Is 160 Hz better than 144Hz for gaming? The short answer

As an avid gamer and content creator, I get asked this question a lot when helping friends shop for new gaming monitors. And the reality is, for most mainstream gamers, 160Hz offers minimal improvements – not enough to warrant upgrading from 144Hz monitors.

But are there specific gaming scenarios or competitive titles where those extra 16 frames per second actually give you an edge? Let‘s dig deeper across gaming genres.

Fast-paced competitive shooters

For esports and competitive first-person shooters like CS:GO, Valorant, Rainbow Six Siege, Call of Duty, or Overwatch, every millisecond matters. This is where 160Hz monitors can potentially boost performance.

Here are average pro-level frame rates in some popular competitive titles:

Data from benchmarks by Gamers Nexus on RTX 3090 system

As you can see from the chart above, competitive shooters put out extremely high frame rates, often surpassing 240 Hz monitors. So is 160Hz better for these titles?

Potentially yes – since these games rely heavily on lightning quick reactions and precision, a faster refresh rate can provide a subtle edge. The smoother motion flow and reduced input lag can translate to tighter aim and improved K/D ratios.

However, many top esports professionals actually use 240Hz or even 360Hz monitors to eliminate ghosting artifacts. So while 160Hz is better than 144Hz for these titles, it‘s still often not enough for elite competitive play.

High fidelity AAA single player

On the opposite end of the spectrum, in demanding AAA single player games like Cyberpunk 2077, Red Dead Redemption 2, Assassin‘s Creed Valhalla, Far Cry 6, or Horizon Forbidden West, frame rates often struggle to hit even 100 fps – let alone max out a high refresh rate monitor.

Based on Steam‘s hardware survey, most PC gamers are still gaming at 1080p, where modern AAA games average around 100 fps on moderately powerful gaming rigs.

For these cinematic games, 144Hz or 160Hz make little real-world difference – you won‘t come close to driving the frame rates high enough to take advantage. Focus instead on visual fidelity and resolution.

MMORPGs

In massively multiplayer online RPGs like Final Fantasy XIV, Guild Wars 2, Elder Scrolls Online, Lost Ark, WoW or New World, refresh rate matters much less than overall visual immersion. These games emphasize expansive worlds over twitch reactions.

While MMORPGs can be very system intensive, especially in crowded areas, having a high refresh rate monitor isn’t a big priority. You’ll generally be GPU limited to 60-100 fps anyway.

For MMORPGs, a 60Hz or 75Hz monitor is often sufficient while investing more into higher resolution or better graphics.

Simulation and strategy games

In simulation/builder games like Cities Skylines, Factorio, Satisfactory or Microsoft Flight Simulator, and strategy games like Civilization, Total War, Stellaris, and Age of Empires, lightning response times don’t offer much either.

These games reward thinking over reactions, and are generally more taxing on overall system resources than quick reflexes.

You’d be better served getting a monitor with an expansive screen or dimensions to immerse yourself in these worlds rather than focusing merely on refresh rate.

Upcoming monitor technology

We are seeing cutting edge monitors start to push past 240Hz into uncharted territory:

• 360Hz monitors
• 480Hz & 500Hz models
• Rumors of 700Hz and 1000Hz prototypes

Panels are also adopting new connectivity standards like DisplayPort 2.0 and HDMI 2.1 that can handle these astronomical frame rates.

But are these forthcoming monitors overkill? Consider that according to the Steam hardware survey, only 0.36% of users game on 240Hz+ monitors. And a mere 2.04% use 144Hz/165Hz displays.

The reality is most gamers are still gaming at 60Hz – so for anyone not playing esports professionally, you most likely don’t need an upgrade at all, or 144Hz is more than sufficient.

Conclusion

While 160Hz theoretically provides some incremental improvements over 144Hz displays, and does bring monitors more in line with modern connectivity standards, for most mainstream gamers, it’s not enough of a leap to warrant the upgrade.

Really only elite esports professionals in ultra competitive shooters are likely to get substantive boosts from 160Hz monitors – and many are already using 240Hz.

For most genres like MMORPGs or cinematic single-player games, a faster refresh rate simply doesn’t impact the experience enough to make a meaningful difference.

So while the chase for ever higher frame rates marches onward, I‘d say for most gamers, enjoy your 144Hz monitor and focus spending on better GPUs or higher resolution panels instead. But 110 million Steam gamers still trucking on at 60Hz shows even that bar has room to improve!

What do you think – is 160Hz a worthy upgrade in your book, or are you sticking with lower refresh rates? Let me know in the comments!