Is this any good 1080 1ms 240hz?

[Dandragneel]

Pixio PX5 Hayabusa 25 inch 240Hz 1ms HDR FHD 1080p AMD Radeon FreeSync 

[Turtle Rig]

7 minutes ago, Dandragneel said:

Pixio PX5 Hayabusa 25 inch 240Hz 1ms HDR FHD 1080p AMD Radeon FreeSync 

The HDR on this is really BS.  The company is not well known.  If the price is really cheap then go for it, but don't expect HDR10 or high nits.  Also you will get bad viewing angles which won't bother you when you game, but you can tell on the desktop.  It has freesync which is a must.  If your going to game at 1080p then I would pull the trigger, but 25" is a bit small for me.  I rather get 144hz and 27 to 32 inches and what not.

[SolarNova]

No.

 

240hz, pointless.

1ms is BS

 

As it stands today LCD cannot run 240hz properly. Pixel response times are no where near fast enough. They can barely do 144hz., those that can have terrible image quality.

 

A lot of the time its a better option to use a 120hz monitor over a 144hz monitor (for image 'clarity') if the pixel response times of the 120hz monitor are faster. or a fast 144hz monitor but at 120hz.

 

Thanks to marketing and esports players using their sponsored gear, many people believe that certain 144hz+ monitors are good. Im afraid thats just not the case.

Real life testing and specs dont lie.

 

But still, im just a guy on a forum , dont take it from me. here

 

Quote

This was party because of the slow response times, but partly because they were not fast enough to keep up with the frame rate demands. At 144Hz a new frame needs to be drawn every 6.94ms, and so the response times need to be faster than this to keep up and avoid added blurring and smearing.

 

With the response times averaging 8.2ms G2G they are perhaps not quite fast enough overall to accommodate the full 144Hz refresh rate. We experimented with various motion tests and found that 120Hz delivered a slightly sharper image, with slightly less motion blur detectable. At 120Hz the response times need to be <8.33ms G2G average which they are here and so we felt that it delivered a slightly better experience than running at 144Hz.

https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg_34gk950f.htm#gaming

 

Take note that even tftcentral has a generous testing methodology that doesnt include a 'full' transition for measurement, instead they use 10% to 90% of a given transition and ignore overshoot in the pixel timings and instead measure overshoot 'amount' as a % for their final results, as such the 'full' 0-100% time of any given transition, of which includes the time it takes to undo overshoot, isnt recorded in their results. For that rtings.com is a better source.

 

 

Also understand that 'generally' the faster a monitor is, the worse the image quality.

 

[Knight77]

5 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

No.

 

240hz, pointless.

1ms is BS

 

As it stands today LCD cannot run 240hz properly. Pixel response times are no where near fast enough. They can barely do 144hz., those that can have terrible image quality.

 

A lot of the time its a better option to use a 120hz monitor over a 144hz monitor (for image 'clarity') if the pixel response times of the 120hz monitor are faster. or a fast 144hz monitor but at 120hz.

 

Thanks to marketing and esports players using their sponsored gear, many people believe that certain 144hz+ monitors are good. Im afraid thats just not the case.

Real life testing and specs dont lie.

 

But still, im just a guy on a forum , dont take it from me. here

 

https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg_34gk950f.htm#gaming

 

Take note that even tftcentral has a generous testing methodology that doesnt include a 'full' transition for measurement, instead they use 10% to 90% of a given transition and ignore overshoot in the pixel timings and instead measure overshoot 'amount' as a % for their final results, as such the 'full' 0-100% time of any given transition, of which includes the time it takes to undo overshoot, isnt recorded in their results. For that rtings.com is a better source.

 

 

Also understand that 'generally' the faster a monitor is, the worse the image quality.

 

240Hz is not pointless. 
 

Higher FPS and Hz are ALWAYS better. 
 

You get more information per frame, per second and low input lag as you go up. 
 

There has been much research showing benefits of 240Hz. 
 

The only option for me is the Lenovo Y27gq - this is a 1440p 240Hz 2nd Gen TN Panel. 
 

It has improved response times and excellent colour reproduction. 
 

However, I await a full review of this or I may upgrade my PG27UQ to the MiniLED version come end of the year / new year. 
 

240Hz IPS panels are due soon but only 1080p with 1440p due next year. 
 

Ultimately, it will go OLED or straight to MicroLED which have no issues with response times but OLED is being held back by Burn In and MicroLED being held back as it’s not available to the masses yet and not expected for a couple more years. 

[SolarNova]

1 minute ago, Knight77 said:

240Hz is not pointless. 
 

Higher FPS and Hz are ALWAYS better. 
 

You get more information per frame, per second and low input lag as you go up. 
 

There has been much research showing benefits of 240Hz. 
 

The only option for me is the Lenovo Y27gq - this is a 1440p 240Hz 2nd Gen TN Panel. 
 

It has improved response times and excellent colour reproduction. 
 

However, I await a full review of this or I may upgrade my PG27UQ to the MiniLED version come end of the year / new year. 
 

240Hz IPS panels are due soon but only 1080p with 1440p due next year. 
 

Ultimately, it will go OLED or straight to MicroLED which have no issues with response times but OLED is being held back by Burn In and MicroLED being held back as it’s not available to the masses yet and not expected for a couple more years. 

Not going to argue the 240hz point, if thats ur belief go for it,  but.. just an FYI about MicroLED.

 

The 1st generation of MicroLED monitors will be MicroLED FALD, so they wi  lstill have response time issues as they will be still be standard LCD displays just with microLED backlights.

 

The 'real' full micro led displays are a long ways off.

[Knight77]

28 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

Not going to argue the 240hz point, if thats ur belief go for it,  but.. just an FYI about MicroLED.

 

The 1st generation of MicroLED monitors will be MicroLED FALD, so they wi  lstill have response time issues as they will be still be standard LCD displays just with microLED backlights.

 

The 'real' full micro led displays are a long ways off.

You don’t have to argue the points, there’s data, statistics and tests that prove you wrong. 
 

MicroLED is 2 or so years away, there are products out there but very limited and obviously very expensive. 
 

That’s why OLED could step in but it seems they never caught on with Monitors. 
 

You can get 4K 120Hz OLED TVs but they only support HDMI VRR. 

 

 

[Mick Naughty]

Using an acer monitor with the same specs. It’s cheap and worth the price to me compared to what I’ve been using. 

[Signex]

Only if the games you play can reach that high like CSGO, else it's not worth it imo.

[Mick Naughty]

Worth it when you are constantly over the 144hz threshold and there aren’t many that fall between 144 and 240. A lot support freesync and g sync. So no reason not too, especially if you already have to get a new monitor.