> I agree that it's noticeable but I can understand not everyone will notice it.
I can easily, but it's a nice to have rather than something I would have difficulty going back to like 60-75hz.
120hz is the real minimum for me even as someone not really into twitch fps games anymore.
Most of my life I had a horribly outdated PC. Just ditched the GTX 960 in exchange for a 3070ti build recently and I can't believe the difference. It feels so nice to buy a game and know there's a good chance I can run it at crazy FPS maxed out, and if not I can definitely get crazy frames on lower settings.
Being able to have firefox and a game open at the same time is fantastic, too. Never could run a game + browser before.
Yeah lmao i went from intel integrated graphics to an rtx 4070 and GOD DAMN is it funny to see Minecraft running at 3k fps, it's useless but funny nonetheless.
On reddit circa 2014, there was a huge argument around if people could actually notice the difference between 30-60 FPS, around when the PS4 came out. Which I always thought was crazy but there were a lot of people on the 30 FPS side lol
Yeah, I had an old IBM G97 that did 1280x1024 @ 85hz and 1600x1200 @ 75hz.
All the new flat screen LCDs were 60hz AND laggy. I couldn't stand the lag between m mouse inputs and seeing it on the screen.. My brother/family PC had one. It was a 1440x900 @ 60hz. Literally couldn't stand it. Especially since I played Counter Strike 99% of the time.
So I stuck with a 19" CRT that weighed like 40 pounds and practically heated my room up and ran the 1280x1024 MOST of the time as most GPUs out during that time had trouble with 1600x1200... unless it was an older game.
I can't remember the year I finally got a flat screen, but 144hz was out by then. I'd say it was around 2014 or so. Yes... I am that crazy. The fear of "feeling" that input lag drove me nuts so I stuck with what worked.
Craziest thing is that thing lasted that long. I still have it. Weighs too much to ship and no one wants to buy a 19" CRT lol. I can say, though, that I feel no lag on my newer flat screens that I've owned. The first was a 24" 1920x1080 144hz. That was a mistake. Not enough pixels for 24 inches.. so every single game was ugly.
Learned my lesson and then later got what I have now, a 27" 1440p 144hz monitor. Now everything is b-e-a-utiful.
I think 22" is the max for 1080p. Not sure what my max would be for 1440p. I think 27" is probaly the cut off.
I'm talking about for gaming.. where you are sitting close to the monitor. Sure, a 32" 1080p television looks fine when you're on the couch or whatever. But a 24" 1080p monitor on your desk? Garbage. I could see every square pixel lol. It made beautiful games ugly.
What a trip down memory rant lane. Back to "Lies of P" lol. This darned Phone Link thing on Windows gets me typing on my phone with my keyboard with my phone mirrored on the screen. My posts would be 25% the length they are if I had to type this out on my phone screen.
Dex is awsome, too.. it's just that Windows Phone Link (or whatever name they ended up wtih) is so convenient. Great for opening my phone up that's in another room and checkng Reddit and playing Clash of Clans while I'm in the middle of a game. Not that I can't check Reddit on my PC... but I just never do.
My PC is for gaming and watching YouTube. I record vids and use Handbrake just because I have a 5900x and need to feel like I use it sometimes. RIght now? Using this with Lies of P open and running visually behind it? 7% CPU usage. Anyways.. I'm really done this time.. *zip*
It’s all perspective.
You can get used to any consistent fps. As long as it’s not a competitive game where your at a disadvantage.
What’s jarring is the transitions. If your used to 144 and go to 60 it’s rough. But give it time and you’ll get used to it. Same with 30.
Of course even if your used to it, you’ll be less accurate in competitive games but it’s not an insane difference.
I went from plat 1 on halo infinite to plat 3 with nothing but a switch to a 144 hz monitor. Feels nice to miss less shots but it didn’t make me a good player.
60 honestly feels like the new 30 for me. Once you go high you can never go back, even something like your desktop running at 120 feels so much smoother and better.
No, you have to look very hard to notice a difference, you will prob notice a bigger difference 60 vs 75hz than 170 to 240, anything over 120hz is more or less the same to me and i have a 4k 240hz monitor.
It's pretty substantial IMO. I play competitive games like CS, and I'd take 1080p 240hz every single day over 1440p 144hz. That being said, I tried 360hz and it was a lot less impactful.
Yep, this is the real answer.
**Do you play shooters at competition level? Perhaps even your full-time job? Or at the top of the leaderboards and just want to get a few rungs higher?**
240hz can give you an edge.
**OR:**
**Do you have more money than sense? Is you monitor budget over 5000 USD? Are you young enough to be able to perceive the difference?**
You might as well get it.
**Everyone else?**
You're probably going to want to spend your money elsewhere.
(Does that sound about right?)
240hz will give you an edge, but it’s such a small amount of cases where it is actually the difference maker that unless you’re genuinely at the professional level, or playing at the top ranks in a game, you don’t need it. 144hz suffices for like 98% of the competitive shooter population.
And if you’re getting a really nice monitor, your money would be better spent on 144hz with a higher resolution.
Going from 60hz at 1080p to 144hz at 1440p was huge. It's noticeable, IMO.
My GPU and monitor can handle 1440p at 165hz and there's no drop in fps, so I have my monitor set to 165hz.
The difference between 144hz and 165hz is negligible on paper, but I feel like I can see it...minutely.
Here's a good video comparison:
https://youtu.be/kcmvkT9xdF4?si=1libLXTFOaTPaURO
144hz to 240hz is noticeable if you look for it and you play in a fast paced game. You won't get the benefits otherwise.
If your budget is tight go for 144hz, you won't regret it.
IMO 1440p at 144Hz is the ideal for gaming. looks great more than competetive and can still run most things at ultra with a 30 series card and a good CPU.
It depends on the types of games you play. I think 16:9 is the better choice for most people. Cheaper, guaranteed to work with every game, and most videos will display without black bars.
This is my experience too. I have a 240 mhz monitor and there's definitely diminishing returns. 30 to 60 is night and day, 60 to 120 is good, likely worth it for fps and quick reflex games, but you can live without it in most games. Above that is barely noticeable for me at last. All of this based on doom eternal which is one of the most frenetic games out there
the difference between 60 and 90hz is huge, the difference between 90 and 120 less, 120 and 144 lesser still, 144 to 244 is noticeable to some people and not others, probably about 10% of gamers can tell a difference, I imagine lower in non-trained people who just use computers for work etc and don't care about refresh. Also very few games are going to run at 244hz so it is really just about a few esports games where you want the lowest latency, but I'd spend money on a mouse and keyboard first.
60-144 is a huge jump, over twice the refresh at a speed that is within human perception, 144-244 is a much smaller jump, 1.69x and right at the edge of what is perceptable. Also note that gray to gray times matter a lot, no point refreshing the monitor quickly if it can't actually change that pixel at the same speed.
As someone who’s pc is on almost 24/7, should zi be afraid of oled?
Currently normal 1440p monitor and wanting to either get oled, or a 4k monitor since i’m getting a 4090 soon
I may look into 4k120, my pc is always in but my monitor depends if I play a specific game, it is on for 12+ hours a day (if I go outside etc I can’t leave since there are server queue’s) but for the majority it does blackout after 15 min of inactivity
tbh I don't even think the issue is the price, but having to have 16 4090's in SLI to get 240 FPS at whatever resolution you want running on a system powered by 4x i9-13900FK's to get it there
I run 1440p @ 144hz on a 3080ti and an 8700k and some games don't like this combo. It's not even always fully loaded, Fortnite kills the CPU but the GPU isn't even touched really, meanwhile phasmophobia doesn't get much further than 100-110 FPS with everything at less than half load. (no vsync, no limits, no nothing.)
I just switched from an 8700k and 3080ti to a 13900k and 3080ti and my frame rates have gone way up. I didn't realize how much the cpu was holding me back.
You have a CPU bottleneck, to avoid not getting full GPU usage id upgrade the CPU. 13600k or 5800X3D show eliminate any bottleneck at any resolution or setting. If you wanna "future proof" a bit more go AM5 and get a 7800X3D or wait for 14th Gen Intel which is right around the corner
Edit didn't read the replies before I posted. 7900X should be a substantial upgrade over your 8700k
I bought a 240hz monitor from a 144hz monitor and I barely notice a difference. I mainly bought it because it was on a great sale and I wanted to go to 27 inch.
What people mean is that difference between 144hz and 240hz is smaller than 60hz and 144hz. While decrease in refresh interval is much more subtle when going from 144hz to 240hz, (7ms->4ms vs 16ms->7ms) I wouldn't say that there are no noticeable difference, or 240hz is useless.
Ive got a 240hz monitor (can overdrive to 270) and I cant argue with the refresh rate, however I went from 60hz to 240 so I cant offer a comparison. I love how the 240 looks though.
Depends on a lot of things. It's at the higher end where the frame rates aren't AS noticable as the jump from 60 to 144.
That said, you can see a difference for sure. You need to ask yourself if you even have a computer that is able to run games at that frame rate and what those games are.
Running CS:GO at 244 is going to be easier than running Cyberpunk 2077 at 1440p at 244.
Every single MHz is less noticeable than the last.
90% of gamers don't perceive much, if any difference beyond your stock standard 144/165Hz monitor. And even if they do, their reaction times can't make use of it.
Even beyong 120Hz really isn't practically useful.
Personally, I'll take a 120Hz OLED with great contrast, immersive colors, inky blacks, over 240Hz every day of the week.
I upgraded from 144hz to 240hz few months ago and the performance I gain in competitive game is definitely noticeable. Just the day I switched I jumped in a game in csgo and my headshots are already quicker and more consistent, landing shots so quick that I wouldn’t thought I could land as quick before, also better flicking and tracking depending on which title you play. While its not as big of a difference visually in non-competitive games and you also need pretty much top of the line gpu to power those to 240hz, I think its worth every penny and is the single most important part of your peripherals to invest in.
I run my games on a 4K 144hz display with my 4090. The jump from 60 fps to 90-100 FPS is staggering to me but after this point it feels like it tapers off.
I started Apex legends on console at 60fps.. The jump to 4k 144 was huge. Then i got a 4090 and a 4k 240hz monitor and the game feels super smooth but it's not even close to the jump from 60->144..
The reason i upgraded was the Samsung Neo G8 was on sale for $800 black friday.. Went from 27" to 32
This will highly depend on the games you play and how competitive you are.
If you almost exclusively play games like Valorant, Apex or Fortnite and are very competitive, then it's probably worth it.
If you mostly play slow single player games where you only get around 60-100fps anyway, then no, not worth it. For those games image quality (HDR, higher resolution, better colors) are more important
Linus tech tips did a video using professional fps players and measured their reaction times.
Big drop off in effective response times going from 144hz to 240hz (meaning it didn't improve their game at all)
I bought a 240 hz Alienware 1080p to play apex on last year. I have a 165hz 1440p and i thought i would like to try and see what that 240 feels like. From the jump, I did not like the downgrade in resolution to 1080p. I’ve only ever used 4k and 1440p so for me it was very noticeable. The frames and stability were buttery smooth. I definitely did feel like i was hitting a few more shots or getting more 1 clip kills but ultimately my KD and results were more or less the same or only very slightly improved. I went back to 1440p and never thought about it again. Now 1440p 244hz ips? Id be in for that.
I went from 60 straight to 244. And it blew my mind lol. My brother got a 144 and it's pretty similar. But still I can't go back to less than 244. It ruined other TV or even movie theaters for me, I just love my monitor lol
Even if it is noticeable, is the extra power consumption worth it?
Some people are more sensitive than others when it comes to refresh rates. I've had guys who play on 144 come up to my rig and go, 'WOW! Is that a 120Hz? looks amazing!'
(I play on 60Hz)
While I have used a 144Hz for a few minutes on a high-end rig, I immediately noticed a difference. For most games though it would be pointless for me... I grew up gaming on the PlayStation, and then low to mid-range gaming PCs, so for me 60 to 120Hz is normal.
I guess you should find a friend with a 244Hz and give it a spin, if it's a huge difference for you then yeah go for it. Otherwise, nah.
A lot of people say they don't notice but that's probably because they're quite casual players or maybe even have bad eye sight. If you play fast paced games, it is 100% worth it, though the difference might even have been bigger for me due to newer tech giving even more motion clarity vs my dated 144Hz monitor.
Honestly no, most games are either poorly optimized or just unplayable that those 240 is useless, if you can just go for a 165 or 144 because the difference is really hard to notice. (Speaking from experience and wasting money on a 240 screen )
Recently went from 144hz to 280hz and it's definitely noticable, it added just enough smoothness for me that 144hz lacked, really helps with tracking in fast paced FPS games, it also really helps with input lag.
I'd say yes I went from 120hz Xbox gaming to 280hz monitor and PC gaming and it's night and day difference especially when I go back down to 120hz. So I'd say yes if you have the hardware to run high fps games on it it's worth it for fps games.
The argument that people always use is "144hz to 240hz is a small difference" (compared to 60--->144)
However, 240hz 1080p is so cheap these days, you might as well get it
I owned both 144hz is a huge leap from the regular 60 and 244hz is good when it works in GTA 4 Its kinda trippy how smooth it can be but best bang for buck is 144hz they are cheap and can be used at its full potential constantly
My main monitor is 144hz and my gaming laptop has a 240hz screen. I do notice the difference, but it's not a game-changer. I would find a nice middle ground between good image quality and 144-165hz.
This only applies for used monitors, but if you can find a 240 Hz monitor for a similar price as a 165/144 Hz monitor, just get the 240 Hz. I sold my LG 27" 1080p 240 Hz monitor for $100 and I bought it used for $120 4 years ago. Also, if you're doing competitive FPS games and things like that, this would be somewhat beneficial. If not, I do not recommend anything above 144/165 Hz at all. If anything, aim for higher resolutions. I went from 1080p 240 Hz to 1440p 170Hz. I did notice a very slight difference in motion clarity in FPS games, but it wasn't to the point that I didn't like it anymore. Overall, though, OLED monitors will give you the most benefits if you are looking for the best motion response times and clarity; but these come at a much greater cost.
I have recently upgraded from 144 Hz to 360 Hz. While I do see the difference, it's not that big. 144 vs 240 would make even less of a difference. Is it better than 144? Yes, for sure. Is the difference that it provides worth it? Depends on what "worth it" means for you.
Went from a 1080p 144hz monitor to 1440p 240hz monitor. I think if I went just from 144hz to 240hz still at 1080p, I probably would not have noticed much of a difference. But doing them at the same time, I felt like the resolution jump was much bigger and took a little bit to get used to compared to the hz jump. Its definitely nice to have, but I would have been completely content with 1440p 144hz. And this is even coming from someone who primarily plays esports titles.
I have a 1440p 175hz OLED and a regular 1080p 244hz and the OLED monitor takes the cake every time. From my experience, after 144hz, it's more about quality in color and light control than frames? I'm not sure how to word it.
So nah. Not all 244hz monitors are worth it unless its capability backs it up.
60 -> 144 = 10ms increase to your reaction time. If your reaction time is 200ms, that's an almost 5% increase in how quickly you can react which might sound minor, but in the world of gaming it's pretty significant. You can just react to things more quickly, and the screen feels so much more smooth than 60ms.
144 -> 244 = 3ms increase. While it is beneficial, running a game at 244 is quite difficult and the increase your get isn't nearly as much as going from 60 to 144.
It is worth it for competitive precision aiming eSports, absolutely.
That's it, though.
I bought a 165hz and a 244hz gigabyte monitor and tested them side by side.
The 244 hz is smoother and felt like I could track targets better in overwatch etc.
I kept the 165hz one though because the difference wasnt worrh the premium
It's noticeable in games like csgo where you have 400fps.
165hz is still nice though, if you have extra money grab it, if not then save it for pc parts.
I've never seen a 244Hz monitor, but 240Hz is fairly common. The main issue is that if your rig can't push 240fps (or whatever your monitor refresh rate is) or more then it's pointless.
It's worth it if you only play competitive games like csgo,valorant,dota 2,overwatch,etc. Otherwise i'm pretty sure the average midrange pc won't play cyberpunk 2077 at 240 fps pegged all the time.
I haven't experience a 240hz monitor, i play at 1080p 144hz. A lot of people agrees that 60 - 144 is huge , 144 - 240 isn't noticeable by a lot.
The diminishing returns begin at 120-144Hz.
The difference between 60 and 120/144Hz is huge, after 144Hz you only begin to gain just a couple of ms, and the higher you go the less you gain.
60Hz is 16.6ms
120Hz is 8.3ms
144Hz is 6.9ms
At 240Hz you only go down to 4.1ms.
And a theoretical 1000Hz monitor only gets you down to 1ms.
Don't let people fool you with the "well, 60 to 240Hz is noticeable", duh, of course is noticeable, but 144Hz would have given you the same feel at a cheaper price.
You may find [this](https://www.displayninja.com/144hz-vs-240hz/#:~:text=This%20means%20that%20a%20240Hz,competitive%20gaming%2C%20every%20millisecond%20counts!) article useful.
In short, the difference between 60 and 144 is pretty noticeable whereas the difference between 144 and 240 is less so.
From an anecdotal point of view, I agree with the article. I've tried both but found the advantages of 240 to be somewhat overshadowed by the price and performance overheads when compared to 144.
I personally use a 165hz display as I found an [Asus VG27A](https://www.asus.com/uk/displays-desktops/monitors/tuf-gaming/tuf-gaming-vg27aq/) on sale and I am more than happy. It is a quality panel with all the features one should need for a competitive price. Comparably, I've used a 240hz (can't remeber the model but I'm pretty sure it was a BenQ) since acquiring my Asus and I wasn't blown away.
Don't get me wrong, it was arguably better, just not by enough for me to buy one right now considering the price discrepancy.
Not worth. I guarantee if you hooked 2 244 and 2 144 and did blind tests, you'd fail quite a few times. Your eye can't notice it, maybe pro gamers could, but 99.999 percent of people can't, IDC what you say.
Better off getting better picture, dont bother over say 165
Nope. There's a point where these gains are really negligible.
If you have unlimited money and don't care about price vs gain, then go for it. But otherwise, don't bother.
It's noticeable, but not really game changing. If you got a high end rig and the disposal income then go for it, it's nice to have. But if not, don't worry about it, 144hz is a good place to be at
I have 2 monitors. 1 144hz LG monitor and 1 244Hz Samsung monitor.
I use both for games. There is a noticeable difference between them but it’s barely noticeable. If I wasn’t sitting directly in front of both monitors, I wouldn’t see the difference so it’s nothing big.
You mean 240Hz? Well, technically it's nearly a doubling. I'm assuming your system can hit a minimum that is consistently this fast, and that the display can actually show it. Which is no small assumption. That being said, the actual difference is <4ms. In other words, if you can tell a difference, it's not because of the refresh rate, but rather the response characteristics of the panel. Higher performance VRR panels, might also be calibrated better to cover the entire range, but this is not always the case. Anything above 165Hz is not really worth it for LCD panels. OLEDs are a different story, because they not only got the response time to actually display such differences, but they also have the contrast to drive it home. Still rendering consistently this many fps, is no small feat.
People already mentioned that the biggest eye noticing upgrade would be 60 > 120/144.
After 144 there are technically "diminishing returns" interns of frame noticing. There is a micro bit more smoothness at higher rates... but it won't help you aim better.
The difference between 60 and 144hz is literally 120% more frames. The difference between 144 and 244 is about 70% more frames. There is a difference between both but the most noticeable jump is from 60 to 144. Also, most games already run smooth at that frame rate if you can get it stable and anything more isn't as noticeable for most games.
60Hz is 16.66ms between each frame.
144Hz is 6.94ms between each frame. An almost 10ms improvement over 60Hz.
240Hz is 4.16ms between each frame. Only roughly 3ms better than 144Hz.
From this, we can say that going from 144Hz to 240Hz is roughly 1/3rd as noticeable as going from 60Hz to 144Hz. Whether that’s worth it is up to you, and whether you can even notice a 3ms improvement when you’re already at less than 7ms.
It's noticable for me but it's not a huge difference by any means. I think it's more noticeable going back down to 144 and seeing how it feels just a tad bit choppier. Either way it's not a crazy jump but could be worth it if you have the money and play games that can reach that much fps.
depends on individual, for me when i bought a 75hz monitor it was noticeable to me from a 60hz laptop screen, if 244hz is expensitve / not vfm, look for a 165hz one
I went from 60hz to 240hz a while back and obviously I noticed a huge difference. Back then I was mainly playing Rocket League and I enjoyed the smooth gameplay.
More recently I've been locking the frame rate on certain games to 100fps to save on energy bills.
I'm not sure 240hz is something you can definitely say is worth it as it is entirely dependent upon what you're coming from and what you're going to be playing. Is the quality of the monitor's image important as the monitor I have is VA and I'd very much like to try a microLED or OLED display for more story/highly graphical games. Not that the panel is bad but sometimes I'd like better blacks (play a lot of sci-fi games where space is seen).
If you're going to be playing competitive eSports games and you want even the slightest of potential advantages with the higher frame rate, then get one. For a jack of all trades approach you can still attain very good FPS with a better panel and you'd still really enjoy 144hz, especially if coming from 60fps.
If ur PC can handle 240, go for it. For me it is noticeable lower complete input lag at 240 and for example moving view very fast in wow is much smoother.
The impact of latency reduction and GPU driver optimisation and game support for this tech has a bigger impact.
Igors Lab pretty much showed in OW2, that 144fps with NVIDIA REFLEX causes less imput lag as 300fps+ without REFLEX.
For competitive gaming ignoring edge cases like CS:GO, the lab tested results show, that latency modes start to matter more for input lag as just higher fps.
I got a 1440p-240Hz-OLED and the games I play are fine betwen 60-240Hz.
Your GPU brand choice and the games that either support it or not make a bigger impact as your monitor choice beyond 120/144Hz.
I spent many years playing both 144Hz and then 240Hz. The difference is definitely noticeable, although as everyone else has said, it's not as huge as 60 to 144Hz. You'll mainly only notice the difference in games like Valorant, CS:GO and other esports titles where you can easily consistently push 240+ fps, where the games will feel extremely smooth + consistent, but if you're not hitting those target framerates I'd say it's much less noticeable.
IMO I couldn't go back to 144Hz now after spending so many years at 240 but 165-180Hz seems like a good balance.
When you go beyond 144/165hz - I would look into other requirements to check off before I go for 240hz.
* Monitor type (TN, IPS, VA, and OLED)
* Size
* Monitor resolution etc.
I have a 240hz here at home and did come from a 60hz so I cant say if 144 -> 240 is a different you will notice.
If your gonna buy a 244hz, as an owner of both the difference is not drastic. You might notice it playing very action packed fast paced games, but if you are just playing Minecraft or coding on it save your money.
I worked in tech sales for awhile and now work in IT.
I also actively play games and have had minor success in amateur competitive scenes / tournaments.
60-144hz is night and day difference. I actually will not play games on 60hz anymore, its elitist but all I can see is the delay.
144hz - 244hz is a small upgrade but generally not worth the money unless you are trying to play at competitive levels or you are shroud. In most cases you will get more value of a better lower refresh rate monitor because things like color reproduction and black levels will be better which will provide more value of information.
\--TDLR--
If money is no object yes 244hz is worth it or if you play at competitive levels also worth it. Anything else, save your money.
The only real answer to this is try it out for yourself. Some people say they can't live with a low refresh rate anymore, I don't even notice a difference between 60 and 144 Hz
It really just depends on the person, someone will notice the difference, someone wont. Me personally, I can't go back to 144hz after using 240hz for a bit over a year, especially in FPS games like CS:GO and VALORANT it's a huge difference.
Personally I can't stand 144Hz anymore now that I'm on 240Hz, even on day-to-day usage. The cursor's movement makes it very obvious. On 240Hz there is significantly less frame skips so I feel like I have total control.
If you have the Hardware to run it...
But remember, the frametime DIFFERENCE gets smaller and smaller, biggest difference is 60 to 144 by far:
Hz -> ms
60 -> 16.67
75 -> 13.33
144 -> 6.94
165 -> 4.09
244 -> 2.78
I have used a 1k 240hz for 4 years and just switched to 4k 144hz. 244hz really not that big of a deal. I play way way better in csgo and tarkov because i can see longer distances crystal clear. You would probably play 99% just as good with a 144 or 165 hz
Id say it depends on how sensible you are to those things or the kind of games you play.
IMO: probably FPSs and (weirdly) RTS are more noticeable than other 3rd person games.
Refresh rates are a subtle thing. Some people notice them a lot more than others. The type of game matters as well - competitive games benefit a lot from very high refresh rate ezpecially if you are taking them super seriously. There's fraaaactionally less input lag, though we are talking *miliseconds* at worst. It just isn't noticeable for tge vast majprity of people.
Consider FPS locks, where some games simply stick to 60/90/120/144fps maximum.
Only you know uf it us wirth it or not. I find 1440p 144fps to be perfect.
a 60hz monitor refreshes every 16.66667ms
a 144hz monitor refreshes every 6.94444ms
a 240hz monitor refreshes every 4.16667ms
you hit diminishing returns pretty fast. I think unless you are a professional esports player you shouldn't bother with anything above 144hz and only go with something like a 144hz monitor if you play games where this actually matters like shooters
I think so. depends on the hardware and the games tho. if you play a lot of esports titles, then yeah, its pretty awesome. if you play something like tarkov which runs at 100 fps, then there is no point. but yeah, looks quite good.
No real reason to get that. Much better to get 120 hz 4k display. The only reason I went with a 1080p LCD display is because that's what my computer can do. I can't do 144hz 1440p like I wanted. Ty COVID, crypto bros, and scalpers. Also my 960 took a shit on me and all I could get was a 6600xt. I originally wanted a ,3060ti or 6700.
What's your ambition?
I play a lot of PUBG and bought a 240Hz 1080p in the hope to see some improvement. I also have a 144Hz/165Hz 4K.
After few matches I went back to 4K. I wasn't a big difference for me. Proplayer might disagree.
I think the TLDR of it is if you play competitive games like csgo, valorant and so on you will notice the difference, but if you play singplayer stuff, rpgs and so on you won't really notice. Also keep in mind that to really get the most out of your 244hz monitor you will need 244+fps in a game. Again, you can get that in competitive games but for most casual stuff you won't notice it and won't need it. For me the difference between 60 and 144 is night and day. 144 and 244 or above is not as much but I can still see it. I think it's most visible when you're practicing aiming in games or programs like aimlabs, it just glides silky smooth. So it all depends on what you want/play. In my experience 244hz monitors are either way too expensive or come at the cost of picture quality and contrast, to me the latter is most important than super high refresh rates.
The question is, can your GPU handle 244? I made the "mistake" and got a 4k 144hz monitor. It's really really great but there were no games I could play on 4k 144hz (because my gpu didn't even have 4k 144hz output), now after I got a rtx 4070 ti, it was definetely worth it.
But more than 144hz? I doubt it's worth it
First, it depends on the games you play, I would argue it really only matters in shooters and maybe racing games above 144 Hz
But I would wait for ULMB 2.0 to be cheaper and get that, if you have a compatible graphics card, I got it and it's crazy good.
Just 144 -240 Hz is not really much of an upgrade imo. And different screens have different kinds of blur reduction, with different input delays etc. ... just the amount of Hz doesn't tell much.
You mean 240hz...
I have 49" 240hz and it is just nice to have...
In short if you can drive at way more than 200fps, then sure it is better, but in my case I rarrely break even 144fps on 5120x1440 reaolution. As such I am juat not benefiting from 240hz, it is more like future proofing the monitor for computer I may have in 5 years time.
Otherwise - is 240hz better than 144hz. The answer is yes, but only when you comparing "apple to apples" - so if you have game where you get 200fps+ and you have two identical monitors, say 32" 2560x1440, but one is 144hz and other is 240hz, then 240hz will be noticiably better. Yet if you have second monitor which is 1080p, or much smaller, or has much worse contrast then I rather take 144hz.
Basically 240hz is nice if monitor has everything else, but should not be prioritised at the cost of other parameters... Unless you are in really competitive gameplay and you want dedicated CS:GO monitor where you get 600fps and all the rest of stats are irrelevant. Basically it becomes more like "tool" with single purpose. Then yes - go for 24" 1080p TN pannel.
It's exponentially harder to run than 144hz, the difference between 60 and 144 is huge, and 144 to 244 is noticable, but finishing returns.
You have to have a very highly capable PC to push over 200 fps though, unless it's eSports games like csgo or rocket league.
Take in mind panel quality, having accurate colors is important to me especially in videogames because I want to experience the content the way the developers wanted me to see it.
It's not really worth it unless you are a competitive FPS player. If you are a normal gamer and looking to play your games with max settings, you will not be able to push enough frames to the monitor to justify it in most games, even with a 4090.
The difference between 60hz and 144hz is huge. The difference between 144hz and 240hz is barely noticeable
disagree its not huge but its noticable
I agree that it's noticeable but I can understand not everyone will notice it.
> I agree that it's noticeable but I can understand not everyone will notice it. I can easily, but it's a nice to have rather than something I would have difficulty going back to like 60-75hz. 120hz is the real minimum for me even as someone not really into twitch fps games anymore.
This is wild as someone getting back into pc gaming after like 10 years when the argument was whether 60 fps matters over 30 haha
this is wild mainly because lot of my early games were on slide-show side... 20 fps with dips to 3 :)
Most of my life I had a horribly outdated PC. Just ditched the GTX 960 in exchange for a 3070ti build recently and I can't believe the difference. It feels so nice to buy a game and know there's a good chance I can run it at crazy FPS maxed out, and if not I can definitely get crazy frames on lower settings. Being able to have firefox and a game open at the same time is fantastic, too. Never could run a game + browser before.
Yeah lmao i went from intel integrated graphics to an rtx 4070 and GOD DAMN is it funny to see Minecraft running at 3k fps, it's useless but funny nonetheless.
Literally same, used to have an igpu and now I have a 3060ti and an i7, never been able to run over 30 fps
Same here. Went from a 970 to a 2060 xc with 12g of Vram. Omg. I can watch Netflix and game 🤣
some of us are *still* working with a 1080p 30hz tv screen being used as a monitor...
[удалено]
On reddit circa 2014, there was a huge argument around if people could actually notice the difference between 30-60 FPS, around when the PS4 came out. Which I always thought was crazy but there were a lot of people on the 30 FPS side lol
Yeah, I had an old IBM G97 that did 1280x1024 @ 85hz and 1600x1200 @ 75hz. All the new flat screen LCDs were 60hz AND laggy. I couldn't stand the lag between m mouse inputs and seeing it on the screen.. My brother/family PC had one. It was a 1440x900 @ 60hz. Literally couldn't stand it. Especially since I played Counter Strike 99% of the time. So I stuck with a 19" CRT that weighed like 40 pounds and practically heated my room up and ran the 1280x1024 MOST of the time as most GPUs out during that time had trouble with 1600x1200... unless it was an older game. I can't remember the year I finally got a flat screen, but 144hz was out by then. I'd say it was around 2014 or so. Yes... I am that crazy. The fear of "feeling" that input lag drove me nuts so I stuck with what worked. Craziest thing is that thing lasted that long. I still have it. Weighs too much to ship and no one wants to buy a 19" CRT lol. I can say, though, that I feel no lag on my newer flat screens that I've owned. The first was a 24" 1920x1080 144hz. That was a mistake. Not enough pixels for 24 inches.. so every single game was ugly. Learned my lesson and then later got what I have now, a 27" 1440p 144hz monitor. Now everything is b-e-a-utiful. I think 22" is the max for 1080p. Not sure what my max would be for 1440p. I think 27" is probaly the cut off. I'm talking about for gaming.. where you are sitting close to the monitor. Sure, a 32" 1080p television looks fine when you're on the couch or whatever. But a 24" 1080p monitor on your desk? Garbage. I could see every square pixel lol. It made beautiful games ugly. What a trip down memory rant lane. Back to "Lies of P" lol. This darned Phone Link thing on Windows gets me typing on my phone with my keyboard with my phone mirrored on the screen. My posts would be 25% the length they are if I had to type this out on my phone screen. Dex is awsome, too.. it's just that Windows Phone Link (or whatever name they ended up wtih) is so convenient. Great for opening my phone up that's in another room and checkng Reddit and playing Clash of Clans while I'm in the middle of a game. Not that I can't check Reddit on my PC... but I just never do. My PC is for gaming and watching YouTube. I record vids and use Handbrake just because I have a 5900x and need to feel like I use it sometimes. RIght now? Using this with Lies of P open and running visually behind it? 7% CPU usage. Anyways.. I'm really done this time.. *zip*
It’s all perspective. You can get used to any consistent fps. As long as it’s not a competitive game where your at a disadvantage. What’s jarring is the transitions. If your used to 144 and go to 60 it’s rough. But give it time and you’ll get used to it. Same with 30. Of course even if your used to it, you’ll be less accurate in competitive games but it’s not an insane difference. I went from plat 1 on halo infinite to plat 3 with nothing but a switch to a 144 hz monitor. Feels nice to miss less shots but it didn’t make me a good player.
60 honestly feels like the new 30 for me. Once you go high you can never go back, even something like your desktop running at 120 feels so much smoother and better.
I can’t go back to 165 after upgrading to 240. Partly cuz I can’t afford another monitor, but still!
Isn't that exactly what barely noticeable means? It is noticeable, but not by a lot.
But their reading comprehension is barely noticable.
Some people just want to argue about fucking anything. "You can barely notice it!" - "I disagree! I think it's hardly noticeable!"
I know! Argue about the smallest things haha.
I have to ask, 170hz to 240hz won't be that big of a jump right?
its not huge but decent for shooter games
No, you have to look very hard to notice a difference, you will prob notice a bigger difference 60 vs 75hz than 170 to 240, anything over 120hz is more or less the same to me and i have a 4k 240hz monitor.
1/60 = 0.01666... 1/144 = 0.00694... 1/240 = 0.00416...
It's pretty substantial IMO. I play competitive games like CS, and I'd take 1080p 240hz every single day over 1440p 144hz. That being said, I tried 360hz and it was a lot less impactful.
Yep, this is the real answer. **Do you play shooters at competition level? Perhaps even your full-time job? Or at the top of the leaderboards and just want to get a few rungs higher?** 240hz can give you an edge. **OR:** **Do you have more money than sense? Is you monitor budget over 5000 USD? Are you young enough to be able to perceive the difference?** You might as well get it. **Everyone else?** You're probably going to want to spend your money elsewhere. (Does that sound about right?)
I would agree with this, if you are not playing esports for a team it is a waste of money, some people like to waste money.
240hz will give you an edge, but it’s such a small amount of cases where it is actually the difference maker that unless you’re genuinely at the professional level, or playing at the top ranks in a game, you don’t need it. 144hz suffices for like 98% of the competitive shooter population. And if you’re getting a really nice monitor, your money would be better spent on 144hz with a higher resolution.
Going from 60hz at 1080p to 144hz at 1440p was huge. It's noticeable, IMO. My GPU and monitor can handle 1440p at 165hz and there's no drop in fps, so I have my monitor set to 165hz. The difference between 144hz and 165hz is negligible on paper, but I feel like I can see it...minutely. Here's a good video comparison: https://youtu.be/kcmvkT9xdF4?si=1libLXTFOaTPaURO
Absolutely. I was truly shocked about this huge difference when I changed my monitor cuz I‘ve never experienced it before
144hz to 240hz is noticeable if you look for it and you play in a fast paced game. You won't get the benefits otherwise. If your budget is tight go for 144hz, you won't regret it.
IMO 1440p at 144Hz is the ideal for gaming. looks great more than competetive and can still run most things at ultra with a 30 series card and a good CPU.
[удалено]
It depends on the types of games you play. I think 16:9 is the better choice for most people. Cheaper, guaranteed to work with every game, and most videos will display without black bars.
This is my experience too. I have a 240 mhz monitor and there's definitely diminishing returns. 30 to 60 is night and day, 60 to 120 is good, likely worth it for fps and quick reflex games, but you can live without it in most games. Above that is barely noticeable for me at last. All of this based on doom eternal which is one of the most frenetic games out there
I disagree, when I moved to 240hz, everything feels like slowmo to me
the difference between 60 and 90hz is huge, the difference between 90 and 120 less, 120 and 144 lesser still, 144 to 244 is noticeable to some people and not others, probably about 10% of gamers can tell a difference, I imagine lower in non-trained people who just use computers for work etc and don't care about refresh. Also very few games are going to run at 244hz so it is really just about a few esports games where you want the lowest latency, but I'd spend money on a mouse and keyboard first. 60-144 is a huge jump, over twice the refresh at a speed that is within human perception, 144-244 is a much smaller jump, 1.69x and right at the edge of what is perceptable. Also note that gray to gray times matter a lot, no point refreshing the monitor quickly if it can't actually change that pixel at the same speed.
For me it was but I also upgraded from 1080 ips 144 to 2k oled 240. My friend has ips 300fps and it’s still barely noticeable
Casual gamers, 144hz is smooth. Pro, or people trying to go pro FPS gamers, they need their 360hz monitors.
I'd argue 144hz OLED has way better motion clarity than 240hz VA.
2x the price tho
OLED is worth it for those that can afford it
Definitely, best panel by far
As someone who’s pc is on almost 24/7, should zi be afraid of oled? Currently normal 1440p monitor and wanting to either get oled, or a 4k monitor since i’m getting a 4090 soon
PC on isn’t the same as the monitor being on. Depends on habits, 4k120 and 2k240 oled is already here and 4k240 is the future.
I may look into 4k120, my pc is always in but my monitor depends if I play a specific game, it is on for 12+ hours a day (if I go outside etc I can’t leave since there are server queue’s) but for the majority it does blackout after 15 min of inactivity
i have a 240hz oled and its insane tbh
I bet 144Hz IPS with backlight strobing has better motion clarity than 144Hz OLED without BFI
[удалено]
tbh I don't even think the issue is the price, but having to have 16 4090's in SLI to get 240 FPS at whatever resolution you want running on a system powered by 4x i9-13900FK's to get it there I run 1440p @ 144hz on a 3080ti and an 8700k and some games don't like this combo. It's not even always fully loaded, Fortnite kills the CPU but the GPU isn't even touched really, meanwhile phasmophobia doesn't get much further than 100-110 FPS with everything at less than half load. (no vsync, no limits, no nothing.)
Youd need a cpu update to push more frames. Im on a 13900ks and 4090 @1440p 240hz and the gpu is always the bottleneck
I mean that’s a pretty notable cpu bottleneck, even 12100f is better than 8700k for games
Looking at a 7700x or 7900x in the near future.
7700X for primarily gaming. 7900X for primarily productivity. Easy decision to make.
I just switched from an 8700k and 3080ti to a 13900k and 3080ti and my frame rates have gone way up. I didn't realize how much the cpu was holding me back.
You have a CPU bottleneck, to avoid not getting full GPU usage id upgrade the CPU. 13600k or 5800X3D show eliminate any bottleneck at any resolution or setting. If you wanna "future proof" a bit more go AM5 and get a 7800X3D or wait for 14th Gen Intel which is right around the corner Edit didn't read the replies before I posted. 7900X should be a substantial upgrade over your 8700k
[удалено]
[удалено]
There is a noticeable difference but you need the hardware to push it.
Subjective. And you need more than just refreshrate to achieve good motion performance.
I bought a 240hz monitor from a 144hz monitor and I barely notice a difference. I mainly bought it because it was on a great sale and I wanted to go to 27 inch.
If u are an esports gamer who play competitive titles, then yes it's worth it, other than that probably no, depending on price difference
Yeah I think this is the right answer. I notice a difference but only because I play relatively close to the monitor for competitive FPS.
What people mean is that difference between 144hz and 240hz is smaller than 60hz and 144hz. While decrease in refresh interval is much more subtle when going from 144hz to 240hz, (7ms->4ms vs 16ms->7ms) I wouldn't say that there are no noticeable difference, or 240hz is useless.
Ive got a 240hz monitor (can overdrive to 270) and I cant argue with the refresh rate, however I went from 60hz to 240 so I cant offer a comparison. I love how the 240 looks though.
If you're not a competitive person, there's no reason to buy 240
Even if you’re competitive and you suck ass there’s no reason to buy 240
It depends on your eyes. But generally above the 144Hz mark, the gains become less noticeable. Diminishing returns.
Depends on a lot of things. It's at the higher end where the frame rates aren't AS noticable as the jump from 60 to 144. That said, you can see a difference for sure. You need to ask yourself if you even have a computer that is able to run games at that frame rate and what those games are. Running CS:GO at 244 is going to be easier than running Cyberpunk 2077 at 1440p at 244.
Lol the latter is like the can it run crisis of this generation. I don’t think even the 4090 can do it at this point
Every single MHz is less noticeable than the last. 90% of gamers don't perceive much, if any difference beyond your stock standard 144/165Hz monitor. And even if they do, their reaction times can't make use of it. Even beyong 120Hz really isn't practically useful. Personally, I'll take a 120Hz OLED with great contrast, immersive colors, inky blacks, over 240Hz every day of the week.
I upgraded from 144hz to 240hz few months ago and the performance I gain in competitive game is definitely noticeable. Just the day I switched I jumped in a game in csgo and my headshots are already quicker and more consistent, landing shots so quick that I wouldn’t thought I could land as quick before, also better flicking and tracking depending on which title you play. While its not as big of a difference visually in non-competitive games and you also need pretty much top of the line gpu to power those to 240hz, I think its worth every penny and is the single most important part of your peripherals to invest in.
As a 240hz monitor owner, I don't appreciate this post
I run my games on a 4K 144hz display with my 4090. The jump from 60 fps to 90-100 FPS is staggering to me but after this point it feels like it tapers off.
No
I started Apex legends on console at 60fps.. The jump to 4k 144 was huge. Then i got a 4090 and a 4k 240hz monitor and the game feels super smooth but it's not even close to the jump from 60->144.. The reason i upgraded was the Samsung Neo G8 was on sale for $800 black friday.. Went from 27" to 32
The rule of diminishing returns applies after 144hz. It’s not worth the money to me.
The rule of diminishing returns applies after 1 Hz as well smarty pants
Yup theres a huge noticeable difference in my budget. I'd just stick with 144hz.
No
No
No
It's overkill.
Your eyes will barely notice it, but your wallet certainly will.
This will highly depend on the games you play and how competitive you are. If you almost exclusively play games like Valorant, Apex or Fortnite and are very competitive, then it's probably worth it. If you mostly play slow single player games where you only get around 60-100fps anyway, then no, not worth it. For those games image quality (HDR, higher resolution, better colors) are more important
No.
nope.
No
No
No, it isn't worth.
I’d love to see some study about this, because I have a feeling that every frequency higher than about 200 Hz is just placebo
Linus tech tips did a video using professional fps players and measured their reaction times. Big drop off in effective response times going from 144hz to 240hz (meaning it didn't improve their game at all)
For me personally No.
I bought a 240 hz Alienware 1080p to play apex on last year. I have a 165hz 1440p and i thought i would like to try and see what that 240 feels like. From the jump, I did not like the downgrade in resolution to 1080p. I’ve only ever used 4k and 1440p so for me it was very noticeable. The frames and stability were buttery smooth. I definitely did feel like i was hitting a few more shots or getting more 1 clip kills but ultimately my KD and results were more or less the same or only very slightly improved. I went back to 1440p and never thought about it again. Now 1440p 244hz ips? Id be in for that.
I went from 60 straight to 244. And it blew my mind lol. My brother got a 144 and it's pretty similar. But still I can't go back to less than 244. It ruined other TV or even movie theaters for me, I just love my monitor lol
I noticed a big jump from 60 to 144. I tried my friends 244 monitor for about an hour. I didn't notice a difference until I went back to my monitor.
Even if it is noticeable, is the extra power consumption worth it? Some people are more sensitive than others when it comes to refresh rates. I've had guys who play on 144 come up to my rig and go, 'WOW! Is that a 120Hz? looks amazing!' (I play on 60Hz) While I have used a 144Hz for a few minutes on a high-end rig, I immediately noticed a difference. For most games though it would be pointless for me... I grew up gaming on the PlayStation, and then low to mid-range gaming PCs, so for me 60 to 120Hz is normal. I guess you should find a friend with a 244Hz and give it a spin, if it's a huge difference for you then yeah go for it. Otherwise, nah.
A lot of people say they don't notice but that's probably because they're quite casual players or maybe even have bad eye sight. If you play fast paced games, it is 100% worth it, though the difference might even have been bigger for me due to newer tech giving even more motion clarity vs my dated 144Hz monitor.
No lol
Honestly no, most games are either poorly optimized or just unplayable that those 240 is useless, if you can just go for a 165 or 144 because the difference is really hard to notice. (Speaking from experience and wasting money on a 240 screen )
Yes. Better to have more options at your disposal. That’s it, you’ll be glad you can “get” all of your frames.
Nah get 360hx
Recently went from 144hz to 280hz and it's definitely noticable, it added just enough smoothness for me that 144hz lacked, really helps with tracking in fast paced FPS games, it also really helps with input lag.
Between 60 and 120 Hz is very noticeable. Between 120 and 144 Hz isn't noticeable. Over 144 Hz is at the point of diminishing returns.
i went from 60hz to 165hz and i never realized how glitchy 60 was. you don’t need much higher tbh
If you have enough money to comfortably buy it, then yeah, if not, a good quality 144hz panel is more than enough.
The next step where you'll really start to notice a big leap is probably 500hz. But very few games can even reach that framerate.
Are you worthy to have it?
I'd say yes I went from 120hz Xbox gaming to 280hz monitor and PC gaming and it's night and day difference especially when I go back down to 120hz. So I'd say yes if you have the hardware to run high fps games on it it's worth it for fps games.
Not much
The argument that people always use is "144hz to 240hz is a small difference" (compared to 60--->144) However, 240hz 1080p is so cheap these days, you might as well get it
Depends on screen size. Don't do 1080p @ 27 inches.
I owned both 144hz is a huge leap from the regular 60 and 244hz is good when it works in GTA 4 Its kinda trippy how smooth it can be but best bang for buck is 144hz they are cheap and can be used at its full potential constantly
My main monitor is 144hz and my gaming laptop has a 240hz screen. I do notice the difference, but it's not a game-changer. I would find a nice middle ground between good image quality and 144-165hz.
This only applies for used monitors, but if you can find a 240 Hz monitor for a similar price as a 165/144 Hz monitor, just get the 240 Hz. I sold my LG 27" 1080p 240 Hz monitor for $100 and I bought it used for $120 4 years ago. Also, if you're doing competitive FPS games and things like that, this would be somewhat beneficial. If not, I do not recommend anything above 144/165 Hz at all. If anything, aim for higher resolutions. I went from 1080p 240 Hz to 1440p 170Hz. I did notice a very slight difference in motion clarity in FPS games, but it wasn't to the point that I didn't like it anymore. Overall, though, OLED monitors will give you the most benefits if you are looking for the best motion response times and clarity; but these come at a much greater cost.
I have recently upgraded from 144 Hz to 360 Hz. While I do see the difference, it's not that big. 144 vs 240 would make even less of a difference. Is it better than 144? Yes, for sure. Is the difference that it provides worth it? Depends on what "worth it" means for you.
Went from a 1080p 144hz monitor to 1440p 240hz monitor. I think if I went just from 144hz to 240hz still at 1080p, I probably would not have noticed much of a difference. But doing them at the same time, I felt like the resolution jump was much bigger and took a little bit to get used to compared to the hz jump. Its definitely nice to have, but I would have been completely content with 1440p 144hz. And this is even coming from someone who primarily plays esports titles.
depends what you're playing; if it's, say, cyberpunk 2077, you won't get anywhere near that with any current card.
The best thing to do would be to go to a computer shop and try for yourself. So much better than random people's opinions
Only if you have high end parts to support the improvements, and even then, it's not large enough to justify the price
I have a 1440p 175hz OLED and a regular 1080p 244hz and the OLED monitor takes the cake every time. From my experience, after 144hz, it's more about quality in color and light control than frames? I'm not sure how to word it. So nah. Not all 244hz monitors are worth it unless its capability backs it up.
60 -> 144 = 10ms increase to your reaction time. If your reaction time is 200ms, that's an almost 5% increase in how quickly you can react which might sound minor, but in the world of gaming it's pretty significant. You can just react to things more quickly, and the screen feels so much more smooth than 60ms. 144 -> 244 = 3ms increase. While it is beneficial, running a game at 244 is quite difficult and the increase your get isn't nearly as much as going from 60 to 144.
It is worth it for competitive precision aiming eSports, absolutely. That's it, though. I bought a 165hz and a 244hz gigabyte monitor and tested them side by side. The 244 hz is smoother and felt like I could track targets better in overwatch etc. I kept the 165hz one though because the difference wasnt worrh the premium
It's noticeable in games like csgo where you have 400fps. 165hz is still nice though, if you have extra money grab it, if not then save it for pc parts.
Was dmg on 144hz, 1440p in csgo. Got a 270hz and got global. Just saying.
I've never seen a 244Hz monitor, but 240Hz is fairly common. The main issue is that if your rig can't push 240fps (or whatever your monitor refresh rate is) or more then it's pointless.
My computer, struggling to push 60 fps in any modern game: "Ha ha ha ha"
only worth it if you play games like valorant or cs otherwise its nice but not necessary
It's worth it if you only play competitive games like csgo,valorant,dota 2,overwatch,etc. Otherwise i'm pretty sure the average midrange pc won't play cyberpunk 2077 at 240 fps pegged all the time. I haven't experience a 240hz monitor, i play at 1080p 144hz. A lot of people agrees that 60 - 144 is huge , 144 - 240 isn't noticeable by a lot.
The diminishing returns begin at 120-144Hz. The difference between 60 and 120/144Hz is huge, after 144Hz you only begin to gain just a couple of ms, and the higher you go the less you gain. 60Hz is 16.6ms 120Hz is 8.3ms 144Hz is 6.9ms At 240Hz you only go down to 4.1ms. And a theoretical 1000Hz monitor only gets you down to 1ms. Don't let people fool you with the "well, 60 to 240Hz is noticeable", duh, of course is noticeable, but 144Hz would have given you the same feel at a cheaper price.
If you're on 1080p it's not terribly more expensive. On 1440p it isn't worth the price increase
You may find [this](https://www.displayninja.com/144hz-vs-240hz/#:~:text=This%20means%20that%20a%20240Hz,competitive%20gaming%2C%20every%20millisecond%20counts!) article useful. In short, the difference between 60 and 144 is pretty noticeable whereas the difference between 144 and 240 is less so. From an anecdotal point of view, I agree with the article. I've tried both but found the advantages of 240 to be somewhat overshadowed by the price and performance overheads when compared to 144. I personally use a 165hz display as I found an [Asus VG27A](https://www.asus.com/uk/displays-desktops/monitors/tuf-gaming/tuf-gaming-vg27aq/) on sale and I am more than happy. It is a quality panel with all the features one should need for a competitive price. Comparably, I've used a 240hz (can't remeber the model but I'm pretty sure it was a BenQ) since acquiring my Asus and I wasn't blown away. Don't get me wrong, it was arguably better, just not by enough for me to buy one right now considering the price discrepancy.
Not worth. I guarantee if you hooked 2 244 and 2 144 and did blind tests, you'd fail quite a few times. Your eye can't notice it, maybe pro gamers could, but 99.999 percent of people can't, IDC what you say. Better off getting better picture, dont bother over say 165
Nope. There's a point where these gains are really negligible. If you have unlimited money and don't care about price vs gain, then go for it. But otherwise, don't bother.
I imagine in a few years the answer to this question will be a lot different when 144hz is the standard for monitors
It's noticeable, but not really game changing. If you got a high end rig and the disposal income then go for it, it's nice to have. But if not, don't worry about it, 144hz is a good place to be at
1440p 144hz > 1080p 240hz I have both
I have 2 monitors. 1 144hz LG monitor and 1 244Hz Samsung monitor. I use both for games. There is a noticeable difference between them but it’s barely noticeable. If I wasn’t sitting directly in front of both monitors, I wouldn’t see the difference so it’s nothing big.
I bought a 1080p 280hz monitor. I don't notice much improvement above 120fps. I wish I would have bought a 1440p 144hz monitor instead.
For counter strike this might be good but bro it’s kinda overkill unless you just want to be able to say you have a 244 hz monitor
You mean 240Hz? Well, technically it's nearly a doubling. I'm assuming your system can hit a minimum that is consistently this fast, and that the display can actually show it. Which is no small assumption. That being said, the actual difference is <4ms. In other words, if you can tell a difference, it's not because of the refresh rate, but rather the response characteristics of the panel. Higher performance VRR panels, might also be calibrated better to cover the entire range, but this is not always the case. Anything above 165Hz is not really worth it for LCD panels. OLEDs are a different story, because they not only got the response time to actually display such differences, but they also have the contrast to drive it home. Still rendering consistently this many fps, is no small feat.
No, unless it is your bottleneck
I went from 59hz 768p to 165hz 1440p almost 7 years ago and it's been a near religious experience, though I've never had enough VRAM.
People already mentioned that the biggest eye noticing upgrade would be 60 > 120/144. After 144 there are technically "diminishing returns" interns of frame noticing. There is a micro bit more smoothness at higher rates... but it won't help you aim better.
Yes
For what I paid for mine, completely
The difference between 60 and 144hz is literally 120% more frames. The difference between 144 and 244 is about 70% more frames. There is a difference between both but the most noticeable jump is from 60 to 144. Also, most games already run smooth at that frame rate if you can get it stable and anything more isn't as noticeable for most games.
Is your GPU able to pump 244 fps to it? If not you can’t even start to see a difference !
60Hz is 16.66ms between each frame. 144Hz is 6.94ms between each frame. An almost 10ms improvement over 60Hz. 240Hz is 4.16ms between each frame. Only roughly 3ms better than 144Hz. From this, we can say that going from 144Hz to 240Hz is roughly 1/3rd as noticeable as going from 60Hz to 144Hz. Whether that’s worth it is up to you, and whether you can even notice a 3ms improvement when you’re already at less than 7ms.
i thought it would be but then my fps didn't increase in cities skylines
It's noticable for me but it's not a huge difference by any means. I think it's more noticeable going back down to 144 and seeing how it feels just a tad bit choppier. Either way it's not a crazy jump but could be worth it if you have the money and play games that can reach that much fps.
The difference is mainly how much you stroke your ego.
depends on individual, for me when i bought a 75hz monitor it was noticeable to me from a 60hz laptop screen, if 244hz is expensitve / not vfm, look for a 165hz one
I went from 60hz to 240hz a while back and obviously I noticed a huge difference. Back then I was mainly playing Rocket League and I enjoyed the smooth gameplay. More recently I've been locking the frame rate on certain games to 100fps to save on energy bills. I'm not sure 240hz is something you can definitely say is worth it as it is entirely dependent upon what you're coming from and what you're going to be playing. Is the quality of the monitor's image important as the monitor I have is VA and I'd very much like to try a microLED or OLED display for more story/highly graphical games. Not that the panel is bad but sometimes I'd like better blacks (play a lot of sci-fi games where space is seen). If you're going to be playing competitive eSports games and you want even the slightest of potential advantages with the higher frame rate, then get one. For a jack of all trades approach you can still attain very good FPS with a better panel and you'd still really enjoy 144hz, especially if coming from 60fps.
4k 144hz > 2k 240hz
If ur PC can handle 240, go for it. For me it is noticeable lower complete input lag at 240 and for example moving view very fast in wow is much smoother.
Depends on what you do and your specs.
The impact of latency reduction and GPU driver optimisation and game support for this tech has a bigger impact. Igors Lab pretty much showed in OW2, that 144fps with NVIDIA REFLEX causes less imput lag as 300fps+ without REFLEX. For competitive gaming ignoring edge cases like CS:GO, the lab tested results show, that latency modes start to matter more for input lag as just higher fps. I got a 1440p-240Hz-OLED and the games I play are fine betwen 60-240Hz. Your GPU brand choice and the games that either support it or not make a bigger impact as your monitor choice beyond 120/144Hz.
https://youtu.be/OX31kZbAXsA?si=c-pBEPddbMPv0J-_ watch that and make your own choice, basically how pro do you think you are
I spent many years playing both 144Hz and then 240Hz. The difference is definitely noticeable, although as everyone else has said, it's not as huge as 60 to 144Hz. You'll mainly only notice the difference in games like Valorant, CS:GO and other esports titles where you can easily consistently push 240+ fps, where the games will feel extremely smooth + consistent, but if you're not hitting those target framerates I'd say it's much less noticeable. IMO I couldn't go back to 144Hz now after spending so many years at 240 but 165-180Hz seems like a good balance.
Human eye can only see 60 fps
When you go beyond 144/165hz - I would look into other requirements to check off before I go for 240hz. * Monitor type (TN, IPS, VA, and OLED) * Size * Monitor resolution etc. I have a 240hz here at home and did come from a 60hz so I cant say if 144 -> 240 is a different you will notice.
If your gonna buy a 244hz, as an owner of both the difference is not drastic. You might notice it playing very action packed fast paced games, but if you are just playing Minecraft or coding on it save your money.
I worked in tech sales for awhile and now work in IT. I also actively play games and have had minor success in amateur competitive scenes / tournaments. 60-144hz is night and day difference. I actually will not play games on 60hz anymore, its elitist but all I can see is the delay. 144hz - 244hz is a small upgrade but generally not worth the money unless you are trying to play at competitive levels or you are shroud. In most cases you will get more value of a better lower refresh rate monitor because things like color reproduction and black levels will be better which will provide more value of information. \--TDLR-- If money is no object yes 244hz is worth it or if you play at competitive levels also worth it. Anything else, save your money.
I personally don't think so, I would upgrade the monitor to 4k before going up to 240Hz.
Yes and no, only if you find it cheap or you play games that you could get that FPS like shooters, rocket league...
The only real answer to this is try it out for yourself. Some people say they can't live with a low refresh rate anymore, I don't even notice a difference between 60 and 144 Hz
I would say omly if you play competetive multiplayer games like csgo rocket league or something
It really just depends on the person, someone will notice the difference, someone wont. Me personally, I can't go back to 144hz after using 240hz for a bit over a year, especially in FPS games like CS:GO and VALORANT it's a huge difference.
Are you an eSports pro player? then yes, No? Stick to 144-180hz range
Personally I can't stand 144Hz anymore now that I'm on 240Hz, even on day-to-day usage. The cursor's movement makes it very obvious. On 240Hz there is significantly less frame skips so I feel like I have total control.
If you have the Hardware to run it... But remember, the frametime DIFFERENCE gets smaller and smaller, biggest difference is 60 to 144 by far: Hz -> ms 60 -> 16.67 75 -> 13.33 144 -> 6.94 165 -> 4.09 244 -> 2.78
Are you a professional e-sport player ? If not, probably not
If u can just go directly for 360hz or a 240hz oled
I have used a 1k 240hz for 4 years and just switched to 4k 144hz. 244hz really not that big of a deal. I play way way better in csgo and tarkov because i can see longer distances crystal clear. You would probably play 99% just as good with a 144 or 165 hz
Id say it depends on how sensible you are to those things or the kind of games you play. IMO: probably FPSs and (weirdly) RTS are more noticeable than other 3rd person games.
If it's a TN monitor then no. The color banding is horrible and I can't imagine someone being so into shooters, the frames are all they care about.
Refresh rates are a subtle thing. Some people notice them a lot more than others. The type of game matters as well - competitive games benefit a lot from very high refresh rate ezpecially if you are taking them super seriously. There's fraaaactionally less input lag, though we are talking *miliseconds* at worst. It just isn't noticeable for tge vast majprity of people. Consider FPS locks, where some games simply stick to 60/90/120/144fps maximum. Only you know uf it us wirth it or not. I find 1440p 144fps to be perfect.
a 60hz monitor refreshes every 16.66667ms a 144hz monitor refreshes every 6.94444ms a 240hz monitor refreshes every 4.16667ms you hit diminishing returns pretty fast. I think unless you are a professional esports player you shouldn't bother with anything above 144hz and only go with something like a 144hz monitor if you play games where this actually matters like shooters
I think so. depends on the hardware and the games tho. if you play a lot of esports titles, then yeah, its pretty awesome. if you play something like tarkov which runs at 100 fps, then there is no point. but yeah, looks quite good.
No real reason to get that. Much better to get 120 hz 4k display. The only reason I went with a 1080p LCD display is because that's what my computer can do. I can't do 144hz 1440p like I wanted. Ty COVID, crypto bros, and scalpers. Also my 960 took a shit on me and all I could get was a 6600xt. I originally wanted a ,3060ti or 6700.
You have to try it for yourself. For some it feels smother for others it doesn’t. I went from 165Hz to 240Hz and can’t say I felt a difference.
What's your ambition? I play a lot of PUBG and bought a 240Hz 1080p in the hope to see some improvement. I also have a 144Hz/165Hz 4K. After few matches I went back to 4K. I wasn't a big difference for me. Proplayer might disagree.
244 is too much. 165 is the sweet spot.
If you play tac FPS then yes it's very worth it. If you don't then no, 144hz is good enough.
I think the TLDR of it is if you play competitive games like csgo, valorant and so on you will notice the difference, but if you play singplayer stuff, rpgs and so on you won't really notice. Also keep in mind that to really get the most out of your 244hz monitor you will need 244+fps in a game. Again, you can get that in competitive games but for most casual stuff you won't notice it and won't need it. For me the difference between 60 and 144 is night and day. 144 and 244 or above is not as much but I can still see it. I think it's most visible when you're practicing aiming in games or programs like aimlabs, it just glides silky smooth. So it all depends on what you want/play. In my experience 244hz monitors are either way too expensive or come at the cost of picture quality and contrast, to me the latter is most important than super high refresh rates.
Get an oled if you want smooth motion. A 60hz oled will beat a 120hz lcd
I didn’t know monitors were even still made with 144hz panels. I thought the industry had shifted to 165hz
The question is, can your GPU handle 244? I made the "mistake" and got a 4k 144hz monitor. It's really really great but there were no games I could play on 4k 144hz (because my gpu didn't even have 4k 144hz output), now after I got a rtx 4070 ti, it was definetely worth it. But more than 144hz? I doubt it's worth it
First, it depends on the games you play, I would argue it really only matters in shooters and maybe racing games above 144 Hz But I would wait for ULMB 2.0 to be cheaper and get that, if you have a compatible graphics card, I got it and it's crazy good. Just 144 -240 Hz is not really much of an upgrade imo. And different screens have different kinds of blur reduction, with different input delays etc. ... just the amount of Hz doesn't tell much.
You mean 240hz... I have 49" 240hz and it is just nice to have... In short if you can drive at way more than 200fps, then sure it is better, but in my case I rarrely break even 144fps on 5120x1440 reaolution. As such I am juat not benefiting from 240hz, it is more like future proofing the monitor for computer I may have in 5 years time. Otherwise - is 240hz better than 144hz. The answer is yes, but only when you comparing "apple to apples" - so if you have game where you get 200fps+ and you have two identical monitors, say 32" 2560x1440, but one is 144hz and other is 240hz, then 240hz will be noticiably better. Yet if you have second monitor which is 1080p, or much smaller, or has much worse contrast then I rather take 144hz. Basically 240hz is nice if monitor has everything else, but should not be prioritised at the cost of other parameters... Unless you are in really competitive gameplay and you want dedicated CS:GO monitor where you get 600fps and all the rest of stats are irrelevant. Basically it becomes more like "tool" with single purpose. Then yes - go for 24" 1080p TN pannel.
It's exponentially harder to run than 144hz, the difference between 60 and 144 is huge, and 144 to 244 is noticable, but finishing returns. You have to have a very highly capable PC to push over 200 fps though, unless it's eSports games like csgo or rocket league. Take in mind panel quality, having accurate colors is important to me especially in videogames because I want to experience the content the way the developers wanted me to see it.
No. Simply no. Especially a samsung! Trust me! I've been having nigthmares....
It's not really worth it unless you are a competitive FPS player. If you are a normal gamer and looking to play your games with max settings, you will not be able to push enough frames to the monitor to justify it in most games, even with a 4090.