165hz Vs. 240hz

rip-the-jacker said:
Hey guys,

Im currently rocking a 27" 1440p 165hz Asus G-Sync monitor..

Wondering if YOU would upgrade / sidegrade to a Acer 240hz monitor..for games like CS GO, RDR2, BF5 etc..

The moitor im looking at is :

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/acer...led-monitor-black-red-mo-12p-ac.html#comments

The only thing that is making me really undecided is the 1080p and not 1440p res..


Cheers.
Click to expand...

Funny part is that most people telling you to stick has not been using a 240hz monitor as a daily driver. While I certainly agree with the overall opinion that you should stick it's worth thinking about the next time someone is asking for monitor advice.
 
There is less gain going from 60 to 120-140 then again to 165 or 240 unless you a Comp FPS player and again TN is horrid.

If you want fast fluid motion get a CRT, LCD's are crap and mostly marketing tech like high HZ and Sync tech bolted on will not fix that.
 
I’ve gone from 165hz to 240hz expecting as much of a difference but the truth is it is very minimal. There is a difference but it’s extremely minor in terms of smoothness and increased response time. Nothing like going from 60-144hz say.

Nothing wrong with the TN rog either, still one of my favourite panels of all time.

I wouldn’t bother with that monitor either. There is much more of a difference between 1080p 27” and 1440p 27” than there is between 165hz and 240hz.
 
Tbh. On my ROG TN panel it’s very good. Very little backlight bleed.

thanks for the input guys. I will stick with my 1440p monitor!
 
tyler_jrb said:
I’ve gone from 165hz to 240hz expecting as much of a difference but the truth is it is very minimal. There is a difference but it’s extremely minor in terms of smoothness and increased response time. Nothing like going from 60-144hz say.

Nothing wrong with the TN rog either, still one of my favourite panels of all time.

I wouldn’t bother with that monitor either. There is much more of a difference between 1080p 27” and 1440p 27” than there is between 165hz and 240hz.
Click to expand...

You did not even mention the word blur once though and you mentioned smoothess and response time but completely ignore the main benefit? The truth is anything below 240hz has to be ugly, I never tried one but heres the kicker even the PG258Q which surely destroys 165hz on paper has MORE blur than 120hz Strobed.


Are your eyes the reason you competely neglected the main benefit going above 144hz Because not to be rude there is no other way than pointing out the fact that people claim 24fps is all the human eye can see and there is me who maintains 240hz is the minimum for pixel efficency. Surely theres a big difference but maybe you struggle to see it but you are claiming 165hz has nearly the same effect as 240hz when surely this can never be going by what i seen on 240hz 1ms panels.


You really should pay more attetion to blur, Because you are rendering in only 1440p when the image is static so to say 1080p is inferior there is a wrong when at least 1080p 240hz stays at its spec sheet when moving the mouse, As of yet only 27" 240hz can do that it is fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom