Blur Busters Forums

Who you gonna call? The Blur Busters! For Everything Better Than 60Hz™ Skip to content

Best 240hz monitor for FPS

Everything about displays and monitors. 120Hz, 144Hz, 4K, 1440p, input lag, motion tests & TestUFO, monitor decisions, and more. Questions? Just ask!

Re: Best 240hz monitor for FPS

Postby Chief Blur Buster » 04 Sep 2017, 17:57

drmcninja wrote:There's not much point in going to 240Hz if you can't get the framerate to match it. So use 120/144Hz until you can upgrade your system hardware as well.

This may be true, but be noted that 240Hz monitors do have benefits other than 240Hz:

-- 240Hz monitors usually have better-quality motion blur reduction at 120Hz/144Hz (and slightly lower lag during motion blur reduction)
-- 120fps@240Hz typically has lower input lag than 120fps@120Hz, thanks to faster frame scanout, according to our tests.
-- GSYNC 240Hz eliminates a lot of the input lag disadvantages of GSYNC for competitive gaming. (See 60Hz vs 240Hz GSYNC lag comparision, derived from our GSYNC 101 tests)

For example, ULMB looks much better and brighter on the Acer XB252Q with an amazingly bright 300 nits of strobing, with a very strobe-crosstalk-free 120Hz & 144Hz strobed mode. And far out-shining some very old LightBoost monitors that could only do ~75-100 nits during strobed. Reportedly the XL2546 strobing looks really damn good at some lower Hz and it supports strobing at all Hz (in 1Hz) increments from 75Hz through 240Hz.

Even on a slower GTX 1050 or older GTX 960, the benefits of 240Hz are still quite visible in CS:GO. That said, I definitely recommend getting the fastest graphics card you can afford as the higher the framerate, the less lag you have.

Our tests show it goes both ways on the same model of monitor.
-- The higher the Hz, the less lag at same framerate
-- The higher the framerate, the less lag at the same Hz
-- Doing both at same time is best-of-both-worlds.
-- This was true regardless whether framerate is lower, same, or above Hz (also applicable to Benefits of Framerates Above Hz, for VSYNC OFF users).

Remember, you'll probably be getting something that outperforms TITAN BLACK in about 2 years for less than $500, while you may be keeping your high-end monitor for longer. Most people tend to upgrade the GPUs more frequently than the monitor. However, this doesn't always apply to Blur Busters.

drmcninja wrote:You can't run ULMB + G-Sync I believe and if you have to choose one of the two, ULMB is more important for competitive FPS.

It certainly can be, but remember not all eSports players use the same gameplay tactics. For example, some of them stare at the crosshairs 90% of the time, and let things move into view. ULMB only helps eye-tracking-moving-objects situations, rather than fixed-gaze-at-center. Everybody seems to play differently, and some gameplay tactics favour VSYNC OFF, favour GSYNC, or favour ULMB.

We've found people strongly preferring GSYNC over ULMB for competitive gaming (GSYNC 240Hz is extremely little lag, and behaves sort of like a "nearly-lagless VSYNC ON" for people who hate stutters/tearing). Playing at 144fps@240Hz is still much less lag than 144fps@144Hz for that. Conversely, we also understand why some gamers prefer ULMB too (reaction time advantages of lack of motion blur can sometimes outweigh the slight input lag added by strobing). It is not useful to dictate a gaming preference for others, as it is not necessarily a hard-and-fast rule.

Our advice is to get the most flexible monitor so you can play at the widest range of settings. I am reposting a reply to another thread:

Chief Blur Buster wrote:Additional information for reader, to help make an educated decision:

Haste wrote:Input lag difference with G-SYNC correctly set up would be imperceptible:

sharknice wrote:I prefer GSYNC over vsync off for competitive gaming.

This is a good point:
When we are in the 240Hz+ stratosphere, it is definitely worth considering G-SYNC or strobing in eSports nowadays.

Compare 60Hz input lag versus 240Hz input lag. Notice how the 240Hz erases most of G-SYNC lag disadvantages?

Image

So, yes, 240Hz G-SYNC is now used more often in competitive/eSports gaming since it practically erases the VSYNC OFF versus G-SYNC differentials. The great thing is you *do* have the choice between VSYNC OFF versus G-SYNC (or FreeSync) depending on game and preference.

The majority of competitive gamers are not running at >1000fps VSYNC OFF. When we did the G-SYNC tests at 60Hz, the differential between GSYNC and VSYNC OFF is much bigger, but at 240Hz, they fall into almost imperceptible territory, except for cross-the-finish-line-first events (turn corner, react at same time, shoot at same time) where even a single millisecond can matter. Only in the eSports leagues where big money is involved, that it really can still remain a consideration.

If you're playing in Quake Live or smaller CS:GO teams (And have a nice overclocked rig) where 1000fps+ is very reliable, the lag differential is tighter (notice, only 3ms for min/max/avg for the extreme situations). Tighter lag differentials can help aiming better, but this is often not felt when differentials are this small (due to 240Hz). Remove the motion blur, and you can react a bit faster -- and that sometimes outweighs the strobe lag for "specific gameplay tactics".

Articles worth reading:
-- Advantages Of Framerates Above Refresh Rate
-- Input Lag and the Limits of Human Reaction Time

So the most flexible buying choices today really are:
- Obtain a 240Hz GSYNC monitor for the choice of VSYNC OFF gaming, G-SYNC gaming, and ULMB gaming;
- Obtain a 240Hz Zowie monitor for the choice of VSYNC OFF gaming, FreeSync gaming, and DyAc/MBR gaming;

Strobing (on models that do it *brightly*) can actually improve competitive advantages in certain games. It doesn't help "religiously-stare-at-crosshairs" gaming like most eSports players do CS:GO but it can help "track-moving-objects" gaming (e.g. Rocket League). Your improved reaction time without motion blur can sometimes outweigh the very slight input lag of ultra-high-Hz strobing (strobing lag is reduced to adding ~1-3ms at 144Hz-240Hz) in certain kinds of competitive games that force you to track your eyes on moving objects.

So you do get all three abilities (choice of VSYNC OFF versus VRR versus strobing) with either a 240Hz G-SYNC monitor or a 240Hz Zowie monitor (unadvertised, but they support FreeSync if you force-turn-off DyAc). Monitors that support optional strobed modes & VRR modes of operations give you a flexible choice of VSYNC OFF vs VRR vs Strobed in order to cover all your bases. And you still can use VSYNC OFF if you need an extra few milliseconds for eSports league gaming. To gain maximum choice, 240Hz monitors with optional strobing & VRR include the following:

* BenQ/Zowie XL2540 - 240Hz / FreeSync / MBR
* BenQ/Zowie XL2546 - 240Hz / FreeSync / DyAc
* Acer XB252Q - 240Hz / G-SYNC / ULMB
* Acer XB272Q - 240Hz / G-SYNC / ULMB
* ASUS ROG PG258Q - 240Hz / G-SYNC / ULMB


Lately, several 240Hz monitors are providing quite a broad array of options relating to blur reduction (and very brightly), stutter reduction (with fewer compromises), and just good plain old-fashioned lag reductions, so they're pretty versatile for a broad array of gaming habits:

- Full 240Hz for your 240fps gaming, low lag, eSports leagues.
- Have clearer strobing at 120Hz/144Hz than most non-240Hz monitors.
- Lower lag even when playing at lower frame rates than 240Hz
- 60fps @ 240Hz GSYNC looks exactly as smooth as "VSYNC ON 60Hz" while having several dozens less milliseconds less lag than 60fps on a 60Hz monitor -- in some cases, 50ms less lag than "VSYNC ON 60Hz" -- which is very useful for low-lag play on emulators or console ports, etc. It's convenient that GSYNC also doubles as a "lagless VSYNC ON" when you need that, even for fixed-framerate gaming.

So if you already have an old (non-strobed) 120Hz monitor, like the XL2410T, it can feel like a huge upgrade gaining additional optional options; with a buffet choice of the
(A) the best "VSYNC OFF" (less visible tearing than 120Hz VSYNC OFF even at 120fps@240Hz),
(B) the best "VRR" (For GSYNC, huge range 30-240Hz)
(C) the best "ULMB" (bright, clearer, less lag)
And play in one favorite mode or all of them, depending on the game you play.

You essentially can cover all your gaming bases (competitive & non-competitive) that way.

The question you should ask yourself is: Do you play only competitive FPS such as CS:GO or Overwatch? Or play a broad array of games?
If only a few games, then you might not care very much about VRR (like GSYNC).
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter!
User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3595
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

Re: Best 240hz monitor for FPS

Postby beery » 04 Sep 2017, 22:51

Thanks for all that info Chief. I only play competitive FPS so sounds like i should go for the non gsync option (XL2546) based on all the info you provided. But go G-Sync if I play a lot of different types of games but saying that I was thinking wouldn't g sync be better for future proof when my card gets outdated and I possible move onto a new FPS releases or games?
beery
 
Posts: 5
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 01:10

Re: Best 240hz monitor for FPS

Postby lexlazootin » 05 Sep 2017, 05:45

Edit: Sorry, i wrote this before i saw there was a second page, Basically i'm in favor of G-Sync/FreeSync for competitive gaming.

drmcninja wrote:There's not much point in going to 240Hz if you can't get the framerate to match it. So use 120/144Hz until you can upgrade your system hardware as well.


This is not true at all. Due to how often new frames are pushed out you get less noticeable tearing and less latency from running 240hz compared to running 144hz. It doesn't matter if you can reach the max refresh, you still get benefits and they are amazing on a 240hz

I almost don't need G-Sync when running Half-Life at 100fps due to how hard it is to notice screen tearing at 240hz.

Also if you don't reach 240hz you can always use G-Sync which is purpose built for low latency, no tearing below the maximum refreshrate.

I also disagree with the ULMB is better for FPS. Although this is 100% opinion, i much more prefer the consistent nature of G-Sync then running with ULMB. When playing any competitive game i think Low latency and capping below your minimum refreshrate for maximum consistency is a much better experience.

If you want to get the G-Sync 240hz you can get the Asus or the Acer, i bought the acer because it was $100 cheaper and i didn't quite like the gamer+led aesthetic to the base stand on the Asus, they will both perform the same with almost the same OSD. The main diffrence would be the OSD layout.

On a side note although i'm not 100% sure, the ULMB implementation on the Benq might not be good when you pass 144hz as you might get a unreasonable amount of crosstalk, so the main benefit might not be worth it but again, i'm personally not sure since i haven't seen it IRL.
lexlazootin
 
Posts: 909
Joined: 16 Dec 2014, 02:57

Re: Best 240hz monitor for FPS

Postby RealNC » 05 Sep 2017, 05:51

Competitive FPS does mean that you don't use G-Sync. Competitive FPS is not a specific product. There's competitive FPS that are latency sensitive, and there's competitive FPS that are outright pigs when it comes to latency, and you can play them at the highest professional level on 60Hz with vsync on. PUBG or Arma 3 are such games, for example, and ithey can benefit from g-sync.

"Competitive FPS" is too vague to give monitor recommendations for.

Also, it depends on whether you play competitive FPS for fun. If you don't play for fun but only for money, then you don't need g-sync. Even OW is much more fun at high FPS with g-sync enabled, and to a more limited extend so is CS:GO.
The views and opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Blur Busters.
User avatar
RealNC
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: 24 Dec 2013, 18:32

Re: Best 240hz monitor for FPS

Postby StillBlaze » 05 Sep 2017, 06:41

Ended up going with BenQ, Will see how the DYAC goes, sad no GSYNC.
StillBlaze
 
Posts: 20
Joined: 08 Jul 2014, 10:57

Re: Best 240hz monitor for FPS

Postby Chief Blur Buster » 05 Sep 2017, 14:21

StillBlaze wrote:Ended up going with BenQ, Will see how the DYAC goes, sad no GSYNC.

I'd like to know how your BenQ/Zowie experience goes. I'm particularly interested in how it directly compares to the very old XL2410T.

lexlazootin wrote:I also disagree with the ULMB is better for FPS. Although this is 100% opinion, i much more prefer the consistent nature of G-Sync then running with ULMB. When playing any competitive game i think Low latency and capping below your minimum refreshrate for maximum consistency is a much better experience.

Correct, it's an opinion; a user preference.
(P.S. I think you meant "maximum refreshrate")

We certainly respect user preference! There are many separate competitive advantages (depending on person, game, gameplay tactic, etc) for GSYNC, for VSYNC OFF, and for ULMB.

Although eSports players will often go for VSYNC OFF, there are various competitive advantages for GSYNC and ULMB too as well -- especially games that forces you to track-eyes moving objects (ULMB/GSYNC can help) rather than fixed-gaze 90% at crosshairs (VSYNC OFF is better).

Not all competitive games have fixed-position elements like crosshairs; Rocket League doesn't use a crosshairs, for example -- so that game benefits more-than-average from ULMB where lack of motion blur improves human reaction time to compensate for the slight ~2-3ms strobe lag of 144-240Hz strobing. 240Hz strobing at half-refresh-cycle average lag is only 2ms average penalty for strobing. Human reaction time improvements can outweigh that in "follow that moving camoflaged object" situations! Like low-altitude high-speed helicoptor flybys (like Battlefield 3 used to have) where you're forced to track eyes on scrolling enemies hidden in camoflaged areas. Certain gameplay tactics definitely go faster with ULMB (as long as it's not a fixed-position crosshairs).

I have seen all modes be used to gain a competitive advantage, it's all in using the mode properly (e.g. 240fps GSYNC + ~235fps frame cap) to avoid the lag gotchas.

Back in the CRT days, one often did a lot of eye-tracking during Quake games, but some new LCD-specific gaming habits developed.
One example is fixed-gaze-at-crosshairs, religiously pay attention to use peripheral vision, scroll enemies into crosshairs without ever moving eyes away from crosshairs. This was a motion-blur-independent gameplay tactic that became widespread in professional gaming, especially after LCD motion blur made lots of old-fashioned CRT-style FPS gameplay tactics useless.

Even to this day, many eSports players avoid CRT-style "eye tracking" gameplay tactics and use the fixed-gaze tactics, so they become immune to LCD motion blur. Which is why they often don't use ULMB during paid-prize eSports gaming. However, I *have* seen blur reduction used to win money in eSports -- it's just less common with CS:GO.

The animations at http://www.testufo.com/eyetracking and http://www.testufo.com/persistence are your friends in helping you understand display motion blur issues better. Motion blur disappears if you stop tracking eyes:



1. Stare at the stationary UFO. You see vertical lines clearly, but stars are hard to see.
You're immune to display motion blur. ULMB won't help competitively.
Example: Always staring only at crosshairs in CS:GO or Quake type games

2. Eye-track the moving UFO. Vertical lines disappear due to motion blur, but you see stars better.
You're at mercy of display motion blur. ULMB can help competitively.
Example: Camoflaged enemies in high-speed low-altitiude helicoptor flyby. The ball in Rocket League. Scrolling platformers. Etc

See; you do get different competitive advantages, depending on your game eye-tracking habits & tactics. Is stars your figurative enemy? Or are the vertical lines the figurative enemy? Or both are enemies you need to see at the same time? In certain types of games, it could be both. To see both vertical lines and stars (line gaps) simultaneously, ULMB gives you that competitive advantage. It won't help you for gaze-at-crosshairs, but it can help you catch that camouflaged moving object!

In non-paid competitive sports, it's much more common to just try out all modes and use a favourite mode -- ULMB/strobing can help improve your FPS scores if you are using CRT-era FPS gameplay tactics relying on eye-tracking techniques. Everybody plays FPS very differently! It all depends on *your* gameplay tactic, and how you flit your eyes all over the screen versus doing fixed-gaze (in order to gain LCD-motion-blur-immunity).

That said, a game's lack of stationary elements (games that have no screen-centre crosshairs + forces lots of panning effects + forces you to move eyes around a LOT) can also flip tables to making ULMB a bigger-than-expected competitive advantage by improving your human reaction time (thanks to lack of motion blurring) more than compensating for the tiny (2-3ms) strobe lag.

As a result, we appreciate flexible monitors that can provide all modes (choice of VRR or strobing or VSYNC OFF) to fulfill a wider range of different user preferences & competitive needs.

TL;DR: The Right Tool for the Right Job, I say! We don't believe in the edicts of "always use VSYNC OFF" nor the "always use GSYNC" nor the "always use ULMB" mantra. Even all of them all have won money in eSports before. (even if VSYNC OFF is the most common)

lexlazootin wrote:In a side note although i'm not 100% sure, the ULMB implementation on the Benq might not be good when you pass 144hz as you might get a unreasonable amount of crosstalk, so the main benefit might not be worth it but again, i'm personally not sure since i haven't seen it IRL.

All the current strobe-capable 240Hz monitors look great at 144Hz strobing.

The "144Hz ULMB on a 240Hz monitor" implementations as well as the "Dynamic Acceleration" on XL2546 manages to achieve approximately ~300 nits strobed, which is impressively bright for a strobed mode -- yesterday's LightBoost often dimmed badly, often less than 100 nits on many models.

What makes BenQ/Zowie unusual is it has unlocked strobing -- (A) It will strobe at any Hz, and (B) it does not prevent you from strobing above 144Hz. This is like Intel unlocking clock dividers and letting you overclock. Likewise, BenQ/Zowie lets you *decide* what strobe Hz you prefer above 144Hz rather than arbitrarily preventing high Hz strobe.

<TECHNICAL>
Note: There's an analog continuum of slowly-worsening strobe crosstalk (at top edge/bottom edge of screen) for every 1Hz you go up. Let's imagine a continuum of 75Hz through 240Hz in 1Hz increments (a Custom Resolution utility lets you do that). For clearest strobing (least crosstalk on Zowies), simply use the 240Hz maximum dotclock to deliver refresh cycles as fast as possible, and put excess dotclock in refresh cycles to lower the refresh rate, e.g. a 75Hz mode that delivers frames in 1/240sec to maximize idle time between refresh cycles (to let LCD GtG pixel response complete in darkness between refresh cycles, like high speed video of a strobe backlight. The faster the GtG and the more time between refresh cycles, the clearer and crosstalk-free strobing becomes). So let's begin at the lowest Hz. At 75Hz strobed even top/bottom edges can be zero-crosstalk. Keep bumping up 1Hz (76,77,78,79Hz...) and slowly there's slight crosstalk. By the time you reach ....119,120,121Hz, it is more intense at top/bottom edge but center is still very clear.... keep increasing Hz by 1Hz at a time, 142Hz,143Hz,144Hz, it's slightly worse than it was at 120Hz but quite amazingly clear in middle of screen (at framerate-refreshrate-matched motion). Keep going, 176,177,178,179,180Hz, the center is still reasonably clear (sometimes better than an old 120Hz LightBoost monitor, depending on monitor) with much worse strobe crosstalk at top/bottom edges, and it's still a great strobed mode assuming you can maintain 180fps.... Keep going, ....181,182,183....238,239,240 ... The strobe crosstalk is now very bad for top/bottom 1/3rds of screen with semi-clear center. But in some ways it looks better because the phantom array effect is smaller (the separation-distance between multi-image effects is smaller at higher Hz) and they like 240Hz strobing anyway, it just isn't "perfect CRT clear" like a theoretical 240Hz CRT -- but much clearer than a non-strobed 240Hz. Now, you might prefer to avoid strobe crosstalk and use a large-vertical-totals 144Hz or 180Hz mode, as a compromise balance to get clearer CRT-like motion, etc. For good strobe modes, ideally, you want to deliver the refresh cycles at the monitor's maximum dotclock (which even at 60Hz or 120Hz, means delivering a refresh cycle in 1/240sec to the 240Hz monitor even when running at lower Hz). This is because that creates more time between refresh cycles to let LCD GtG pixel transitions complete. Assuming you keep dotclock constant (at highest dotclock) for the best strobing, then mathematically, the higher the Hz, the less time you have between refresh cycles, and the ever-slightly-worse strobe crosstalk becomes.
</TECHNICAL>

TL;DR: When configured ideally, strobing (ULMB/LightBoost/DyAc) never "suddenly get worse" after an exact Hz. For flexible-configurable strobe modes, it is simply is an analog continuum of slowly worsening strobe crosstalk as you go higher Hz. It appears all the 240Hz monitors do decent 120Hz or 144Hz strobing by default now. What BenQ/Zowie does is unlocks it to let you strobe at higher refresh rates (no arbitrary strobe refresh rate cap) even if it sometimes result in a bad crosstalk. Most of the time, many users simply set-it-and-forget-it. But others of us can do advanced strobe crosstalk-reducing tweaks, as optional power-user tweaking.
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter!
User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3595
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

Re: Best 240hz monitor for FPS

Postby Chief Blur Buster » 05 Sep 2017, 15:27

P.S. To support Blur Busters, buy via Official List of Best Gaming Monitors or through these links:

* BenQ/Zowie XL2540 - 240Hz / FreeSync / MBR
* BenQ/Zowie XL2546 - 240Hz / FreeSync / DyAc
* Acer XB252Q - 240Hz / G-SYNC / ULMB
* Acer XB272Q - 240Hz / G-SYNC / ULMB
* ASUS ROG PG258Q - 240Hz / G-SYNC / ULMB

Thank you in advance! :)
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter!
User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3595
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

Re: Best 240hz monitor for FPS

Postby beery » 05 Sep 2017, 16:59

StillBlaze wrote:Ended up going with BenQ, Will see how the DYAC goes, sad no GSYNC.


Let me know how it goes mate :)
beery
 
Posts: 5
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 01:10

Re: Best 240hz monitor for FPS

Postby lexlazootin » 06 Sep 2017, 08:22

Chief Blur Buster wrote:Correct, it's an opinion; a user preference.
(P.S. I think you meant "maximum refreshrate")


I meant to say minimum FPS :D

Because Half-Life speed running is capped to 100fps i've gotten so used to the consistent 100fps G-Sync experience that now when any game fluctuates it's so glaring. I recently bought Rainbow 6 Sedge for my self and was going to finally play a game for the first time above 100fps in 9 months only to come to realize that my hardware couldn't handle it to have to cap it at 100fps anyways :lol:
lexlazootin
 
Posts: 909
Joined: 16 Dec 2014, 02:57

Re: Best 240hz monitor for FPS

Postby StillBlaze » 06 Sep 2017, 09:24

Chief Blur Buster wrote:
StillBlaze wrote:Ended up going with BenQ, Will see how the DYAC goes, sad no GSYNC.

I'd like to know how your BenQ/Zowie experience goes. I'm particularly interested in how it directly compares to the very old XL2410T.


I am on a BenQ XL2411Z for about 4 years now, so I should be able to give quite an accurate description of the differences. Hopefully it arrives by Friday and I will play a ton of CSGO/Quake Live/Quake Champions/Overwatch @ 240+ FPS as well as some stuff like Battlefield1 at like 180 FPS etc to see.

I trust BenQ for FPS games much more than Asus and if DYAC is anything close to Blur Busters Strobe I think it is a much better option than GSync.
StillBlaze
 
Posts: 20
Joined: 08 Jul 2014, 10:57

PreviousNext

Return to General - Displays, Graphics & More

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests