240Hz compromises?

[Reapairz]

Hi, I am using an Asus XG248 240hz monitor and was wondering if there is any compromise to using 240Hz compared to 144Hz? Like is there more ghosting/artifacts from higher refresh rate or is the only difference the refesh rate itself? My cpu is an 8700k and gpu 2070

[Sorenson]

Ghosting comes from the display having a response time slower than the refresh rate. So for a 240hz monitor you would need an actual response time (not the advertised bs) less than 4.15ms (1000/240) in order to prevent ghosting. Even if your response time is slower than your refresh rate you shouldn't have excessive ghosting unless the monitor has a really bad response time. 

 

In terms of artifacting, this is usually caused by a cable with insufficient bandwidth to show the image, video compression (youtube/netflix), or a problem with your GPU. 

 

Other than that, the general downside of 240hz monitors is the TN panel they generally come with. 

[SolarNova]

1 hour ago, Reapairz said:

Hi, I am using an Asus XG248 240hz monitor and was wondering if there is any compromise to using 240Hz compared to 144Hz? Like is there more ghosting/artifacts from higher refresh rate or is the only difference the refesh rate itself? My cpu is an 8700k and gpu 2070

Not directly caused by the frequency no.

 

However, 240hz displays are TN panels, and TN panels have a plethora of issues in regards to image quality. Only a couple of the best 240hz monitors have any amount of quality to them, most of them, especially the cheaper ones, usually have terrible image quality.

 

The HP Omen X25f and Acer Nitro XV273X are the only good 'tested' examples of 240hz monitors that i know of. They have remarkably good uniformity for a TN panel, and the Acer has excellent factory calibration.

[Doobeedoo]

No in such way, depends in context. Like resolution and panel quality. So usually it's 1080p TN for those. There are some that are 1440p TN and some that are 1080p IPS now. Though the best ones really as of now are 1080p TN so.