60/144/240hz monitors

Having played on 60hz monitors for 20 years, I decided to finally make the excellent decision of upgrading. I was starting to get tired focusing on fast paced games (overwatch mostly) and wanted more motion clarity as I got hooked on competitive matches.

I tried a 144/165hz IPS panel and noticed a massive difference as soon as I plugged it in and moved a window about. All those years, wasted, wasted years. What was I even looking at before? How could I even see anything? People have been playing on 144hz for years now and I've been too lazy to realise how important the upgrade is.

I sent the new monitor back and got a 240hz monitor today. Absolutely worth it (for like 3 games, but I play a lot of overwatch).

I've "dropped" from 4k 60hz to 1080p 240hz. I was reluctant to drop to 1080p at first. Now I don't give a shit, give me all the frames.

Don't waste any more time at 60hz. Get yourself at least a 144hz monitor. Gaming is just way better. It's not even just fps that benefit - anything fast paced, racing games, rocket league, PUBG, you name it. 10x funner playing at a higher refresh rate. Screw high settings. Get those frames. 2000% worth.

I bought a new monitor around the time all this super Hertz and G-Sync became a thing and didn't know any better, I'm happy with my regular 60hz 1440P IPS monitor but also kinda bummed out I missed the boat on the better stuff.

Eh, I only partially agree. I have a 165Hz monitor, but can't really perceive a benefit above ~90Hz in all but a handful of games. G-Sync ended up being a much more significant upgrade for me because most of the time I care about image quality and frame rate consistency much more than I care about high frame rates so being able to cap the refresh rate at an arbitrary value using something like RTSS is a godsend.

I was in a somewhat similar position to you, @Ravelle, as soon the 4k panels started to get affordable, I picked one up, and it's been nice for certain things - Rocket League which doesn't seem to support DSR, still looks best at 4K. Nice visuals are neat to look at but it's much funner actually playing (and seeing a game) at higher framerates. For non-slow pace games anyway.

I only got to taste the classy dark colours of an IPS for a short while, and even with a monitor (XB271HU) that has really low processing times and reasonable pixel response times (4ms) it was still kinda smeary for the fastest paced games. I'd actually have kept the XB271HU if I wasn't so into Overwatch. 144 (or 165) was enough for most games and the IPS looked so good, even the smear from the response looked like natural motion blur...made something like Sonic Generations look great.

G-sync is nice when you can't maintain the higher framerates, it looks pretty smooth and doesn't add much input lag (once you cap the framerate about 3fps lower than your refresh rate so it doesn't put you into v-sync mode, which will add more noticeable latency).

@conmulligan You're right about really high framerates and refreshes only having an impact on a handful of games, the most intense ones. But even with something like Rocket League, where the camera is locked to the ball most of the time... there's a huge difference between 144 and 60. Admittedly I haven't tried it locked to 90, but you can notice a difference above 144 too - it will all depend on the game. Eg GTA V, third person mode, 90fps is plenty, go into fps (or use a mouse) and then it's still good but will be better the higher it goes. 240hz isn't even perfect. But it's damn good if you're looking for super clear images with fast motion.

Most games that aren't slow paced will benefit from having the extra range of refresh rate between 60-144/165fps.

I would say if you're not really into CS:GO, Quake or Overwatch etc, then 144hz is plenty and is an amazing upgrade that I recommend to everyone if you can run those framerates. Make sure to get something with g-sync/freesync. If PUBG was more optimised then I bet 240 would be great for that too, currently it still benefits from 144 and g-sync.

This site was fantastic:

tftcentral.co.uk/reviews_index.htm

and https://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/gsync101-input-lag/ helps you understand how to set it up and why.

I ended up going with the ROG Swift PG258Q but I would recommend the Acer Predator XB271HU/Asus ROG Swift PG279Q if you don't want 240hz. IPS colours are a slight but significant difference, it has great response times and reaches 165hz. Though I feel like 60fps games aren't as clear as on my old 4k 1ms TN panel but tbh, that could just be because I got used to higher framerates already, haven't been playing many games that are locked to 60 recently.

Buy from Amazon so you have an easy time returning if you run into issues like dead pixels/excessive black light bleed.

I only have 100Hz monitor but I can play in glorious 21:9 3440x1440 and I love it (p.s. yes it is the same monitor Rorie has)

After I got my first 144hz monitor a few years ago I can't imagine switching off it. I am very much an FPS over resolution kind of player and 144hz blows anything else out of the water and looks better than 4k ever could for me. I don't want to go any higher with the hz because I find it hard to believe that there is a discernable difference. Hardware and/or software isn't to the place yet where 144hz at 4k makes sense so until then it's all 1080 at 144 for me baby.

Best of both worlds: 144hz at QHD. Honestly unless you’re a professional counterstrike player he 240hz monitors seem kinda silly. I’m sure it’s nice on occasion but so few games will hit those frame rates I’d rather get a bit of a boost to IQ and still keep most of the impact of the refresh rate boost at 144hz.

Wait until you get so used to it that 60hz looks like 30 used to. It’s weird.

100Hz is still a decent upgrade over 60 tbh. I've heard it takes quite a bit of fiddling to get 21:9 to work but the support is growing?

It doesn't seem to get supported with competitive games very often (yet high refresh rates do) but I bet it's sweet when it's working. I would love to get a curved one as a secondary monitor down the line sometime, the nice dark colours from the IPS will be missed for sure and I hear something called quantom dot will have even nicer colours (but not great response times).

@opusofthemagnum, I'd agree with that, if you don't really want the extra motion clarity for certain games, QHD 144 would be ideal. TBH I'd love to not have to return the Acer because it would be better for other games (most games tbh) but I really want the 240hz clarity in Overwatch. I'll put up with 1080p and TN panel and 24" for it. I didn't think I would (hence buying the Acer first) but after getting a taste of higher refresh rates and what it did for Overwatch and Quake, I couldn't resist 240.

@skyzard: Unfortunately the industry is moving towards the 4K / 60 Hz nonsense once again. But this reminds me I need to buy a a 144 Hz Monitor. I'm thinking 1080p Ultrawide (2560 x 1080) Unfortunately the refresh rate thing, and back light strobing, was shoved back behind Gsync/freesync, which itself just confused people and hiked prices to 800 $.

Doubling your refresh rates, cuts added monitor latency (16,7 ms) by half on average. It's that simple. Additional benefit should be less motion blur due to faster switching panels used.

I will be happy with 4k 60, i dont play anything serious enough for input and high refresh to really matter to me. I was looking at 1080 144hz and they still seem overpriced for the screen sizes imo.

You can never go back once you've become accustomed to high framerate play.

@oursin_360 said:

I don't think this is a matter of opinion. 4K is bullshit invisible pixels that wastes 2 generation worth of hardware progress on slightly less aliasing. Whereas 144 Hz is more responsiveness and objectively better game play, movement and most importantly a clearer moving picture. You should immediately see an improvement without even a new graphics card. Which is why Nvidia, with a need to sell cards, wants to move the other way and up-sell folks on resolution. Frankly today you can build a screaming 1080p machines, without spending 800$ on graphics/auxiliary room heater/backgroud swooosh. Whereas TVs and consequently consoles are locked in 60 Hz, forever.

Yup, me too. I wish it was 144hz, but 100hz is still a good deal better than 60, and I love playing games in 21:9, 1440p up close. Most games support it now, and if not, you can just play in 16:9 with pillarboxes. It's the equivalent of a 27" 16:9 monitor at that ratio. Hellblade, Total War Warhammer 2, Battlefront 2 beta and Shadow of War all look great on it recently in 21:9 though.

My 165 hz 1440p monitor says welcome to the club :)

Give me high refresh rate over resolution any day. After upgrading to 1440p, I can take it or leave it and easily go back to 1080p.

But going back to 60hz? No way.

@eurobum: why wouldnt it be a matter of opinion? Invisible pixels is not a good thing? The gap between 1440p and 4k isnt as huge, but going back to 1080 from either is jarring for me, i cant stand jaggies and crisp textures look amazing to me.

When a 1080 144hz is available at 50inch for a reasonable price i will consider it. Also more games will need better anti aliasing. It may also matter that i do not game with a mouse, as 60hz feels fine to me and i dont play competitive so input lag is fine too.

Now thats just how i feel about it atm.

In 2013 I got a nice 60hz 1440p for a couple hundred dollars, and it just died. I considered 200hz 2560x1080 but I ended up with 3440x1440p 120hz. The jump from 60-120 is much bigger then 120-200. I would rather have the 21:9 at a higher resolution. If it was just 60, I wouldn't have even considered it.

people saying otherwise are clueless and have no idea what they are talking about.....

@oursin_360: Higher resolutions are not without merit, especially for other things.

For games improved gameplay is the obvious priority. Looking back all games look like crap, we know it doesn't matter as long as game-play is fine. Every button press appears ~ 8.3ms faster a 120Hz screen, 9.7ms faster on a 144 Hz sreen (frametime difference = 1000 ms /60 Hz - 1000 ms /144 Hz ) on average that is.

Less visible aliasing is but a little inadvertent side benefit of higher resolutions, the main reason for higher resolutions is that they allow bigger screens. Bigger screens, that is all. The drawback is that it takes 3x the graphical compute power to drive 4x the resolution, everything has to scale up interfaces, bandwidth, RAM, CPU, game size. I like 1440p because it's 4x 720p, and I hate the fact that foolHD 1080p became the go-to screen standard. It was necessary for monitors, but it was too early for broadcasting and Youtube and stuff, and it was too high for phones for a long time and still is too high for consoles. Same thing is happening with 4K now, it's a good numerical target it should be great for TVs, but it is to early to jump. There is still no HDMI/120Hz standard for it, AFAIK.

Also biggest enemy of crispness is motion blur, not aliasing/anti-aliasing which have been more or less solved. Stutter, shudder and screen tearing are further eye and stomach irritants, that all are significantly improved by a higher refresh rate:

I've had some more time with the monitor and can say the biggest difference is to first person shooters.

Take overwatch for example, playing as tracer, you blink around very fast, often turning your mouse very fast too, to compensate for leaping ahead large distances in an instant, past enemies (to confuse/dodge them). With 240hz, you don't have to wait around as long for the screen image to clear up before you plan your next move or are able to track their new position relative to you. It's more fluid, you can see enemies clearer as you turn the mouse because it's just refreshing that fast, you can actually keep track.

On 60hz, you'd actually have to wait for the image to clear up. It's a pause in your gameplay (you may not even notice you are pausing because you've been so used to doing it - I noticed it myself when I switched back to 60 to see, I realised I was waiting for the image to clear up longer than I would at 240). Or worse, you fire at a blur of their location without waiting and are wasting more time (unless you get lucky).

It's all in the fractions of a second but with fast paced fps games, that can have a big difference and give you a pretty decent advantage - you don't have to stay still at all. 144hz, you can see more and can approximate locations better, less pausing. At 240hz it becomes even clearer while swinging the mouse around, even less pausing and an easier time tracking. It's not perfect clarity at 240, there's still some blur, but it's a decent amount less (if you're playing something very fast). Just gives you an easier time tracking during the chaos. You can do more in the same amount of time...it feels like the game is faster and you have more freedom to play fast (and when switching to 60hz...it feels slow as fuck - for a first person shooter).

With a character like mccree who moves a bit slower and has a slow firing but high damage revolver, you have an easier time seeing enemies clearly as you are jumping and shooting (trying to avoid being an easy target yourself, as you take enemies out). If you are standing still and shooting, there's less of a difference between 240 and 144 - but you're more likely to get taken out.

Unfortunately my 240hz monitor (ASUS rog swift pg258q) has an issue - there are vertical lines all over the screen. They don't always show up, and it's like an interlacing pattern. Often with lighter shades. They appear very frequently in some titles and less in others - possibly depending on the colours the game has. PUBG for example has them a lot. Tekken 7 has them a lot. I haven't noticed them in Cuphead.

At 60Hz and even 144Hz the lines are also much more common, sometimes seeing them when there is nothing moving on the display too. 240hz less so, but they still show up here and there. It can be quite distracting and for an expensive 1080p TN panel, the thing it has going for it is motion clarity, and the lines affect that.

I ordered a replacement from Amazon, same issue. I've seen a few posts about it online, though less than I'd expect. Some are calling it pixel inversion artifacts/dynamic interlacing ... possibly related to the screen trying to display full 8 bit colour range (they tend to be 6bit + FRC) and the FRC might be causing it... I have no idea. If someone has a 240hz monitor without these issues, I'd love to hear about it. Seems very common with Asus, even the 144hz pg278q seems to have the issue. It could be something with all TN panels and I just never noticed before because my last monitor was 4K 27", possibly the vertical lines were there and I just couldn't tell as the pixels were so close to each other.

Are you using motion blur reduction*? I find that using it adds even more motion clarity.

*Manufacturers have different names for it: Ultra Low Motion Blur (ULMB), NVIDIA LightBoost, BENQ DyAc (Dynamic Accuracy), MotionFlow Impuse, LG MOTION240, EIZO TURBO240, ASUS Extreme Low Motion Blur (ELMB), or simply “Blur Reduction”.

https://www.blurbusters.com/faq/motion-blur-reduction/

I looked up one of those 240 hz monitors and sadly it seems they can't do blur reduction at 240 hz, only at 144 hz and lower. Do you prefer 240 hz without blur reduction or 120/144 hz with blur reduction?

If you want to try to show the difference between different frame rates and blur reduction modes to a friend at home or in a store I find that the UFO scrolling map test works well although it gives some people a little bit of vertigo. How well can you read the moving map at different frame rates?

You can even see blur reduction for yourself using a normal 60 hz screen here. It flickers at 60 hz but it looks good at 120 hz. Persons susceptible to epilepsy should not click this link: EPILEPSY WARNING! https://www.testufo.com/blackframesEPILEPSY WARNING!

I tried 120Hz ULMB on the 4ms IPS Acer I had before getting this one - the XB271HU.

It was surprisingly effective at reducing motion blur but it had a lot of the "cross-talk" so instead of a normal outline, enemies would have a second very sharp outline, just to the side, a few mm apart - but it wasn't blurry like ghosting. And it wasn't just the enemy outlines, it's everything (it's just that's what I would focus on when playing). It was just a bit too weird. It was also really dark.

The picture you used shows the best case scenario, the cross-talk also varies at different parts of the screen..which makes it look even weirder to me. From blurbusters, it looked like the average image posted here:

It was almost like playing with messed up 3D vision settings where it splits the colours up. I don't agree that it's unnoticeable, I mean you're not going to need blur reduction for games like Civ so if by "most games" they mean not first person shooters, then sure, maybe, I never tried it.

So this was normal on the IPS 4ms panel (Acer had the same panel as PG279Q):

And this was ULMB (but actually darker than it looks here when gaming):

But with the 240Hz Asus:

Even though non-ULMB 200Hz vs 240Hz looks similar in that shot, I can feel the game slowing down when it drops 40fps from 240 to 200, with g-sync on.

ULMB 144Hz:

Apparently with this monitor, the ULMB is a lot brighter because the monitor is crazy bright (I've read a few posts of people setting it to 0 brightness, I have it around 25).. I'm tempted to try it at 144, I heard people got it working a few Hz above somehow (something like 155 or 165) but it's not simple to do, I think it requires third party software too. Tbh, I'm curious but I'm pretty sure I'll just prefer the more natural image at 240Hz. I'll turn off g-sync and set ULMB in the nvcp...and enable in it in the monitor to try it sometime...maybe.

I've heard blurbusters have some software that let you do something similar with other monitors too, if anyone is interested.

Captures above are from the tftcentral.co.uk reviews, which I used a lot before picking up the monitors.