hoolibearodactyldo 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 clearerI 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'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