Stefan Mileschin

The refresh rate debate is nothing new, but since the introduction of TFT flatscreens the benefits of refresh rates higher than 60 Hz have been largely academic. At least, until the introduction of screens capable of double that refresh rate and more, so-called 120 and 144 Hz monitors. These are quite a bit more expensive, but promise a much smoother experience – specifically in intensive, first person shooter gameplay. While the technology has its share of enthusiastic proponents, many others have always remained sceptical. The limits of the human eye are often invoked, the debate can get quite heated.

So far, no one has put the theory that 120 Hz provides a smoother, more pleasant experience to the only test that will give an indication of actual, real world benefits: a large group trial, whose participants were unaware of which refresh rate they were experiencing. Hardware.Info, together with AOC, ASUS and Belgian computer specialist store Tones.be has now performed such a trial. We asked 50 of our readers to game for half an hour on a system with a monitor running at 60 Hz and for half an hour on a system with a screen running at 120 Hz, without any way to discern the difference, other than the resulting experience. The outcome is very clear: 120 Hz does make a difference, with an overwhelming percentage of participants reporting a smoother gaming experience on 120 Hz refresh rates.

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/4592...20-hz-monitors