XG240r doesent feel different input lag wise than my old Asus VS248H 60 hz monitor

[d00mer36]

Hello, i am new to the whole input lag thing and just bought my first gaming monitor. i know not the most high end choice, but i couldnt really justify more due to my bad pc (i5 4460, r9 380 and 8gb ddr3) and was worried about ips glow. anyway the monitor really doesent feel much different than my old one on the desktop and if i am dragging windows around it still seems blurry despite my overdrive being set to faster.
in games the only big advantage i see (i played older games at 144+ fps and newer ones at low framerates) is the much lesser tearing even without vsync, freesync etc. (vsync always felt just horrible to me so that is nice, just like in the old days - damn you 60hz!) i do see the 144 hz (and i of course made sure they are enabled) but i wanted to ask if that is just all the difference i can expect? maybe my old monitor was just surprisingly decent? there are sadly no input lag tests of it out there that ive seen. also i do have a 1000 hz deathadder 2013.

[Chief Blur Buster]

Hello, i am new to the whole input lag thing and just bought my first gaming monitor. i know not the most high end choice, but i couldnt really justify more due to my bad pc (i5 4460, r9 380 and 8gb ddr3) and was worried about ips glow. anyway the monitor really doesent feel much different than my old one on the desktop and if i am dragging windows around it still seems blurry despite my overdrive being set to faster.

You also have a pre-2020-era high Hz IPS, which has a slightly slower LCD GtG than the post-2020-era FastIPS panels, so 144Hz IPS of that era is not quite as clear as 144Hz TN of that era.

Nontheless, it should be approximately ((144/60ths)-(GtG speed)) clearer motion, which translates to approximately half as much motion blur as 60Hz. So looking at www.testufo.com should have approximately half the display motion blur of 60 Hz.

Doubling Hz only halves sample-and-hold motion blur, so you need to double Hz to halve display motion blur. 240Hz has 1/4th window-drag motion blur as 60Hz (assuming GtG=0ms, so real world is 3x-3.5x clearer). If scrolling motion blur was priority, then even an older PC can handle a 240Hz monitor.

For other forum readers, I should remind that they should not necessarily refrain from shopping for 240 Hz. It is not necessary to refrain from buying a 240hz monitor for an older PC as long as you derive some benefit (e.g. dragging/scrolling) and also that 100fps @ 240Hz has even less input lag (and less tearing) than 100fps at 144Hz. Also LFC stutter is much more invisible so 20-40fps on a 240Hz FreeSync monitor plays more smoothly than 20-40fps on a 144Hz FreeSync monitor, because of better LFC logic. However, 240Hz indeed is usually more expensive than 144Hz, so it can be a price consideration too. Most media neglects to explain the advantages of a 240Hz monitor even for sub-240fps operations; However, barring that, modern 240Hz IPS monitors should also be considered in lieu of pre-2020 144Hz IPS monitors, as they are significantly less motion blur (almost 4x less scrolling motion blur in browsing and window dragging) even during sample-and-hold operation;

in games the only big advantage i see (i played older games at 144+ fps and newer ones at low framerates) is the much lesser tearing even without vsync, freesync etc.

This is because tearlines are visible only for 1/144sec instead of 1/60sec, so briefer-visible tearlines are harder to see.

(vsync always felt just horrible to me so that is nice, just like in the old days - damn you 60hz!) i do see the 144 hz (and i of course made sure they are enabled) but i wanted to ask if that is just all the difference i can expect?

Contrary to what people and media falsely tells many -- retina refresh rates is not until far beyond 1000fps 1000Hz. Doubling Hz only halves display motion blur, and it takes a lot of Hz doublings to completely eliminate display motion blur (assuming GtG=0ms, since 0ms GtG still has lots of display motion blur, there are [url=https://blurbusters.com/gtg-vs-mprt]two different pixel response benchmarks, GtG and MPRT{/url])

maybe my old monitor was just surprisingly decent? there are sadly no input lag tests of it out there that ive seen.

It's all about perceptions -- from a motion blur perspective, 60Hz and 144Hz can be perceived as really big (to people who's never seen a CRT) or really small (to people who's seen plasma or CRT). 4x refresh rate differences (60Hz vs 240Hz) is a much bigger motion blur difference. Try to keep framerates as high as you can because display motion blur is pretty much proportional to frametime (up to max Hz) -- 30fps has the same motion blur at 60Hz and 144Hz, assuming same pixel response speeds (both GtG and MPRT).

[d00mer36]

thanks for the answer, but what the XG240r is an ips panel?? every source i read said that its TN. that cant be true. ive never wanted to buy an IPS monitor. yeah and maybe ill look into even higher refresh rate monitors, i bought xg240r because it had so many positive reviews. and i kind of want to play without any sync mode.

[d00mer36]

also do you know if DisplayPort 1.2 would be enough to do 240hz@1080p? i kind of see different opinions when googling