Are these specs good enough for 240hz

[Hypoxz]

Hi i want to buy a new monitor the Alienware AW2518HF 

 

Specs : 

 

ryzen 5 2600 OC

2x8gb ddr4 3133MHZ

aorus b450 elite

gtx 1080ti

dark rock pro 4

nzxt h500

500gb ssd

1tb hdd

650 corsair rmx

 

let me know your reactions

Edited June 11, 2019 by Hypoxz

[FloRolf]

No and yes

[Hypoxz]

Just now, FloRolf said:

No and yes

Why?

[Princess Luna]

Not really, disregarding that 240hz is 100% gimmick and pointless, you will struggle hard to achieve 240fps on a Ryzen 5 2600 on a good portion of the latest e-sports out there.

[Turtle Rig]

Just now, Hypoxz said:

Why?

Depends on the game and resolution.  You would need to use 1080p resolution and in game settings to medium to high.  Then it depends on the game.  CS: GO yes you will get 240fps to match your refresh rate.  But you wont get 240fps in battlefield.  Pretty much depends on the game my friend.

[.Apex.]

Just now, Hypoxz said:

Why?

Depends on the game, Ryzen 1000/2000 isn't the best for hitting 240Hz, let alone even 144Hz

[Hypoxz]

Just now, Turtle Rig said:

Depends on the game and resolution.  You would need to use 1080p resolution and in game settings to medium to high.  Then it depends on the game.  CS: GO yes you will get 240fps to match your refresh rate.  But you wont get 240fps in battlefield.  Pretty much depends on the game my friend.

1080p in games such as fortnite, r6s, apex etc is this kinds reachable

[Hypoxz]

1 minute ago, _Syn_ said:

Depends on the game, Ryzen 1000/2000 isn't the best for hitting 240Hz, let alone even 144Hz

Yeah im probably also going to upgrade to ryzen 7 3700x/ r7 3800x

[.Apex.]

Just now, Hypoxz said:

Yeah im probably also going to upgrade to ryzen 7 3700x/ r7 3800x

yeah that would suffice i guess, but either way you don't have to reach 240hz consistently, you can probably get by with the 2600

[Dedayog]

4 minutes ago, Hypoxz said:

1080p in games such as fortnite, r6s, apex etc is this kinds reachable

Yes, it's reachable, but it's a gimmick as she says.  There is no benefit of it. You still have latency between the other aspects of your system, primarily the very slow reacting thing in the chair.

 

it doesn't look any better or perform any better than 144Hz/165Hz, and you may even need to make a game look worse than needed to just get that epeen number.

 

Besides, that 2600 isn't going to do it consistently, as said.

 

Edit: But as with everything, if that's what you want to buy, or try to achieve, best of luck to you.  Going Ryzen 3xxx will help as well.

 

[SupaKomputa]

Yeah, set your resolution to 720p and quality to lowest, you'll get 240fps no problem.

[Turtle Rig]

40 minutes ago, SupaKomputa said:

Yeah, set your resolution to 720p and quality to lowest, you'll get 240fps no problem.

Although sounds funny, its the hard truth.  You barely get triple digit 2xx in DX9 games with a setup like yours.  I mean you can get 300 then 250 then 180 then 200 then 240 then 220 and so on.  CS:GO and old games you can do 240fps at 1080p with your setup.  Some other esport games you can as well, but for heavy titles like quack champions or Unreal Engine games you will never get sustained 240fps,, it will drop to 1xx then back up to 2xx.  Here is wear gsync or freesync comes into play to make for smooth game play even when frame rates drop a bit.  Your better off playing at 1440p max in game settings and turn on some AA methods and get 120 and 144fps.  The freesync will cause for a smooth game play and you wont notice the drop in frame rates.

[Doobeedoo]

18 hours ago, Princess Luna said:

Not really, disregarding that 240hz is 100% gimmick and pointless, you will struggle hard to achieve 240fps on a Ryzen 5 2600 on a good portion of the latest e-sports out there.

 

18 hours ago, jstudrawa said:

Yes, it's reachable, but it's a gimmick as she says.  There is no benefit of it. You still have latency between the other aspects of your system, primarily the very slow reacting thing in the chair.

 

it doesn't look any better or perform any better than 144Hz/165Hz, and you may even need to make a game look worse than needed to just get that epeen number.

 

Besides, that 2600 isn't going to do it consistently, as said.

 

Edit: But as with everything, if that's what you want to buy, or try to achieve, best of luck to you.  Going Ryzen 3xxx will help as well.

 

 

It's not a gimmick, how can higher refresh rate be a gimmick. 60Hz to 144Hz is a much bigger improvement than 144Hz to 240Hz may be, yes but still. 240Hz is noticable in games where you have such high framerate and game being fast. So like in Quake Champions you can get frames to benefit from 240Hz especially feels nicer for fast movement. It's up to individuals you may say, while most are good with 144Hz.

[Doobeedoo]

If you're not very serious in competitive fps you're better of getting better panel and higher res with like 144Hz then. Better balanced monitor per say. 

[Princess Luna]

2 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

.

144hz is what makes sense, you get at the sweetspot, past it the advantages are completely placebo territory already:

Watch this and you'll understand, the frametimes are so narrow past a point it doesn't make sense get an inferior image quality screen to achieve 240hz (specially when most pixels aren't even fast enough for this refresh rate).

[Dedayog]

Just now, Doobeedoo said:

 

 

It's not a gimmick, how can higher refresh rate be a gimmick. 60Hz to 144Hz is a much bigger improvement than 144Hz to 240Hz may be, yes but still. 240Hz is noticable in games where you have such high framerate and game being fast. So like in Quake Champions you can get frames to benefit from 240Hz especially feels nicer for fast movement. It's up to individuals you may say, while most are good with 144Hz.

It's a gimmick in that it doesn't have real value.  Not that 240Hz produces real frames or not, of course it does.

 

So 240Hz Quake Champions is so much better than 165Hz?  144Hz?  You notice how much better the game is and that helps you be a better player?

 

 

[Doobeedoo]

3 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

144hz is what makes sense, you get at the sweetspot, past it the advantages are completely placebo territory already:

Watch this and you'll understand, the frametimes are so narrow past a point it doesn't make sense get an inferior image quality screen to achieve 240hz (specially when most pixels aren't even fast enough for this refresh rate).

Sweetspot may be, like IPS 1440p 240Hz yes. But it's not placebo. I'm aware of frametimes. I've seen countless videos and written articles, also talked to pros, tested my self as well. It definitely feels more smoother in fast paced games like I said. It's a very nice extra really. May not improve your aim as 60 to 144hz would, but still extra smoothness is nice to have. Especially for Quake Champions for me where movement is so fast and frantic, bhop for example and seeing scene update smoother feels so amazing. 

So 240Hz I say to people only makes sense if they don't care about TN 1080 and are mainly playing fps and are serious about it. 

3 minutes ago, jstudrawa said:

It's a gimmick in that it doesn't have real value.  Not that 240Hz produces real frames or not, of course it does.

 

So 240Hz Quake Champions is so much better than 165Hz?  144Hz?  You notice how much better the game is and that helps you be a better player?

 

 

Value? I mean if people appreciate it and there are quite cheap ones today too. 

240Hz vs 144Hz in QC is a good example. It won't make you a better player. 60Hz 144Hz helps a lot. 144Hz to 240Hz not as much, aim wise like no it won't make you play much better, but what it does is make everything even more smoother when you move at such speeds.