced.

god fucking darnit

did you finish your survery yet bby

I've had my monitor for a few months now and played at 144hz for the first bit (maybe a month or 3 weeks before switching). Both are very good, but I personally think that lightboost is a lot better. The extra 24 frames don't really help that much for tracking, but the eliminated motion blur is a big improvement for me at least.
It's impossible to argue that 120hz is more responsive, because of course you are getting 24 less frames each second than 144hz. I'm just saying that its a better trade off to lose those few extra frames for the clarity that lightboost gives. Motion is going to look smoother with the blurring and more frames that 144 gives, obviously, so you could argue that tracking is theoretically easier. It's basically just responsiveness vs clarity
144 of this per second

http://www.blurbusters.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CROPPED_120Hz-1024x341.jpg

or 120 of this per second and 4ms input lag

http://www.blurbusters.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CROPPED_LightBoost10-300x100.jpg