240hz gaming monitors

Comixbooks

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
22,014
I don't see anyone buying these unless your a professional esports player has anyone tried one of these things out I seen comparison tests on youtube and a few people could tell the difference but the fact is most of them are 1080P which basically is the biggest turn off.
 
I can speak from experience since I've had two AG251FG.
The 240hz is way and beyond 144hz. Really is. Even just on desktop usage. It is incredibly smooth and clear. Like holy balls!
1080p at 24,5" is perfectly fine too.

Now why I had two if these are so good? Because image quality was utterly crap. The gamma even on setting 3(best darkest setting) was off the whack. 2.0 in the middle, 1.8 at the bottom. Just bad even for a TN panel.
This also resulted in some of the worst gradients banding I've seen. Playing games like Evil Within 2 was especially bad.
Now, gamma could be just AOC bad calibration so this is why I got 2 units and was unlucky with 2nd one too.
What is the same issue on all 24,5" 240hz monitors is edge lit backlight bleeding. Basically, all sides(or bottom and only sides) of the screen glow for about 0,5cm, with bottom bezel often glowing purple. it was the same on 144hz monitors but could be eliminated by switching to 60hz. With 240hz monitors, this does not change and bleeding is always there BUT the contrast was nice 1000:1 which is a step up from 144hz.

here is what I am talking about
https://i.imgur.com/DCeBDah.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ksPzoqq.jpg

I think these are great monitors if one does not care for image quality
 
When I went from 120Hz to 144Hz, I didn't notice much of a difference. I would like to see 240Hz just to understand, but there are a limited number of current titles where you could get over 200fps to drive this display.

Also, no way I could game on a 24" screen anymore. Been on a 40" TV for a while, now using a 55", and the immersion is great with that size (and 60Hz is still acceptable).
 
These are fps shooter monitors. Quake CS ect, and those games are not hard to get 240fps in with high end hardware. Not that other games don't benefit, but they are not the market for this display per se. Regardless as fast as we can get sample hold displays the better. Texture blurring ( normal maps, details ect) still blur out even on 144Hz / 165Hz monitors. Compare to crt they still need to be faster to be as clear and retain detail in motion. Higher res / 1440p 27" versions will be coming, but yes 24.5" 1080p is certainly lacking for general usage. 55" tvs ect again, irrelevant in this realm, "immersion" is not the point.
 
I own the BenQ 240Hz and really liking it. Size of the monitor a subjective matter and it's not the case bigger is always better for everyone but this forum from the discussion I wouldn't be suprised if it had the biggest average size of monitor users compared to a few other forums I check out (I say this as big screen users keep patting their backs and you see this exceptionally a lot over here so). Big screen size is perhaps good for immersion but it comes a point when it comes deterrent to competitiveness as your brain cannot process more than a piece of the screen at a time as the size increases so your reaction times to say spot an enemy in BF or CS at the edges becomes slower.

For me though 144Hz + strobing is preferable to 240Hz without strobing. 144Hz vs 240Hz non strobing is a slight upgrade in motion smoothness while 144Hz + strobing is a CLEAR difference. The 240Hz ones do 144Hz strobing while lesser panels stays at 120Hz so it's not a waste to stick to 144Hz + strobing on the 240Hz as other panels do max 120Hz and the 120 vs 144Hz with strobing on is a pretty noticeable difference to me, I'd say more so than 144Hz vs 240Hz non strobing comparison. Most CSGO pros use 240Hz due to lower input lag (but some do use strobing too, it's roughly 70/30% case I'd guess). Technically you could use strobing up to 240Hz but it looks shit with increased ghosting/response time issues (they are roughly capable up to 165~180Hz without side effects with the right VT etc values)

For me personally it's more about conveniency, I think there's a point a screen becomes too large for close sitting distance without having to turn your neck, for me I'd estimate around 31.5" is about the biggest monitor I want to use at a close distance and I don't see the point moving a screen further away as it just worsens immersion. I'd want a 31.5" 1440p 144Hz strobing (BenQ Blur Reduction, ULMB, etc) capable monitor before I switch up from the 24.5" 240Hz 1080p monitor. Yea which also brings up PPI which is also a highly subjective one. For me too high PPI is also bad, for my tastes I'd estimate 93~96 PPI is roughly the ideal. At work I use custom scaling of 122% setting (as from default 100%) on a 27" 1440p monitor. It goes both for UI and gaming really, lower PPI makes geometry appear larger on screen and to me it makes it more believable in scaling and it also makes it easier to hit enemies as they appear larger and it's generally easier on the eyes (and I value my eyesight working in a office). But too large looks just ugly so it's a balance between immersion/scaling/competitiveness vs image quality and for my tastes that should be around 93 - 96 PPI or so. Wish they had went for 30" instead of 31.5" as standard, it had been a preferable physical size vs PPI I think for the majority as opposed to 31.5".

Last but not least, these 240Hz ones are very good for TN panel, very good color accuracy with slight calibration for TN standards and they have very little BLB unlike many IPS panels with the clouding issues.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Inu
like this
I went from 144hz to 240hz (Acer 27-inch). I prefer 240hz no-strobe to 144hz strobing. No strobe ghosting artifacts, and you see more in motion so fast movement objects appear to teleport less. 144hz strobing is a little clearer (as in you can read something moving quickly) but I find I gained more from being able to see an extra 96 times per second (tracking fast moving objects).

I'd compare 144hz strobing vs 240hz no-strobe to this: if I am trying to track a fast moving player who is dodging me, the former will let me read the text on his armor better, but the latter will let me follow his movements better. Easy choice for me.

There's no need if you do not take competitive shooters at least somewhat seriously though. I'm a try hard.
 
No strobe artifacts whatsoever with the 24.5" BenQ @ 144Hz but I believe BenQ's Blur Reduction is the best factory calibrated strobing method around (as in how it refreshes the screen). There's day and night difference if just comparing any movement in motion smoothness & clarity at 144Hz on the BenQ as opposed to 240Hz no strobe. The testUFO for example shows a perfectly clear moving image while with 240Hz it's slightly blurry still.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Inu
like this
I have the Acer Predator XB2 24in and it's really great however a high refresh rate is something you don't notice till you use it the first time.
 
I have my 165hz Acer Predator xb1 next to my 240hz alienware, and I can't really tell the difference between the two in terms of refresh rate. That said, I haven't really been playing too many games the last year or so that would make use of the refresh rate. What I do easily notice though is the color shift on the TN panel when just moving your head side to side vs the IPS which remains consistent.
 
144hz + 144hz strobing + 144fps frame limit i believe is the ideal setup for any FPS game right now. And it seems to be significantly better on 240hz capable displays, i don't know why. Google blur busters.
 
240 Hz is a noticeable motion clarity increase, but the image quality is bad on these 240 Hz monitors. REALLY BAD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: isp
like this
Vega said:
240 Hz is a noticeable motion clarity increase, but the image quality is bad on these 240 Hz monitors. REALLY BAD.
Click to expand...

Image quality is worse with 240Hz, contrast noticeable drops off and sharpness slightly bit as well, another reason I went for 144Hz + strobing as opposed to 240Hz. There is several reviews out there, some touches on this subject. They don't drop off as much in contrast though as say those overclocked to 180Hz monitors which had horrendously poor contrast ratio at that setting but it's still a noticeable impact despite better hardware in these 240Hz panels. These panels look great at 144Hz or lower, better than the other old 144Hz TN panels for sure. Again 144Hz + strobing is the ideal for these panels from a performance vs image quality standpoint with better motion smoothness capability and better image quality and only loses in terms of input lag and GSYNC or Freesync capability if opting for the strobing route. Brightness isn't an issue with these very bright panels.

No matter what panel, high refresh rate tends to impact on color fidelity/contrast ratios so it comes a point where you have to start to prioritize either or. I personally think 144~165Hz or thereabouts is the sweetspot for today's hardware. Both high refresh rate and strobing achieves better motion smoothness & clarity, strobing does it one step more efficient why I like it personally but only when it's free of visible artifacts of course. I can't speak for those I haven't tested but that's why I love the BenQ 240Hz 24.5" in particular as it handles 144Hz strobing perfect.
 
Last edited:
Contrast is good. 1000:1 in comparison to most 600:1 144hz monitors.. but the gamma and edges backlight + clouding is very bad
 
240hz is a waste. People who think they can tell such big differences are just lying to themselves and others. LCD monitor tech of today has far too much smearing to be able to tell the difference of 144hz vs 240hz or more. You need strobing or scanning backlight capabilities to get any sort of worthwhile increase in clarity, just going up in hz wont do it until we get panels with all transition times for every possible variation down to 1ms or better.
 
Vega said:
240 Hz is a noticeable motion clarity increase, but the image quality is bad on these 240 Hz monitors. REALLY BAD.
Click to expand...

I agree. Recently I "test drove" the 240hz Alienware monitor and the image quality is really awful even when comparing it with other TN monitors.
 
EniGmA1987 said:
240hz is a waste. People who think they can tell such big differences are just lying to themselves and others. LCD monitor tech of today has far too much smearing to be able to tell the difference of 144hz vs 240hz or more. You need strobing or scanning backlight capabilities to get any sort of worthwhile increase in clarity, just going up in hz wont do it until we get panels with all transition times for every possible variation down to 1ms or better.
Click to expand...

I can tell a difference, but I play with top 5% percent of CS players, I can agree most people don't need 240Hz, but to claim there is no difference is simply not true.
 
insoc123 said:
I agree. Recently I "test drove" the 240hz Alienware monitor and the image quality is really awful even when comparing it with other TN monitors.
Click to expand...

My 240Hz Acer has better image quality than my old 144Hz ASUS, and the difference is quite significant. Are you sure the monitor you test drove didn't have custom color settings? A lot of people who use these will dial up saturation for competitive advantage.
 
Vega said:
240 Hz is a noticeable motion clarity increase, but the image quality is bad on these 240 Hz monitors. REALLY BAD.
Click to expand...
Yup, I just turn the screen off if I don't have a game open
 
Dougie said:
My 240Hz Acer has better image quality than my old 144Hz ASUS, and the difference is quite significant. Are you sure the monitor you test drove didn't have custom color settings? A lot of people who use these will dial up saturation for competitive advantage.
Click to expand...
Alienware is the best calibrated and out of the box looking 240hz monitor out there. They are much better than 144hz but still worse than even 60hz Tn monitors when it comes to image quality. not awful really. They are ok
 
I've played on 60Hz, 100Hz, 120Hz, and 144Hz monitors fairly extensively. I've played on my friend's 240Hz a few times. Personally, after 100Hz diminishing returns hits me the higher the refresh rate goes. I can hardly notice a difference after 100Hz but notice a MASSIVE difference between 60 and 100Hz. I couldn't tell the difference between 144Hz and 240Hz, but that's just me.
 
HiCZoK said:
Alienware is the best calibrated and out of the box looking 240hz monitor out there. They are much better than 144hz but still worse than even 60hz Tn monitors when it comes to image quality. not awful really. They are ok
Click to expand...

I'm on my 3rd Alienware 240hz monitor and gave up, 20+ dead pixels, horrible banding, the screen itself is just absolute trash. But it is fast and responsive, so I give it that.
 
LigTasm said:
I'm on my 3rd Alienware 240hz monitor and gave up, 20+ dead pixels, horrible banding, the screen itself is just absolute trash. But it is fast and responsive, so I give it that.
Click to expand...
maaaan. I had two ag251fg (essentially the same). while i agree with banding, I had no dead pixels
 
I have been using a Samsung CFG70 for competitive and have thought about switching to 240hz (and leaving curved behind). Been looking at BenQ and Alienware's offering and can't decide which is best.
 
LigTasm said:
I'm on my 3rd Alienware 240hz monitor and gave up, 20+ dead pixels, horrible banding, the screen itself is just absolute trash. But it is fast and responsive, so I give it that.
Click to expand...

My Acer XF250Q has no banding, overall it's the best TN panel I have ever used in terms of image quality. These 2 monitors should be using the same panel, so I wonder why some people are complaining about banding, is that due to some panels being worse than others or due to dell/acer specific calibration, because I was thinking of getting a second one.
 
I had ag251fg. The banding was there but it was caused by low (about 2.0) gamma in the middle.
 
No banding, no extensive bleeding (very liiittle bit along bottom edge that is only noticeable in a darkened room but it's the least bleeding of all monitors I've owned), colors look great once calibrated on my BenQ XL2540. Out of box gamma was set on lvl 1 (whatever that corresponds to) and colors looked horribly washed out but at Gamma 4 or 5 (I prefer 5) they look very vivid, brightness there's lots to spare even with Blur Reduction (strobing) I set it at 25 I think, the blue light filter was slightly raised in order to make a warmer overall color profile as it looked like it was slightly north of 6500k, very satisfied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top