240hz monitor user experience with sub 240hz content?

[limitedaccess]

I'm curious what people's experiences are, including potential drawbacks, of using a 240hz display for sub 240hz content? Over say a "standard" 120/144hz.

I only play 1 game regularly (including for the foreseeable future) that can hit those frame rates. The rest of the usage will be single player games (which no way will come near that frame rate) and productivity/desktop.

It seems most people either give impressions purely from a competitive usage point or not. But maybe I'm in the minority but I use and prefer one multi-purpose one for all content.

The reason is I have a deal on a 240hz display instead of a 144hz for slightly more (going up res and staying at 144hz would be nearly 2x the cost, so not considering it). But I'm wondering if there are any potential drawbacks. Eg. one of which I'm aware is some displays have massive input lag issues if they go far below their max refresh. Significant higher idle power draw? Difficulty (more) switching back and forth with a low refresh display?

 

[somebrains]

I can feel 230fps 1080p vs 160fps 1440p if I’m playing strictly competitive FPS with people playing strictly competitively.
That’d be CS, Valorant, Overwatch.

Once you get into pub stomping like Code Red events in public lobbies then I’d argue your max performance advantage or field leveling is negated by randoms doing all sorts of chaotic things.

Keep in mind competitive settings means a 2060 can crank 200fps in 1440p in certain situations.

Qx player gaming I would keep it over 100fps and be f8ne with it.

 

[Chief Blur Buster]

The reason is I have a deal on a 240hz display instead of a 144hz for slightly more (going up res and staying at 144hz would be nearly 2x the cost, so not considering it). But I'm wondering if there are any potential drawbacks. Eg. one of which I'm aware is some displays have massive input lag issues if they go far below their max refresh. Significant higher idle power draw? Difficulty (more) switching back and forth with a low refresh display?

You do get lag advantages with low frame rates on a higher Hz monitor. But make sure, that you are getting a good 240 Hz panel (good low absolute latency at 240Hz, if lag is important to you).

(A) Massive input lag issues ONLY occurs on 240Hz monitors when you intentionally switch them to a lower refresh rate on a high-Hz monitor, e.g. 144Hz refresh rate on a 240Hz monitor that is not optimized to process 144Hz at low-lag. Or connecting a 60Hz-only or 120Hz-only console to a 240Hz monitor that has bad 60Hz latency. Some websites such as RTINGS and others also test latency at 60Hz, to see if as low-lag 240Hz monitors becomes bad-lag at 60Hz.
Competitive disadvantage

(B) Very low input lag if you keep the monitor at max Hz, then frame rates far below Hz has lag benefits compared to a lower-Hz monitor. For example, Fortnite and CS:GO 100 fps at 240Hz is much lower latency than 100fps at 144Hz. Whether you are using VSYNC OFF or variable refresh rate. If you have a 360Hz monitor running a 60Hz emulator (but keep at max Hz), the impressive thing is that those "60fps" frames are blasted to the monitor electronics in a mere 2.8 milliseconds (1/360sec), allowing emulators to have less lag than their original retro machines! This can be great if you're a arcade fighting-game enthusiast, and want the lowest "60Hz lag" with an emulator compatible with max-Hz operation.
Competitive advantage

So that's the good news. Don't confuse (A) and (B) and you will be fine!

Additional benefits to keep in mind, depending on how picky you are: Also, when you are playing solo games, it's often favorable to play with a variable refresh rate (G-SYNC and FreeSync) to eliminate annoying stutters in some games. Best VRR experience occurs when your frame rate range is completely within VRR range. It's more pleasant to play a "100fps-200fps" range game on a 240Hz VRR panel than a 144Hz VRR panel. Even if you're a hardcore VSYNC OFF user (even in solo gaming), tearing is less visible. The VSYNC OFF tear lines are visible for only 1/240sec for 240Hz, instead of 1/144sec for 144Hz. Even if you're playing at only 30 frames per second. Also web browser scrolling has 1/4th the motion blur of 60Hz, so you see 240Hz benefits during web surfing too. Doubling Hz halves display motion blur on displays running in flickerfree operation (non-strobed / PWM-free). So you have other ergonomic & visual benefits of a higher refresh rate even for framerates far below Hz (assuming color quality, GtG speed, and panel are equivalent in other attributes).

 

[limitedaccess]

I can feel 230fps 1080p vs 160fps 1440p if I’m playing strictly competitive FPS with people playing strictly competitively.
That’d be CS, Valorant, Overwatch.

Once you get into pub stomping like Code Red events in public lobbies then I’d argue your max performance advantage or field leveling is negated by randoms doing all sorts of chaotic things.

Keep in mind competitive settings means a 2060 can crank 200fps in 1440p in certain situations.

Qx player gaming I would keep it over 100fps and be f8ne with it.

It's not the competitive game type experience I'm concerned with. But I only play one game like that regularly or likely will for the foreseeable future. The rest, given that I fall into the "max settings" OCD camp, will likely be closer to 60 fps if anything.

For instance, not sure if you do it given your situation though, do you notice any negatives with playing <100 fps with your 240hz display compared to your 144hz (I'm assuming for the 1440p) in terms of motion/input/etc. issues (obviously not counting things like the resolution gap)?

Or do you notice any issues adjusting back and forth between 240 fps content and <100 fps content? For instance is it really jarring in terms of the motion experience going from a high fps comp game to a low fps SP game?

You do get lag advantages with low frame rates on a higher Hz monitor. But make sure, that you are getting a good 240 Hz panel (good low absolute latency at 240Hz, if lag is important to you).

(A) Massive input lag issues ONLY occurs on 240Hz monitors when you intentionally switch them to a lower refresh rate on a high-Hz monitor, e.g. 144Hz refresh rate on a 240Hz monitor that is not optimized to process 144Hz at low-lag. Or connecting a 60Hz-only or 120Hz-only console to a 240Hz monitor that has bad 60Hz latency. Some websites such as RTINGS and others also test latency at 60Hz, to see if as low-lag 240Hz monitors becomes bad-lag at 60Hz.
Competitive disadvantage

(B) Very low input lag if you keep the monitor at max Hz, then frame rates far below Hz has lag benefits compared to a lower-Hz monitor. For example, Fortnite and CS:GO 100 fps at 240Hz is much lower latency than 100fps at 144Hz. Whether you are using VSYNC OFF or variable refresh rate. If you have a 360Hz monitor running a 60Hz emulator (but keep at max Hz), the impressive thing is that those "60fps" frames are blasted to the monitor electronics in a mere 2.8 milliseconds (1/360sec), allowing emulators to have less lag than their original retro machines! This can be great if you're a arcade fighting-game enthusiast, and want the lowest "60Hz lag" with an emulator compatible with max-Hz operation.
Competitive advantage

So that's the good news. Don't confuse (A) and (B) and you will be fine!

Additional benefits to keep in mind, depending on how picky you are: Also, when you are playing solo games, it's often favorable to play with a variable refresh rate (G-SYNC and FreeSync) to eliminate annoying stutters in some games. Best VRR experience occurs when your frame rate range is completely within VRR range. It's more pleasant to play a "100fps-200fps" range game on a 240Hz VRR panel than a 144Hz VRR panel. Even if you're a hardcore VSYNC OFF user (even in solo gaming), tearing is less visible. The VSYNC OFF tear lines are visible for only 1/240sec for 240Hz, instead of 1/144sec for 144Hz. Even if you're playing at only 30 frames per second. Also web browser scrolling has 1/4th the motion blur of 60Hz, so you see 240Hz benefits during web surfing too. Doubling Hz halves display motion blur on displays running in flickerfree operation (non-strobed / PWM-free). So you have other ergonomic & visual benefits of a higher refresh rate even for framerates far below Hz (assuming color quality, GtG speed, and panel are equivalent in other attributes).

The input lag factor would be more so when running VRR. Given my gaming usage it's going to be one game at 240 fps and the rest at likely closer to 60 fps -120 fps (depending on the game).

Unfortunately the display being considered hasn't been reviewed in detail (Lenovo Y25-25 if anyone's wondering, but it's cheap at roughly $200 USD). The added issue is I haven't upgraded my GPU yet so I can't actually directly test VRR/issues during the return period.

I can see the disparity in monitors using the same panel though due to differing electronics. The Alienware 240hz IPS input lag is higher but acceptable down to 60hz (10ms, won't quibble for SP games). The Asus variant on the other hand is catastrophic going by the RTINGs numbers at 35-40ms down at 60hz.

 

[somebrains]

I've got a gen1 X34 100hz and a 271hu 165hz here, so there's going to be variance in my panels i can artificially induce. I gave my 180hz 1080p ROG panel to a friend's kid bc viewable area started to affect gameplay.

Some games have an overshoot tearing issue, some do not. I will run uncapped past 200fps if I can get away with it bc I can feel a difference in input latency. That will be #1 a game breaking issue.

That was why my VR buddy started his climb from 980ti - 1080 - 2080 - 3080. He's chasing the promise of what VR can be the same way I'm chasing parity in stringing kills together.

The cheaper panel with near TV input lag will drive you nuts bc you'll feel slow. You will swear something is wrong with your hardware upgrade. I went from 780ti to 1080ti using a Sony 4k TV. That instantly made me go out and buy gaming panels again bc I'd taken a long break from playing FPS and was only playing 1x player games.

Even the experience in 1x player was improved dramatically getting off the TV.

 

[Chief Blur Buster]

The input lag factor would be more so when running VRR.

Being the inventor of TestUFO / Blur Busters -- this needs to be nuanced:
This is usually a point of slight confusion by many because of "VRR has lag" from all the competitive VSYNC OFF users. VSYNC OFF is great when you're earning money in esports and winning by the milliseconds, but:

The reality is VRR is generally the world's lowest lag "non-VSYNC-OFF" technology. If you're someone who loves VSYNC ON, then understanding how to lower VRR lag is useful.

If you need the lowest lag without using VSYNC OFF, then VRR has tended to be the big lag championship winner on any tearingless technology (aka anything not using VSYNC OFF):

1. No matter how low your frame rate, always run display at max-Hz to lower input lag of low frame rates.
2. Highest max Hz you can justify affording. VRR includes Quick Frame Transport behavior for low frame rates. e.g. 240Hz = 1/240sec frame transmission over DisplayPort for any frame, even for low frame rates.
3. VRR range bigger than your frame rate range, so you don't have to cap. 280Hz and 360Hz VRR can be benefical in this case.
4. Configure in-game setting to "VSYNC OFF" but NVIDIA Control Panel to "G-SYNC + VSYNC ON"
5. Cap your game's framerate using in-game framerate cap about 3fps below Hz, but low-VRR-lag enthusiasts strongly prefer item #3

If you want lowest lag in esports and don't care about stutter/tearing, then use VSYNC OFF, especially with frame rates above Hz. However, the reality is that VRR is a powerfully low latency "VSYNC-ON-like" technology on ultra high Hz panels. Doing 60fps at 360Hz VRR is massively lower lag than 60fps 60Hz VSYNC ON. Today, one of the world's lowest-lag "60Hz" VSYNC ON mode is currently 360Hz VRR capped to 60fps. There's no better "VSYNC ON" mode that money can buy, if your priority is the lowest "60fps VSYNC ON" latency at cost-no-object. The trick is you must keep it at 360Hz, don't switch it to 60Hz refresh rate (that loses the Quick Frame Transport effect).

Whether your game is running at 180fps or 250fps or 30fps, the VRR is a natural easy Quick Frame Transport which globally transmits whole refresh cycles (no tearing), at latencies and speeds much faster than VSYNC OFF and lower refresh rate monitors. VRR is hugely popular among emulator users to lower input lag of PAL 50Hz and NTSC 60Hz emulators of MAME arcade machines, like fighting games, since VRR is far lower lag than VSYNC ON.

(There's also RTSS Scanline Sync which I helped Guru3D add -- and which can get quite close but not as low-lag -- but it's a lot harder than 60fps cap on VRR).

This is why I earlier quoted the following, because of the confusion of "how to have the world's lowest lag low-Hz VSYNC ON mode", because of incorrect configuration (A) versus correct configuration (B):

(A) Massive input lag issues ONLY occurs on 240Hz monitors when you intentionally switch them to a lower refresh rate on a high-Hz monitor, e.g. 144Hz refresh rate on a 240Hz monitor that is not optimized to process 144Hz at low-lag. Or connecting a 60Hz-only or 120Hz-only console to a 240Hz monitor that has bad 60Hz latency. Some websites such as RTINGS and others also test latency at 60Hz, to see if as low-lag 240Hz monitors becomes bad-lag at 60Hz.
Competitive disadvantage

(B) Very low input lag if you keep the monitor at max Hz, then frame rates far below Hz has lag benefits compared to a lower-Hz monitor. For example, Fortnite and CS:GO 100 fps at 240Hz is much lower latency than 100fps at 144Hz. Whether you are using VSYNC OFF or variable refresh rate. If you have a 360Hz monitor running a 60Hz emulator (but keep at max Hz), the impressive thing is that those "60fps" frames are blasted to the monitor electronics in a mere 2.8 milliseconds (1/360sec), allowing emulators to have less lag than their original retro machines! This can be great if you're a arcade fighting-game enthusiast, and want the lowest "60Hz lag" with an emulator compatible with max-Hz operation.
Competitive advantage

So, if you're a competitive arcade emulator user, or a user of an old console port (60fps VSYNC ON locked ports), or need a specific low-lag low-framerate use case -- Then remember to configure (B) and NOT configure (A). The problem is that VSYNC OFF often fails to work reliably for some of these (or goes buggy / unplayable with VSYNC OFF). Although little known on HardForum, there's a huge community of arcade-fighter-game players in another part of the Internet that have discovered this too. That corner ain't CS:GO-settings optimized...

However, even during VSYNC OFF, 100fps at 240Hz can produce better competitive scores than 100fps at 144Hz, if you select the panel well. So, higher max Hz also benefits VSYNC OFF too, since all pixels are refreshed sooner (it takes 1/144sec to finish refreshing the first through last pixel on a 144Hz panel, while it takes 1/240sec to finish refreshing the first through last pixel on a 240Hz panel). Even for frame rates lower than refresh rate. No matter what sync technology you choose, not all pixels on a panel are able to refresh simultaneously, some pixels will always be refreshed sooner than other pixels.

Being the founder of Blur Busters / TestUFO, I have to pay attention to a lot of complex nuances of sync technologies -- "Right Tool for the Right Job" situations.

 

[limitedaccess]

Being the inventor of TestUFO / Blur Busters -- this needs to be nuanced:
This is usually a point of slight confusion by many because of "VRR has lag" from all the competitive VSYNC OFF users. VSYNC OFF is great when you're earning money in esports and winning by the milliseconds, but:

The reality is VRR is generally the world's lowest lag "non-VSYNC-OFF" technology. If you're someone who loves VSYNC ON, then understanding how to lower VRR lag is useful.

If you need the lowest lag without using VSYNC OFF, then VRR has tended to be the big lag championship winner on any tearingless technology (aka anything not using VSYNC OFF):

1. No matter how low your frame rate, always run display at max-Hz to lower input lag of low frame rates.
2. Highest max Hz you can justify affording. VRR includes Quick Frame Transport behavior for low frame rates. e.g. 240Hz = 1/240sec frame transmission over DisplayPort for any frame, even for low frame rates.
3. VRR range bigger than your frame rate range, so you don't have to cap. 280Hz and 360Hz VRR can be benefical in this case.
4. Configure in-game setting to "VSYNC OFF" but NVIDIA Control Panel to "G-SYNC + VSYNC ON"
5. Cap your game's framerate using in-game framerate cap about 3fps below Hz, but low-VRR-lag enthusiasts strongly prefer item #3

If you want lowest lag in esports and don't care about stutter/tearing, then use VSYNC OFF, especially with frame rates above Hz. However, the reality is that VRR is a powerfully low latency "VSYNC-ON-like" technology on ultra high Hz panels. Doing 60fps at 360Hz VRR is massively lower lag than 60fps 60Hz VSYNC ON. Today, one of the world's lowest-lag "60Hz" VSYNC ON mode is currently 360Hz VRR capped to 60fps. There's no better "VSYNC ON" mode that money can buy, if your priority is the lowest "60fps VSYNC ON" latency at cost-no-object. The trick is you must keep it at 360Hz, don't switch it to 60Hz refresh rate (that loses the Quick Frame Transport effect).

Whether your game is running at 180fps or 250fps or 30fps, the VRR is a natural easy Quick Frame Transport which globally transmits whole refresh cycles (no tearing), at latencies and speeds much faster than VSYNC OFF and lower refresh rate monitors. VRR is hugely popular among emulator users to lower input lag of PAL 50Hz and NTSC 60Hz emulators of MAME arcade machines, like fighting games, since VRR is far lower lag than VSYNC ON.

(There's also RTSS Scanline Sync which I helped Guru3D add -- and which can get quite close but not as low-lag -- but it's a lot harder than 60fps cap on VRR).

This is why I earlier quoted the following, because of the confusion of "how to have the world's lowest lag low-Hz VSYNC ON mode", because of incorrect configuration (A) versus correct configuration (B):



So, if you're a competitive arcade emulator user, or a user of an old console port (60fps VSYNC ON locked ports), or need a specific low-lag low-framerate use case -- Then remember to configure (B) and NOT configure (A). The problem is that VSYNC OFF often fails to work reliably for some of these (or goes buggy / unplayable with VSYNC OFF). Although little known on HardForum, there's a huge community of arcade-fighter-game players in another part of the Internet that have discovered this too. That corner ain't CS:GO-settings optimized...

However, even during VSYNC OFF, 100fps at 240Hz can produce better competitive scores than 100fps at 144Hz, if you select the panel well. So, higher max Hz also benefits VSYNC OFF too, since all pixels are refreshed sooner (it takes 1/144sec to finish refreshing the first through last pixel on a 144Hz panel, while it takes 1/240sec to finish refreshing the first through last pixel on a 240Hz panel). Even for frame rates lower than refresh rate. No matter what sync technology you choose, not all pixels on a panel are able to refresh simultaneously, some pixels will always be refreshed sooner than other pixels.

Being the founder of Blur Busters / TestUFO, I have to pay attention to a lot of complex nuances of sync technologies -- "Right Tool for the Right Job" situations.

Good information, thanks.

That was my understanding as well that in terms of your point B). But I had dificulty finding corroborating/supporting information through searching online.

I'm wondering what your thoughts are on 1/2 V-Sync or even 1/4 V-Sync options on a 240hz in terms of behaviour against a 120hz or 60hz with v-sync 1:1 respectively?

Just to clarify I'm mainly trying to eliminate any possible negatives/drawbacks of 240hz over 120/144hz if running 60-144 fps content. Outside of any monitor specific deficiencies of course.

 

[Chief Blur Buster]

Good information, thanks.

That was my understanding as well that in terms of your point B). But I had dificulty finding corroborating/supporting information through searching online.

I'm wondering what your thoughts are on 1/2 V-Sync or even 1/4 V-Sync options on a 240hz in terms of behaviour against a 120hz or 60hz with v-sync 1:1 respectively?

Just to clarify I'm mainly trying to eliminate any possible negatives/drawbacks of 240hz over 120/144hz if running 60-144 fps content. Outside of any monitor specific deficiencies of course.

120fps-capped 240Hz VRR is usually lag superior and appearance superior to "1/2 V-Sync" that one usually just does not bother.

Assuming all equal (GtG / panel / overdrive identical), these look visually idential, but progressively less lag.

60fps at 60Hz VSYNC ON
60fps at 120Hz 1/2 VSYNC ON, lower lag than above
60fps at 240Hz 1/4 VSYNC ON, lower lag than above
60fps at any-Hz VRR (144Hz), easily lower lag than all the above, and higher Hz VRR is even lower lag than lower Hz VRR

Sometimes overdrive is different for VRR=OFF versus VRR=ON, and sometimes paying for the G-SYNC Native premium produces better VRR overdrive (and can be worth it), and also IPS panels can have advantages too (TN vs IPS pros/cons) so decisions on what premiums you pay for, can influence this all.

If you are new to VRR, then you should know VRR is great for a perma-VSYNC-ON look and feel, where refresh rate and frame rate is always matched dynamically, and this helps erase single-framedrop stutters, since 60fps->59fps->60fps are invisible on VRR displays. So if you are stutter sensitive, then VRR is a great technology for stutter-sensitive people. Framerate changes become seamless. That said, it depends on your priorities -- stutter? tearing? lag? etc.

Now, if your frame rate range is within VRR range, then letting frame rates float is lovely -- see www.testufo.com/vrr for a simulated animation -- because 127fps VRR looks like 127fps @ 127Hz VSYNC ON. And 187fps VRR looks like 187fps @ 187Hz VSYNC ON. The "VRR lag" you hear from competitive CS:GO/Fortnite gamers is only relative to VSYNC OFF, but VRR on a good VRR monitor is lower lag than practically anything except VSYNC OFF. So for many games, it's usually fine to let frame rates float during VRR, though it depends on how VRR-friendly the game is.

Now your budget will dictate whether you get a great 144 Hz panel or a crappy 240 Hz panel, so panel selection can be quite important. There can be worst ghosting on some of the worst 240Hz panels, versus the very best 144Hz panels. Don't sabotage panel selection just to get 240 Hz, but the best 240 Hz panels do outperform the best 144 Hz panels, even for lower frame rates. Check the reviews, as usual. (So many of them use the tests I've invented)

Which 240 Hz display do you have a deal on?

 

[limitedaccess]

120fps-capped 240Hz VRR is usually lag superior and appearance superior to "1/2 V-Sync" that one usually just does not bother.

Assuming all equal (GtG / panel / overdrive identical), these look visually idential, but progressively less lag.

60fps at 60Hz VSYNC ON
60fps at 120Hz 1/2 VSYNC ON, lower lag than above
60fps at 240Hz 1/4 VSYNC ON, lower lag than above
60fps at any-Hz VRR (144Hz), easily lower lag than all the above, and higher Hz VRR is even lower lag than lower Hz VRR

Sometimes overdrive is different for VRR=OFF versus VRR=ON, and sometimes paying for the G-SYNC Native premium produces better VRR overdrive (and can be worth it), and also IPS panels can have advantages too (TN vs IPS pros/cons) so decisions on what premiums you pay for, can influence this all.

If you are new to VRR, then you should know VRR is great for a perma-VSYNC-ON look and feel, where refresh rate and frame rate is always matched dynamically, and this helps erase single-framedrop stutters, since 60fps->59fps->60fps are invisible on VRR displays. So if you are stutter sensitive, then VRR is a great technology for stutter-sensitive people. Framerate changes become seamless. That said, it depends on your priorities -- stutter? tearing? lag? etc.

Now, if your frame rate range is within VRR range, then letting frame rates float is lovely -- see www.testufo.com/vrr for a simulated animation -- because 127fps VRR looks like 127fps @ 127Hz VSYNC ON. And 187fps VRR looks like 187fps @ 187Hz VSYNC ON. The "VRR lag" you hear from competitive CS:GO/Fortnite gamers is only relative to VSYNC OFF, but VRR on a good VRR monitor is lower lag than practically anything except VSYNC OFF. So for many games, it's usually fine to let frame rates float during VRR, though it depends on how VRR-friendly the game is.

Now your budget will dictate whether you get a great 144 Hz panel or a crappy 240 Hz panel, so panel selection can be quite important. There can be worst ghosting on some of the worst 240Hz panels, versus the very best 144Hz panels. Don't sabotage panel selection just to get 240 Hz, but the best 240 Hz panels do outperform the best 144 Hz panels, even for lower frame rates. Check the reviews, as usual. (So many of them use the tests I've invented)

Which 240 Hz display do you have a deal on?

I have a problem with VRR in that I can't actually test it until I buy a new GPU which might not be until earlier next year (risking that 12GB RTX 3060 rumour for the VRAM for 3D rendering reasons).

Converting to USD from local it's the Lenovo Y25-25 at $200, which unfortunately have no real reviews on. One reason for this is it's on Nvidia G-Sync Compataiblity list, so I'm wondering it that might lower the risk of flickers with VRR since I can't actually test it right away.

The other alternatives I considered were the AOC 24G2 at $160 or the BenQ EX2510 at also $200.

For comparison the next cheapest low for a 240hz IPS was the Alienware AW2521 at around $300.

LG and AUO panel based 1440/144hz displays have hit around $400, although Innolux ones from Acer/Viewsonic have hit $300. But I'm not really into the relatively low contrast of the LG panels and my understanding is that Innolux ones are the slowest. Also I'm not sure what's with Asus's (AUO) new monitors seeming to all have issues with input lag at 60hz (40ms measured by rtings?).

As you can tell I'm only considering IPS panels.

I'm in a bit of a weird spot in that I'm not really satisfied with the "higher end" monitor, which is why I'm looking for a relative stop gap yet also want something new rather than completely waiting a year (or 2). So while I don't have a hard budget for purchases of this type, I'm kind of looking to be frugal/value oriented due to that. Although risking it for those roadmapped 2021 panels that can hopefully at least hit Display HDR 600 (due to zoned back lights) or the high end 4k high refresh preferably with HDMI 2.1/DP 2.0 support is also tempting. That 8 zones AUO at 144hz sounds interesting also. Maybe even the Samsung G3 line, since they're flat (one of the reasons I don't want VA is due to the curves, along with the black transition times).