How many of you can tell diff between 144 hz and 240hz?

[zindan]

Hello, I was wondering if some of you could share your experiences regarding refresh rate on monitors. 

I could tell difference between 144 and 165hz to be honest... I wonder if I am gonna be able to tell a big difference when I compare 144hz to 240hz
What do you guys think ? 


Thank you for replies.
 

[Overl0rd]

There is a difference, but it's faar more subtle. 60 to 120Hz is a big leap in terms of smoothness, but after that the law of diminishing returns begins to apply. And that's from someone who has a 240 Hz display.

[zindan]

9 minutes ago, Overl0rd said:

There is a difference, but it's faar more subtle. 60 to 120Hz is a big leap in terms of smoothness, but after that the law of diminishing returns begins to apply. And that's from someone who has a 240 Hz display.

If you would go down to 165hz, would you feel like your ability to perform in fps games is not as good as in 240hz  ?   I mean like would it be "unplayable" "disgusting" or something if you switched down to 165hz

[Nocte]

3 minutes ago, zindan said:

If you would go down to 165hz, would you feel like your ability to perform in fps games is not as good as in 240hz  ?   I mean like would it be "unplayable" "disgusting" or something if you switched down to 165hz

I have heard of people that once they go to 240Hz they do not really notice much of a difference from 144Hz, but once they go back to 144Hz, they notice it a lot and are affected by it.

 

I guess it's a bit like 60Hz to 144Hz which is "wow, nice this is smoother", and 144Hz to 60Hz which is "this is utterly unplayable", just not as much.

[airdeano]

please make your threads in the appropriate forums, just dumping all of your threads in General Discussion is frowned upon.

 

thread moved to Displays

[Dredgy]

I cannot. I have no ability to discern refresh rates. I have 3 144Hz capable monitors, and I had 2 running at 144Hz and one running at 25Hz for about 6 months and never noticed. Likewise, can’t tell the difference between my old iPad and my iPad Pro with its 120Hz or whatever display.

[Overl0rd]

2 minutes ago, zindan said:

If you would go down to 165hz, would you feel like your ability to perform in fps games is not as good as in 240hz  ?   I mean like would it be "unplayable" "disgusting" or something if you switched down to 165hz

Absolutely not. If you intend to buy it purely to improve your gaming performance, you're better off practicing with what you have now. Increased refresh rate will have very little effect on that after 120Hz and higher.

[zindan]

3 minutes ago, airdeano said:

please make your threads in the appropriate forums, just dumping all of your threads in General Discussion is frowned upon.

 

thread moved to Displays

Sorry.

 

3 minutes ago, Dredgy said:

I cannot. I have no ability to discern refresh rates. I have 3 144Hz capable monitors, and I had 2 running at 144Hz and one running at 25Hz for about 6 months and never noticed. Likewise, can’t tell the difference between my old iPad and my iPad Pro with its 120Hz or whatever display.

I have a hard time believeing that you can't spot the difference. 

 

1 minute ago, Overl0rd said:

Absolutely not. If you intend to buy it purely to improve your gaming performance, you're better off practicing with what you have now. Increased refresh rate will have very little effect on that after 120Hz and higher.

Okay thank you for your opinion.

[LoganTNZ]

Its very noticable. Its a great experience, especially if you play competitively

 

However, you are sarcrificing any resolution but 1080p and restricting yourself to a TN panel for that extra 100hz

[zindan]

5 minutes ago, LoganTNZ said:

Its very noticable. Its a great experience, especially if you play competitively

 

However, you are sarcrificing any resolution but 1080p and restricting yourself to a TN panel for that extra 100hz

Yeah I don't care about resolution. As long as I perform better in competitive games like fortnite.

[LoganTNZ]

Just now, zindan said:

Yeah I don't care about resolution. As long as I perform better in competitive games like fortnite.

240hz wont make you perform better. Thats like saying a new keyboard will make you click your mouse faster

 

Sure, itll make it easier, but will you actually be able to use that benefit? You need to have great reaction times and be pretty good at the game before considering a 240hz panel, as youre skill will ultimately be the bottleneck.

 

Qnd fortnite doesnt even need 165hz ti begin with. It isnt really very reaction based, especially when youre in third person. Csgo is a much better fit for a 240hz panel

 

I honestly would prioritise 1440p 144hz over 1080p 24phz, and its a bit easier to spot players in 1440p than 1080p

[zindan]

39 minutes ago, LoganTNZ said:

240hz wont make you perform better. Thats like saying a new keyboard will make you click your mouse faster

 

Sure, itll make it easier, but will you actually be able to use that benefit? You need to have great reaction times and be pretty good at the game before considering a 240hz panel, as youre skill will ultimately be the bottleneck.

 

Qnd fortnite doesnt even need 165hz ti begin with. It isnt really very reaction based, especially when youre in third person. Csgo is a much better fit for a 240hz panel

 

I honestly would prioritise 1440p 144hz over 1080p 24phz, and its a bit easier to spot players in 1440p than 1080p

I can catch a fly with my teeth without even hurting it. That is how insane my reactions are. 1080p is fine thank you. I used to have a 165hz 1440p but I think I can play a lot better on a 1080p 240hz

 

Spot an enemy behind a wall in fortnite and tell me it isn’t reaction based. get outbuilt by someone and tell me it isn’t reaction based. reaction is very important in a lot of situations in fortnite. 

thank you for your opinion

 

 

[Overl0rd]

45 minutes ago, zindan said:

I can catch a fly with my teeth without even hurting it. That is how insane my reactions are.

Just wow. Feel free to spend your money as you desire, but don't come here asking for advice if that's the level of discussion we're dealing with. 

[Doobeedoo]

I can definitely tell a difference. I compared the two. While it's less noticable feel than 60Hz to 120/144Hz it is extra 96Hz which is quite a leap and adds extra fluidity. Played CSGO and Quake so yeah. 

[thelightninja]

1 hour ago, zindan said:

I can catch a fly with my teeth without even hurting it. That is how insane my reactions are.

[zindan]

5 hours ago, Overl0rd said:

Just wow. Feel free to spend your money as you desire, but don't come here asking for advice if that's the level of discussion we're dealing with. 

How was what I wrote offensive in any way?

 

4 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

I can definitely tell a difference. I compared the two. While it's less noticable feel than 60Hz to 120/144Hz it is extra 96Hz which is quite a leap and adds extra fluidity. Played CSGO and Quake so yeah. 

ok thank you for your comment

[Razwen]

On 6/9/2018 at 4:15 PM, Dredgy said:

I cannot. I have no ability to discern refresh rates. I have 3 144Hz capable monitors, and I had 2 running at 144Hz and one running at 25Hz for about 6 months and never noticed. Likewise, can’t tell the difference between my old iPad and my iPad Pro with its 120Hz or whatever display.

Sorry to inform you but you are probably blind

[veikko315]

There is quite a bit of misinformation in this thread, and I'm not sure a lot of the people here are well equipped to answer your question in an informed, objective manner. Anyone who says a smaller interval of time between information being displayed for you on the screen has little or no impact on your ability to play better is speaking nonsense. In what reality does having acess to data sooner not give you a competitive advantage over your opponent. Yes, you will play better with a higher refresh rate monitor if you have the hardware to drive it. Yes you will notice a difference. Yes there is a big difference between 144, 165, 18x and 240 hz. Yes I own 60, 75, 144 and 240 hz monitors. I have also played in the 180 to 220 range as well due to framerate restrictions in hard to play games. You should take a stroll over to blurbusters forums if you want to get more informed opinions on this.

 

Anecdotally, in some games I have to run custom resolutions to minimize tearing in games that I cant drive at 240 fps, and even at 220hz there is a noticeable difference versus 240hz.

 

If you game competitively or even semi competitively in Esports titles you need a 240hz monitor and the hardware to drive it to get the biggest advantage you can. You wouldnt play on wifi or with 150ms ping or a ball mouse so why would you handicap yourself with a 144hz monitor. You will notice a big difference right away. 

 

Just play on wifi with a ball mouse at 25 fps bro. Just practice more bro. The limit as cope approaches infinity exists.

[SolarNova]

While the figures of 144 vs 240 have a large 96 numerical difference, higher than the difference between 60 and 144 of just 84, the actually frame time difference between a 144hz refresh and 240hz refresh is only 2.78ms (6.94 - 4.16). Vs the difference between 60hz and 144hz of 9.72ms (16.66 - 6.94)

 

So the difference is markedly smaller. To the point some people wont notice it at all.

 

The argument of 240hz vs 300hz is the next thing to come along. While the numerical figure difference of 60 is nothing to scoff at, the frame time difference between the 2 refresh rates is practically imperceptible at only 0.826ms. (less than 1ms)

 

 

An important aspect one also has to take into consideration is the performance of the monitor trying to display gameplay at these refresh rates.

At 240hz a pixel needs to full transition faster than 4.16ms in ALL transitions. Ideally a pixel should be displaying its target color for over half its duration, as such you would want ideally to have a pixel response time across all transition of a MAXIMUM of around 2.05ms on a 240hz display. Thats currently impossible using LCD technology.(ignore manufacture specs).

240hz monitors like the BenQ XL2540, Acer Nitro XF252Q, and HP Omen X25f all boast 240hz refresh rates and 1ms response times in the spec sheets, but in real world usage 'average' 100% response times are all over 4.16ms with maximum 100% times as high as 20.5ms , 6.1ms, and 10.2ms for the respective monitors.

As such this will affect how each of the monitors look and feel in regards to perceived smoothness, and their performance at 240hz vs 144hz displays, of which those 144hz displays also have to be taken into consideration with regards to their pixel response speeds.

 

The above aspect is an in depth technical point that few youtubers, or people/users in general,  ever consider when testing/considering monitors, but are in fact tested by written reviewers like rtings and tftentral, of which both have different testing methodologies which result in different figures in their results.

 

As such when people speak of the difference between a 144hz and a 240hz monitor, there can easily be a situation where:

Person A: is commenting on their personal subjective experience between 144hz Monitor A, and 240hz monitor D

and

Person B: is commenting on their personal subjective experience between 144hz Monitor B and 240hz monitor C

All 4 monitors having different pixel response speeds and performance at their given frequency (and settings e.g overdrive), completely messing up any comparison between an already subjective matter.

[veikko315]

11 hours ago, SolarNova said:

While the figures of 144 vs 240 have a large 96 numerical difference, higher than the difference between 60 and 144 of just 84, the actually frame time difference between a 144hz refresh and 240hz refresh is only 2.78ms (6.94 - 4.16). Vs the difference between 60hz and 144hz of 9.72ms (16.66 - 6.94)

 

So the difference is markedly smaller. To the point some people wont notice it at all.

 

The argument of 240hz vs 300hz is the next thing to come along. While the numerical figure difference of 60 is nothing to scoff at, the frame time difference between the 2 refresh rates is practically imperceptible at only 0.826ms. (less than 1ms)

 

 

An important aspect one also has to take into consideration is the performance of the monitor trying to display gameplay at these refresh rates.

At 240hz a pixel needs to full transition faster than 4.16ms in ALL transitions. Ideally a pixel should be displaying its target color for over half its duration, as such you would want ideally to have a pixel response time across all transition of a MAXIMUM of around 2.05ms on a 240hz display. Thats currently impossible using LCD technology.(ignore manufacture specs).

240hz monitors like the BenQ XL2540, Acer Nitro XF252Q, and HP Omen X25f all boast 240hz refresh rates and 1ms response times in the spec sheets, but in real world usage 'average' 100% response times are all over 4.16ms with maximum 100% times as high as 20.5ms , 6.1ms, and 10.2ms for the respective monitors.

As such this will affect how each of the monitors look and feel in regards to perceived smoothness, and their performance at 240hz vs 144hz displays, of which those 144hz displays also have to be taken into consideration with regards to their pixel response speeds.

 

The above aspect is an in depth technical point that few youtubers, or people/users in general,  ever consider when testing/considering monitors, but are in fact tested by written reviewers like rtings and tftentral, of which both have different testing methodologies which result in different figures in their results.

 

As such when people speak of the difference between a 144hz and a 240hz monitor, there can easily be a situation where:

Person A: is commenting on their personal subjective experience between 144hz Monitor A, and 240hz monitor D

and

Person B: is commenting on their personal subjective experience between 144hz Monitor B and 240hz monitor C

All 4 monitors having different pixel response speeds and performance at their given frequency (and settings e.g overdrive), completely messing up any comparison between an already subjective matter.

Lots of good information here. You are correct, you can go beyond just comparing refresh rates and compare specific monitors or pixel response times, input lag, etc. Refresh rate is just one metric and not always the most relevant one as you pointed out. Well said. I also agree that rtings and other monitor specific communities can be great sources of information. Awesome post.

[Mick Naughty]

Noticed it quite a bit in one game. Also realized I don’t like using gsync but may give it another try. I thought it would be a waste going from my 120hz monitor, but it was so cheap so might as well try it. 

 

 

[veikko315]

Gsync is not ideal. (I won't go in to why, google is your friend) You're better off choosing in game settings that allow you to drive your game at a FPS rate that exceeds your monitors refresh rate most of the time for casual, and all the time for competitive gaming. Ideally at the highest refresh rate within your budget. 144hz is acceptable to most, try to get a monitor that strobes its backlight in unison if you're only going 144hz. It really depends on your use case too. If you just like pretty graphics then just play on a 4k 60hz tv and be done with it for a couple hundred bucks. Otherwise I recommend 144hz minimum with FPS matching that. I dislike Gsync because its a solution to a non problem that has downsides that are beyond the scope of this post and frankly I don't feel like getting in to but are well established. Just run settings corresponding to your hardware. These things generally only apply in competitive games anyways and almost all of which can be driven at 144hz relatively easily. (CSGO, Dota2, Fortnite, etc)

 

I share your sentiment, 240hz is a massive upgrade. I'd rather play 1080p ultra at 240hz than 4k or 1440p 60hz or even 144hz. 144hz is a massive downgrade from 240hz in playability and feeling immersed in the game, much more so than decreasing resolution in my opinion. At 240hz/fps there is very little perceptible disconnect between your input and things happening on the screen. But even at 144hz there is quite perceptible delay and it ruins the immersive experience completely for me. If you're a very casual / new gamer, you might not notice a difference. But for people who tune in and master gaming as a skill they enjoy over many years the difference in refresh rates is night and day. I don't even enjoy playing on 144hz anymore it just feels like a slideshow / lagfest it completely ruins the immersive feeling of gaming that I look for when I turn on my PC.

[Flobberknock]

On 10/20/2019 at 9:25 AM, Razwen said:

Sorry to inform you but you are probably blind

Why on earth did you necro this thread?