after 240 hz 144 feels like a slide show

T

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
9,743
So today I was at frys and seen the Dell Alienware 240hz panel for like $369 or something. I was so tempted to buy it.

I already have the Acer Predator 240z lcd and another Asus 144hz panel. Not on the same system of course.

But after owning a 240hz panel for quite some time, when I play on my 144hz I must admit they (144hz) absolutely and undeniably SUCK!

I do not know how anyone in their right mind can play an FPS on anything less than a 240hz. Maybe I should have never purchased one because they completely changed my perspective on how gaming SHOULD be in FPS titles.

I also own an X34 predator @ 100hz Gsync and its 100x worse in games, other than games that make no benefit from higher than 100 hz. It feels HORRIBLE playing FPS on those LCDs.

Am I insane in my feelings or do other 240 hz owners feel the same as I do.

I can't wait on IPS and newer tech to come out supporting 240 hz or around that.
 
Really, 2D displays won't be done until we hit 1,000hz (yes, one thousand). That's when you basically don't see motion blur anymore. We'll probably be dead before it gets there, though, and this shitty ass glacial pace. Hate this industry.
 
Thanks for the heads up for not getting on the 240hz bandwagon yet :) Joking aside not all people use their monitors primarily for gaming. For desktop work font rendering and color are far more important after you get to 60hz than having extra hz. And at what prices for monitors there are you need to prioritize and compromise on features...
 
bigbluefe said:
Really, 2D displays won't be done until we hit 1,000hz (yes, one thousand). That's when you basically don't see motion blur anymore. We'll probably be dead before it gets there, though, and this shitty ass glacial pace. Hate this industry.
Click to expand...

Refresh rate and motion blur er two different things
it doesn't matter if you have 1mill hz. If you are still rocking 100ms response time, its going to look blurred from motion


tangoseal said:
So today I was at frys and seen the Dell Alienware 240hz panel for like $369 or something. I was so tempted to buy it.

I already have the Acer Predator 240z lcd and another Asus 144hz panel. Not on the same system of course.

But after owning a 240hz panel for quite some time, when I play on my 144hz I must admit they (144hz) absolutely and undeniably SUCK!

I do not know how anyone in their right mind can play an FPS on anything less than a 240hz. Maybe I should have never purchased one because they completely changed my perspective on how gaming SHOULD be in FPS titles.

I also own an X34 predator @ 100hz Gsync and its 100x worse in games, other than games that make no benefit from higher than 100 hz. It feels HORRIBLE playing FPS on those LCDs.

Am I insane in my feelings or do other 240 hz owners feel the same as I do.

I can't wait on IPS and newer tech to come out supporting 240 hz or around that.
Click to expand...


Placebo can be a bitch.
Did you do this conclusion based on proper ABX testing?
 
ors said:
Thanks for the heads up for not getting on the 240hz bandwagon yet :) Joking aside not all people use their monitors primarily for gaming. For desktop work font rendering and color are far more important after you get to 60hz than having extra hz. And at what prices for monitors there are you need to prioritize and compromise on features...
Click to expand...

It's not just prioritizing because of price, cable bandwidth says you can't have max resolutions/color depths and max refresh rates at once.

Don't expect that to change any time soon either. Each time they double the bandwidth one group of engineers will make their monitors better by doubling the pixel count, a second will make theirs better by doubling refresh rates and you'll still have to choose which you want more when you go shopping.
 
If there is really that much of a difference between 240 and 144, I really have to test out higher refresh rates. Still stuck at 4k 60hz, although I do like the detail and color of IPS. Im scared if I try 144 I will never be able to go back!
 
Shadow_Foxx said:
Im scared if I try 144 I will never be able to go back!
Click to expand...
Then don't :) 120hz for 4k IPS should be here in max a year, I am also waiting for it, not even necessarily to get one, but maybe it would drive down the prices a bit for the "regular" crop. 120hz would be nice of course but I'm pretty sure they will price it out of my price range for now.
 
I went 4k60 for Christmas, partly because I'd gotten impatient, partly because gen 1 4k 144hz HDR displays were predicted to be stupidly expensive, and partly because with AUO's reputation I didn't particularly want to buy in to one of their gen 1 panels. I figure I'll probably upgrade again in 2-4 years when 2nd gen models are out from someone else (maybe gen1 from Samsung) and DL-DVI has followed VGA into the history books forcing me to replace my elderly 2560x1600 secondary display.
 
I am either blind (except I am not) or I don't feel that bad using 60Hz monitors for work. I don't game though but used to 10 years ago without 144Hz monitors and had lots of fun.
 
I can tell the difference in a huge way that is all I can say. It isn't a placebo. I went into the 240hz panel Initially worried about colors and over hype but I'll be damned it's so incredibly smooth. I still have my 3440x1440 IPS x34 with it's high and accurate color repro for when I do video work or Lightroom activities but gaming on all games except fps is amazing on my 3440 LCD. Just FPS is incredibly retarded and handicapped by less than 240 in my opinion. Even games frame locked to 144hz are better on a 240hz panel. Opinion nothing more. Hoping IPS can hit 200hz soon. I'd be in like sin
 
tangoseal said:
So today I was at frys and seen the Dell Alienware 240hz panel for like $369 or something. I was so tempted to buy it.

I already have the Acer Predator 240z lcd and another Asus 144hz panel. Not on the same system of course.

But after owning a 240hz panel for quite some time, when I play on my 144hz I must admit they (144hz) absolutely and undeniably SUCK!

I do not know how anyone in their right mind can play an FPS on anything less than a 240hz. Maybe I should have never purchased one because they completely changed my perspective on how gaming SHOULD be in FPS titles.

I also own an X34 predator @ 100hz Gsync and its 100x worse in games, other than games that make no benefit from higher than 100 hz. It feels HORRIBLE playing FPS on those LCDs.

Am I insane in my feelings or do other 240 hz owners feel the same as I do.

I can't wait on IPS and newer tech to come out supporting 240 hz or around that.
Click to expand...

You deal with what you are used to. I ran 60Hz 30" panels for years. I can't deal with tiny ass displays. I had 3x 27" ROG Swifts and couldn't fucking stand them. They were great for FPS games but the size and picture quality weren't on par for me. I went with a 4K Samsung 49" KS8500 and while I'd like higher refresh rates, I wouldn't trade what I've got for anything smaller than 40".

bigbluefe said:
Really, 2D displays won't be done until we hit 1,000hz (yes, one thousand). That's when you basically don't see motion blur anymore. We'll probably be dead before it gets there, though, and this shitty ass glacial pace. Hate this industry.
Click to expand...

Motion blur and refresh rates aren't the same thing. I will agree that this industry moves too fucking slowly in regards to display technology.

ZeqOBpf6 said:
I can't even tell 120 from 165
Click to expand...

It's not enough of a jump. If you went from 100Hz to 240Hz, you would be able to tell the difference.

Shadow_Foxx said:
If there is really that much of a difference between 240 and 144, I really have to test out higher refresh rates. Still stuck at 4k 60hz, although I do like the detail and color of IPS. Im scared if I try 144 I will never be able to go back!
Click to expand...

I had the same thought and then I went back to back to 60Hz. I can't stand the tiny ass 144Hz displays and shitty TN panels. The thing that people don't get is that response times and refresh rates don't matter as much as they think they do. As long as the other factors are static, you can get used to almost anything. All things being equal, faster is better, but it won't make you a good player if you aren't one.
 
Dan_D said:
You deal with what you are used to. I ran 60Hz 30" panels for years. I can't deal with tiny ass displays. I had 3x 27" ROG Swifts and couldn't fucking stand them. They were great for FPS games but the size and picture quality weren't on par for me. I went with a 4K Samsung 49" KS8500 and while I'd like higher refresh rates, I wouldn't trade what I've got for anything smaller than 40".
Click to expand...

I've been on 30" screen since they came out, and now use a 43" Samsung (with the 30" off to the side). I can hold my own in most games even down at 60Hz, and seeing some of the cramped low-pixel screenshots from other players almost makes my eyes bleed.

The only screens that's have tempted me recently are the 32" G-Syncs for gaming, but that means reshuffling my wall of glass on the desk again...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan_D
like this
You can't really tell the difference going from 144Hz to 240Hz.

You CAN tell the difference going from 240Hz back to 144Hz.
 
This might be a difference in panel response times too. Might try A/B'ing on a good 240Hz panel to see how you perceive the difference vs. 144Hz.
 
25" is way too small and it 's just a 1080 panel for the 240hz native refresh. Pass.
 
tangoseal said:
So today I was at frys and seen the Dell Alienware 240hz panel for like $369 or something. I was so tempted to buy it.

I already have the Acer Predator 240z lcd and another Asus 144hz panel. Not on the same system of course.

But after owning a 240hz panel for quite some time, when I play on my 144hz I must admit they (144hz) absolutely and undeniably SUCK!

I do not know how anyone in their right mind can play an FPS on anything less than a 240hz. Maybe I should have never purchased one because they completely changed my perspective on how gaming SHOULD be in FPS titles.

I also own an X34 predator @ 100hz Gsync and its 100x worse in games, other than games that make no benefit from higher than 100 hz. It feels HORRIBLE playing FPS on those LCDs.

Am I insane in my feelings or do other 240 hz owners feel the same as I do.

I can't wait on IPS and newer tech to come out supporting 240 hz or around that.
Click to expand...


Yes, you are insane. :p
LCD panel tech is much too slow to be able to tell a difference in motion blur for anything above about 150Hz. Even TN panels. If you were to properly A/B test the same monitor on 240hz and 144hz then you wouldnt tell a difference because how slow the panels are.
You also dont know howgood motion can be until you have tried out 120Hz/120fps with scanning backlight. Way smoother than anything else I have tested between 120hz-480hz on monitors.
 
You aren't seeing anything appreciable out of the higher hz unless you fill it with frame rate, and when people say frame rate they usually mean AVERAGE frame rate , so that is a range typically +/- 30fps above and below that rate in a band. Unless you are playing something like csgo or L4D2 or on the lowest settings of a game, you aren't getting that. We are just now to the point where a single 1080ti can get 100fps AVERAGE (usually a 70-100-130 ish variable rate band for the most part) or better at 2560x1440 on a demanding game, and that's often withe the over the top graphics settings turned off (e.g. witcher 3 turning a few things off/down to hit 100fps average +).

Below is a 108 fps average vs a 60fps average game graph with the resulting motion clarity (blur reduction) and motion definition (increased frame states of action shown) levels the varying frame rate graphs span. Sub-60fps part of the 60fps graph would be even worse than the baseline 60fps at 60hz.
ALY9lQS.png




toptengamer.com https://www.toptengamer.com/gtx-1080-ti-vs-gtx-1080-ultrawide-gaming-benchmark/

You'd get a little higher of a frame rate average / frame rate graph range at 2560x1440 but this is a good bench graph showing several games at 3440 x 1440. Of course 4k would be much lower (4k 120hz native screens coming out eventually).

qIEm8rS.jpg
 
Last edited:
tangoseal said:
I can tell the difference in a huge way that is all I can say. It isn't a placebo. I went into the 240hz panel Initially worried about colors and over hype but I'll be damned it's so incredibly smooth. I still have my 3440x1440 IPS x34 with it's high and accurate color repro for when I do video work or Lightroom activities but gaming on all games except fps is amazing on my 3440 LCD. Just FPS is incredibly retarded and handicapped by less than 240 in my opinion. Even games frame locked to 144hz are better on a 240hz panel. Opinion nothing more. Hoping IPS can hit 200hz soon. I'd be in like sin
Click to expand...

No.

1. Can't run most games at 240fps with current video cards unless you go low settings. At that point, why bother. 1080 resolution should die in a fire.
2. "Even games frame locked to 144hz are better on a 240hz panel." Umm no. the 240Hz panel is running at 144Hz if the game is doing 144fps. A 240Hz panel is not going to magically make 144Hz better.
 
I'm an absolute stickler for high refresh rate displays, but even I have to admit I start to lose the ability to tell the difference somewhere just above 120hz. Between 144hz and 165hz I absolutely cannot see a difference. Between 120 and 165 I can, but it's minor.

Makes me laugh that there are still people who insist anything above 60hz is pointless.
 
I'm totally happy with 60hz @ 4K

I will mostly likely buy the 55" 4K that does 144hz.
 
Rule #1 on [H], don't ever say you like a 1080p screen; it brings the monitor snobs out of the woodwork like no other.
 
JargonGR said:
I am either blind (except I am not) or I don't feel that bad using 60Hz monitors for work. I don't game though but used to 10 years ago without 144Hz monitors and had lots of fun.
Click to expand...
For work I can't see it mattering. It isn't like the old CRT days where I would go to a friends and immediately realize they were sitting at 60Hz. I would politely ask if I could fix it for them and set it at 85Hz or higher if the monitor allowed it. Even budget 15" back in the day would usually allow 85Hz. Many budget 14"'ers would be stuck at a pathetic 60Hz. Horrible shit!
 
for games 144Hz G-Sync (or Freesync) is a sweet spot and totally adequate

with 240Hz you neither get significantly faster pixel response rates nor input lag reduction
-sync makes it whole stuttering issue non-existent and make even 60Hz monitors usable for games (which otherwise are total crap)

this topic is stupid
 
60 fps and less 60hz is molasses motion definition ( a real slideshow to use the term from the topic in a more accurate way) for games and is smearing blur when you are constantly moving your entire viewport in 1st and 3rd person games.

You say adequate for games (your personal opinion).. I'd say sufferable if you dont have better available - yet greatly inferior to a modern full featured (high hz, VRR) gaming monitor at higher frame rates.

Soon, relatively, even 4k will have 120hz native or better (even on oled the gen after this with better hdmi), and combined with true 1000nit hdr with oled or fald. Filling 4k resolution with enough frame rate is again a big issue for high hz. You could probably run a 21:9 rez letterboxed on larger 4k screens to get a higher frame rate though.

The sweet spot is 100fps average or better at very high to ultra settings on a VRR monitor in my experience.

The op ignoring the frame rate factor in getting any apprecible gain from higher hz does make this thread silly in that respect.
 
Last edited:
LigTasm said:
Rule #1 on [H], don't ever say you like a 1080p screen; it brings the monitor snobs out of the woodwork like no other.
Click to expand...


I like a 1080p screen!



...on my ultrabooks where the higher resolution panels require scaling to use that doesn't work quite right yet while also eating battery life...
 
Colonel Sanders said:
Makes me laugh that there are still people who insist anything above 60hz is pointless.
Click to expand...
Not sure where you got that from. Nobody in this thread at least said that. What was said is that refresh rate is just 1 parameter from a sea of parameters that are important in a monitor and for a lot of folks it's not on the top of their list.
 
bigbluefe said:
Really, 2D displays won't be done until we hit 1,000hz (yes, one thousand). That's when you basically don't see motion blur anymore. We'll probably be dead before it gets there, though, and this shitty ass glacial pace. Hate this industry.
Click to expand...

Motion blur can't be eliminated. Its a "feature" of your brain. Its just the way your brain interprets fast moving images.
 
ors said:
Not sure where you got that from. Nobody in this thread at least said that. What was said is that refresh rate is just 1 parameter from a sea of parameters that are important in a monitor and for a lot of folks it's not on the top of their list.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anyone here said it. I just see that comment generally, from time to time.
 
elvn said:
60 fps and less 60hz is molasses motion definition ( a real slideshow to use the term from the topic in a more accurate way) for games and is smearing blur when you are constantly moving your entire viewport in 1st and 3rd person games.
Click to expand...
Anything above ~50fps is perfectly fine for very comfortable gaming experience as long as it is properly 'synced' and game engine doesn't add stupid and unnecessary lag and mouse smoothing (as many games unfortunately do... thankfully these can be disabled in most games via tweaking)

I'd say sufferable if you dont have better available
Click to expand...
My mom did not buy my monitors and I have the same monitor buying options as anyone else.
If I was buying monitor mainly for games I would get 144Hz QHD monitor with G-Sync. Similar price, much better for games, especially since was not from those people who pushed for higher resolutions for games. Used GDM-FW900 with 1280x800@140Hz mostly, just to get less stuttering/tearing.

I am myself very positively surprised how well this 4K monitor handles games.
Even better since @4K is quite demanding for GPU :)

@tangoseal
response_2.png

LCD panel response times is limiting factor in this case.

Of course difference should be detectable.
It is just small and insignificant, like signal hidden in noise which is barely noticeable and when you really look for it and... know it is there which along with quoted numbers amplify your impression of perceived differences to ridiculous heights. It is known issue with humans who lack common sense like audiophiles. They have been studied in depth and are known to fail most ABX test of things they claim to hear, even those which in theory they could be able to hear. Of course their hearing sense is god-like and like gods they can use them when no one is measuring them :dead:

Actually I do expect that tomorrow some idiot will claim seeing day and night difference between 200Hz monitor and 400Hz monitor and the first one being unbearable to watch 'slideshow', even despite those having exactly the same pixel persistence which is barely enough for 120Hz display... which actually it is just barely ok for 60Hz display...
 
Motion definition increase between 60fps at 60hz and 100 to 120fps average or better at 120hz+ is not insignificant. Anyone who has even moved a mouse cursor or a window around on the desktop of a 120hz monitor knows this. Then apply that to motion path articulation of everything moving on screen in a game as well as the continual motion of the entire game world relative to your perspective in 1st/3rd person games as you mouse look and movement key the viewport around. Then also cut that viewport blur at speed from smearing outside of the lines to where everything is more of a soften blur since the sample and hold blur is reduced by about half.

60fps at 60hz is playable (i still play a few simple games on my laptop or off my laptop to tv at 60hz on occasion) - but it's aesthetically inferior in regard to motion clarity and motion definition in a very obvious way to higher frame rates on a 120hz+ monitor. High fps at high hz combined with gsync and high resolutions, and soon fald + hdr or oled +hdr.. all together in one package are premium features that raise the bar for modern pc gaming performance aesthetically. They are not placebos. You can game "adequately" without most or all of them but they are very appreciable (i. e. superior) benefits.
 
Last edited:
When I had ag251fg there was no difference when testing 144hz and switching to 240. At least not much.
But switching back down to 144 was indeed weird. Even 144 felt like crap afterwards.

The weird thing is that them I proceeded to play 30fps game on 60hz mode on ps4 and it was great. It was bloodborne
 
from a review of your monitor.. again notice the frame rate quoted.

https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/aoc-ag251fg/#Responsiveness

"Increasing the refresh rate again to 240Hz, with the test now running at 240fps, yields further improvement. The details on the UFO are now more sharply defined, with the white dots and segments. "

Pointing that out again because you need to be running frame rate graphs that at least span into the higher hz ranges you are talking about to get any apprecable benefit from the higher hz.

Those tests also only focus on the motion clarity (blur rduction) aspect and not the added huge benefit of motion definition increase. Motion articulation and even animation cycle definition.. (more dots per pathed dotted line and more unique pages flipped per second in an animated flip book per se).. in regard to both individual virtual objects and to the entire viewport moving around in 1st/3rd person games.
 
Last edited:
Is there really that much of a difference? I'm not pooh-pooing your thread here, I'm genuinely curious. For me, about 100hz is the point where the display is smooth enough to "trick" my brain into thinking it's seeing actual motion instead of just looking at a screen, though I can see very slight improvement in quality all the way up to 165hz. I can't even imagine what a 240hz screen would look like... but my 1080 (Card, not resolution) won't drive 1440 at that framerate anyway. XD
 
There is not. I would prefer manufacturers t perfect 120hz monitors instead of overclocking and going 144, 165, 180 and now 240. Image quality always suffers and 60fps locked games feel worse on 144hz and other not 30fps multiplications.
As I've experienced, the biggest difference of 144 vs 240 was on desktop itself but it was marginal. In games ? I am not sure really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top