240Hz monitor worth it?

[ionONE1]

So i am planning to get a 240hz monitor, is it worth upgrading coming from 144hz?
Overwatch/CSGO professionals use the tech since 2017, every major company has a 240hz monitor on the market and the 2. generation is expected soon.
Please only comment if you have tried it

 

[Deleted member 197115]

You can probably drive CSGO at 1080p using 2080Ti to that frame rate. Sure.

 

[RasmusP]

You can probably drive CSGO at 1080p using 2080Ti to that frame rate. Sure.

My 1070 keeps steady 200 fps at 60% load with forced supersampling. Don't reply if you have no clue.

I have no experience with 240 hz but I'd say it's not worth it anyway. Even with 144hz almost all panels have issues with ghosting due to being too slow but overclocked.
Sure, the 240hz panels can do it but you probably will "downgrade" in every other aspect. I doubt that the slight difference you would perceive for sure would make up for it.
Letting alone the stupidly high amount of money these monitors cost!
If you aren't a 4:3 border guy I'd say an ultra wide 120+ Hz would do better, giving you more spatial awareness!
Afaik there is no 240hz ultra wide yet so I guess you don't have one either?

 

[Sim Strata]

You can probably drive CSGO at 1080p using 2080Ti to that frame rate. Sure.

Hey Andrew, FWIW, there is no need to match FPS with Hz. I have been running a 144hz monitor with sims generating FPS less than third of the Hz. The higher Hz means you can run any frame rate, with vsync off and much reduced, if not eliminated, screen tearing.

I don't believe Hz will have any effect on ghosting. Get a TN LED (not VA!) if that is a primary concern.

In my experience 144hz is essential. I have not used a monitor able to operate at a higher Hz.

 

[Jeremy Ford]

My monitor is 200hz. Short answer no; 200hz isn't necessary and neither is 240hz. Really sim racing at 60hz is just fine in my opinion. But of course a higher refresh rate is always desirable. The common standard of 144hz covers all bases if your gaming stretches beyond sims into shooters, third person games or even RTS games where you're panning quickly. You really notice the smoothness in these situations.

 

[RasmusP]

there is no need to match FPS with Hz. The higher Hz means you can run any frame rate, with vsync off and much reduced, if not eliminated, screen tearing.

Very very true!

I don't believe Hz will have any effect on ghosting. Get a TN LED (not VA!) if that is a primary concern.

True point!
Maybe not ghosting with a TN (Acer and Asus brought a VA with 200 Hz afaik though too).
But colour accuracy will suffer. Also a TN is quite a bit behind with image quality in general, just good for high refresh rates.
That's what I meant with "you sacrifice everything else for not a big visible upgrade in terms of smoothness".

 

[Deleted member 197115]

Hey Andrew, FWIW, there is no need to match FPS with Hz. I have been running a 144hz monitor with sims generating FPS less than third of the Hz. The higher Hz means you can run any frame rate, with vsync off and much reduced, if not eliminated, screen tearing.

I don't believe Hz will have any effect on ghosting. Get a TN LED (not VA!) if that is a primary concern.

In my experience 144hz is essential. I have not used a monitor able to operate at a higher Hz.

Wouldn't GSync serve better for that?

 

[Sim Strata]

Wouldn't GSync serve better for that?

In theory yes. In practice I don't think so as I get no screen tearing, even with 50fps in ACC and Insurgency Sandstorm.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

I understand what you are saying but shouldn't features work the best for things they are designed for. I.e.
- high refresh rate monitor to render material of that frame rate (low latency for competitive FPS scenario). And as I suggested above only non demanding old titles like CSGO can achieve that framerate. Here's user benchmarks for that title on 1080 on max settings, you can check how it performs at different resoluitons
http://www.userbenchmark.com/PCGame...trike--Global-Offensive/3680/137575.0.Max.0.0
Take something more modern like BF1 and things get much worse
http://www.userbenchmark.com/PCGame/FPS-Estimates-Battlefield-1/3664/137575.0.Max.0.0

- GSync to eliminate stuttering and tearing

 

[ionONE1]

I feel like simracing has the same benefits as fast paced shooters for example.
Its so much harder to hit consistent brake marks at monza slowing down for turn 1 using 3xscreen 60hz. I try every once in a while to get used to it but end up going back to 1x144hz (OC 150hz). For me its much easier to drive close behind another car, judging distance and car movement.
I have no problem with downgrading graphics or even resolution. So far only ACC struggles to hit 240fps consistently (hotlap mode 230fps with huge downgrades)
The Viewsonic XG2530 is the cheapest monitor in Germany (277€) at the moment.
So far nobody has discussed 240hz in simracing outside the iracing forums, so keep the feedback coming!
Edit: ordered a AOC Agon AG251FZ from amazon warehouse for 272€, wish me luck boys!

 

[Stanislas]

@ionONE1
Hi ion, so, what about those 240hz?

 

[maelstrom]

Its so much harder to hit consistent brake marks at monza slowing down for turn 1 using 3xscreen 60hz.

Seriously? The image updates 60 times a second and that's too slow to hit your braking point?

 

[RasmusP]

Seriously? The image updates 60 times a second and that's too slow to hit your braking point?

Not too slow, it's just a lot easier to be precise with double the update rate!
At 300 kp/h the distance between two frames at 60 fps is:
300 kph = 83.3 m/s
60 fps = 0.0167 seconds from frame to frame
That's about 1.4 meters between frames. Sure that's not that much but:
1. The clarity and smoothness is definitely perceivable! Recently went from 60 to 120 Hz and when I switch to 60 Hz I can almost see the mouse cursor stuttering for a minute. It's amazing how accurate the eyes are. I really only see it that strongly when going back down. If I just wake up freshly and go to my 60 Hz laptop it's perfectly smooth!

2. When going through eau rouge with an F1 car it does make a difference if you see a new image every 1.5m or every 0.75m. With a TV camera it's not as bad as you get a motion blurred image. With a camera you get the whole 1.5m captured (with resulting blur ofc) and shown to you whereas at a pc you get a sharp standing still image only every 1.5m and actually have a gap between the images. Sure looks good but you just clearly miss information.

That all said you won't become faster just with more fps/Hz. But once you are used to higher update rates you'll clearly feel the difference and just enjoy driving more

 

[maelstrom]

That's about 1.4 meters between frames.

Correct. But if you're looking for a braking point, that assumes that you're always approaching the corner at exactly the same speed and on exactly the same line or you'll see your reference in a slightly different place anyway. It also assumes that your FPS never drop below 60.

 

[RasmusP]

Correct. But if you're looking for a braking point, that assumes that you're always approaching the corner at exactly the same speed and on exactly the same line or you'll see your reference in a slightly different place anyway. It also assumes that your FPS never drop below 60.

Absolutely agree. That's why I said in the end that I doesn't make you faster. It's more like "more enjoyable to hit the braking points" or a bit easier to concentrate as your brain has to interpolate and judge less. Nothing big though.

For me, fps never drop. I'm a vsync only player and couldn't stand the stuttering. Now with gsync since a month, I always limit the fps where they never or just very barely drop below that value. Sadly due to my old 2600k, that's still 60 fps... But sometimes when I practice offline and alone on track I drive a few laps with steady 117 fps and it's a whole lot more awesome. Not faster though. Maybe fewer errors...
Anyway back about 240 Hz: apart from hyperactive shooter esports I highly doubt beyond around 150 fps/Hz is noticeable for a human being!

 

[ionONE1]

@ionONE1
Hi ion, so, what about those 240hz?

monitor: AOC Agon AG251FZ

"Used like new" on amazon for EUR 272,73 ... that was really cheap looking back now and comparing current price

- previously IIYAMA Prolite GB2488HSU-B1 144hz from 2014

Not worth it overall, yes picture/color better compared to 2013 144hz
Difference not really noticable, it feels a little smoother ...

You will have to min. graphics and even resolution to get consistent 240hz (sys: i5-4690k OC 4.3GHz, gtx1070)
Works for me but for example ACC looks terrible, averages around 240fps alone on track at the moment.
Only worth it if you are ultra hard into competitive games, otherwhise get a cheap 144hz and maybe a bigger screen

-Acer xf240h 61cm seems like the next best thing in the 144hz/24zoll range (185euro warehouse amazon deal)

other monitor i had in mind similar price range 270-300€ (september october last year): atleast 144hz, huge screen and minus: low resolution (thats why its cheaper), watch some reviews on youtube or reddit

https://www.amazon.de/G32-Gaming-Mo...=UTF8&qid=1547208335&sr=1-2&keywords=144+80cm

https://www.amazon.de/AOC-C32G1-Rea...=UTF8&qid=1547208335&sr=1-8&keywords=144+80cm AOC 299euro
Simracing is probably a fantastic experience on those.
In general from simracing to battlefield 144hz is definitely the go to now, if you never experienced it ... will blow your mind.

 

[ionONE1]

Seriously? The image updates 60 times a second and that's too slow to hit your braking point?

Yes 144hz since 2014, bought 2x 60hz montitors in 2016 = 3x60hz and was able to overclock monitors to 66hz 3x66hz
Good for immersion but i was never able to get comfortable with the setup. (usually top runner RD events)
It is so much easier to hit braking points or drive close behind another car.

 

[Stanislas]

@ionONE1
Thanks for the answer and review! But I'm a bit "disapointed" that 240hz don't give that much more smoothness over 144... I hope that I'll can check by myself... maybe with a new beamer/projector!
Anyway, thanks again.

 

[ionONE1]

@ionONE1
Thanks for the answer and review! But I'm a bit "disapointed" that 240hz don't give that much more smoothness over 144... I hope that I'll can check by myself... maybe with a new beamer/projector!
Anyway, thanks again.

The cursor on the desktop is smooth when moving basically no shadow (also need high refresh rate for mouse to notice), screen scrolling is smooth thats something i guess. 60hz to 144hz was a bigger jump in terms of wow factor.

Atleast 100€-150€ (prices are up by a lot compared to semptember) more for something only the hardcore cs go, overwatch etc. player will notice, the top <1% of the playerbase.

I bought a projector in 2015 for 500€, the delay was noticable. Sold it a year later

What i linked above is probably the best value on a 300€ budget, 144hz/huge screen, minus the resolution (maybe a good thing since you don´t need a monster pc to push higher graphics). Make sure to watch some youtube/reddit for feedback. The AOC 80cm monitor has no reviews on youtube, checked for fun and i only found reviews for the small screen.
Amazon com has some more https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07HKGFB27/ref=twister_B07LBKXMN5?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

Also don`t buy something that has esports in the name/esports team connected to the product, the branding will only cost more.

 

[ionONE1]

UPDATE: Monitor issues, screen flickering when certain colors appear on screen and slight pulsing at certain spots. Huge one is the ghosting that happens all over the screen. It was there since i bought it, but i think its gotten worse now. If i change Gamma1/2/3 in the monitor settings the issue remains but at different colors.
example1:

example2:

Sending back to repair.