question Why aren't there any 240Hz IPS monitors?

[TheHopefulPuffin]

So yeah, pretty much just want to know about the lack of 240Hz IPS monitors. Like, there's a good few laptops offering IPS panels at 1080p 240hz, yet I can't find any monitors that run at 240hz and aren't TN (I think I saw a VA somewhere, but I could be wrong).

 

Am I just being blind and there are companies that offer IPS versions of their 240Hz displays or is nobody making them? If they're not, why not? If you can fit it in a laptop, surely you can make a monitor with one?

EDIT: The Razer Blade 15 offers an IPS 240Hz option and the Asus Strix Scar III has one too (I don't know if it's an option or just standard on the Asus, but it does have one). I'm also not here to argue over whether or not 240Hz actually makes a difference or not; I literally just want to know why it is we have laptops with IPS 240Hz displays, but not any full desktop monitors. Would be nice to be able to have that colour accuracy of the IPS for some light video/photo editing and the high refreshrate of 240Hz for gaming without having to buy two separate displays.

Edited July 18, 2019 by TheHopefulPuffin
Additional information on original post.

[jj9987]

Where have you seen laptops with 1080p IPS panels capable of 240Hz? Usually desktop monitors are ahead of laptop screen technology...

[Princess Luna]

240hz is gimmick and placebo.

 

Just buy a 1440p144hz IPS display.

[SolarNova]

The same reason why 240hz TN monitors shouldnt exist.

 

LCD pixels, especially the slower IPS and VA panels, simply cant keep up with a 240hz frequency. In fact even TN cant 'fully' handle 144hz, let alone 240hz.

 

So yes while some monitors do exist with 240hz, and some laptops may boast 240hz displays that are not TN (havnt seen them myself), it really doesnt matter as 240hz on LCD is a total waste.

 

At 240hz a LCD pixel needs to full transition from any color & brightness to any other color and brightness in under 4.16ms. That's not possible on LCD, even with TN. While AVERAGE pixel transition times on TN are under 4ms, that does not mean all transitions are, and as such certain scenes and imagery on such a display will have bluring/ghosting making 240hz rather pointless in those situations.

 

For example:

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/benq/zowie-xl2540

 

This screen boasts 240hz at 1ms response time.

Thats incorrect. even its 'average' pixel response time for 80% transitions is 3.3ms, its average 100% transition is 7.9ms, and its maximum transition time is 20.5ms

 

This means that technically there will be scenes where the pixels cant even transition fast enough to handle 60hz, which require 16.6ms or less.

 

Even going by the 'real' average results for fully transition pixels of 7.9ms, thats still slightly to slow for 144hz that requires 6.9ms or less. 126hz is the best this monitor should be rated for based on 'average' pixel response times.

 

If you want a fast monitor, 120hz or above, TN is your only option and even then only up to 144hz based on 'average' pixel response times, of which onyl a few monitors can actual achieve.

There are no LCD monitors that have been proven to be 'fully' capable (maximum pixel response times) of above 120hz that i know of.

 

The best I know of is:

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/s2716dgr-s2716dg

A 144hz monitor that has pixels fast enough for 120hz.

[Doobeedoo]

One should come soon from LG though, but mainly ghosting as mentioned above. Even TN too can have some. I'd like to see OLED 240Hz really. 

[PHYLO]

20 hours ago, Princess Luna said:

240hz is gimmick and placebo.

 

Just buy a 1440p144hz IPS display.

Definitely not a gimmick or placebo, that's just naive. 240hz is just unnecessary and has a far less noticeable from 144hz to 240hz than 60hz to 144hz. Only reason why someone might want a 240hz monitor is if they're a professional FPS player.

[Fr4nt1s3k]

56 minutes ago, PHYLO said:

Definitely not a gimmick or placebo, that's just naive. 240hz is just unnecessary and has a far less noticeable from 144hz to 240hz than 60hz to 144hz. Only reason why someone might want a 240hz monitor is if they're a professional FPS player.

I can confirm this. 240hz on TN is smooth and you don't notice ANY ghosting at all.
Even in UFO tests.

Going down to 144hz monitor is noticable, but that's just it. Going down to 60hz monitor means stuttering for me...

 

I always tried putting down settings to achieve 60 fps in games.
How spoiled have I become?  

[Princess Luna]

1 hour ago, PHYLO said:

Only reason why someone might want a 240hz monitor is if they're a professional FPS player.

Not even then, why do you think a e-sports tournaments are with 144hz monitors? why most CS:GO pro players choose 144hz as persona monitors, because 240hz really adds nothing to the table, it does have a heavy marketing around it however since they always want to find new products to sell and keep capitalism going.

 

This video has all the information needed on the matter really, also ghosting has absolutely nothing to do with refresh rate but the GTG timing and anything 5ms or lower already is enough to eliminate it.

[TheHopefulPuffin]

On 7/17/2019 at 8:12 PM, jj9987 said:

Where have you seen laptops with 1080p IPS panels capable of 240Hz? Usually desktop monitors are ahead of laptop screen technology...

The Razer Blade 15 and Asus Strix Scar III both have 240Hz IPS displays.

[SolarNova]

22 hours ago, Princess Luna said:

Not even then, why do you think a e-sports tournaments are with 144hz monitors? why most CS:GO pro players choose 144hz as persona monitors, because 240hz really adds nothing to the table, it does have a heavy marketing around it however since they always want to find new products to sell and keep capitalism going.

 

This video has all the information needed on the matter really, also ghosting has absolutely nothing to do with refresh rate but the GTG timing and anything 5ms or lower already is enough to eliminate it.

Indeed ghosting has nothing to do with refresh rate, however pixel response and refresh rate interact and affect the end result.

Theres little point having a high refresh rate if the pixels cant transition fast enough to keep up, it results in blurring (whether its noticeable or not is down to the individual, but it will be there), so you end up blurring those 240 frame per second , making the whole point of cramming in more frames less effective.

 

You want more frames so the image is smoother and crisper and , for example, easier for one to make a headshot on a moving target, as you can more clearly see the head as it moves across the screen. However if those pixels are blurring due to slow pixel response, that crisp moving image is no longer crisp thus making the higher refresh rate less effective.

 

There is no point having a high refresh rate and a slow pixel response.

 

"Ideally" you need the maximum measured pixel response to be as fast or faster than the refresh rate. This ,currently, unfortunately means ur limited to 120hz, since i have yet to see a monitor tested showing maximum pixel response below 6.94ms(the requirement for 144hz).

[Princess Luna]

41 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

There is no point having a high refresh rate and a slow pixel response.

Thank you!

 

That is exactly the points I often try to get across but majority of people can't be bothered to look past the marketing numbers.

 

Reaction time? you need low input lag and often you'll end up finding 144hz ~ 165hz monitors with lower input lag than the 200hz ~ 240hz ones example:

 

GTG 1ms - GTG 0.5ms... every one loves stating this, then you do independent test to validate it and what happens?

 

we try to clarify this to people in here but they prefer remain ignorant to facts and rather continue to believe in gimmicks, the person is literally complaining about the low image quality of a 1080p TN screen but nope can't be bothered to go for a truly decent 1440p VA/IPS screen because all CS:GO Proplayer wannabes requires 240hz.

 

I'll eventually give up on arguing this matter... not worth it.

[PHYLO]

On 7/18/2019 at 12:12 PM, Princess Luna said:

Not even then, why do you think a e-sports tournaments are with 144hz monitors? why most CS:GO pro players choose 144hz as persona monitors, because 240hz really adds nothing to the table, it does have a heavy marketing around it however since they always want to find new products to sell and keep capitalism going.

 

This video has all the information needed on the matter really, also ghosting has absolutely nothing to do with refresh rate but the GTG timing and anything 5ms or lower already is enough to eliminate it.

Stating 240hz is a placebo and adds nothing to the table is completely wrong though. Do a Refresh Rate test on testufo.com and you'll most definitely see how much smoother the image looks for slow and fast moving objects... 

 

Hence to why I said "might want" in my post. There are pros that use 240hz monitors in their personal environment. Tournaments though use equipment from sponsors and what they're willing to provide at the events. Some pros are forced to use certain peripherals and equipment at tournaments purely because of their sponsors.

 

I will also add that yes, the difference between 144hz and 240hz is not nearly as noticeable as 60hz and 144hz obviously, and one can play competitive fps games at 144hz just fine. Because the difference between 144hz and 240hz is not nearly as big (it isn't that big at all tbh), most pros do not mind 144hz as it does not hinder their performance in game. 

Now, I will also say that I was not aware of the fact that 240hz monitors have a slightly higher input lag than 144hz monitors. BUT, that still does not mean the difference between 240hz and 144hz is placebo.

 

edit: spacing

[toobladink]

I see this thread has COMPLETELY derailed lol.

 

I'm just going to throw out a guess - IPS is useful for color accuracy and creative work. Typically, a laptop is designed to be a versatile and powerful device. Something you can bring anywhere and do any type of work with on the go. Of course, there will always be limitations to the type of work and whatnot, but that's not the point. Creating a laptop that's as versatile as possible is probably what the companies were aiming for. Or perhaps, some panel manufacturer decided to only make IPS 240Hz panels in that size and the laptop manufacturers are stuck with using it if they want to advertise 240Hz.

 

Anyways, the fault with us testing monitor response times is that manufacturers definitely have better testing equipment than us. If they create a special hardware solution that can change a pixel in 0.5ms, they're going to say that's the response time. Simple as that.

[RacA]

I can see that OP already received few solid replies. The only thing I can add is that possibly 240hz making appearence on laptop screens first is because the smaller the screen the easier it is to drive pixels with faster response times. 

 

If you would check some proffesional reviews of same monitor that is produced in two sizes, 24 and 27 inch as example, measured reaponse times will be slightly slower for larger model.

[tarsius]

We will see 300 hz and 360 hz panels next. It will be much stronger placebo

[tarsius]

 

[SolarNova]

DELETE

 

Necro.

[Derptacious]

Pathetic that zero monitors come close to CRT response times. After more than a decade... I'm not even a gamer and I miss them!