MagneticDev wrote:Hi guys,
Honestly, what do you think about 240hz monitor?
I really want to share my own experience about the Benq xl2546 vs the xl2411z.
First, I played Quake Live at high level and I’m very obsessed about input lag and visibility; now I switched to Overwatch and I want to share my feelings about those two monitors.
The first time I used the 2546, I was like “WAOW” but after few weeks, my eyes became very tired and it was so difficult to track with my eyes. I also feel like there is more input lag on the 2546 but I was thinking ‘it’s probably in my head’. After that, I’ve noticed when I’m in a team fight in Overwatch, it was super confusing, like all the colors mix together…
And then I plug my xl2411z back: the screen feels way way more reactive, the image is more sharp, the colors are not as good as the 2546, but I can track enemy again and it’s less confusing.
So, I become super old or this 240hz monitor is overrated?
And Yes chief, I already tried to change hz, make custom resolution BUT when I take a 240hz monitor, it's to play at 240hz.
This is my config :
7700k + 1080ti, 16go ram 3200mhz
One question! Do you have a steady framerate on your games when at 240hz? I´m on my 4th 240hz monitor now; and I still use a 2nd 144hz display. One thing I noticed is that having a steady almost fixed framerate > 240hz. What I mean is that when I use my 144hz monitor with 141fps cap, I can mantain that framerate on almost any game without any problems. For 141fps, and excluding GPU bottlenecks (because you can tweak settings), you only need a relatively recent Intel CPU clocked even at 3,5ghz or so. An i7 4770 non k would do, an i5 8400 3,8ghz defo does it, Skylake i7 6700 non K or i7 7700 non k.
However, keeping steady 200-240fps is very hard for any CPU on most modern engines! Even with an overclocked 4,9ghz i7 8700k, I can´t sustain such framerate on a lot of new games. I noticed that when the framerate is steady I have less eye strain, I like the motion clarity more and of course, I aim and play better (wich you noticed aswell on 144hz), because my fps are steady and that influences the mouse behaviour a lot! Something a lot of gamers, from pros to non-pros, are not aware of. Sure if you are good you are good, but I assure you that aiming with a steady framerate is way superior, even if you have less FPS. For example:
- Black Ops 4 -> I can´t sustain steady 240fps, so it is jumping from 180 to 240; I can sustain 141fps easily, and I aim better this way.
So this is why I´m asking you this question because from my experience with 240hz, and altho I love its smoothness and low input lag, the inconsistent framerates don´t help a single bit for both my eyes and aim. Once we go 480hz or 1000hz one day, as Chief dreams about, it will still be hard for CPUs to keep up. I don´t think CPUs nowadays are ready yet for 240hz to be honest.
This is my opinion about 240hz:
Altho it objectively has better motion clarity (when not using VRR or Vsync on 144hz) and lower input lag (4ms persistence), no CPU is ready yet for it. No CPU can maintan steady locked 240fps, or even 200fps on every single game out there. And in modern games that´s a lost cause. It can sustain 240fps on older engines maybe, like Quake Live, Battlefield 3 or Black Ops 1, or Mobas (where you don´t even need such high framerate). But on Black Ops 4, Battlefield 4/1/5, WW2, Quake Champions, Pubg, Fortnite, etc, no way. It just can´t handle it, not even a 5ghz i9 9900k. We will have to wait maybe 2 more CPU gens, 7nm + 5,5ghz clocks + improved IPC, for such thing to happen. And this, in my opinion, breaks the benefits of 240hz, a lot! Specially for someone like me that loves to get a steady framerate. Imo, even in games where you don´t need good aim, steady framerate is always superior to a floaty one. Even with VRR, once you bounce more than 20fps/30fps difference (141 to 110 for example), you immediatly notice it and is not good.
This is something I would love Chief to talk about on a future article. I think a lot of people still ignore the advantages of having a steady fixed framerate in every game.
This is ViewSonic XG2402 reviewd on Rtings aswell. Benq 240hz has 3,7ms input lag, Viewsonic 144hz 4,1ms. 0,4ms difference, so almost nothing. And this is why I´ve been saying that 240hz monitors need to be tweaked by companies, because I think 3,7ms is far from their lowest possible input lag. With that being said, ViewSonic XG2402 is the fastest 144hz monitor I ever tried (and rtings too). Even the well acclaimed Asus VG248Q, known for its very low input lag, is 5,1ms.