By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Difference between 60hz and 120hz?

SvennoJ on 25 January 2013
greenmedic88 said:
Hynad said:
slowmo said:
I think the difference of a 120Hz TV to the 60Hz TV's is more to do with the beefed up scaler they use in the TV's rather than any actual big wow factor from the frequency as most sources will never exceed 60Hz except for 3D content and PC's.


The main benefit I see with 120Hz sets is that unlike 60Hz sets, 120 is a multiple of 24. 

So the standard of 24 images per seconds from the movie industry fits confortably in there. Meaning that the TV doesn't need to do the 3:2 pull down to compensate. Which introduces judders especially noticeable during camera pans. 24 FPS actually fits 5 times in 120. So the TV plays each frames 5 times, making for a smoother experience than on 60Hz sets.

+1 for this explanation

and of course, a 240Hz upgrade works with an even simpler 10 times multiplier.

Better get a tv that supports 24p or 24hz updates.
If you use 120hz motion flow only 1 out of 5 frames you see is from the actual movie. The rest is all interpolated, smoothed out from the motion blur present in the source material. A tv that supports 24p will display the movie as was intended. TVs that support that can also reverse 3:2 pull down back to 24fps, useful for watching dvds.



Around the Network
greenmedic88 on 26 January 2013
SvennoJ said:

Better get a tv that supports 24p or 24hz updates.
If you use 120hz motion flow only 1 out of 5 frames you see is from the actual movie. The rest is all interpolated, smoothed out from the motion blur present in the source material. A tv that supports 24p will display the movie as was intended. TVs that support that can also reverse 3:2 pull down back to 24fps, useful for watching dvds.

Most HDTVs already do and have for years. 

The 1080p 60Hz HDTV I bought back in 2007 plays BD, DVD, etc. at 24fps.



Lafiel on 26 January 2013

PCs can easily output in 120Hz, so 120Hz in a monitor is useful, but consoles don't output in more than 60Hz, so 120Hz in a TV is a gimmick, as the additional 60Hz are made up frames by the TV. That introduces additional lag, as the TV has to process those extra frames by comparing 2 actual frames and calculating an intermediate step.

That method alone introduces a 1 frame (1s/60 = 16.67 ms) of additional lag, but ofcourse the processing itself takes up time aswell and so on. It's just not useful for console gaming.



platformmaster918 on 26 January 2013
Lafiel said:

PCs can easily output in 120Hz, so 120Hz in a monitor is useful, but consoles don't output in more than 60Hz, so 120Hz in a TV is a gimmick, as the additional 60Hz are made up frames by the TV. That introduces additional lag, as the TV has to process those extra frames by comparing 2 actual frames and calculating an intermediate step.

That method alone introduces a 1 frame (1s/60 = 16.67 ms) of additional lag, but ofcourse the processing itself takes up time aswell and so on. It's just not useful for console gaming.

I see and as for next gen gaming?  Also does it effect movie viewing?




Get Your Portable ID!Lord of Ratchet and Clank

Duke of Playstation Plus

Warden of Platformers

GameAnalyser on 26 January 2013
CGI-Quality said:

I noticed an instant smoothness with my mouse when upgrading from a 60Hz CRT to a 120Hz, LED, 3D monitor. Just feels so much better, and games, believe it or not (ignore the naysayers), you can tell the difference between 60fps and 120.


Which brand is  the LED display? I'm looking to upgrade mine(BENQ LCD 21.5 " )with the release of PS4.



Around the Network
slowmo on 26 January 2013
Hynad said:
slowmo said:
I think the difference of a 120Hz TV to the 60Hz TV's is more to do with the beefed up scaler they use in the TV's rather than any actual big wow factor from the frequency as most sources will never exceed 60Hz except for 3D content and PC's.


The main benefit I see with 120Hz sets is that unlike 60Hz sets, 120 is a multiple of 24. 

So the standard of 24 images per seconds from the movie industry fits confortably in there. Meaning that the TV doesn't need to do the 3:2 pull down to compensate. Which introduces judders especially noticeable during camera pans. 24 FPS actually fits 5 times in 120. So the TV plays each frames 5 times, making for a smoother experience than on 60Hz sets.

That's only Bluray sources really though, every other source would usually be 60hz.  I just don't see the point of creating extra virtual frames personally.  My projector supports 24-120 hz but that was bought for 3D mainly rather than any perception of smoother performance.



Lafiel on 26 January 2013
platformmaster918 said:
Lafiel said:

PCs can easily output in 120Hz, so 120Hz in a monitor is useful, but consoles don't output in more than 60Hz, so 120Hz in a TV is a gimmick, as the additional 60Hz are made up frames by the TV. That introduces additional lag, as the TV has to process those extra frames by comparing 2 actual frames and calculating an intermediate step.

That method alone introduces a 1 frame (1s/60 = 16.67 ms) of additional lag, but ofcourse the processing itself takes up time aswell and so on. It's just not useful for console gaming.

I see and as for next gen gaming?  Also does it effect movie viewing?

I seriously doubt next gen consoles will output with more then 60Hz. It would only make sense if they were going for more than 60fps in games, but I see no strife for that and 3D is realized through higher resolution pictures as opposed to higher frequenzy output.Afaik most TVs that sport 120 or 240Hz don't even support an input higher than 60Hz, so when you connect your PC to them you can't get "real" 120Hz or higher.

120 or more Hz affects movies in a way that ideally moving people/objects or the scenery when the camera is panning looks more detailed/less blurred, yet that might introduce a look that is "too realistic", almost like in reality TV or soap opera and hence is called the "soap opera" effect. Some people think that looks really ugly/cheap, while others aren't disturbed by that. Personally I think it's really good for watching documentaries.



platformmaster918 on 26 January 2013
Lafiel said:
platformmaster918 said:
Lafiel said:

PCs can easily output in 120Hz, so 120Hz in a monitor is useful, but consoles don't output in more than 60Hz, so 120Hz in a TV is a gimmick, as the additional 60Hz are made up frames by the TV. That introduces additional lag, as the TV has to process those extra frames by comparing 2 actual frames and calculating an intermediate step.

That method alone introduces a 1 frame (1s/60 = 16.67 ms) of additional lag, but ofcourse the processing itself takes up time aswell and so on. It's just not useful for console gaming.

I see and as for next gen gaming?  Also does it effect movie viewing?

I seriously doubt next gen consoles will output with more then 60Hz. It would only make sense if they were going for more than 60fps in games, but I see no strife for that and 3D is realized through higher resolution pictures as opposed to higher frequenzy output.Afaik most TVs that sport 120 or 240Hz don't even support an input higher than 60Hz, so when you connect your PC to them you can't get "real" 120Hz or higher.

120 or more Hz affects movies in a way that ideally moving people/objects or the scenery when the camera is panning looks more detailed/less blurred, yet that might introduce a look that is "too realistic", almost like in reality TV or soap opera and hence is called the "soap opera" effect. Some people think that looks really ugly/cheap, while others aren't disturbed by that. Personally I think it's really good for watching documentaries.

so you're absolutely sure that there won't be a difference between 60hz and 120hz for gaming because that's obviously the main reason I'm buying it.  Some people on here have said otherwise but if you're confident I'm inclined to believe it because looking at the fact that most games only go 30fps this gen tends to support your argument.  I also don't like the soap opera effect as I've seen some TVs that had it and it really looked weird.




Get Your Portable ID!Lord of Ratchet and Clank

Duke of Playstation Plus

Warden of Platformers

platformmaster918 on 26 January 2013
Mummelmann said:
The difference is that one is largely a gimmick, for now at least.

so any game at 60fps or below will not be effected (ie all of them for now and most likely next gen)?




Get Your Portable ID!Lord of Ratchet and Clank

Duke of Playstation Plus

Warden of Platformers

Hynad on 26 January 2013
slowmo said:
Hynad said:
slowmo said:
I think the difference of a 120Hz TV to the 60Hz TV's is more to do with the beefed up scaler they use in the TV's rather than any actual big wow factor from the frequency as most sources will never exceed 60Hz except for 3D content and PC's.


The main benefit I see with 120Hz sets is that unlike 60Hz sets, 120 is a multiple of 24. 

So the standard of 24 images per seconds from the movie industry fits confortably in there. Meaning that the TV doesn't need to do the 3:2 pull down to compensate. Which introduces judders especially noticeable during camera pans. 24 FPS actually fits 5 times in 120. So the TV plays each frames 5 times, making for a smoother experience than on 60Hz sets.

That's only Bluray sources really though, every other source would usually be 60hz.  I just don't see the point of creating extra virtual frames personally.  My projector supports 24-120 hz but that was bought for 3D mainly rather than any perception of smoother performance.


The tv creates virtual frames only when the interpolation option is on. Otherwise, the TV [wont' create frames, but] will play 5 times the same frames if it's a 120Hz set, or 10 times if it's 240Hz. Otherwise, it will use 3:2 pulldown and judder will be introduced. In fact, for as long as we've been using 60Hz TVs (since before anyone here was born, really), we've been used to the imperfect motion of 24 fps for movies. That's why when you watch a movie like The Hobbit at 48Hz, it looks quite weird.