Blur Busters Forums

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

XG2402 vs XG2530

Everything about displays and monitors. 120Hz, 144Hz, 240Hz, 4K, 1440p, input lag, display shopping, monitor purchase decisions, compare, versus, debate, and more. Questions? Just ask!

XG2402 vs XG2530

Postby Holyshawarma » 25 Aug 2018, 12:00

Hey!

I can currently get the XG2530 for practically the same price as the XG2402 and I was just wondering if there is any reason not to go for it? I have a gtx 1060 6gb so my plan was to go for the XG2402 as I hear it is the best 24 inch, 1080p, 144Hz monitor (I play mainly fortnite) but with this deal I thought why not a 240Hz monitor, even though I cannot utilise it fully (for now).

Getting a gsync monitor with similar specs for a reasonable price has proven difficult here in Sweden (like the XB214H) and 240Hz gsync monitors are really expensive and not worth it given I only have a 1060 at the moment, so freesync and the XG2402 (or potentially XG2530) seems like the best option.

I would greatly appreciate some information on this and if it is worth it, and what the trade-offs for going with the XG2530 might be.

Thanks!
Holyshawarma
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 25 Aug 2018, 06:26

Re: XG2402 vs XG2530

Postby Chief Blur Buster » 27 Aug 2018, 00:19

If you're always playing at 240Hz, definitely worth it!

As long as you're not choosing to play at 60Hz (several current 240Hz monitors have minor framebuffering lag when forced to run at only 60Hz) -- and only 240Hz -- then there's little downside to choosing the XG2530 over the XG2402. It's the best FreeSync-compatible 240Hz monitor that I've seen so far.

The only catch is that you're using an NVIDIA product, so you won't be able to utilize the FreeSync support of the XG2530. But you wouldn't have been able to do that with the XG2402 either.... The XG2560 supports GSYNC but does costs more than the XG2530, though there may be back-to-school sales going on...

How important is variable refresh rate support to you? If you are super-sensitive to stutter -- it can eliminate stutter of varying framerates -- A demo animation is at www.testufo.com/vrr
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter

       To support Blur Busters:
       • Official List of Best Gaming Monitors
       • List of G-SYNC Monitors
       • List of FreeSync Monitors
       • List of Ultrawide Monitors
User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

Re: XG2402 vs XG2530

Postby Holyshawarma » 27 Aug 2018, 04:09

Thank you so much for your response! I must say this forum has been a blessing, there is so much good information here.

Yeah, I have been reading constantly for the last two days and I think it might be worth it to just "invest" in a g-sync monitor, as ulmb looks like something I will benefit from if I cannot run fortnite at 240Hz consistently. Instead, I can possibly run it at 144Hz ulmb and then other games I play using g-sync.

Are there any monitors that are 23-25 inch, 1080p, 240Hz, g-sync coming out this year? I heard about the MSI but that's about it.

Thanks again!
Holyshawarma
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 25 Aug 2018, 06:26

Re: XG2402 vs XG2530

Postby MatrixQW » 07 Jan 2019, 10:17

I'm in the same situation.
I want to buy XG2402, from what i read it's the best 144hz monitor for gaming with good image but i can't find it anywhere, physical store and online. Would be very strange if it's not for sale anymore.
I can get XG2530 for 300€, only thing i'm worried is i don't know what is the input lag since Rtings, Tftcentral and Prad.de didn't do a review.
From Rtings, XG2402 has a 4.1ms input lag and using freesync it's 4.3ms, wich is amazing.
Some say that 240hz have higher input lag and since there are no tests for XG2530 i don't take a risk.
Maybe anyone someone tried XG2530 and throw some light?
MatrixQW
 
Posts: 73
Joined: 07 Jan 2019, 10:01

Re: XG2402 vs XG2530

Postby Notty_PT » 07 Jan 2019, 11:39

Considering the news we had today, about Gsync/FreeSync available for most monitores with Nvidia GPUs, I start to find less and less reasons to buy 240hz. To me one of the biggest 240hz advantages was the fact I could run a game with an unlocked framerate, without VRR or Vsync. As the monitor has a persistence of 4ms it would always be smooth as silk. This is the biggest advantage I ever noticed compared to 144hz monitors where I´m always forced to cap framerate to 143 with or without vsync.

Now that we will have VRR on most monitors, capping framerate to 141 + FreeSync will be as smooth as 240hz + uncapped framerate. The only difference will be the input lag, slightly better on 240hz. But you will still need a beefy CPU and GPU to feed really high fps and on many games that´s very hard. While a 141fps cap at 1080p is very easy for today´s tech. A 3,5ghz 4cores/8threads CPU has no problems sustaining 141 fps on most games. While for 180-200-240fps you need overclocked Intel chips at least 4,5ghz.

So basically 240hz right now will be for those that want the 0.5ms input lag advantage :D

Worth mentioning that having inconsistent framerate, like 170fps to 240fps, on 240hz monitor, can lead to worse aim than having constant 141 locked fps on 144hz, as it affects mouse sensitiviy and response time.
Notty_PT
 
Posts: 242
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 02:50

Re: XG2402 vs XG2530

Postby hkngo007 » 08 Jan 2019, 01:35

MatrixQW wrote:I'm in the same situation.
I want to buy XG2402, from what i read it's the best 144hz monitor for gaming with good image but i can't find it anywhere, physical store and online. Would be very strange if it's not for sale anymore.
I can get XG2530 for 300€, only thing i'm worried is i don't know what is the input lag since Rtings, Tftcentral and Prad.de didn't do a review.
From Rtings, XG2402 has a 4.1ms input lag and using freesync it's 4.3ms, wich is amazing.
Some say that 240hz have higher input lag and since there are no tests for XG2530 i don't take a risk.
Maybe anyone someone tried XG2530 and throw some light?


Sounds like a pretty good deal to get the XG2530 as long as you're okay with the input lag increase and can maintain 240fps to take advantage of the refresh rate.

Pcmonitor.info does some good reviews of monitors and has reviewed both these monitors. You can get some good information from them.
https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/viewsonic-xg2402/
https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/viewsonic-xg2530/

The XG2530 (240hz) has 8.67ms of input lag at 240hz and,
XG2402 (144hz) has 3.16ms of input lag at 144hz.

So far the reviews I've seen show 240hz have higher input lag than 144hz monitors :( majority of the time. I am not sure where people are getting their information that 240hz has lower input lag, but I am keen to find out if they share!

TFTcentral has done a few 240hz reviews including the input lag figures. Have a look at the graph in this link (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg_27gk750f.htm#lag).

They defined the input lag as:
In reality that lag / delay is caused by a combination of two things - the signal processing delay caused by the TFT electronics / scaler, and the response time of the pixels themselves. Most "input lag" measurements over the years have always been based on the overall display lag (signal processing + response time) and indeed the SMTT tool is based on this visual difference between a CRT and TFT and so measures the overall display lag. In practice the signal processing is the element which gives the feel of lag to the user, and the response time of course can impact blurring, and overall image quality in moving scenes.


240hz monitors in that graph ~ signal processing portion
TN - PG258Q ~ 2.90ms
TN - AG251FZ ~ 3.70ms
TN - LG27GK750F ~ 6.40ms

Some 144-165hz monitors in that graph ~ signal processing portion
IPS - XB270HU ~ 0.25ms
IPS - PG279Q ~ 0.75ms
TN - S2716DG ~ 2.70ms
TN - PG278Q ~ 2.55ms
TN - XL2730Z ~ 2.30ms

Pcmonitor.info also reviewed the AG251FG https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/aoc-ag2 ... onsiveness and input lag was 4.68ms at 240hz, which is higher than the XG2402 ~ 3.16ms.

Each sites review of their 240hz and 144-165hz monitor seem to result in overall findings that there is higher input lag at 240hz than at 144-165hz.

But there are certainly perks of 240hz that has been mentioned already.
hkngo007
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 28 Nov 2017, 01:40

Re: XG2402 vs XG2530

Postby MatrixQW » 08 Jan 2019, 11:09

Don't know how precise those values are for XG from pcmonitors.info. XG2402 from Rtings is 4.1ms input lag. 3.16ms beats all monitors in the market.
And the 8.67ms for XG2530 must be accounting pixel response time. If not, it's too high.
Pixel response is 1ms gray-to-gray, for other colors it varies up to 5.
240hz have slightly higher input lag. I would only buy a 240hz is price was less than 50€ difference and low input lag.

Anyway, all this information will become irrelevant if/when oled gaming monitors arrive, due to 0.1ms pixel responsetime and 0.2ms input lag.
MatrixQW
 
Posts: 73
Joined: 07 Jan 2019, 10:01

Re: XG2402 vs XG2530

Postby Notty_PT » 08 Jan 2019, 14:02

hkngo007 wrote:
MatrixQW wrote:I'm in the same situation.
I want to buy XG2402, from what i read it's the best 144hz monitor for gaming with good image but i can't find it anywhere, physical store and online. Would be very strange if it's not for sale anymore.
I can get XG2530 for 300€, only thing i'm worried is i don't know what is the input lag since Rtings, Tftcentral and Prad.de didn't do a review.
From Rtings, XG2402 has a 4.1ms input lag and using freesync it's 4.3ms, wich is amazing.
Some say that 240hz have higher input lag and since there are no tests for XG2530 i don't take a risk.
Maybe anyone someone tried XG2530 and throw some light?


Sounds like a pretty good deal to get the XG2530 as long as you're okay with the input lag increase and can maintain 240fps to take advantage of the refresh rate.

Pcmonitor.info does some good reviews of monitors and has reviewed both these monitors. You can get some good information from them.
https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/viewsonic-xg2402/
https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/viewsonic-xg2530/

The XG2530 (240hz) has 8.67ms of input lag at 240hz and,
XG2402 (144hz) has 3.16ms of input lag at 144hz.

So far the reviews I've seen show 240hz have higher input lag than 144hz monitors :( majority of the time. I am not sure where people are getting their information that 240hz has lower input lag, but I am keen to find out if they share!

TFTcentral has done a few 240hz reviews including the input lag figures. Have a look at the graph in this link (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg_27gk750f.htm#lag).

They defined the input lag as:
In reality that lag / delay is caused by a combination of two things - the signal processing delay caused by the TFT electronics / scaler, and the response time of the pixels themselves. Most "input lag" measurements over the years have always been based on the overall display lag (signal processing + response time) and indeed the SMTT tool is based on this visual difference between a CRT and TFT and so measures the overall display lag. In practice the signal processing is the element which gives the feel of lag to the user, and the response time of course can impact blurring, and overall image quality in moving scenes.


240hz monitors in that graph ~ signal processing portion
TN - PG258Q ~ 2.90ms
TN - AG251FZ ~ 3.70ms
TN - LG27GK750F ~ 6.40ms

Some 144-165hz monitors in that graph ~ signal processing portion
IPS - XB270HU ~ 0.25ms
IPS - PG279Q ~ 0.75ms
TN - S2716DG ~ 2.70ms
TN - PG278Q ~ 2.55ms
TN - XL2730Z ~ 2.30ms

Pcmonitor.info also reviewed the AG251FG https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/aoc-ag2 ... onsiveness and input lag was 4.68ms at 240hz, which is higher than the XG2402 ~ 3.16ms.

Each sites review of their 240hz and 144-165hz monitor seem to result in overall findings that there is higher input lag at 240hz than at 144-165hz.

But there are certainly perks of 240hz that has been mentioned already.


I despise websites like Pcmonitors or TFTcentral, input lag wise. Their methodology is outdated and very innacurate. If you want a good source for input lag measures check Prad.de or Rtings. 240hz offers less input lag than any 144hz monitor, this is a fact.

The thing is that the 240hz monitors are not tweaked or matured enough, so at 144hz and 60hz they are way slower than the 144hz monitors. They end up being faster at 240hz because of the increased refresh rate. But the end result is what matters, and they are faster.

However, and as I mentioned earlier, the ViewSonic XG2402 is so fast, that you wil barely notice a difference. Because this monitor does 4,1ms at 144hz, according to rtings, and something like the BenqXL2540 240hz monitor, for example, does 3,7ms. So we are talking about 0,4ms difference wich I doubt you can even notice.

If we take into account that now you gonna be able to use VRR with any monitor and GPU and that 240hz hardware requirements are very high, I would go XG2402 route tbh.

Remember, sometimes having stable performance is more important for aiming. I will give examples based on my Quake experience (the game I mostly play, prolly the highest skill gap game):

- If I play 144hz @ 141fps lock I can sustain 141fps across the board on every situation. My CPU load doesn´t exceed 60% and GPU is around 40%. My aim is tight, consistent and strong. I can get 50% to 55% LG accuracy a lot of times.

- If I play 240hz @ unlocked framerate, I can´t sustain a fixed framerate so my frames are around the 160-250 interval. Even with an overclocked 4,8ghz Intel CPU + 3600mhz CL16 DDR4. I get less input lag than the earlier 144hz experience, yes I do, and I notice it, but I actually end up playing worse.

Why?

Because my frames are all over the place, and when you are not on a locked framerate your mouse sensitivity is always changing, wich is bad for muscle memory and aim stabilization. Altho my brain appreciates the reduced input lag and responsiveness wich is objectively improved by using 240hz , my overall performance is worse. I start to miss more hits because of the inconsistent mouse behaviour.

Now you may say that if we can lock framerate to 237fps on 240hz it would then be better than 144hz on both input lag and aim stabilization right? Absolutely right! The problem is sustaining that kind of framerate in most game engines.

I can already assure you that with an overclocked i7 8700k @ 4,9ghz and using a 720p 50% res scale with Low settings (to exclude GPU bottlenecks) you can´t stabilize 237fps in:

- Quake Champions
- Battlefield 1
- Battlefield V
- Black Ops 4
- Rainbow 6
- Call of Duty WW2
- Pubg
- Fortnite
- Escape from Tarkov

You can do it on:

- Overwatch
- Counter Strike
- Quake Live
- Reflex

So basically older engines. As new and faster CPUs come out, they will be able to assure 237fps on most engines, but it takes time and some engines are always evolving too. This is the problem with 240hz.

As you can see is very hard to have both worlds with 240hz. So you have to think and decide for yourself. Do you want the smooth and really low input lag amazing experience that 240hz delivers at the cost of actually having shakier aim or investing loads to keep the system up with the Hz?

Or do you want to have a bit higher input lag, less motion clarity, but a tight consistent experience? And now even better, that everyone will be able to use FreeSync/VRR and increase motion clarity on any 144hz monitor (because VRR increases motion clarity)?

Another option you have is using 200hz on 240hz monitor, or even try to cap fps to 200 instead (even at 240hz), wich you can get easier than tight 237. It will still deliver a faster experience than 144hz, but how much? And how much you need to spend on CPU and GPU to get such performance?

All these questions is something you need to ask yourself. No one can tell you what´s best or worse; is something each user needs to evaluate :)

Cheers
Notty_PT
 
Posts: 242
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 02:50

Re: XG2402 vs XG2530

Postby boykale » 08 Jan 2019, 14:46

Is locking fps to 237 for 240Hz or 141 for 144Hz more beneficial than locking them to 240 or 144?
boykale
 
Posts: 14
Joined: 06 Jan 2019, 07:46

Re: XG2402 vs XG2530

Postby MatrixQW » 08 Jan 2019, 14:48

Considering the small diference in input lag and image blur with 144hz and 240hz i want the XG2402. Problem is to find it. There must be some distribution issue or it's not for sale anymore.

If you are familiar with Quake, you must have heard about QuakeWorld. The most difficult game to master, requires extreme skills.
Some players have 240hz and report it shows a bit less blur.
Top players use 144hz and seems to be enough.

Why do you use 3 frames less than hz?
Why not 143 or 144?
Why not above 144?
MatrixQW
 
Posts: 73
Joined: 07 Jan 2019, 10:01

Next

Return to General — Displays, Graphics & More

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests