Welcome back, I understand, and definitely focus on your life's priorities!
Blur Busters isn't intending to go away anytime soon in the refresh rate race.
Welcome back, I understand, and definitely focus on your life's priorities!
Forum Rules wrote: 1. Rule #1: Be Nice. This is published forum rule #1. Even To Newbies & People You Disagree With!
2. Please report rule violations If you see a post that violates forum rules, then report the post.
3. ALWAYS respect indie testers here. See how indies are bootstrapping Blur Busters research!
Can confirm, I was one of the vocal in this thread that complained how bad 240hz was and wasn't worth it at the time. I still stand by what I said on those first gen monitors. They were bad and not worth the cost. I had a better experience on 165hz display than first gen 240hz.Chief Blur Buster wrote: ↑27 May 2020, 13:38Chief Blur Buster wrote:CONFUSING / PARTIALLY OUTDATED THREAD NOTICE
This is an old forum thread that is confusing to new users. Majority of 240 Hz users are happier with 240 Hz than 144 Hz especially on many more recent panels.
Different users are famously picky about different aspects of monitors (sensitivty to stutters, sensitivity to tearing, sensitivity to colors, sensitivity to overdrive artifacts) where sometimes "Everything else but one improves on an early 240Hz panel, etc, etc." There are users sees that one aspect worsen especially on an early/older panel. This thread is typically one of these things.
New users vising this thread now, may wish to skip this thread and research more recent up-to-date information