Which one of these 4, 240Hz Monitors should I pick?

[Dunzaus]

So, I want a 240hz monitor for CS:GO, and I have found 4. I have been trying to read reviews and want the best, but I don't want to pay overprice for something that doesn't matter at a steady 240hz, like G-Sync and ULMB, though it could be nice for other games. I want the best panel and even though some of them is supposed to have the same panel, Tomshardware claim that Asus got the best, compared to the Acer one. 

Some also claim that there's slightly more input lag between them and that Asus got a less blurry image at 240hz than the cheap AOC one, which seems Very important, since you are basicly paying for ''Smoothness'' when you are going for 240hz monitor, claimed by these guys: https://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3584

 

So, I technically got the money for the most expensive of these monitors by November 1st, but I'm also a ''best bang for buck'' kinda guy, which is why I got the OnePlus 3, when it came out. But I will pay extra for something better, though the Asus one is very overpriced, even with it's pricecuts since release, but if I get an actual benefit out of picking that, at 240hz in CS:GO and a better panel, then I might pick that one.

 

The monitors and their price (I'm from Denmark so things will be overpriced, compared to some other country's) :

 

ASUS ROG Swift PG258Q: 4349 DDK = 687,18$

Acer Predator XB252Q: 3432 DDK = 677,85$ , though there is a DEMO version at the most trusted retailer for: 564,88$ !!!

 

Viewsonic XG2530: 3795 DDK = 599,64$

 

AOC AG251FZ: 2915 DDK = 460,59$

 

 

Hope that you can help

 

 

 

 

[Princess Luna]

I'd grab that demo of the Acer Predator, if I'm not mistaken it is the exact same panel as the ROG Swift, just Acer branded instead.

[Dunzaus]

3 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

I'd grab that demo of the Acer Predator, if I'm not mistaken it is the exact same panel as the ROG Swift, just Acer branded instead.

It seems to have lower contrast though: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/acer-predator-xb252q-240hz-monitor,5166-3.html

[Karl Sven]

Hi there Dunzaus!

 

Well, about 240Hz monitors....

I don't want to start the fight about "if you can or not see the actual difference between 144 and above".

I only tell you that even from 100 to 144 is very, very very tricky to see the difference in real time speed (me myself am very picky and sensitive fps wise)

And there's definetely improvement from 60 to 100. But more than that... I think companies really want to milk us out with that gimmick

And for the prices you're showing there.... Honestly, in my opinion. Get a good 144Hz monitor and you'll be more than good to go  

Good luck!  

 

[Dunzaus]

Just now, Karl Sven said:

Hi there Dunzaus!

 

Well, about 240Hz monitors....

I don't want to start the fight about "if you can or not see the actual difference between 144 and above".

I only tell you that even from 100 to 144 is very, very very tricky to see the difference in real time speed (me myself am very picky and sensitive fps wise)

And there's definetely improvement from 60 to 100. But more than that... I think companies really want to milk us out with that gimmick

And for the prices you're showing there.... Honestly, in my opinion. Get a good 144Hz monitor and you'll be more than good to go  

Good luck!  

 

Dude, just don't...

 

You basicly did the whole '' I don't want to  sound racist, Buuuut'' . 

[Karl Sven]

2 minutes ago, Dunzaus said:

Dude, just don't...

 

You basicly did the whole '' I don't want to  sound racist, Buuuut'' . 

Mmmm not really Danzaus  First I never used the word "but" which is revealing that I'm not being hypocritical.

Plus compare racism with a statement in the fact that 240Hz is a gimmick is just wrong.

I hope I made my point now  

Good luck still  

[WereCat]

6 minutes ago, Karl Sven said:

Hi there Dunzaus!

 

Well, about 240Hz monitors....

I don't want to start the fight about "if you can or not see the actual difference between 144 and above".

I only tell you that even from 100 to 144 is very, very very tricky to see the difference in real time speed (me myself am very picky and sensitive fps wise)

 

 

1

100FPS to 144FPS is 10ms to 6.9ms which is quite a bit noticeable (for me at least) but 144FPS vs 240FPS is 6.9ms to 4.1ms which is way harder to notice because you are also starting to tap into the response time of the monitor causing the benefits of higher refresh rate to diminish with ghosting.

[Dunzaus]

2 minutes ago, Karl Sven said:

Mmmm not really Danzaus  First I never used the word "but" which is revealing that I'm not being hypocritical.

Plus compare racism with a statement in the fact that 240Hz is a gimmick is just wrong.

I hope I made my point now  

Good luck still  

As you can see you Did start it, so thanks for runining my post, I will make a new one. Sven, don't comment in it, please.

 

You Did do that same thing as I claimed, you said you weren't going to do something and them instantly did it. Just because you didn't say the word ''But'' doesn't mean that you are doing the same thing, but about another subject.

[Karl Sven]

2 minutes ago, WereCat said:

100FPS to 144FPS is 10ms to 6.9ms which is quite a bit noticeable (for me at least) but 144FPS vs 240FPS is 6.9ms to 4.1ms which is way harder to notice because you are also starting to tap into the response time of the monitor causing the benefits of higher refresh rate to diminish with ghosting.

I have 2 monitors WereCat and are 100Hz and 144Hz respectively.

I played on both of them and... let's say that as I said is very difficult to feel a real difference between them 2 in terms of react time.

And I'm going to say even more. Not only noticing the frames is the point but... that thoose 44 Hz make me more competitive? Well the plain answer for me is just no. And if you add to that the fact that to add 100Hz more above 144 they're asking 600£.... well, I'm sorry to say that's just companies being companies

 

[Karl Sven]

5 minutes ago, Dunzaus said:

As you can see you Did start it, so thanks for runining my post, I will make a new one. Sven, don't comment in it, please.

 

You Did do that same thing as I claimed, you said you weren't going to do something and them instantly did it. Just because you didn't say the word ''But'' doesn't mean that you are doing the same thing, but about another subject.

I won't post if you don't want to. Of course. 

But I just gave my honest opinion about a subject I consider important for everyone around here. And I will still doing it Danzaus. I'm sorry if you're not happy with my opinion.

And I don't think I started anything anyways (you should be happy people are active in your post :D)  

Have a good day  

[WereCat]

Just now, Karl Sven said:

I have 2 monitors WereCat and are 100Hz and 144Hz respectively.

I played on both of them and... let's say that as I said is very difficult to feel a real difference between them 2 in terms of react time.

And I'm going to say even more. Not only noticing the frames is the point but... that thoose 44 Hz make me more competitive? Well the plain answer for me is just no. And if you add to that the fact that to add 100Hz more above 144 they're asking 600£.... well, I'm sorry to say that's just companies being companies

 

Well, I am running 165Hz and I can even tell difference with 120FPS vs 160FPS, it is not a big difference but when you can maintain stable 120FPS and then compare it to stable 160FPS it feels so much more smooth... if your game FPS jumps around quite a bit the difference is way more difficult to notice.

G-Sync also helps.

[Dunzaus]

Just now, Karl Sven said:

I won't post if you don't want to. Of course. 

But I just gave my honest opinion about a subject I consider important for everyone around here. And I will still doing it Danzaus. I'm sorry if you're not happy with my opinion.

And I don't think I started anything anyways. 

Have a good day  

Oh god, he keeps going...

[ImNotThere]

the predator is just a differently calibrated swift afaik, if youre that bothered by a calibrated panel then go for the asus, otherwise the acer is the best buy there

 

as for mr not starting beef but actually did start beef, 60 to 100 hz is a large difference, 100 to 144 hz is a smaller difference, 144 to 240 hz is a smaller difference it is up to you, id go for the 240 hz panel myself

[Karl Sven]

5 minutes ago, WereCat said:

Well, I am running 165Hz and I can even tell difference with 120FPS vs 160FPS, it is not a big difference but when you can maintain stable 120FPS and then compare it to stable 160FPS it feels so much more smooth... if your game FPS jumps around quite a bit the difference is way more difficult to notice.

G-Sync also helps.

I also have Gsync monitor.

But I guess is different for everyone. I also do have friends that notice more this stuff ^^ 

[ImNotThere]

1 minute ago, Karl Sven said:

I also have Gsync monitor.

But I guess is different for everyone. I also do have friends that notice more this stuff ^^ 

g sync is big, especially with high refresh rates as it starts to introduce input lag if it dips too far under 240 fps without g sync

[Karl Sven]

Just now, ImNotThere said:

g sync is big, especially with high refresh rates as it starts to introduce input lag if it dips too far under 240 fps

There's somthing call "Fast sync" under Nvidia control panel for input lag. Which helps when you activate Gsync above 100fps. Reduces the imput lag to similar levels with Vsync off but still give the goodies of Gsync. Check it out  

[ImNotThere]

2 minutes ago, Karl Sven said:

There's somthing call "Fast sync" under Nvidia control panel for input lag. Which helps when you activate Gsync above 100fps. Reduces the imput lag to similar levels with Vsync off but still give the goodies of Gsync. Check it out  

i run 100hz g sync anyways got a 1080 so i dont tend to dip below 100 very often

[Dunzaus]

9 minutes ago, ImNotThere said:

the predator is just a differently calibrated swift afaik, if youre that bothered by a calibrated panel then go for the asus, otherwise the acer is the best buy there

 

as for mr not starting beef but actually did start beef, 60 to 100 hz is a large difference, 100 to 144 hz is a smaller difference, 144 to 240 hz is a smaller difference it is up to you, id go for the 240 hz panel myself

So would it be possible to calibrate to match the Asus one and if so, how?

[Karl Sven]

2 minutes ago, ImNotThere said:

i run 100hz g sync anyways got a 1080 so i dont tend to dip below 100 very often

Same here  I have the Asus ROG Swift PG348Q and when I play league of legends here I notice 0 difference from my 144hz monitor. Though get used to play league in 3440x1440 was hard af xDDDDD

[WereCat]

11 minutes ago, ImNotThere said:

g sync is big, especially with high refresh rates as it starts to introduce input lag if it dips too far under 240 fps without g sync

G-Sync adds no input lag....

 

9 minutes ago, Karl Sven said:

There's somthing call "Fast sync" under Nvidia control panel for input lag. Which helps when you activate Gsync above 100fps. Reduces the imput lag to similar levels with Vsync off but still give the goodies of Gsync. Check it out  

Fast-Sync adds input lag but nowhere as much as V-Sync

[Dunzaus]

1 minute ago, Karl Sven said:

Same here  I have the Asus ROG Swift PG348Q and when I play league of legends here I notice 0 difference from my 144hz monitor. Though get used to play league in 3440x1440 was hard af xDDDDD

If you are comparing hz in Leage of legends, then ofcourse you can't tell the difference between 144hz and 240hz.

[Dunzaus]

1 minute ago, WereCat said:

G-Sync adds no input lag....

 

Fast-Sync adds input lag but nowhere as much as G-Sync

True

[Karl Sven]

Just now, Dunzaus said:

If you are comparing hz in Leage of legends, then ofcourse you can't tell the difference between 144hz and 240hz.

Maybe is because of that Dunzaus. Anyways have you seen the Linus video dedicated to the 240Hz monitors? Check it out. Maybe throw some light to the thing  

[Karl Sven]

4 minutes ago, WereCat said:

G-Sync adds no input lag....

 

Fast-Sync adds input lag but nowhere as much as G-Sync

Sorry but that's just a contradiction  

If Gsync adds no imput lag how Fast sync add less imput lag that Gsync... according to you adding no lag?  Maybe you just misspelled.

Anyway Gsync does add imput lag. I will link you the video where a Nvidia engineer talks about it  

 

[Princess Luna]

Personally speaking if you have a 144hz or 240hz for the matter, monitor, you shouldn't play cs:go with any sort of sync for actual zero input lag, also Fast Sync on a 240hz monitor? As far as I am concerned Fast Sync only really works if your fps is above the refresh rate just how G-Sync only works if your fps is equal or under the refresh rate.

 

If you have a 60hz or 100hz monitor that does not feature G-Sync, using Fast Sync is a great reliable option I have tried it out on my 80hz monitor and it feels as much as G-sync being frank as long as the fps is above the refresh rate as mentioned. However being honest being me a more single player story driven games kind of person even Triple Buffered V-Sync is fine enough and desirable to ensure low GPU usage which results in a much less noisy card.