Any new 240+hz monitors due to be released?+

[Kitsan]

Im very close to pulling the trigger on an Alienware AW2518HF and I was wondering if there where any new 240hz monitors coming out soon which I should consider?

(doesn't have to to be gsync or freesync)

[Drunk.EU]

I personally love the asus one. 

There will be more variants in the future but almost all the major brands have already manufactured their variants. 

[Kitsan]

Im guessing not very many have been sold because most gamers are looking for an immersive experience rather than esports but I just wanted to double check before I buy one, i'll give this thread a few days while i'll periodically research it just incase

 

I do like the Asus one but its just a bit too expensive plus the place i'm going to buy the Dell has a really good 3 year no quibble warranty

[JoostinOnline]

The difference between a 144hz and 240hz is so minor that gamers often can't tell consistently identify which is which. There's just not a market for it.

[Kitsan]

I think if you tried it, you'd be surprised, its not when you sit in-front of it that you notice it. It's when you go back to a 144hz display.

[Doobeedoo]

2 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

The difference between a 144hz and 240hz is so minor that gamers often can't tell consistently identify which is which. There's just not a market for it.

Nah, there's definitely difference, especially if you're on very competitive level in certain shooters. 

[Doobeedoo]

Well there's this https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/accessories-and-monitors/monitors/gaming/Lenovo-Legion-Y27gq-Monitor/p/DD116LPY27G

[JoostinOnline]

10 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

Nah, there's definitely difference, especially if you're on very competitive level in certain shooters. 

There's a difference for some people. As your refresh/frame rate increases, the difference between frame times is regressive. It's why 30 to 60 is night and day, but 60 to 120 is just a nice improvement.

 

I'm not saying nobody could tell the difference. It's just that tests have shown that it's uncommon. The only market for it is among competitive players who can see the difference, are willing to pay money to get an advantage over others (which is kinda shitty to some people), and can afford the hardware to even produce that many frames consistently. That's a very niche market, even just among the PC gaming community.

[Doobeedoo]

43 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

There's a difference for some people. As your refresh/frame rate increases, the difference between frame times is regressive. It's why 30 to 60 is night and day, but 60 to 120 is just a nice improvement.

 

I'm not saying nobody could tell the difference. It's just that tests have shown that it's uncommon. The only market for it is among competitive players who can see the difference, are willing to pay money to get an advantage over others (which is kinda shitty to some people), and can afford the hardware to even produce that many frames consistently. That's a very niche market, even just among the PC gaming community.

Not quite true. All pros play at 144Hz+ good portion of them are at 240Hz especially tournaments. 60 to 120 is also night and day difference. Something like 144 to 240 may be less but it still is at very fast paced shooters like Quake for example. 

 

What tests though? These days everyone who plays more or wants to be competitive should have 144Hz and 240Hz is not as uncommon really. Most will be fine with 144Hz since it's a huge upgrade from 60 yes. Also 240Hz monitors are not as pricey like they were in the beginning. As far as advantage, it's still your skill that matters, monitor won't automatically make you better. 60Hz player may have disadvantage for example vs other with higher refresh, but if that player is average won't matter anyway. You don't need top gaming PC for it too.

[JoostinOnline]

16 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

Not quite true. All pros play at 144Hz+ good portion of them are at 240Hz especially tournaments. 60 to 120 is also night and day difference. Something like 144 to 240 may be less but it still is at very fast paced shooters like Quake for example. 

Professionals aren't that big of a market. And no, 60 to 120 is not a night and day difference. I can only tell in some games.  It's literally half the difference, despite being double the frame rate. 144hz is where the cost to benefit ratio starts to tip.

 

The frame time for 30fps is 33.3ms.  For 60fps it's 16.6ms. For 120fps it's 8.3ms.  For 240fps it's 4.2ms.  You get diminishing returns.

[Doobeedoo]

38 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Professionals aren't that big of a market. And no, 60 to 120 is not a night and day difference. I can only tell in some games.  It's literally half the difference, despite being double the frame rate. 144hz is where the cost to benefit ratio starts to tip.

 

The frame time for 30fps is 33.3ms.  For 60fps it's 16.6ms. For 120fps it's 8.3ms.  For 240fps it's 4.2ms.  You get diminishing returns.

Not just pros though, many that are very competitive or pro level have them too. 60 to 120/144Hz definitely is a quite a noticeable difference. You can only tell on some games. So you referenced your self and in some games. Which games though. Half the difference despite double the framerate? What do you mean, that you don't feel it as twice as good or something.

144Hz is so cheap these days though that anyone getting a new monitor and does gaming should get one for sure. 240hz is not needed yeah, most will be more than fine with 144Hz but there definitely is noticeable difference between them for people that can take advantage of their offerings.

 

I'm aware of frame times, but diminishing returns are not as close as you think.

[JoostinOnline]

1 hour ago, Doobeedoo said:

Not just pros though, many that are very competitive or pro level have them too. 60 to 120/144Hz definitely is a quite a noticeable difference. You can only tell on some games. So you referenced your self and in some games. Which games though. Half the difference despite double the framerate? What do you mean, that you don't feel it as twice as good or something.

144Hz is so cheap these days though that anyone getting a new monitor and does gaming should get one for sure. 240hz is not needed yeah, most will be more than fine with 144Hz but there definitely is noticeable difference between them for people that can take advantage of their offerings.

 

I'm aware of frame times, but diminishing returns are not as close as you think.

It's exactly half every time you double it. I'm not just talking about personal experience, it's simply mathematical. If you graph frame times against framerate it's an asymptote approaching zero. That's why the difference between 1fps and 2fps (500ms) is so much bigger than 59fps and 60fps (0.3ms).

[Doobeedoo]

8 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

It's exactly half every time you double it. I'm not just talking about personal experience, it's simply mathematical. If you graph frame times against framerate it's an asymptote approaching zero. That's why the difference between 1fps and 2fps (500ms) is so much bigger than 59fps and 60fps (0.3ms).

Yes you said that already. You also said that 60 vs 120 is not night and day difference and that you can only tell in some games. Then you point how frame times are half for every twice the refresh rate. Just stating the obvious. I was pointing how you perceive differently on higher refresh rates. But you say it's not a big difference, that just shows your lack of experience in games that benefit most of it.

[Kitsan]

1 minute ago, Doobeedoo said:

Yes you said that already. You also said that 60 vs 120 is not night and day difference and that you can only tell in some games. Then you point how frame times are half for every twice the refresh rate. Just stating the obvious. I was pointing how you perceive differently on higher refresh rates. But you say it's not a big difference, that just shows your lack of experience in games that benefit most of it.

And I think that has allot of weight, i'm involved at GM/T500/T3 level in OW for example and I can tell you for a fact that what you perceive as a small difference is much bigger when you appreciate the impact it has at that level.

[SolarNova]

The problem with 240hz monitors is that to truly benefit from 240hz, u need a 'true' pixel response time less than 4ms 100% transition speed, and idealy a much faster 80% speed like less than 2ms. Many many monitors will advertise 1ms resposne time, none of them actualy have a 1ms 100% pixel transition speed.

[Kitsan]

Do you know which 240hz monitors do have a response time of less than 4ms 100% transition speed?

[SolarNova]

4 minutes ago, remus243 said:

Do you know which 240hz monitors do have a response time of less than 4ms 100% transition speed?

off the top of my head , no.

 

But to give you an idea of how wrong manufacturer advertised resposne time figures can be, the BenQ Zowie XL2540 is a 240hz gaming monitor which states 1ms reposne time. Its real response time is 80% = 3.3ms and 100% = 7.9ms as tesed in Rtings review of the monitor.

So just be carefull, make sure to find and read a full review of a monitor befor buying, especialy expensive ones.

 

[Xx_osos_xX]

On 3/8/2019 at 8:37 PM, SolarNova said:

off the top of my head , no.

 

But to give you an idea of how wrong manufacturer advertised resposne time figures can be, the BenQ Zowie XL2540 is a 240hz gaming monitor which states 1ms reposne time. Its real response time is 80% = 3.3ms and 100% = 7.9ms as tesed in Rtings review of the monitor.

So just be carefull, make sure to find and read a full review of a monitor befor buying, especialy expensive ones.

 

Wow that was very helpful thanks man, i never knew that monitor response times could be false in reality. 

anyone has any idea when the 240hz  lenovo 1440p monitor is gonna come out? it says it has 0.5ms response time, i'll wait until it gets reviewed for actual response time, or maybe not because it's the only option i'll just buy it anyway

[SolarNova]

2 hours ago, Xx_osos_xX said:

Wow that was very helpful thanks man, i never knew that monitor response times could be false in reality. 

anyone has any idea when the 240hz  lenovo 1440p monitor is gonna come out? it says it has 0.5ms response time, i'll wait until it gets reviewed for actual response time, or maybe not because it's the only option i'll just buy it anyway

Fair warning, it wont have 0.5ms response time.

Its impossible for an LCD currently to have such a fast response time, be it an average 80% time, or a maximum 100% time. Even the fastest TN panels cannot keep maximum response times under 7ms. The fastest 80% average i know of is 1.5ms, and that's countered by the fact it has a 11.5ms 100% average and a 22.9ms maximum.

Its possible the screen ur talking about has a specific pixel transition response time of 0.5ms, but thats a cherry picked figure from a single transition, not an average, and not a maximum.

 

No monitor i have so far seen reviewed can manage a pixel response fast enough to handle above 120hz, and i've only seen 1 that can handle 120hz (its a 144hz display but pixel response can only handle 120hz), and aside from its 'speed' it has terrible picture quality.

 

 

For most people its not really required that maximum pixel response be fast enough to handle a set refresh speed, however if ur sensitive to ghosting/blur, and/or are used to self emmisive displays such as CRT, Plasma and OLED, then it most certainly is.