144hz vs: 240hz

[Comixbooks]

You can tell the difference I guess but the jump isn't as big say 60hz to 144hz

I have 165hz myself =)

 

[kalston]

Yeah there are diminishing returns but at the end of the day the more hz the better. 240hz still doesn't look as smooth as real life after all

 

[sharknice]

Yeah there are diminishing returns but at the end of the day the more hz the better. 240hz still doesn't look as smooth as real life after all

Especially when it's an LCD screen. The pixels are spending more time transitioning than at the correct color. If it was an OLED it would be pretty easy to see the increased motion clarity.

 

[kalston]

Especially when it's an LCD screen. The pixels are spending more time transitioning than at the correct color. If it was an OLED it would be pretty easy to see the increased motion clarity.

Yup, according to TFTcentral this monitor is mostly fast enough for 240hz but it's not perfect and something like OLED would definitely make a huge difference.

 

[Big[H]]

I like IPS so I went with the Acer Predator XB271HU. 165hz IPS to me is better than any hz TN panel, even 240.

 

[elvn]

Just don't forget that high hz is meaningless without feeding it the corresponding frame rates.

I'll go to very high, or very high+ ("ultra minus" if you prefer) as necessary to achieve a target of at least 100fps-hz average. Noone wants to play in mud but the graphics ceiling cut off at the very top of the highest ranges of settings is an arbitrary cut off point set by devs anyway.


By the end of 2017 we will not only have dp 1.4 3440x1440 144hz and 4k 144hz with very low response time, modern gaming overdrive, g-sync/variable hz.. We will also have few 4k 144hz low response time, modern gaming overdrive g-sync monitors with 1000nit peak brightness, 384 zone FALD (full array local dimming backlight), HDR gaming monitors. So the list of features that make a modern, full featured gaming monitor will go up even higher. 60hz and low frame rate is well below the bar. It may be "good enough" for some people, but it's inferior. The first 120hz lcd gaming monitors came out in 2009.

Motion clarity (appreciable blur reduction), and Motion definition increase are very aesthetic qualities. Parroting that it is just for twitch gaming is a falsehood.

Screen shot stills make for pretty wallpaper but it's hard to show people what they are missing in motion clarity (blur reduction) and greater motion definition (path articulation, entire viewport smoothness in 1st/3rd person mouse-look and movement keying, more 'dots per dotted line/shaped path') vs low fps and low hz. In 1st/3rd person games not only individual virtual objects but the entire game world is moving in relation to you.


There are 21:9 3440 x 1400 and 4k 144hz monitors due out this year since monitors will finally start being made with dp 1.4


It's glaringly obvious when you experience better, and regardless of opinion - 60hz and low fps are measurably inferior. The 4k and 21:9 crowd just hasn't had any choice in the matter until later this year when 144hz dp 1.4 versions of 4k and 21:9 monitors come out.


However, keep in mind: High hz is meaningless unless you feed it new, unique frames of action. We are just getting to the point (since titan pascal, and now with 1080ti) where on the most demanding games a top end single gpu can do 100fps-hz average or so at 2560 x1440, sometimes requiring some features to be turned off in the game settings at that. And that is an average in a sort of vibrating blend +/- 30fps all over the place seconds to seconds so has half of the mix being 70 to 100 or so depending on the game(see example graph). You don't get really appreciable blur reduction and motion definition increases until you are around at least 100fps-hz (fps and hz) average so much below that you are getting no appreciable benefit out of a high hz monitor even if it was 300hz. Some old source games and other simpler games and some isometrics can get well over 200fps average though of course. https://i.imgur.com/ALY9lQS.png