Hi!
I'm considering getting a new monitor - 240hz seems to be the best at the moment (though 1080p max resolution possible on the market for the refresh rate)
Or should I stick to a 144hz option and perhaps get a 2k monitor for the same price? My graphics card can't run 2K at 144fps though…
slight difference but not very noticeable, I'd save my money and get a 144hz
I'd rather get opinions from OzBargain. Random google options can have ulterior motives (ie, trying to sell 240Hz). Ozbargain is more reliable - plus everyone here seems to be into tech haha.
144hz is absolutely fine, i went from 60hz to 144hz @ 2k running off my 1070, its the next best move you can make from mechanical drives to ssd.
Would you rather 4k/60 or 2k/144?
I'm currently 4k/60 and I regret it. Looking to swap as soon as I find a good deal.
you should try 34" 21:9 / 3440x1440 @ 75hz
else you'll regret once more
I think 120Hz/1440p is the better compromise between resolution and smoothness.
Ultrawide could also be a great enhancement sometimes.
@phunkydude:
I've been waiting for the PG35VQ for almost a year now and I'm trying my best to hold out. I like the idea of HDR and the 200Hz
2k/144 which is my current set up with the Acer xb271hu.
I play alot of FPS and it's smooth enough for me while @ the same time looking beautiful in games like GTA
you will not notice as much of an effect going from 144 to 240 as you would have from 60 to 144.
The 60 to 144 jump is pretty noticeable and i wouldn't hesitate to recommend that for any gamer that have the hardware that can run the required frame rates (remember that you have to be able to have frame rates equal to or higher than the refresh rate or the higher refresh rate is useless)
This might be helpful - they do a test comparing the 144 and 240 on random people in their office
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQY8hSZ9xNE
or the higher refresh rate is useless
No it isn't.
so i should output higher than 60 when my monitor is 60?
You'll get a more recently rendered frame, and lowered input lag. So yes, it MAY be beneficial to run your games at a higher FPS than your monitor can display, if screen-tearing isn't an issue and you aren't using an adaptive sync.
240hz if you're ana.
60hz if you're everyone else.
need 240hz to pawn gear off ready for buy back even before dead
If you can't run 144hz 1440p, you can't run 240hz. Buy a 1440p 144hz monitor, and upgrade your GPU later. As someone who has used both, 1440p @144hz is far superior to 240hz 1080p.
I'd wait for 300hz.
I agree with others, if you can't run 1440 at 144, you sure as hell can't run 1080 at 240 anyway. 1080 looks like trash, and there's no difference at all above 144 for anyone who isn't a serious professional gamer. Go 1440p, 4K isn't worth it yet, my next monitor will be 1440p 37" ultrawide, then 4k after 4-5 years.
I can't tell the difference past 120Hz. So I wouldn't bother.
I bought an Acer XB252Q to play competitive games on. It's a 24.5" G-sync 240Hz with Ultra Low Motion Blur (ULMB) which is great as far as seeing everything rather than blur during fast paced screen movements.
For non-competitive games I use a Predator X34 100Hz.
It's curious, at least for me, going up to 240Hz is underwhelming but going back to 100Hz is very noticeable after using 240Hz. So its something I notice more when I stop using it rather than when I start.
For a gamer who plays single and competitive with the same display it's probably better to use 144Hz IPS and have better image quality than 240Hz TN with lower quality. The XB252Q looks like garbage next to the X34 with significantly lower image quality.
You'll have to consider:
1. Can your video card run 240hz at higher settings, even at 1080p?
2. Is the IPS vs TN vs VA debate relevant to you?
3. Do you care about the limited screen size options for 240hz monitors?
If you don't care, then buy it. If you hate it, sell it and consider the loss you made a lesson learnt.
I would recommend spending money on a 144-165hz 1440p setup with IPS and at least 27". Even better if you can get a range topper (34" ultrawide 120+hz)
The benefit of going from 144 to 240 is significantly smaller than the benefit of having a larger screen and better panel. Remember - diminishing returns is a huge factor beyond 144hz.
I agree with all this except;
Is the IPS vs TN vs VA debate relevant to you?
It's not so much a debate as considering whether you like Kobe beef vs Dog Shit vs Doritos, no matter which side of the fence you fall on you need to be aware.
1440p/144(165)hz/IPS/G-Sync is the sweet spot, if you go in a different direction you will regret if you have the pleasure of playing on one of these monitors at any point.
I consider myself a huge fan of 4k or at least observer. Even I think 1440p 144hz is the sweet spot until 4k matures a bit more.
But happy sitting at 1080p 60hz for now until a deal comes a long and I get new hardware.
Or should I stick to a 144hz option and perhaps get a 2k monitor for the same price?
Yes.
You can't run 240Hz on anything about 1080p. And the difference between 144Hz and 240Hz is nowhere near the difference from 1080p to 1440p.
what GPU do you have?
how much money do you want to spend on a monitor?
I have a 144 @ 2k & I am very happy with that
I actually decided on the 240hz… I can get 200+ FPS that at 1080p with my rx580 AMD
nice :)
Is the monitor free-sync?
Sure is :)
Completely subjective and depends what you use it for and if your computer can output at that refresh rate. Majority of people are still perfectly happy with 1080p 60 FPS.
Alternatively, some people would rather have a higher resolution than 1080p. Depends on your preference.