Decided to post this topic here as well as I did the same in the 4k theater gear sub forum. I just wanted to ask for those of you who have a 120Hz TV....do you notice any huge difference in quality of gaming? I'm waiting for more input in this before I run out and spend money another TV. The series X looks amazing on my current TV and I'm not sure what would improve by just having 120hz. ​​​​​​​I've read it's primarily noticeable in first person shooter games but for movies and other games - there's not much of a difference.

There is zero reason to use 120Hz for movies & TV. You're just creating 4 AI-generated frames for every 1 real frame and end up with the 'soap opera' look. Better to turn that stuff off or to very low processing levels and let it repeat every real frame 5 times. Or, better yet, use black frame insertion if the TV has it.

For games, the games themselves have to support it to get the full effect. This is the Xbox list. This is the PS5 list.
In particular, I've played Ori 2 and Nioh at 120Hz, and it's definitely noticeable and kind of amazing. Nothing new for PC gamers, though, as they've had upwards of 120Hz for years.
A nice compromise, for games that can't hit a 60Hz target, are games that aim for a solid 40Hz when using a 120Hz display. This doesn't look quite as good as 60Hz, but looks significantly better than 30Hz.
That said, with VRR, the exact framerate becomes less important, as VRR makes up for it. Only issue I had with VRR was with Elden Ring, because it dipped so low that VRR couldn't keep up at all times, so there were moments of really weird panning/movement/etc.

As noted....Broadcast and Blu-Ray TV/Movies don't need it since with Bluy-Ray be it 1080P or 4K is at 60Hz. broadcast & Streaming is like 24-30fps.

Now, for Gaming it gets a bit more technical as FPS (60 to 120Hz and 'Variable Refresh Rate") in relation to be it 1080P, 1440P and 4K be it 2160 or 3840 resolution. games in general are getting more technical...that be Eye Candy to PC Gamers...that for higher in depth details like water, landscape, surroundings, weather, and of course lighting. The More & higher Details the more Hz/FPS is needed. That's why say one PC Video Card may cost $500 while this one over here costs $1500.

it boils down to what you play but in all honesty 120Hz is the sweet spot but based on set and display panel which itself is another added equation in the mix (LED, QLED, etc....) I use a ASUS Gaming Monitor with 160Hz at 2160 and frankly to me it has a solid balance between lower 4K PQ and FPS since some games are seriously Lighting Intensive (Warframe). Before I played on a Sony Projector at 1080P at 60Hz and I can see the FPS/Hz difference, everything is smoother, no lag, judder, etc...

Cool thanks for the replies guys. I only play the series X on my TV.

I'm sure it will be worth it down the road.

Also, I actually love the soap opera effect. Call me weird but I like the way it looks when things are moving in real time.

^You're weird.

I HATE the soap opera effect. When I first bought a 120Hz TV with interpolation, I thought it would be cool. I guess it was, but there was no way I could watch stuff like that.

To each their own, however.

Actually, BD and 4K UHD BD support video at frame rates up to 60 progressive frames per second. However, most movies and modern TV shows are shot (and their discs encoded) at 24 fps. So, depending on how the TV is set up, A 120 Hz panel might be preferable to a 60 Hz panel for film content.

Lol, go ahead...let me have it, I can take it

I mentioned this to him in another thread, but if he likes watching stuff with soap opera mode on (), then literally none of this matters.

I was thinking about this too. are TV's variable frequency? So, does it adjust to match the source? Or does it have to mess with frames to make it work? As you said, 120 is ideal, because 24, 30, 60 can all evenly be adjusted to 120.

I did at first too because it eliminates judder. But the AI generated frames add some quirky movements (it looks like image is sometimes sped up, rather than the illusion of being shot at 60 fps) and annoying artifacts when the TVs processor has trouble adjusting to very busy scenes with fast moving action (which defeats the purpose of motion interpolation, IMO). I'm all for HFR (be it 48, 60, or 120 fps) but motion interpolation doesn't work as advertised. I'd take good old fashioned 3:2 / 2:3 pull down over that instead.

Sorry. I forgot to reply to your post. Here's an excellent article about 120 Hz TVs and how they handle different frame rates.

Exactly - and I don't know what I'm talking about so all good - I definitely didn't see your comment on this in the other thread - or if I did and commented on it, sorry If I didn't catch all of what was said.

Yes, I do love the soap opera effect - I actually feel it makes movements look more realistic.

Hey, if you like it, who's to tell you different, Rival11. In the end of the day, it's your TV and you deserve to use it as you please. And I must admit, if not for the weird artifacts I mentioned, I'd use it too. But then, I recognise that 24fps was only ever chosen because it was the least number of frames filmmakers could get away before motion is ruined. And I think the claim that actors are trained to act in 24fps is the biggest load of crap ever. So I do hope one day films transition permanently to 48 or 60 fps. That being said, camera operators can't rely on the same movement/timing they do for 24fps. It looks weird at higher frame rates. But, like everything, there's A learning curve.

Yeah, I've defintiely learned a decent amount on it too so thanks.

I think the difference is HUGE for gaming but there is a BUT. What it does give you SMOOTHNESS in motion. And it's not just limited to a first person shooter. ANY motion be it racing game, RPG you running around the world, whatever it may be it's any motion. It is just smooth as butter and it keeps the details and stuff intact while you move around too. So yea if you can get to 90 fps in a game that's close enough to feel and see the smooth motion.

You have one problem though XSX the series X can barely manage 60 fps in 4k, and if the newer game has ray tracing on its almost always only 30 fps. It just honestly isn't powerful enough. BUT I can think of two games that the difference is plain as day. Sea of Thieves and Call of Duty cold war zombies solo. If you've played either of those games for any length of time you will instantly notice the high frame rate you're getting. But it does drop the res to 1080p for both games to achieve that 120 fps. But you'd get an idea of the smoothness. It's glorious frankly and I HATE playing when I can't hit at least 90 fps.

I have a series X, PS5 and a nice pc with a 3090. I game in 4k only.