Is 240Hz a Waste? - 144Hz vs 240Hz Monitors
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Thank you to Ruipro for sponsoring this video!
Buy the Ruipro HDMI 2.1 Certified Fiber Optic Cable: amzn.to/432NDGS
Get access to all my ICC profiles & Discord: / thedisplayguy
Updated Video: • Is 4K 240Hz a Waste? -...
Is 240Hz a Waste? - 144Hz vs 240Hz Monitors
Listen up fellow 24fps enjoyers, times have changed, and refresh rates are rising faster than my desk when I heard a 240Hz 4K glossy OLED was coming soon, but do you really need all those frames I mean everyone knows the human eye can only see 3 frames per second, so why are we wasting so much resources on pumping out more and more frames?
Well in order to find out first we gotta break down the advantages of higher frame rates which are 2 fold.
The higher the framerate the lower the input lag which means instead of being hard stuck in rookie you might make it all the way to the bottom of bronze. For example 30fps the most cursed target has a total delay of 33.3ms
60fps has a delay of 16.6ms
120fps a delay of 8.3ms
240fps a delay of 4.16ms
And 360fps a delay of 2.7ms
As you can see the higher the refresh rate, the lower the input lag which means you can track targets quicker, but you can also see that there are hugely diminishing returns starting at around 120fps.
This is the reason why most console games target 60fps as its far easier to achieve and when using a controller the difference in input lag isn’t as noticeable, but on PC you’ll find people begging you to put them out of their misery if their forced to go to a plebian 60Hz. I can definitely easily tell the difference between 4ms, using a good mouse, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it will make you better. In theory yes, it can, but in practice I find that most people play barely any better with 4ms lower latency, but does that mean it’s a waste? Well hold on there cowboy now we gotta talk about the second advantage.
Higher framerates mean smoother images in motion, and this is the biggest benefit to going higher than 120Hz. As I’ve shown in many reviews this can lead to a substantially cleaner image, but this too has diminishing returns, especially on LCD where many LCD based displays especially trash VA panels can struggle to take advantage of higher refresh rates as the display simply can’t keep up and looks blurry regardless. This is a big reason many gamers are busting fat nuts all over their elbows and rubbing it in like lotion over OLED.
OLED has much faster response times thus it can take advantage of higher refresh rates.
But that still doesn’t answer the question. Is 240Hz a waste and the answer is yes and no. For most single player games the benefits just simply aren’t worth the doubling of resources required to play over 120Hz in my opinion, but for multiplayer competitive gaming, 240Hz may be worth trying to use as you will get a cleaner image in motion and lower input lag for those really fast paced games like shower with your dad simulator.
But will it make you a pro gamer? No. I've played better on 120Hz than people on 360Hz and I’ve had people do better than me at 120Hz when I was on 240Hz, so while it does have it’s benefits I wouldn't be wailing and gnashing your teeth or crying yourself to sleep at night over it.
All amazon links are affiliate links. I earn commission based on your purchases.
Music
www.davidcutte...
Thank you to Ruipro for sponsoring this video!
Buy the Ruipro HDMI 2.1 Certified Fiber Optic Cable: amzn.to/432NDGS
Get access to all my ICC profiles & Discord: patreon.com/TheDisplayGuy
Frame times are NOT input lag, tech illiterate.
@@dragonsyph2557 I'm not talking about input lag but about refresh rate and network latency.
I never understood why people say you can't see more than X fps, like dude your eyes don't see in frames - you see continuously which is why stuttery/laggy gameplay is so jarring.
The eye need minimum like 24 fps to see motion. It was repeated to you cant see more than 30 fps
But once you get used to like 120 fps 60 fps feels stuttery
@@thedesk954 24 fps is the minimum amount needed to have a fluid picture and for your eyes to not notice individual frames switching, instead seeing a smooth motion picture. But your eyes can still notice the better motion quality and smoothness you get above 30 fps
For video games, anything less than 60 fps feels slow and sluggish. 120 fps + looks and feels much smoother
Well I disagree I drew 12 little men on a book all in deferent position’s and I flickers threw my book at a fairly slow speed and it was a fluid motion haha so don’t believe everything you see on UA-cam and google mate
depends on your blinks per second
@@gazza8596you sound dumb asl with this comment.
Higher hz is beneficial when you have higher motion speed. for example in cs and valorant you see clear difference between 240hz and 360hz but for slow pace games even 144hz vs 240hz can be hard to notice
Does osu count cause I need something smooth and no ghosting
@@nolyfe4814 I don't think osu benefits much from anti ghosting tech because there really isnt that many moving things in-game from what i recall
@@nolyfe4814 any good level monitor is fine. You'll barely notice it.
You can easily notice the difference between 144 and 240 just by the smoothness.
@@joelconolly5574 define good cause I dropped 200 on another monitor with elmb and that shit still has ghosting. Better then the last monitor but still not enough
I need 240hz to have an enjoyable experience in "Shower with your Dad Simulator"
While for most single player games it doesn't matter, I immediately notice the difference when jumping down from 240 to 120 on Samsung Neo G7 while playing Overwatch. Anything below 120hz is unpleasant to play for competitive gaming.
i play on my tv with 60hz alot of input delay and my headset only works one side
Was master on OW2 for 3 seasons with a 60hz lol
@@Reav001 so true. You feel 60hz just fine until the moment you spoil yourself with high refresh rate, and then when you go back 60hz looks like trash. On top of that going up is not actually noticable, only going back down.
Hard disagree on that 60hz isn't really that different from 120hz or 144hz. There has been times in the past (maybe due to a Windows update or something else) where my monitor reset to default refresh rate of 60hz. I'll join a game and within the first 5 seconds I can immediately notice the much higher delay from 60hz. If you've used 120hz+, reverting back to 60hz feels absolutely atrocious. At least for me, as a competitive FPS player, 60hz is damn near unusable.
You can def tell the difference 😂😂
yes, when my computer switches to 60hz i almost get motion sick bro
@@nani.df.I remember going from 60hz to 144hz is such a game changer
Me personally, I'm fine with playing 240p downscaled on a 4k monitor to get take advantage all of those sweet, sweet frames.
As someone who mainly plays shooters on a 280hz TN and who has a 540hz TN on my watchlist, 144Hz is satisfactory, I don't feel like I'm at a disadvantage versus other players. I want more Hz simply because higher Hz monitors tend to have a lower response time. I tried a 390hz IPS and it looked smoother, but blurrier than my TN. (I like motion clarity more than anything else). Before someone suggests a BenQ monitor, I hate DyAc and any other form of BFI, and it's the only thing those BenQ monitors have going for them.
It'll take a long time until the current OLED's text clarity and burn-in issues get addressed so, I'm rooting for IPS to get clearer. Currently, I have to rely on my secondary 75hz IPS screen for media consumption.
i like my aw2724dm
burn in is getting overstated
@@Davinmkstill a risk you take and people wouldn’t want to spend 1k on a monitor that could have that happen
@@Davinmknot for those who deal with it
Tn panel are smooth but look disgusting to me
Yes it's no waste. It can help you be more competi, but won't make you a pro. Still 165hz is now the sweet spot. I don't mind playing at that speed only.
Is it still worth it play on 165hz?I was about to buy a 240hz monitor but i still curious is it a big difference between 144hz & 240hz?Some people said that we cant see more than 144hz so its just waste to buy a 240hz monitor.
@@ZanIsRolling 144hz to 165hz, small difference. 144hz to 240hz it's a noticeable difference but not as major. It's a nice to have anyways.
@@joelconolly5574 Well i have comfortable with my 144hz right now,so i think i dont need 240hz.But if i can ask,do you prefer a QHD 144hz or FHD 240hz?
That's the exact same question I'm having as I'm planning to build a quite beastly PC. I don't know if I want 1440p with less hz or the opposite@@ZanIsRolling
@@zapped5272i had a 1080p monitor with high refresh rate and upgrade to a 2k 144hz monitor and is the best thing i could ever did
Forgive me but I don't understand, in a competitive online game if you're lucky you can have 20ms latency, 20ms means that your opponent's position will be updated with a frequency of 50fps even if your monitor is capable of managing 1000fps, where is the advantage?
1. smoothness
2. timings. if you had 50fps and enemy positions are updated with 50fps, those won't happen at the same time. so when you get a new enemy position update, you need to wait for the next frame, and with less fps it takes more time. so it takes more time for you to see things. and it also fluctuates more
@@yes-69 I agree but, considering the specificity of the question, for smoothness I thought foose was implicit at least as regards what was processed locally and for single player games.
For the second point, which is very true, the higher the frame rate the higher the probability of intercepting the enemy's position when it is updated (this thing is very useful in close combat), it is also true that this is a good advantage if you go from 60Hz to 144Hz, but from 144 to 240 you are within the order of 2/3 ms and the higher you go the worse the situation becomes.
The question was provocative, because the creators show us monitors at 480Hz or more, showing us the slomo in detail of the position for a single frame when they are playing on screen with 20ms of latency!
@@ilKamuTube yeah diminishing returns
Anybody have experience regarding difference between 240 hz vs. 144 hz in desktop, web browsing, office applications and other software?
Is the mouse pointer more smooth in 240 vs 144 hz?
Not focusing on gaming in my question =)
Thank you for any input/answer!
Br //M
yup, 240 hz is smoother.
I have a 240hz 27" monitor. I have it set to 120hz, the image is so much cleaner and smoother. Of course 240hz is a bit faster but it's hardly noticeable to me.
Each to their own.
isn't 27 small to you
I'm in the last phase of my upgrade cycle and am looking at replacing my 1080p 170hz monitor. I now have an rtx4080 paired with a ryzen7 7700x cpu. Trying to decide if I should go with 1440p 240hz or 4k 160hz monitor in the 27-23" range. Considering: MSI G274QPX, Asus ROG Strix XG27AQMR, or Gigabyte M27U. I primarily play COD, so the 240 refresh rate is very appealing to me. But I do also enjoy playing AAA single player titles (CP2077, Alan Wake2, etc.) So that's the primary argument for 4k. I probably spend 2/3 of my time playing COD and the remaining time playing single player games. Is 4k worth sacrificing the higher refresh rate? I know there are 4k 240hz displays out now, but out of my price range.
I'm having this exact question at the moment. Which one did you go for and how has your experience been?
@@Almeidahuh well now that the news 240hz 4k qd-oled monitors have dropped, especially the msi one at 850, I think it's going to be pushing the prices of others down. So still waiting a bit. I noticed the Asus xg27aqmr 1440p 300hz is down to $550...
@@Almeidahuh also I'm pretty much decided going with a higher quality 1440p display vs a mid or entry 4k. I jist don't think I'm going to be happy playing any games on sub 100hz RR and as new games come out they are only going to be more demanding. Didn't buy a 4080 to be lowering graphics settings to medium to get the frame rate I want. Like if I end up only getting ~75 fps on gta6 when it comes out bc I have a 4k, im gonna be dissatisfied I think. Still gonna go to best buy or somewhere similar and try and look at a 4k and 1440p display side by to see if I'm blown away by the difference. But I kinda doubt it.
@Rustydude2030 I'm in the same boat as you. Supposedly Nvidia DLSS was made for that exact scenario though, I.e. playing on high resolution monitor but boosting frames. Have you had any more thoughts or experiences on the topic? I'm considering purchasing a 4k 240hz monitor but currently my pc is underpowered and awaiting an upgrade. I am on an i7 7700k and 3060ti. It's doing the job fine now on UWQHD but only at 100hz. I want to upgrade my monitor but wait until the 5090 comes out, I just don't know if upgrading the monitor now is going to cause me such bad fps at 4k that it will be a worse experience. Maybe dlss will save me though
@@eg8568 I went with Asus xg27aqmr 1440/300hz. Pretty happy with it. Mostly I think I would have been unhappy with 4k and lower frames tbh. On COD im not even hitting 300 fps on medium settings, probably 220-240avg. I'm sure if I went 4k I'd be running at lowish settings to hit 200+ fps which I wouldn't like. Didn't buy a nice monitor to play of low settings. Unless you have or are planning to buy a 4090 or similar next gen 4k 240 just isn't realistic, unless using upscaling like dlss of course. Which I prefer to run native. Another thing to consider is the scaling is noticeable. I would def have to use the windows scaling to increase "zoom" for desktop stuff with 4k on 27". Looking back on it now, if I was going to go 4k I would definitely go 32".
Exactly why im sticking with my lg c2 42 desktop setup! left 27 inch 1440p ips and aint going back
I have C2 but also G7 240hz, one is better for single player and other for multiplayer comp
@@AutonovaAI How do you like the g7? Thinking about getting the 27" for $530. It supposedly has very solid response times unlike many VA panels. Thanks!
I actually preferred my Ips monitor
I think that for people especially on budget where their fps might not go over 200, 170 or 180 might be a sweet spot, majority of people play on 144hz (I think?) so you will slight have advantage against them, also I dont think you can feel too much difference when you go over 200hz, then games the "input lag" I think you are just fine with 1ms latency 170/180hz against higher refresh rates because I doubt they get much advantage on most games, might be wrong but in the end depending what you play
For single player games, 120 fps is enough, the difference from 60 to 120 fps is very noticeable. Diminishing returns above 120 fps, maybe frame generation for 240 fps.
240 is noticable over 120/144. I couldn't play 60 anymore even if you pay me. I think 240 is actually the sweetspot, but we have 360 Hz with ULMB2 o n the horizon to give a big boost to motion clarity (which is the main reason to go higher in refreshrates, for fast paced games). Perhaps i might jump on a ULMB2 OLED when such hits mainstream, but i am happy with my 240 now and wouldn't wanna miss it.
lol 240 is the sweetspot as if there were millions of other monitors aobve 240 hz. U make it sound like theres 1000hz monitors hahahhahahahaha chill my dude 240 is in no way shape or or form a sweetspot, only YOUR personal preference haha ( or i guess the "sweetspot" for u which is basically one of the highest refresh rates we have currently available anyways haha)
@@MaymunLega It really depends on the games you play and what kind of graphics card you have. There are games that can't reach more than 200 with some details enabled, even if you have a 4090. Partially because of system bottlenecks, partially because many game engines are garbage.
So buying anything above 240hz has to be reconsidered.
However, there is active development to go towards 360hz and even 500hz. Then there is new tech by Nvidia that pushes motion clarity even further, but works only 360hz, etc... making such monitors mandatory, if you want/need that.
My point was: If you are not about such esport games, or dont have the system to even reach past 240, then a 240hz Monitor is indeed the sweetspot, albeit being "high end" by todays standards, you gotta consider the developments in the Monitor market (oled, mini-led, 500hz). I believe by the end of 2024 the 360hz Monitors will be what enthusiasts will be after, and everyone else grabbing the 240s, which will come down in price by then.
Don't forget the 540hz TN as well
@@MaymunLega its not the sweet spot but its the new 144hz imo for multiplayer fps titles at least. Even console has 120 fps modes in those games lmao
@@MaymunLegahahahaahahahaha chill my dude, bro stfu acting all goofy and pressed for no reason 🤡🤡🤡
I have a 1440p 165hz monitor right now and I was looking at a 240hz but its in 1080p is it worth it?
just use it as your secondary monitor so you'll be able to switch back between the two when you need higher frames for FPS games or when playing a single player game but want a better picture quality
Are you serious? Of course not. You already have 165hz and you seriously want to go back to 1080p just so you can get more hz. WTF is the conclusion in this video anyway "you should try". Everything above 144 or eve 120 is minimal if at all noticeable. The huge jump is from 60 to 120/144 that is where the real advantage lies. Nobody needs 240hz its all big numbers to get fools to buy sh1t.
170hz 2k is the sweet spot for fps and triple A games. Its not 240hz but its only around 1-1.5 ms slower which you'll barely notice. I used to own the benq xl2546k 240hz and i switched to gigabyte m27q ver2 , it felt the same tbh but pixels were so much better on 2k monitor which made me play better
Probably because it was 1080 p
I like 4K 144hz
I had the same benq monitor and I sold it because I really didn’t like the picture quality and I barely felt performance of DyAc in CSGO. I am now looking for 2k 27” monitor. How like you are satisfied with your new monitor? And would you suggest for people like me to do the same?
@@metincanballi i mean, if its within your budget and your pc can handle it, go for 240hz 1440p. The gigabyte m27q is good too, id recommend it to anyone with a limited budget.
>170hz
>Sweet spot for triple A
What Modern title did you play ? AAA game from 2017 ?
I remember when people said you cant see more than 30fps
My friend has a 120Hz monitor and I have a 75Hz. Sometimes he beats me in a game, sometimes I beat him. I dont notice a difference when I go to his house and see his monitor.
obviously players skills matter much more. but it makes a player play a little bit better with higher refresh rate
@@yes-69 yes but there is a point of diminishing returns. These new 400hz monitors are completely unnecessary un less one becomes a speedster.
Its because he isnt on 120Hz.. when you get a new monitor its default is 60Hz! I promise the difference between 75 and 120 is crazy!! Even 90 to 120fps is a lot different. I can see a slight difference between 120 and 144 but it isnt as much as comparing 75 to 120. I have also seen 240 before and it does feel slightly smoother than 144 but 240hz feels the same as 180 to be honest. I personally think 144 and 180 is the sweet spot! 180hz is literally 240hz on energy saver mode lol
came for the title and bro just starts saying the most funniest shit
If your console can only run up 120 fps whats the sense buying a monitor thats more than 144hz?
information is always more up to date. you see things faster
Not how it works @@yes-69
@@happygofishing why? how does it work then?
@@yes-69 the ps5 will clock the 144hz monitor down to 120
@@happygofishing oh okay. that's stupid. didn't know that
which is better 1080p 240hz monitor or 1440p 165hz monitor? Please help me to decide...
1080p 240hz is a good option because even with the best pc people choose fps over resolution cause load on rendering can drop fps
Oled 120 or Oled 144 being the sweet spot is there is such a thing?
Stable frames with frame rate limiter is best
Got 165hz fast IPS monitor, I can see the difference up to 120fps. 120fps to 165fps? i can't see the difference, but may feel the difference sometimes. Don't have 240hz monitor, i guess the difference is even smaller 165hz to 240hz.
That's why you skip 240hz when you upgrade and get a 360hz for the final big upgrade, somewhere around 6ms? Maybe less
how do i transport my gpu's 240 4k fps to my 4K 240 fps monitor when the cables support max 120 fps?
Umm change your cable with a quality one?
BAHAHAHA Shower with your Dad simulator, I'm ded! LOL
I've seen on UA-cam where a couple of pro-gamers tested the difference and you can definitely tell the difference especially in first person shooters...!!
I made the mistake of playing on my Friends 240 hz monitor.
Can't enjoy comp FPS anymore. Going from 60hz to 240hz in the same Elo literally felt like playing against Bots.
The most difference i've noticed in 1o1 fights. Sideways tracking became incredibly easy. With 60, i usually kinda predicted movement.
2k 165hz or 1080p 280hz ?
My pc can run 2k easily
Great content as always!
i play cs2 rocket league and r6 should i sell my 144hz 4k oddysey g7 to buy a 1440p 240hz monitor??
I would recommend you to do, higher refrest rate is noticable
People never talk about this regards to singleplayer games. Anything over 120hz is overkill for sinlgeplayer games. And that's because single player games are designed for either 30 or 60 gps, with some improvements going up to the next tier refresh rate. But any refresh rate abive that next step I find super overkill. Fir exmaple: FF7 Remake was clearly designed to be run at 30 fps, gets a massive boost going to 60 but feels stupid going to 120. But no singleplayer game I'm aware of has really been built around 120fps to where 240hz feels necessary.
this! I was wondering about this. 240Hz+ seems really only useful for competitive players where in games like CSGO/ etc that u can get +400 fps that will matter at all. For SP players 120 Hz is probably much enough as we like graphics and those games cant either be pushed much above 100 fps if Im aware (unless u have a master race pc maybe)
I have the same ultragerar its 165hz its huge compared to 60hz i had on ps4
2.30 whats a game?
These days we dont have technology that can pass 6ms response time in any modern TN, VA or IPS panel (excluding OLED) that means everything around 160-170hz is pure wasted, there is no any benefits beyond that, but thanks to companies and theirs mastered bla bla marketing especialy theirs 1ms response time stickers on monitors, lots people belive that 240hz and over are better and better.
0:51 my ping is 2 times higher than all od these combined so is a complete waste od money
that gloss finish looks terrible.
not even the 4090 can do 240hz max out on 2k or 4k. this will be viable when the 5090 comes out
The main thing we want is lower input lag. Which is provided by higher HZ monitors. So yeah, we absolutely want 240 HZ. And even 360 HZ if ever possible.
The lower motion blur is way more noticeable than slightly less input lag
I became a pro for honor player 3 weeks ago. I play on 280hz monitor (overclocked from 240hz)
Im always positive for 240hz monitor or above no matter what reason you play for.
Sure you can be succesful with a 144hz monitor or below. Long story short, the better setup, the higher are the chances that you will be good at the game. Not guaranteed though
Even if you are just casual and want to vibe in a game and press some buttons, i would still go for a 240hz monitor cause it’s just smoother and better experience overall.
Unless you don’t have the money for it, cause then it’s a different story
Wtf People still playing for honor in 2024 lol. That game died like 3 years ago. They need to make For honor 2 already
@@lawbringer9857 the game is not dead and we are a big playerbase now, specially since crossplay became a thing, we just had the biggest tourny with the prizepool of 2500$ for the final qualifiers and 5000$ for closed grandfinal
You're not going back any lower than 240hz once you've tried 240hz
people use streteched 4:3 1280x960 for even lower ms input lag don't listen to this guy, depending on your build it might be viable if you are struggling you get more fps lower latency
Do I need above 240 hz+ monitors to play games like No Man's Sky, Sf6, and Ghost of Tsushima?
no they are not competitive games. 240hz is for people looking for that extra edge in competitive gaming. You're better getting a 144hz monitor at 1440p for better graphics quality
@@RyannBartonSF6 is not a competitive game, what ?
@@cheeks_of_the_boreal_valley tbf i only saw the first and last game he mentioned but even then i don't think sf6 needs 240hz.
@@RyannBarton fair, but i don't think it needs 240 Hz and up any less than other competitive games
The better question is if your wallet allows you or your wife lmao
That one friend's lunchbox
just bought a 280hz monitor from 60hz, curious if I will notice
i think you suprised 😁
@@yenimeni-sn2lc yep, after 10years 60hz it was Day night
We can see only 3 fps? Bro is living with eyes closed
Depending on the game i got 3ms at 240
If you’re playing call of duty, it makes a difference
Its basically better resolution, but in motion. Idk how people can say they cant see high fps. If you can't you are blind...
What is bro talking about we dont even see frames irl
My eyes can handle more than 240hz
Real
shower with your dad simulator LOL
144 is perfect 👌. I cant stand anything less then 90 fps. 60 is literally laggy. Its unplayable
Just a skill issue if u lose to someone with lower framerate
Shower with your dad simulator 💀
So if you are good at counterstrike go for 240, if youre a trash silver stay at 60
What are hz
frequency unit
1/second
Bro Hertz isnt frames 💀
elbow jiz
I’ve never seen someone go pro on 144hz if that answers your question.
😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
Its called business and marketing
shower with ur dad simulator =))) had 2 google it
For the geometry dash players : Just use fps bypass
So much mis- and inaccurate information.
One day I'll be able to play Half-Life at 1000Hz and no-one will stop me
I'll still beat you and I run a panel at 75Hz. I've been playing Half-Life on and off for 20 years.
Waiting for those 1440p 360hz qd-oleds
Dont use qd oled wait for oled 480 hz on 2024 Q4
@@thedesk954 from who?
You put out too much disinformation man. Good thing I unsubscribed to your channels a while ago. Got this in a search 😂
i wouldnt spend any extra money on anything above 144hz
Totally agree, but none of those fools will hear you. I am looking for an actual somewhat scientific video of a comparison. I think everything above 144 is barely even noticable. All these people spend big money on it and they they grind their placebo effect and tell everyone how much better its supposedly is. Spend that money to even reach 144 FPS maxed out in games for a couple of years instead.
jokes on you i can’t see even see. 0hz enjoyers rejoice.
these opinions are ok for average gamer to 90% of gamers.
Once you played with 240hz you will never go back to 120 or 60hz.
it is such a big upgrade - just like going from back light bleed va/ips trаsh to qd-oled glossy panel.
Can’t tell if it’s back light bleed or ghosting but it’s causing me to switch to tn. Drives me up the wall I hope oled gets cheaper and better
@@nolyfe4814 not sure if you're talking about an OLED but an OLED will have neither of those issues
1. Monitor's refresh rate has nothing to do with how many FPS you get. That's strictly on your CPU/GPU combo. You can get 500 FPS and use only a 60 Hz Display, and still have better input delay, than a 60 FPS on a 60 HZ display.
2. It helps only with fast moving games. Shooters and racing games.
3. You won't notice the difference beyond 8ms, unless you're either really talented at shooters, and/or really young. With age comes slowness of response times. You, the human, become the bottleneck in this equation. And your only solution is prohibited medication.
4. You said it yourself. Anything beyond 120Hz is kinda useless.
I would rather have a nice 100Hz or 120 Hz display with high peak brightness, text clarity, good contrast ratio, 1 Bn colors, HDR certified than a TN panel with 1000 Hz that has none of these.
Only ones who're gonna shell out for 1000 Hz are sweaty CS2 players who play on 144p anyways.
And these OLED 240Hz seem like they were made for casual Fornite/Warzone users who hope that having 240 Hz is going to help them shoot more enemies.
As a geometry dash player, this has a lot of holes.
I was thinking why you love glossy and I hate it. The answer is in the fact that you want to lookinto the 3000nit sun when u game and I like to game for 12 hour straight with multiple monitors without eye strain
Glossy doesn’t cause eye strain.
Brightness doesn’t cause eye strain.
Eye strain is caused by underdeveloped eye muscles adjusting to a new viewing distance.
@@thedisplayguyIf you eyes are light sensitive you could have problems with brightness levels like I do.
I have a theory that horrible mate coating can cause eye strain and glossy is easier on the eyes.
I will confirm that when I get the LG oled with mate coating and a glossy IPS monitor I'm planning to buy...
No need for 240 Hz if you can't reach 240 fps LUL
im a 43 year old gamer i have been gaming from the age of 5. I can tell you this.
The stable frametimes are more important than high framerate with stutter.
I have a 1440p 240hz Gsync monitor but i always cap all my games at 120fps. Why ?
It feels and plays smoother than the constant changing fps 128-187-201-143-138 = stutter hell.
a constant 120 fps on a 240hz = smooth so smooth you will get annoyed with higher inconsistent frametimes and framedrops.
Would you say this all applies equally if you’re going to use this monitor for office work purposes as well?
Only reason I’m considering 4K is for the potential better text view, like excel, outlook, etc, but idk if this is truly accurate/noticeable.
42 year old gamer here, I approve this message.
That’s entirely a PC issue rather than monitor refresh rate issue though
That’s entirely a PC issue rather than monitor refresh rate issue though
That’s entirely a PC issue rather than monitor refresh rate issue though
Still loving the LG 240hz OLED monitor!! No regrets
Cool! I'm thinking of getting one...seeing if there are any Black Friday sales coming up for it.
its been 8 months any burn ins? i want an oled but everyone says burn in are inevitable
I'm not really a competitive gamer, so decided to sell my 240Hz 1440p 27" IPS in favor of my new 120Hz 4K LG C2 42" OLED. I'll take infinite contrast, instant pixel response, and great HDR over an extra 120Hz refresh all day long. I can barely tell the difference in daily use. Overall, the C2 is a significantly more versatile screen, and I can still game at relatively high refresh rate if I get an itch to play.
I’m thinking about doing the same thing for mine. Where’d u sell and for how much
And now you get like 10ms of input lag
@slasd1440 You'd like to believe I was having a high input latency experience when paired with a 4090. Sad to say, that has no basis in reality.
if you want to watch movies or do content creation then good decision if you are a casual gamer and play fps games then i wouldn’t recommend
u are not a competitive gamer. for casual campain games.. great upgrade, to competitive, its a downgrade, or if u want to see movies..
You’re humor😂 I love it. I’m subbing just for that. 🎉
More clickbait. How does it feel to have such horrible takes all the time?
😂
I definitely seen an increase in performance when I switched from 60-120hz then again when I switched from 120-144hz so I'd conclude that more hz could be what you need to pass your skill level threshold in certain games.
Average human reaction time is 250ms. With training this can typically get down to 200ms. Gamers as a subset may have higher reaction times because of extensive training, usually from an early age. God gamers would have reaction times of 150ms or less. So monitor refresh rate can be thought of as percentage error on your reaction time. So the better you are, the more refresh rate matters. Let's say you are the best gamer in the world at 100ms reaction time. That means 144hz gives you 8% error! That's huge. But for the average gamer it gives 4%. I would argue that is likely still statistically relevant in performance advantage, but how much does performance advantage matter to the average gamer? They just want to have fun experience and will never compete with a god gamer on any screen. So then it is a question of being noticeable. I think the noticeable vs $$$ equation does not make sense above 144hz for the average gamer or especially ~170hz, which goes for about the same.
After 120 htz there is split. Either you get more FPS with average brightness and fake HDR or deeper contrast with True HDR. If you want both then OLED is the only option @1000 USD
I used to have 10 years old bad 60hz monitor, I upgraded it to 180hz and its massive difference, 170/180hz which is pretty common on more budget gaming displays isnt ever talked about and I dont know why
Sure 240hz matters if your on pc. But how does it handle on 60 fps locked ps5. Seems like a waste .
People who say hz dont matter, Have never seen 144hz
lower input lag is fine and dandy :) until your Ping latency over 999 :P. i never saw Ping Below 50 until was already a man XD
So youre telling me there's a chance?
@4:10 you finally get to the point, but it's an add... :'(
Can confirm humans only see 3 fps -- 1 right + 1 left + (1 right and left mixed)!
Dont let this guy talk ever again
for fps games, you IMMEDIATELY feel the difference between 60hz and 144hz. What about 240? IF you are used to 144 and get a chance to try 240, you will also notice seeing enemies swinging much more comfortably.
But when you blind test people no one can tell the difference I'm sure it's literally a placebo 😂
I'd love to see a scientific study on this do it at a gaming convention so you got some nerds and bam at least something we can go off of rather than 1 dudes opinion 😉
32 inch 240 hz QHD vs 34 inch 165 hz WQHD Which one you choose ?
If you play at 144hz and go to 240hz you can get worse at the game at first as you adjust to less input lag. but once you get mussel memory to higher refresh rate you will get much better than you could at 144hz. Its not just the screen there must be no frame dips in the game only set the fps to the max of what your pc put out don't let it jump around in frame rate. I use msi afterburner frame timing in the graph form in my top corner its shows dips and input lag then adjust settings to hit the 240hz consistently. You can't learn how to aim better if your lead time on shots are allover the place with frame dips. if you run 500hz the frame dips mix together with the rest so they don't matter as much as they would at 144hz. Cpu and ram speed is very important to frame consistency
1080p 60hz all my lyfe Bro, skipped the 1440 and went straight to 4k 165hz... On ROG 4090 & 13900kf is why.
Competitive gaming sweet spot: 1440p at 120-240Hz.
Historiy/Narrative/strategy sweet spot: 4k at 60-120Hz.
I believe higher frame rates have advantages in terms of lower input lag and smoother motion, especially for multiplayer competitive gaming. However, for most single-player games, the benefits may not be worth the additional resources required. Ultimately, it depends on personal preference and the specific game being played.