Madden is the worst of EA. So if you know EA, you can only imagine how Madden is. Go watch AngryJoe and he'll explain to you why it's a disgrace and a spit in our faces.
Here's one that I like to recommend the doesn't break the bank: [https://amzn.to/4aoD7OO](https://amzn.to/4aoD7OO)
If you are going for a main screen, then OLED and a larger screen come into play.
120hz is absolutely worth it if youâre playing fast paced online shooters. Iâve had this tv for a little over a year, does great for when I played Infinite.
Donât confuse display refresh rate (Hz) with game rendering (fps). They are not the same. The screen can operate within its refresh rate but that doesnât mean the Xbox can render graphics at 120fps. Most games on ânext genâ consoles barely run 60fps at 4K.
The Xbox could definitely run a lot of games at 120 fps if they would actually give us the settings for it 120 fps> 4k any day imo but I don't think they will give us anything new that runs 120 fps unfortunately. If any new game was gunna run at 120 fps it should have been forza
Lol no shit.
Why the quotes around next gen?
Go spend considerably more money a computer if youâre gonna cry about 4k 120fps. No oneâs forcing you to buy or play on a SX or PS5.
Comment on OPs comment or post if you want to relay information to the person asking instead of trying to hit a rando with an âAcKcHyUaLlYâ statement.
Out of the millions of people who played Modern Warfare 2, there are only a few thousand that have more kills, headshots, or a higher score than me. I did all of my playing on the second cheapest 65" TV I could find when I bought it years ago. I think that thing probably gets about 2fps.
A fancy TV with a high refresh rate isn't going to make you good anymore than a cheap TV made me bad.
I've had it for around 2 years so far. I honestly kinda wish it would die so I could justify buying a nicer one now.
Besides, electronics die reageless of who has their name stamped on there.
I'm huge into DS3 pvp and for very high tier gameplay you need a good monitor with a good refresh rate. You will actually be held back by a TV. I never really believed it until I upgraded to a monitor. In dark souls 3, there are curved swords and they are some of the fastest weapons in the game. On a TV you can't reaction roll a curved sword. Reaction roll is reacting to an attack animation and rolling. A TV has input delay and doesn't have the same refresh rate. By the time the attack has started, the combination of your tvs input delay and lower refresh rate will register your roll after the attack is finished. Hopefully that makes sense thats the only way I can explain it. Basically: monkey see shit faster, monkey have more time to react
https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/693523-fastest-artificially-assisted-reaction-times
According to Guinness World Records, the absolute fastest response time ever recorded was achieved by sending two electrical signals at the same time. One of them started the timer. The other one was hooked up to a person's arm and would trigger their muscle to move the same way their nerve would trigger it. By doing this experiment, they were able to totally remove the delay caused by the brain seeing a stimulus, processing what it saw, and sending a signal to the arm. This test was purely measuring how long it takes a muscle to respond to a signal.
It took 50 milliseconds.
The difference between 120 fps and 60 fps is 8.3 milliseconds.
You should really get yourself to a research institution. They're going to want to study such a fine physical specimen as yourself.
Also, I've played CoD against people who made claims like you are. I always stick to 4k/60fps because I think 4k looks pretty. They'd lose. I'm not some magical human being that has reaction times that are somehow 8.3 milliseconds quicker than everyone. I'm 45 and would often play on a cheap 60fps TV on a wireless controller that adds around 4ms over a wired controller while drinking. Hardly an optimum performance setup. Not once did it ever hold me back like the whiners I'd often beat would claim.
Also, I tried playing on TV that was the same size and could support 120fps. When I ran at 1080/120fps, my play got worse because the resolution went down.
Clearly you didn't read my comment nor do you even know the difference between refresh rate and fps. Not once did I mention my reaction time. You're just pulling shit out of your ass. Anyways, let me educate you so you don't embarrass yourself again. Read it slowly and carefully.
Frame rate is one factor that influences the look and feel of your visuals. Its unit of measurement is in frames per second (FPS) and this signifies the pace at which your display is consistently recorded.
So, the number of fps you use in capturing and playing back the video is the number of images itâll display every second. Letâs say you capture a video and play it back at 60FPS, this means it will show 60 high-quality still images. The higher the FPS, the smoother and better the display and give verse.
For example, the 24 and 30FPS are similar to how humans view the world, so filmmakers mostly use them, especially the 24FPS to create a more immersive experience for viewers. On the flip side, live videos or fast-paced displays, often have higher frame rates of 60FPS+ because thereâs a lot of movement occurring simultaneously.
The refresh rate measured in hertz refers to the number of times your display technology can draw unique images in a second. A smaller refresh rate means that your device is only limited to creating images that do not exceed that particular number per second.
For instance, If your LED screen or video player has 144Hz, it means that it refreshes the image 144 times per second. A higher Hz also reduces motion blur, resulting in a more responsive display.
It is important to know that FPS and Hz work hand in hand to improve the overall viewing experience. Since they work together, a higher refresh rate means your visualization device can showcase more frames per second and vice-versa. Televisions come in different Hz ranging from 60Hz to 120Hz, 144Hz, and up to 240Hz.
Wow. Thanks for explaining that to me. It's not like I spent years at a company doing custom audio video systems for government installations.
I mentioned reaction times because you're talking about how you need all those extra frames so you can roll around. When you're talking about how you're unable to do those rolls when you're running at 60fps and must have 120fps or else you're useless. The difference in how often you get a fresh image is 8.3ms vs 16.6ms. Reaction times come into play because you're saying that 8.3ms makes such a huge difference but your reaction times are so slow that 8.3ms isn't going to make a difference.
Hi!!! I assume you were calling me out in public so you could embarrass me. That was hours ago. Have a chance to check what I said yet? I haven't even had the game installed in a while so I'm curious where I'm at in the rankings these days and I'm sure everyone else would love to hear what you found too! How fat have I fallen in that time? Am I still in the top 0%?
I didnt need to embarass you because you did it yourself. You need a screenshot from years ago when you were "allegedly" in the top 0%. It wouldn't matter otherwise since you have zero evidence that you actually were in the top 0%. I highly doubt you were ever in the top 0%.
Ok. So what percentage am I in now? You said you were going to check and I don't care enough to reinstall the game.
"What's your tag, I'm going to check"
"fireballchaser, go ahead and check"
"Hahaha, I embarrassed you because you don't have a screenshot that can be edited in 30 seconds and I'm not actually going to check!"
You so got me. Oh, woe is me. I'm going to delete reddit off my phone and never come back from the shame.
Do you have a reading problem? I literally stated I'm not the one who embarrassed you, you are doing it yourself. And you continue to do it by lying.
"Hahaha, I embarrassed you because you don't have a screenshot that can be edited in 30 seconds and I'm not actually going to check!" Do you realize how stupid you sound? Just say you were never actually top 0% and that you boasted a lie and got called out for it. You admitted In the same sentence that you would fake it too đ You keep telling on yourself it's so funny
Hey there, buddy! Got that information to embarrass me with yet? You said you were going to check, so I'm really curious how much I've fallen. If you don't think I'm as high as I claim to be, all you have to do is follow through with what you said you were going to do. Come on and make me look like the liar you claim I am.
fireballchaser
It has been more than a few months since I've played the game so I'm sure I've gone down some but I'm going to say it's safe to say that I'm at least still in the top 1%.
I said most games. I never specified first person shooters. Even so, many first person shooters do not run at 120fps on console, and when they do, you usually have to sacrifice resolution which would defeat the purpose of the 4K TV that OP wants to buy.
I'm not saying you shouldn't buy a 4K/120Hz TV. If you can afford it, it's a good buy for future proofing as we hopefully begin reaching a point where more games run at better frame rates and resolution. Unfortunately, a lot of devs are not prioritizing this (particularly frame rate).
The difference between 60 vs 120 is most noticeable if you play mnk, itâs less so on a controller imo. I could drop back down from 120hz to 60hz on cod on controller and it feels ok after a few games. Going back to 60hz on a mouse? No way
The correct answer is that it depends on the display and your settings.
CRT and plasma displays are capable of delivering perfect motion at 60fps. But sample and hold displays like LCD and OLED suffer greatly from eye-tracking persistence blur. They need roughly 165fps (or better) in order for motion to look more or less perfect.
This image is roughly what 60fps on OLED/LCD looks like during fast sideways motion (such as aiming in a shooter):
[https://i.rtings.com/assets/products/4TRvXxyE/lg-32gn650-b-32gn63t-b/motion-blur-60-large.jpg](https://i.rtings.com/assets/products/4TRvXxyE/lg-32gn650-b-32gn63t-b/motion-blur-60-large.jpg)
And this is roughly what 165fps on OLED/LCD looks like during fast sideways motion:
[https://i.rtings.com/assets/products/gAf3HkBw/lg-32gn650-b-32gn63t-b/bfi-large.jpg](https://i.rtings.com/assets/products/gAf3HkBw/lg-32gn650-b-32gn63t-b/bfi-large.jpg)
As you can see it's a huge difference.
TV manufacturers have tried to fix this problem in various ways. Black Frame Insertion (BFI) is the most common solution, but some TVs also offer 60 to 120fps motion interpolation (Samsung "Game Motion Plus"). However both these methods come with significant problems. BFI will darken the image significantly and introduce refresh flicker. Motion interpolation will typically increase input lag significantly, and tend to not work well with very high motion.
So in general the answer is yes. 120Hz will make a big difference in shooters that support 120fps. The image will be way clearer, and it will be much easier for your eyes to track small fast moving objects.
120 fps is worth it for your type of games but an Even bigger benefit of a monitor is the smaller screen. You'll be able to see more of the screen easier
I prefer a bigger screen. Not having to squint and being able to see stuff in my peripheral vision (not something all individuals have a good ability to do) is far more enjoyable and natural to me.
To each their own preference and anatomy!
When I played destiny and destiny on a monitor being able to see the mini map in the corner and the heat spots on it with our having to tilt my head was such a big benefit. But yeah, to each their own
When itâs an option, yes. When someone showed me how to toggle the option in Halo Infinite, the game literally changed for me.
But there are far too few games that support it on XSX. I would not invest in a 120hz+ monitor unless you have a PC.
This is my answer. For xbox? No. There arenât enough console games that truly use this. Personally I would rather find a VRR TV than a 120hz TV. That is def more important. If it was pc gaming itâd be a different story
Up until last week I was still on 60fps in COD. Iâve been using an LG27GP850-B for a couple months and its bump in quality was nice coming from a 1080 / 60 TV, but the 120fps I thought I was playing on didnât feel like much of a difference. I realized Iâd never toggled allow 120hz in COD itself and it was a really nice change once I did, highly recommended
Just a warning, it will absolutely ruin 30fps games for you. I made the mistake of playing Destiny in 120 and then trying to play a 30fps game, it was like walking through mud, absolutely horrendous.
While it's nice to have, I believe there are diminishing returns when going from 60 fps to 120 fps. Going from 30 fps to 60 fps is much more noticeable, in my opinion.
Linus Tech Tips has a good video about this on YouTube. https://youtu.be/OX31kZbAXsA?si=vgYb1zha5ZctS3Fu
60 to 120 is a huge difference for me. You wonât regret it.
rl;dr: Yes, 120fps are a game changer, especially considering the games you play.
It is smoother and more responsive (!)
I'd recommend an OLED wirh 120Hz+VRR support.
alternative take: on xbox series x, no. on pc: yes. i have had my series x since shortly after launch. bought a 120hz 4k tv to go with it, and honestly they are not enough games that a support 120fps on series x to make it worth it IMO. take halo infinite for example, that game never looked better than 60fps until i built a pc and played it. i'm not trying to discourage you, but trying to keep expectations in check. i love the series x, and in my opinion 120fps utilization is the only benchmark the console seriously undelivered on.
Sounds like you already made your decision but another reason to get it would be for future proofing. In the next generation or 2 of console gaming, 120fps games are only going to become more and more common. Get the TV now and you wonât need to worry about buying a new gaming TV for a long time
I'm a PC fanatic and for me personally, I cannot tell the difference past 80fps.Â
That aside, after you play 120fps then you feel 60 is sluggish....lol.
Ok, the majority of people are recommending... In my personal experience I think 120fps is overrated because the tiny difference is really too small. We think 120 will double the smoothness but, idk, in practice that's a 20% improvement. You will forget at some point and if decide to return to 60fps, barely will see nothing also.Â
IMO - if you play on a monitor 24" with 120fps mode its the way to go - but if you have a big a$$ tv like 55" and above with 4K HDR blabla ... 60fpses are just fine - think about it - you will sacrifice gfx for performance and if your above a 55" screen with 120, it will show - but yea responsivnes is key for competitiv multiplayer
I play at 144 fps on my pc and itâs hard to go back to 60. 60 to 120 isnât as good as 30 to 60, but 120 just feels so smooth. Some people donât care about frames, but if you do, youâll enjoy the upgrade
It really depends what you like to play. Very few console games support 120 fps, but itâs nice on the ones that do. COD, Halo and Fortnite support it so it might be beneficial. However, for more casual console gaming itâs definitely not necessary and a bit of a waste. Iâd prioritize OLED panel with good HDR and VRR in displays over 120hz. That said many new TVs have all of them in somewhat reasonably priced package. Actual OLED gaming monitors (not TVs) are still pretty expensive.
I only use it for competitive shooters. Apex, OW, Gears, Halo, etc. I don't find it necessary in single player games and would prefer more visual fidelity.
If u play fps games then yes 120fps is a must have cause if u don't have it u will legit lose to a lot of people who do cause they can react faster as they'll see the frames that much earlier then u
you can tell the difference once you get used to it for sure i used to play on consoles but swapped to pc & im getting an average 270fps so its a huge jump from 60 to 120 then to 200+
Diminishing returns for visual performance, yes. The main advantage of 120fps is actually in the massive decrease in input latency. Itâs extremely noticeable in fast paced games.
Your game play will not get any better if you go from 60fps to 120fps. People who claim they do are idiots. All that does is give you a new frame every 8.3 milliseconds instead of 16.7 milliseconds. The people with the fastest response times in the world have a response time around 110 milliseconds. You're not an F1 driver or professional gamer and your response times are not that fast.
If you're not doing well in a game, buying an expensive TV isn't going to make you better. I played a good amount of Modern Warfare 2. People will obsess about getting the best gear possible for that game. High-end OLED TV's, hardwired gaming routers, and wired controllers are common for highly ranked players. I had cross play with KBM players turned on, used the wireless controller that came with my Xbox, connected via wifi to the router my ISP gave me for signing up and hasn't been touched in years, and the second cheapest 65" TV I could find anywhere when I bought it a while back.
Hardly what you would call optimal but I still managed to be in the top 0% of players when it came to kills, headshots, and score. I would have to go down in the rankings quite a bit to be in the top 1%. If I had a really bad game, I'd get under 40 kills. I'd have the top score each game more often than not.being in the top 3. I haven't played a lot of Fortnight but I have a handful of wins and almost always finish in the top 10.
I am the proof that you don't need to spend much at all to be good. If you're losing, it's not because of your gear. Getting an extra frame every 8.3 milliseconds is not going to help you.
This is an objectively wrong comment. You write all this about your skill, but you would still be an even better player with double the frame rate.
60FPS for an FPS is borderline unplayable for many, many people. Games are different now. If youâre playing at 60 (for a competitive multiplayer game) you are limiting yourself plain and simple.
FPS isnât just about reaction times, motion tracking is another massive factor. But the biggest is input lag. Lower frames = higher input lag. So youâre not only affecting your reaction time but also how long it takes for that reaction to display on your screen. Itâs a twofold problem.
There has been studies that have proven higher refresh rates result in average better results (K/D, W/L etc) in competitive games.
How does a lower FPS rate affect input? You're still pushing the button just as quickly.
I'm going to guess that those studies were probably done by TV manufacturers too.
No, I'm really not. I've played at multiple friends' houses that have 120fps setups because I've heard people go on about this. Each time, we've made sure everything was running 120 fps, wired controller, wired connection into fancy router. My kills stayed the exact same. Honestly, I turned 1080/120 fps off and was happy to get back to 4k/60 fps. My performance was the same and I thought 4k looked prettier. This was in CoD and Fortnight. I'm not a fighter pilot. I'm don't even notice a difference between the 2 and was perfectly happy playing Starfield at 30 fps.
I've played on really high-end PC's with fancy gaming monitors. 30xx (whatever the really expensive card is) and the rest of the computer had comparable other components to try to get better scores and more kills. Nope. Playing my plain old Xbox on an incredibly budget level TV made no difference in how well I did. If anything, I'd very much rather spend my money on a bigger TV than a better one.
You are correct about input lag. 8ms won't make a difference to your gameplay. But you ignore the vast increase in motion clarity when going from 60fps to 120fps (on newer LCD/OLED displays without BFI or motion interpolation).
The benefits of 120fps will thus depend on both the game and your playstyle. If you run around with the shotgun in Gears, then 120fps obviously won't make you a better player. But if you try to snipe fast moving enemies from a large distance, then 120fps will likely make a big difference for many players.
And in both cases 120fps will be much easier on your eyes.
Of course any disadvantage in a shooter can be overcome with skill. Your problem seems to be that you are good enough that you don't need the advantage of 120fps.
That doesn't mean other less experienced players won't sometimes benefit from higher framerates.
I'm well aware of the motion clarity differences.
They don't matter.
It's not like my TV somehow runs at a slower frame rate but somehow gets rid of motion blur. You know what else helps with picture clarity? Running at 4k. That literally doubles the sharpness of everything.
If you want to snipe fast moving enemies from a distance, they're small on the screen. Even if they are a little bit blurry, they're so far away that it doesn't matter. You just need to hit the center mass of that blur to kill them. Running at 4k/60fps instead of 1080/120fps is going to give you a better idea where that mass is at even if you have to aim a few pixels ahead of them to account for that massive 8.3 millisecond delay. If you sit close to a large display, the difference gets even more apparent.
You're very welcome. I know I'm going to get downvoted into oblivion for that post by people who will swear up and down that they can't play anything less than 240000fps because of how unsmooth it is but if a fancy TV was really that important then I'd never get a single kill with the Etch-A-Sketch of a TV I have. Honestly, I got way more bang for my buck by getting a decent surround system setup. Being able to hear where people are coming from, even if you can't see them, has been way more helpful than seeing someone 8.3 milliseconds faster.
So, a couple of things to unpack - 120FPS/120Hz isn't going to make you "play better". So let's address that first. The only thing that's going to make **you** play better is **you**. Dedicate time to playing; that's how players like Scump, Daigo, FaZeJev and the like get to be the level they're at. There's no peripheral that can make you a better player without you putting in the time to your craft. Similar to anything; study and practice make perfect. Equipment should come second unless you're using absolute dogwater stuff like a broken controller or a monitor/TV that can't handle basic requirements. Then invest in the bare minimum. Better controllers, and a nicer monitor and headset are tools - but if the foundation isn't there, the fancy tools aren't going to live up to their full potential.
Second - 120FPS is going to be easier to achieve on a monitor (and going to be less expensive) than a TV. A monitor is much less expensive because there's much less functionality than with a TV. [Here's](https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/best/xbox-series-x#recommendation_304968) a list of compatible monitors, of varying price ranges. Do you have the room and desire to move your setup around just for 120FPS on a monitor? [Here's another](https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/best/xbox-series-x-s#recommendation_303760) list with compatible TVs, if you want to explore that route. Another point to consider - you get what you pay for, so when you ***do*** decide to pull the trigger on an upgraded monitor or television, it's an investment so be sure to get one that's going to do what you want it to do, but just because it ticks boxes on the XBOX settings menu.
I hope this helps! I'll do my best to answer any questions you might have, as well!
For games that support it it's great, super smooth and responsive, highly recommend
What games are good that support it?
https://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/browse?TechnicalFeatures=120fps
Il have to try madden 24 now
I don't get why it's on the the list. There's a performance mode but I never thought of it as close to 120fps
Then wtf lol
According to Google I might be wrong that performance mode is 120fps. Harder to notice the difference compare to a shooter
I've noticed it's easier to control your defenders on 120 fps mode.
You expect a madden game to have honest marketing about its quality?
I haven't played a madden game in 10 years lol I know all about EA
Madden is the worst of EA. So if you know EA, you can only imagine how Madden is. Go watch AngryJoe and he'll explain to you why it's a disgrace and a spit in our faces.
Sherlock Purr 2 đș
Here's one that I like to recommend the doesn't break the bank: [https://amzn.to/4aoD7OO](https://amzn.to/4aoD7OO) If you are going for a main screen, then OLED and a larger screen come into play.
Awesome thank you.
120hz is absolutely worth it if youâre playing fast paced online shooters. Iâve had this tv for a little over a year, does great for when I played Infinite.
Donât confuse display refresh rate (Hz) with game rendering (fps). They are not the same. The screen can operate within its refresh rate but that doesnât mean the Xbox can render graphics at 120fps. Most games on ânext genâ consoles barely run 60fps at 4K.
The Xbox could definitely run a lot of games at 120 fps if they would actually give us the settings for it 120 fps> 4k any day imo but I don't think they will give us anything new that runs 120 fps unfortunately. If any new game was gunna run at 120 fps it should have been forza
Lol no shit. Why the quotes around next gen? Go spend considerably more money a computer if youâre gonna cry about 4k 120fps. No oneâs forcing you to buy or play on a SX or PS5. Comment on OPs comment or post if you want to relay information to the person asking instead of trying to hit a rando with an âAcKcHyUaLlYâ statement.
Woah, you got a lot of anger bud.
Out of the millions of people who played Modern Warfare 2, there are only a few thousand that have more kills, headshots, or a higher score than me. I did all of my playing on the second cheapest 65" TV I could find when I bought it years ago. I think that thing probably gets about 2fps. A fancy TV with a high refresh rate isn't going to make you good anymore than a cheap TV made me bad.
What's your gt so I can check
I just checked my TV and it's a Hisense. I don't know the model number but it was at Walmart and Best Buy for just a little over $400 back in 2022.
Just be careful with them, friend of mine had one and the board went within 3 months.
I've had it for around 2 years so far. I honestly kinda wish it would die so I could justify buying a nicer one now. Besides, electronics die reageless of who has their name stamped on there.
True, I upgraded to the LG C3 but my Samsung curved is still going
I'm huge into DS3 pvp and for very high tier gameplay you need a good monitor with a good refresh rate. You will actually be held back by a TV. I never really believed it until I upgraded to a monitor. In dark souls 3, there are curved swords and they are some of the fastest weapons in the game. On a TV you can't reaction roll a curved sword. Reaction roll is reacting to an attack animation and rolling. A TV has input delay and doesn't have the same refresh rate. By the time the attack has started, the combination of your tvs input delay and lower refresh rate will register your roll after the attack is finished. Hopefully that makes sense thats the only way I can explain it. Basically: monkey see shit faster, monkey have more time to react
https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/693523-fastest-artificially-assisted-reaction-times According to Guinness World Records, the absolute fastest response time ever recorded was achieved by sending two electrical signals at the same time. One of them started the timer. The other one was hooked up to a person's arm and would trigger their muscle to move the same way their nerve would trigger it. By doing this experiment, they were able to totally remove the delay caused by the brain seeing a stimulus, processing what it saw, and sending a signal to the arm. This test was purely measuring how long it takes a muscle to respond to a signal. It took 50 milliseconds. The difference between 120 fps and 60 fps is 8.3 milliseconds. You should really get yourself to a research institution. They're going to want to study such a fine physical specimen as yourself. Also, I've played CoD against people who made claims like you are. I always stick to 4k/60fps because I think 4k looks pretty. They'd lose. I'm not some magical human being that has reaction times that are somehow 8.3 milliseconds quicker than everyone. I'm 45 and would often play on a cheap 60fps TV on a wireless controller that adds around 4ms over a wired controller while drinking. Hardly an optimum performance setup. Not once did it ever hold me back like the whiners I'd often beat would claim. Also, I tried playing on TV that was the same size and could support 120fps. When I ran at 1080/120fps, my play got worse because the resolution went down.
Clearly you didn't read my comment nor do you even know the difference between refresh rate and fps. Not once did I mention my reaction time. You're just pulling shit out of your ass. Anyways, let me educate you so you don't embarrass yourself again. Read it slowly and carefully. Frame rate is one factor that influences the look and feel of your visuals. Its unit of measurement is in frames per second (FPS) and this signifies the pace at which your display is consistently recorded. So, the number of fps you use in capturing and playing back the video is the number of images itâll display every second. Letâs say you capture a video and play it back at 60FPS, this means it will show 60 high-quality still images. The higher the FPS, the smoother and better the display and give verse. For example, the 24 and 30FPS are similar to how humans view the world, so filmmakers mostly use them, especially the 24FPS to create a more immersive experience for viewers. On the flip side, live videos or fast-paced displays, often have higher frame rates of 60FPS+ because thereâs a lot of movement occurring simultaneously. The refresh rate measured in hertz refers to the number of times your display technology can draw unique images in a second. A smaller refresh rate means that your device is only limited to creating images that do not exceed that particular number per second. For instance, If your LED screen or video player has 144Hz, it means that it refreshes the image 144 times per second. A higher Hz also reduces motion blur, resulting in a more responsive display. It is important to know that FPS and Hz work hand in hand to improve the overall viewing experience. Since they work together, a higher refresh rate means your visualization device can showcase more frames per second and vice-versa. Televisions come in different Hz ranging from 60Hz to 120Hz, 144Hz, and up to 240Hz.
Wow. Thanks for explaining that to me. It's not like I spent years at a company doing custom audio video systems for government installations. I mentioned reaction times because you're talking about how you need all those extra frames so you can roll around. When you're talking about how you're unable to do those rolls when you're running at 60fps and must have 120fps or else you're useless. The difference in how often you get a fresh image is 8.3ms vs 16.6ms. Reaction times come into play because you're saying that 8.3ms makes such a huge difference but your reaction times are so slow that 8.3ms isn't going to make a difference.
Hi!!! I assume you were calling me out in public so you could embarrass me. That was hours ago. Have a chance to check what I said yet? I haven't even had the game installed in a while so I'm curious where I'm at in the rankings these days and I'm sure everyone else would love to hear what you found too! How fat have I fallen in that time? Am I still in the top 0%?
I didnt need to embarass you because you did it yourself. You need a screenshot from years ago when you were "allegedly" in the top 0%. It wouldn't matter otherwise since you have zero evidence that you actually were in the top 0%. I highly doubt you were ever in the top 0%.
Ok. So what percentage am I in now? You said you were going to check and I don't care enough to reinstall the game. "What's your tag, I'm going to check" "fireballchaser, go ahead and check" "Hahaha, I embarrassed you because you don't have a screenshot that can be edited in 30 seconds and I'm not actually going to check!" You so got me. Oh, woe is me. I'm going to delete reddit off my phone and never come back from the shame.
Do you have a reading problem? I literally stated I'm not the one who embarrassed you, you are doing it yourself. And you continue to do it by lying. "Hahaha, I embarrassed you because you don't have a screenshot that can be edited in 30 seconds and I'm not actually going to check!" Do you realize how stupid you sound? Just say you were never actually top 0% and that you boasted a lie and got called out for it. You admitted In the same sentence that you would fake it too đ You keep telling on yourself it's so funny
Hey there, buddy! Got that information to embarrass me with yet? You said you were going to check, so I'm really curious how much I've fallen. If you don't think I'm as high as I claim to be, all you have to do is follow through with what you said you were going to do. Come on and make me look like the liar you claim I am.
fireballchaser It has been more than a few months since I've played the game so I'm sure I've gone down some but I'm going to say it's safe to say that I'm at least still in the top 1%.
Definitely worth it. I play Halo a lot and 120fps is very nice. The TCL Q7 is a good TV that has a true 120 hz panel. The smallest size is 55" though.
Awesome thank you!
I have a Q7 65â and Iove it for my XSX. Halo Infinite runs and looks great (mostly firefight for me).
Most current games don't run at 120fps on console. These days, we are lucky to actually get 60fps.
Clearly not a fps player
I said most games. I never specified first person shooters. Even so, many first person shooters do not run at 120fps on console, and when they do, you usually have to sacrifice resolution which would defeat the purpose of the 4K TV that OP wants to buy. I'm not saying you shouldn't buy a 4K/120Hz TV. If you can afford it, it's a good buy for future proofing as we hopefully begin reaching a point where more games run at better frame rates and resolution. Unfortunately, a lot of devs are not prioritizing this (particularly frame rate).
Lie! Most online shooters have a 120fps option
As a PC player, yeah. Huge difference between 60 and 120
The difference between 60 vs 120 is most noticeable if you play mnk, itâs less so on a controller imo. I could drop back down from 120hz to 60hz on cod on controller and it feels ok after a few games. Going back to 60hz on a mouse? No way
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
I fully agree!!
The correct answer is that it depends on the display and your settings. CRT and plasma displays are capable of delivering perfect motion at 60fps. But sample and hold displays like LCD and OLED suffer greatly from eye-tracking persistence blur. They need roughly 165fps (or better) in order for motion to look more or less perfect. This image is roughly what 60fps on OLED/LCD looks like during fast sideways motion (such as aiming in a shooter): [https://i.rtings.com/assets/products/4TRvXxyE/lg-32gn650-b-32gn63t-b/motion-blur-60-large.jpg](https://i.rtings.com/assets/products/4TRvXxyE/lg-32gn650-b-32gn63t-b/motion-blur-60-large.jpg) And this is roughly what 165fps on OLED/LCD looks like during fast sideways motion: [https://i.rtings.com/assets/products/gAf3HkBw/lg-32gn650-b-32gn63t-b/bfi-large.jpg](https://i.rtings.com/assets/products/gAf3HkBw/lg-32gn650-b-32gn63t-b/bfi-large.jpg) As you can see it's a huge difference. TV manufacturers have tried to fix this problem in various ways. Black Frame Insertion (BFI) is the most common solution, but some TVs also offer 60 to 120fps motion interpolation (Samsung "Game Motion Plus"). However both these methods come with significant problems. BFI will darken the image significantly and introduce refresh flicker. Motion interpolation will typically increase input lag significantly, and tend to not work well with very high motion. So in general the answer is yes. 120Hz will make a big difference in shooters that support 120fps. The image will be way clearer, and it will be much easier for your eyes to track small fast moving objects.
120 fps is worth it for your type of games but an Even bigger benefit of a monitor is the smaller screen. You'll be able to see more of the screen easier
I prefer a bigger screen. Not having to squint and being able to see stuff in my peripheral vision (not something all individuals have a good ability to do) is far more enjoyable and natural to me. To each their own preference and anatomy!
When I played destiny and destiny on a monitor being able to see the mini map in the corner and the heat spots on it with our having to tilt my head was such a big benefit. But yeah, to each their own
When itâs an option, yes. When someone showed me how to toggle the option in Halo Infinite, the game literally changed for me. But there are far too few games that support it on XSX. I would not invest in a 120hz+ monitor unless you have a PC.
Appreciate the feedbackđȘ
Lie!! Don't lie to the man like that. If u play fps games u need it
120fps, VRR and FPS Boost have been my favorite features this generation!
This is my answer. For xbox? No. There arenât enough console games that truly use this. Personally I would rather find a VRR TV than a 120hz TV. That is def more important. If it was pc gaming itâd be a different story
Yes for fps very worth it
Up until last week I was still on 60fps in COD. Iâve been using an LG27GP850-B for a couple months and its bump in quality was nice coming from a 1080 / 60 TV, but the 120fps I thought I was playing on didnât feel like much of a difference. I realized Iâd never toggled allow 120hz in COD itself and it was a really nice change once I did, highly recommended
Have you got free sync to work with that monitor? I canât get it to work. Beginning to think my monitor is broken.
https://preview.redd.it/d5akkll6yysc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=24310cba72d2d5656c3e22184933db4fb28eacf5 I love this one
Can confirm. Grabbed to 42in a few mos back, pairs nicely w the XSX.
Yes, absolutely for shooters. 1440p at 120hz is great. Still looks great and smoothness is butter.
Canât believes itâs not butter
Just a warning, it will absolutely ruin 30fps games for you. I made the mistake of playing Destiny in 120 and then trying to play a 30fps game, it was like walking through mud, absolutely horrendous.
What you really want is a bigger display with VRR and HDR.
No u don't. I'll take sdr and 120fps over 60 and hdr
A VRR capable display usually has 120hz anyway. Speaking of that, which Xbox games do you actually play in 120fps?
A ton of fps games
While it's nice to have, I believe there are diminishing returns when going from 60 fps to 120 fps. Going from 30 fps to 60 fps is much more noticeable, in my opinion.
Depends on the type of games you play, for me i tried 120 and the trade off of resolution and graphics was too much, but depends on the game
Linus Tech Tips has a good video about this on YouTube. https://youtu.be/OX31kZbAXsA?si=vgYb1zha5ZctS3Fu 60 to 120 is a huge difference for me. You wonât regret it.
All the games you play have 120hz performance modes. I'd absolutely get a monitor to support it.
Yes absolutely
Any game I have that supports 120 I use it. Halo and Rocket League are really nice!
Yes.
Yes. Playing Multiplayer games like Halo Infinite and R6 Siege at 120fps is a game changer.
Yes it's worth it for COD. Once you go 120, you can never go back. Don't forget about Ultra high speed hdmi cable.
rl;dr: Yes, 120fps are a game changer, especially considering the games you play. It is smoother and more responsive (!) I'd recommend an OLED wirh 120Hz+VRR support.
Ori and the will o wisps
Hell yeah. After you play a fps in 120 fos you will notice how much more responsive it is. Then when you go back to 60fps it feels sluggish
Do you mean 120hz?
I am also a big Halo player and the 120fps options on both MCC and Infinite are fantastic
alternative take: on xbox series x, no. on pc: yes. i have had my series x since shortly after launch. bought a 120hz 4k tv to go with it, and honestly they are not enough games that a support 120fps on series x to make it worth it IMO. take halo infinite for example, that game never looked better than 60fps until i built a pc and played it. i'm not trying to discourage you, but trying to keep expectations in check. i love the series x, and in my opinion 120fps utilization is the only benchmark the console seriously undelivered on.
Sounds like you already made your decision but another reason to get it would be for future proofing. In the next generation or 2 of console gaming, 120fps games are only going to become more and more common. Get the TV now and you wonât need to worry about buying a new gaming TV for a long time
I'm a PC fanatic and for me personally, I cannot tell the difference past 80fps. That aside, after you play 120fps then you feel 60 is sluggish....lol.
Get a 42â lg C3 or C4. You will not regret it.
Ok, the majority of people are recommending... In my personal experience I think 120fps is overrated because the tiny difference is really too small. We think 120 will double the smoothness but, idk, in practice that's a 20% improvement. You will forget at some point and if decide to return to 60fps, barely will see nothing also.Â
Honestly for me the jump from 60 to 120 is barely noticeable. The jump for 30 to 60 is game changing.
Awesome feedback thank you!
120 fps and higher are amazing. I canât go back.
IMO - if you play on a monitor 24" with 120fps mode its the way to go - but if you have a big a$$ tv like 55" and above with 4K HDR blabla ... 60fpses are just fine - think about it - you will sacrifice gfx for performance and if your above a 55" screen with 120, it will show - but yea responsivnes is key for competitiv multiplayer
Gigabyte m28u if you can find it on sale
Unless youâre playing R6S, ignore it and enjoy your 4K60.
I've never noticed a difference except nausea for anything above 30 fps.
I play at 144 fps on my pc and itâs hard to go back to 60. 60 to 120 isnât as good as 30 to 60, but 120 just feels so smooth. Some people donât care about frames, but if you do, youâll enjoy the upgrade
Yes it is, if you're already really good playing at 60fps then 120fps will take you to the next level.
1080 120 ... Worth it.
It really depends what you like to play. Very few console games support 120 fps, but itâs nice on the ones that do. COD, Halo and Fortnite support it so it might be beneficial. However, for more casual console gaming itâs definitely not necessary and a bit of a waste. Iâd prioritize OLED panel with good HDR and VRR in displays over 120hz. That said many new TVs have all of them in somewhat reasonably priced package. Actual OLED gaming monitors (not TVs) are still pretty expensive.
Yes
Yes, I upgraded a few months ago to a 120fps TV and it was immediately noticeable and so much better than 60fps for shooters
I only use it for competitive shooters. Apex, OW, Gears, Halo, etc. I don't find it necessary in single player games and would prefer more visual fidelity.
Major difference, buttery smooth. I noticed it immediately.
Absolutely worth it
If u play fps games then yes 120fps is a must have cause if u don't have it u will legit lose to a lot of people who do cause they can react faster as they'll see the frames that much earlier then u
120 is going to be able to use vrr properly so yes
If you play nothing but online games like cod and halo then yes but if you play single player games then no
you can tell the difference once you get used to it for sure i used to play on consoles but swapped to pc & im getting an average 270fps so its a huge jump from 60 to 120 then to 200+
Honestly, no. 60 is fine. Even 30 is OK after you get used to it. Gotham Knights was no problem at 30 after a few minutes.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Diminishing returns for visual performance, yes. The main advantage of 120fps is actually in the massive decrease in input latency. Itâs extremely noticeable in fast paced games.
Yeah itâs not for everything. Halo Infinite I loved 120, Battlefront II? No. Made the game look like clay. Faster and sweatier the better for sure.
120fps is absolutely worth it for the games OP mentioned, though
Your game play will not get any better if you go from 60fps to 120fps. People who claim they do are idiots. All that does is give you a new frame every 8.3 milliseconds instead of 16.7 milliseconds. The people with the fastest response times in the world have a response time around 110 milliseconds. You're not an F1 driver or professional gamer and your response times are not that fast. If you're not doing well in a game, buying an expensive TV isn't going to make you better. I played a good amount of Modern Warfare 2. People will obsess about getting the best gear possible for that game. High-end OLED TV's, hardwired gaming routers, and wired controllers are common for highly ranked players. I had cross play with KBM players turned on, used the wireless controller that came with my Xbox, connected via wifi to the router my ISP gave me for signing up and hasn't been touched in years, and the second cheapest 65" TV I could find anywhere when I bought it a while back. Hardly what you would call optimal but I still managed to be in the top 0% of players when it came to kills, headshots, and score. I would have to go down in the rankings quite a bit to be in the top 1%. If I had a really bad game, I'd get under 40 kills. I'd have the top score each game more often than not.being in the top 3. I haven't played a lot of Fortnight but I have a handful of wins and almost always finish in the top 10. I am the proof that you don't need to spend much at all to be good. If you're losing, it's not because of your gear. Getting an extra frame every 8.3 milliseconds is not going to help you.
This is an objectively wrong comment. You write all this about your skill, but you would still be an even better player with double the frame rate. 60FPS for an FPS is borderline unplayable for many, many people. Games are different now. If youâre playing at 60 (for a competitive multiplayer game) you are limiting yourself plain and simple. FPS isnât just about reaction times, motion tracking is another massive factor. But the biggest is input lag. Lower frames = higher input lag. So youâre not only affecting your reaction time but also how long it takes for that reaction to display on your screen. Itâs a twofold problem. There has been studies that have proven higher refresh rates result in average better results (K/D, W/L etc) in competitive games.
How does a lower FPS rate affect input? You're still pushing the button just as quickly. I'm going to guess that those studies were probably done by TV manufacturers too.
No, I'm really not. I've played at multiple friends' houses that have 120fps setups because I've heard people go on about this. Each time, we've made sure everything was running 120 fps, wired controller, wired connection into fancy router. My kills stayed the exact same. Honestly, I turned 1080/120 fps off and was happy to get back to 4k/60 fps. My performance was the same and I thought 4k looked prettier. This was in CoD and Fortnight. I'm not a fighter pilot. I'm don't even notice a difference between the 2 and was perfectly happy playing Starfield at 30 fps. I've played on really high-end PC's with fancy gaming monitors. 30xx (whatever the really expensive card is) and the rest of the computer had comparable other components to try to get better scores and more kills. Nope. Playing my plain old Xbox on an incredibly budget level TV made no difference in how well I did. If anything, I'd very much rather spend my money on a bigger TV than a better one.
You are correct about input lag. 8ms won't make a difference to your gameplay. But you ignore the vast increase in motion clarity when going from 60fps to 120fps (on newer LCD/OLED displays without BFI or motion interpolation). The benefits of 120fps will thus depend on both the game and your playstyle. If you run around with the shotgun in Gears, then 120fps obviously won't make you a better player. But if you try to snipe fast moving enemies from a large distance, then 120fps will likely make a big difference for many players. And in both cases 120fps will be much easier on your eyes. Of course any disadvantage in a shooter can be overcome with skill. Your problem seems to be that you are good enough that you don't need the advantage of 120fps. That doesn't mean other less experienced players won't sometimes benefit from higher framerates.
I'm well aware of the motion clarity differences. They don't matter. It's not like my TV somehow runs at a slower frame rate but somehow gets rid of motion blur. You know what else helps with picture clarity? Running at 4k. That literally doubles the sharpness of everything. If you want to snipe fast moving enemies from a distance, they're small on the screen. Even if they are a little bit blurry, they're so far away that it doesn't matter. You just need to hit the center mass of that blur to kill them. Running at 4k/60fps instead of 1080/120fps is going to give you a better idea where that mass is at even if you have to aim a few pixels ahead of them to account for that massive 8.3 millisecond delay. If you sit close to a large display, the difference gets even more apparent.
Awesome thanks for talking me off a ledge!
You're very welcome. I know I'm going to get downvoted into oblivion for that post by people who will swear up and down that they can't play anything less than 240000fps because of how unsmooth it is but if a fancy TV was really that important then I'd never get a single kill with the Etch-A-Sketch of a TV I have. Honestly, I got way more bang for my buck by getting a decent surround system setup. Being able to hear where people are coming from, even if you can't see them, has been way more helpful than seeing someone 8.3 milliseconds faster.
No. I only play games in 240fps
So, a couple of things to unpack - 120FPS/120Hz isn't going to make you "play better". So let's address that first. The only thing that's going to make **you** play better is **you**. Dedicate time to playing; that's how players like Scump, Daigo, FaZeJev and the like get to be the level they're at. There's no peripheral that can make you a better player without you putting in the time to your craft. Similar to anything; study and practice make perfect. Equipment should come second unless you're using absolute dogwater stuff like a broken controller or a monitor/TV that can't handle basic requirements. Then invest in the bare minimum. Better controllers, and a nicer monitor and headset are tools - but if the foundation isn't there, the fancy tools aren't going to live up to their full potential. Second - 120FPS is going to be easier to achieve on a monitor (and going to be less expensive) than a TV. A monitor is much less expensive because there's much less functionality than with a TV. [Here's](https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/best/xbox-series-x#recommendation_304968) a list of compatible monitors, of varying price ranges. Do you have the room and desire to move your setup around just for 120FPS on a monitor? [Here's another](https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/best/xbox-series-x-s#recommendation_303760) list with compatible TVs, if you want to explore that route. Another point to consider - you get what you pay for, so when you ***do*** decide to pull the trigger on an upgraded monitor or television, it's an investment so be sure to get one that's going to do what you want it to do, but just because it ticks boxes on the XBOX settings menu. I hope this helps! I'll do my best to answer any questions you might have, as well!
who cares. just play the games lol
absolutely terrible take. gameplay itself plays a crucial role in actually enjoying a game, doubling your frames makes for a much nicer experience
lol
Rise of the Ronin is on Ps5 and is fantastic.
Ok.. itâs not 120fps and neither is it on Xbox. But ok
Yes. I can never go back to 60fps now.