120Hz vs 144Hz: does the extra 24 Hz matter?
Don't agonise over 120 vs 144 — the gap is tiny. Choose based on your platform and panel: 120 Hz if you're console-centric or want HDMI 2.1 TV compatibility, 144 Hz if you're buying a PC gaming monitor where it's the default. Neither will feel meaningfully different in normal use.
The small step between console high-refresh and the PC gaming standard.
144 Hz refreshes only 1.2× more often than 120 Hz — every 6.94 ms versus 8.33 ms, a difference of just 1.39 ms per frame. This is one of the smallest meaningful steps on the refresh-rate ladder. 120 Hz is the console and TV high-refresh standard; 144 Hz is the long-standing PC gaming monitor default, so the comparison is really about which ecosystem your display targets rather than a dramatic perceptual gap.
By TechCompare · Updated
Try this comparison with our tools
Live side-by-side at 0.1× speed. Even slowed down, the 120-to-144 difference is subtle — a useful reality check before paying a premium for the extra 24 Hz.
Side-by-side specs
| Spec | 120 Hz | 144 Hz |
|---|---|---|
| Refresh rate | 120 Hz | 144 Hz |
| Frame time | 8.33 ms | 6.94 ms (better on this spec) |
| Frames per second (cap) | 120 fps | 144 fps (better on this spec) |
| Perceived difference | Baseline | Marginal (better on this spec) |
| Input-to-display latency | ~12-18 ms | ~10-15 ms (better on this spec) |
| Typical ecosystem | Consoles, TVs | PC gaming monitors |
| GPU load difference | 1.0× | ~1.2× |
| Worth the upgrade alone? | - (better on this spec) | Not on its own |
How they differ
Both rates sit well past the steep part of the perceptual curve, so the 120 → 144 jump is subtle for most people — far less noticeable than 60 → 120. The practical differences are minor: about 1.4 ms less frame time and a sliver less motion blur. The bigger considerations are ecosystem and sync: 120 Hz is friendlier to consoles and HDMI 2.1 TVs, while 144 Hz is the most common native rate on PC gaming monitors and pairs cleanly with DisplayPort. Either way, the GPU cost difference between sustaining 120 and 144 fps is small.
Verdict
Numbers-wise, the difference is 1.39 ms of frame time (8.33 ms versus 6.94 ms) and 2-3 ms of input latency, both well past the steep part of the perceptual curve where humans actually feel the change. Both rates read as smooth at real speed, which is why neither wins a perceptual argument. The real differentiator is ecosystem: HDMI 2.1 TVs and PS5/Series X consoles live at 120 Hz, while PC gaming monitors with native DisplayPort default to 144 Hz.
Visualise 120 vs 144 FPS motionWhich should you pick?
Choose 120 Hz
Pick 120 Hz when your display is a TV or console-focused panel, or when 120 Hz is the highest your HDMI 2.1 setup cleanly supports at your resolution.
Choose 144 Hz
Pick 144 Hz on PC gaming monitors where it's the native default, you're on DisplayPort, and you want the slightly lower frame time for fast competitive play.
Check DP 1.4 bandwidth for 1440p 144 HzRelated comparisons
Frequently asked questions
Can you actually see the difference between 120 Hz and 144 Hz?
Is 144 Hz better for PC gaming and 120 Hz better for consoles?
Is upgrading from 120 Hz to 144 Hz worth it?
Related tools
FPS Visualizer
Visualize the impact of different FPS settings on your game experience.
Use tool ➜Display Bandwidth Calculator
Check if your HDMI/DP cable supports your resolution and refresh rate.
Use tool ➜Memory and Storage Latency Visualizer
Visualize the massive speed difference between CPU cache, RAM, and storage.
Use tool ➜PPI & Retina Calculator
Calculate PPI and Retina distance for your display.
Use tool ➜