The hardest choice in the world... qhd or 240hz...

[zindan]

This is a extremely hard decision.
240hz 24" gsync = advantage in fps games.
165hz 27" gsync = nicer graphics in games, perfect for 165fps at high/ultra with the new turing gpus ( IF NOT, I AM GONNA BE DISAPPOINTED AT NVIDIA)


Acer 27" LED Predator XB271HUA G-Sync IPS  4ms

OR

ASUS ROG Swift PG258Q

I once had the 27" LED predator G sync. 
The only thing stopping me from rebuying this is that I fear that 240hz might give me more skills an advantage at fps games compared to 165hz... 
Also the 27" size might ruin the ability to be fast at games that require speed. Yes game monitor size matters.. Bigger monitors are more "clumsy" and it feels slower kind of. 


If someone could tell me a little bit more and perhaps help me to decide. No assumptions please, just logic based thoughts and facts. 
Thank you very much. 

[ZeouLs]

1 minute ago, zindan said:

more skills

skill doesnt come from refreshrate of your monitor

[zindan]

2 minutes ago, ZeouLs said:

skill doesnt come from refreshrate of your monitor

My english... 

I have rephrased it now. Thank you.

[2FA]

I like having more screen real estate to work with so QHD is a must for me. 1080p is just too small for me if I have the option. Also I doubt you would be able to hit 240 fps very often without having to turn graphical settings down significantly.

[ZeouLs]

1 minute ago, 2FA said:

I like having more screen real estate to work with so QHD is a must for me. 1080p is just too small for me if I have the option. Also I doubt you would be able to hit 240 fps very often without having to turn graphical settings down significantly.

csgo hits well beyond 200FPS on a 1070/1070Ti on maxed settings at 1080p

[zindan]

1 minute ago, 2FA said:

I like having more screen real estate to work with so QHD is a must for me. 1080p is just too small for me if I have the option. Also I doubt you would be able to hit 240 fps very often without having to turn graphical settings down significantly.

The fps is no issue. With the new gtx 1180 that problem will be solved. Yes I can wait. Atleast until the end of 2018 until I sue nvidia.

[zindan]

1 minute ago, ZeouLs said:

csgo hits well beyond 200FPS on a 1070/1070Ti on maxed settings at 1080p

I am pretty sure she/he meanth a big variation games. Fortnite for example does not, pubg, h1z1 and many many more fps games. Cs was 1 exmaple out of a million man. 

thank you. 

[ZeouLs]

Just now, zindan said:

I am pretty sure she/he meanth a big variation games. Fortnite for example does not, pubg, h1z1 and many many more fps games. Cs was 1 exmaple out of a million man. 

thank you. 

Well compared to others CSGO is an esports title while pubg has to rework their code because it's garbage and not optimized at all. Not even a NASA pc could get pubg to 200FPS

[2FA]

3 minutes ago, zindan said:

The fps is no issue. With the new gtx 1180 that problem will be solved. Yes I can wait. Atleast until the end of 2018 until I sue nvidia.

Sure for existing games that are at this point outdated graphically. Once new games come out that make use of the additional performance of the new cards, you'll be back in the same boat.

[NinJake]

QHD all the way for me. More pixels outweighs faster refresh rate in my books.

[zindan]

Just now, ZeouLs said:

Well compared to others CSGO is an esports title while pubg has to rework their code because it's garbage and not optimized at all. Not even a NASA pc could get pubg to 200FPS

Look buddy, I appreciate your comments and stuff but you seem to be a person who just tries to find the slightest error in a text and correct it. I am very aware of what 2FA means. Just don't continue on this path.   Thank you

[TheBeardyOne]

I own  a 27" QHD 144Hz and a 27" 1080p 60Hz, and Honestly if you are not a highly competetive CSGO Player it doesn't really matter. Your skilcap isn't usually capped by the refreshrate of your monitor. That being said, personally I recommend you to buy a 27" QHD at 120/144 Hz because when you sit in front of it at your desk you will really like the bigger screen estate, and QHD is more than enough for nice graphics, in some games you are even able to turn of AA without a huge difference (and you get more  juicy FPS). I have seen 120hz, 144 and 165hz and the difference is really not noticable. Be reasonable with your choice and don't throw away money just because it's the best of the best. 

[zindan]

1 minute ago, 2FA said:

Sure for existing games that are at this point outdated graphically. Once new games come out that make use of the additional performance of the new cards, you'll be back in the same boat.

240hz at 1080p should be stable for a pretty long time don't you think ? With a 1180 it should be fine ye? I mean Age of empires 4, The elder scrolls VI (I am gonna play this at 144hz 4k HDR quantum dots Definately.)   Well, when it comes out.

[zindan]

1 minute ago, TheBeardyOne said:

I own  a 27" QHD 144Hz and a 27" 1080p 60Hz, and Honestly if you are not a highly competetive CSGO Player it doesn't really matter. Your skilcap isn't usually capped by the refreshrate of your monitor. That being said, personally I recommend you to buy a 27" QHD at 120/144 Hz because when you sit in front of it at your desk you will really like the bigger screen estate, and QHD is more than enough for nice graphics, in some games you are even able to turn of AA without a huge difference (and you get more  juicy FPS). I have seen 120hz, 144 and 165hz and the difference is really not noticable. Be reasonable with your choice and don't throw away money just because it's the best of the best. 

That was very wisely said. I think you are right. I am not a super super pro player and I can probably enjoy a qhd 165hz IPS monitor more.  Although, the 165hz gsync IPS monitor is a lot more expensive than the 240hz.. Actually 30% more expensive. 

[2FA]

1 minute ago, zindan said:

240hz at 1080p should be stable for a pretty long time don't you think ? With a 1180 it should be fine ye? I mean Age of empires 4, The elder scrolls VI (I am gonna play this at 144hz 4k HDR quantum dots Definately.)   Well, when it comes out.

As an owner of a 980ti and 1080, no.

[TheBeardyOne]

4 minutes ago, zindan said:

That was very wisely said. I think you are right. I am not a super super pro player and I can probably enjoy a qhd 165hz IPS monitor more.  Although, the 165hz gsync IPS monitor is a lot more expensive than the 240hz.. Actually 30% more expensive. 

Maybe one day we can dream of a future where Freesync will be available for Nvidia cards... I have a Freesync monitor and Nvidia card, so I can't tell you how it would feel like using a technology like that. But I can't really recommend someone wasting so much extra money because of Nvidias predatory buisness strategy JUST to get a slighlt more smoother experience. As long as you can play at more than 30 FPS I would say thats pretty smooth.. in comparison to consoles. Gsync just seems to me more of a gimmick than an actual real world use. 

[WereCat]

The difference between 165Hz and 240Hz is getting into diminishing returns.

 

60FPS -> 16,66ms

165FPS -> 6,06ms

240FPS -> 4,16ms

 

Also the 240Hz monitors are a TN so... meh.

[zindan]

3 minutes ago, TheBeardyOne said:

Maybe one day we can dream of a future where Freesync will be available for Nvidia cards... I have a Freesync monitor and Nvidia card, so I can't tell you how it would feel like using a technology like that. But I can't really recommend someone wasting so much extra money because of Nvidias predatory buisness strategy JUST to get a slighlt more smoother experience. As long as you can play at more than 30 FPS I would say thats pretty smooth.. in comparison to consoles. Gsync just seems to me more of a gimmick than an actual real world use. 

Fuck these companies man, fucking selfish pricks. All they care about is money, disgusting people. 

I will go with a 240hz because it is cheaper. And no I will absoloutley not go with a monitor that have above 60hz without gsync... I sometimes play old games like age of empires 3 and who knows. I don't want tearing. I dont want tearing. I dont want tearing. Please no tearing. Please remove tearing. How to uninstall tearing?

[zindan]

1 minute ago, WereCat said:

The difference between 165Hz and 240Hz is getting into diminishing returns.

 

60FPS -> 16,66ms

165FPS -> 6,06ms

240FPS -> 4,16ms

 

Also the 240Hz monitors are a TN so... meh.

I'm not sure I understand this. A more detailed explanation please

[WereCat]

Just now, zindan said:

I'm not sure I understand this. A more detailed explanation please

Basicaly how much time it takes for each frame to be displayed, This also has a direct impact on the input lag.

[Peskanova]

1 hour ago, zindan said:

This is a extremely hard decision.
240hz 24" gsync = advantage in fps games.
165hz 27" gsync = nicer graphics in games, perfect for 165fps at high/ultra with the new turing gpus ( IF NOT, I AM GONNA BE DISAPPOINTED AT NVIDIA)


Acer 27" LED Predator XB271HUA G-Sync IPS  4ms

OR

ASUS ROG Swift PG258Q

I once had the 27" LED predator G sync. 
The only thing stopping me from rebuying this is that I fear that 240hz might give me more skills an advantage at fps games compared to 165hz... 
Also the 27" size might ruin the ability to be fast at games that require speed. Yes game monitor size matters.. Bigger monitors are more "clumsy" and it feels slower kind of. 


If someone could tell me a little bit more and perhaps help me to decide. No assumptions please, just logic based thoughts and facts. 
Thank you very much. 

I have a 24 inch gsync 165hz 1440p and I was thinking the same , and thinking wisely, only csgo or low spec games will run you at 240hz forget about 240hz. 

I've recommended last 2 months a lot of screens ,180hz 1080p 23,8 gsync, 27 inch 1440p 165hz , and one friend wanted 1080p 240hz but I told him that is far way better experience with 1440p 165hz than  full hd 240hz (that with his 1080 only will use on csgo?)

I know your feels, for me (and you could look on this forum what I posted) hz + gsync > all but  my general rule that I follow 100% times is that anything 27 inches must be 1440p (for pixel density) 24 inches 1080p is ok , but 27 inches 1080p is garbage.

I could bought a 24 inch 1080p 240hz or 27 inch 1440p 165hz instead, and I play very competitive and fps games (csgo,rainbow 6, pubg) but same as I told to that friend that wanted 240hz 1080p, its not only about hz its the experience, all sums to the experience, I would pick the best experience, dont chose looking on refresh rate only , and as linus says , if you buy that 240hz monitor looking for a newer tech ,when that tech shows up your monitor will be halved in price  

 

EDIT : Im with you , I can notice when gsync fails and have declared a war against tearing.... 

 

[TheBeardyOne]

4 minutes ago, zindan said:

Fuck these companies man, fucking selfish pricks. All they care about is money, disgusting people. 

I will go with a 240hz because it is cheaper. And no I will absoloutley not go with a monitor with above 60hz without gsync... I sometimes play old games like age of empires 3 and who knows. I don't want tearing. I dont want tearing. I dont want tearing. Please no tearing. Please remove tearing. How to uninstall tearing?

If you are worried about tearing you can enforce vsync in the Nvidia control panel for your application. That might help with that. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, zindan said:

I'm not sure I understand this. A more detailed explanation please

What that means basically is that the application has 6,06 ms or 4,16 ms to render one frame to be able to run at full throttle so to speak. Which often is unlikely for an 3D application to archive if it is not highly optimized. 

[zindan]

Just now, TheBeardyOne said:

If you are worried about tearing you can enforce vsync in the Nvidia control panel for your application. That might help with that. 

 

 

What that means basically is that the application has 6,06 ms or 4,16 ms to render one frame to be able to run at full throttle so to speak. Which often is unlikely for an 3D application to archive if it is not highly optimized. 

Okay thank you. vsync caps at 60fps...

[TheBeardyOne]

6 minutes ago, zindan said:

Okay thank you. vsync caps at 60fps...

thats not how vsync works. Vsync adjust itself to the refreshrate of the monitor. If your monitor is 60Hz Vsync will cap at that, if its higher it will cap higher.

[zindan]

1 minute ago, TheBeardyOne said:

thats not how vsync works. Vsync adjust itself to the refreshrate of the monitor. If your monitor is 60Hz Vsync will cap at that, if its higher it will cap higher.

Whut? Is that true? Then what is the point of gsync?  Each time I enable vsync it caps at 60 despite my hz