Should i go with 144hz or 240 ? G-sync or not ?

[madDog]

G-Sync is vital for me, so I would get something with g-sync. Before getting a g-sync monitor, I was constantly tweaking the game's settings to hit my FPS target, I was constantly using CRU to add custom refresh rates (70Hz, 75Hz, 80Hz, etc, whatever the minimum FPS is of the game I'm was playing) so that my target FPS looks smooth, and I was using the -0.01FPS vsync cap to get rid of a big chunk of vsync lag. But I was still annoyed at the remaining vsync lag.

G-Sync eliminated all of that. If I disable g-sync, I can actually see the stutter when the game is running at 100FPS for example and my monitor is set to 165Hz. Whenever there's FPS/Hz mismatch stutter, I can see it and it annoys me to no end With g-sync, I can cap my FPS to whatever I want and I don't have to care and obsess over the game sometimes not reaching the target FPS. If I cap to 100FPS, it still looks perfectly smooth when the game only reaches 80 or 90 due the GPU not keeping up (I'm on a 980 Ti.)

If you're not as obsessed with smoothness and vsync as I am, then g-sync might not be a must for you. It is for me though.

Right now, there's a way to get an idea of how g-sync feels like. You use RTSS and enable its new "scanline sync" setting. To get an accurate representation of g-sync latency, you need either an old game, or a game with light GPU usage (try setting in-game graphics settings to "low" to minimize GPU use.) You then set vsync to OFF in the game and in the nvidia panel, run RTSS and enter something like -50 in the scanline sync box.

You should get a perfectly tear-free image with no input lag at all. G-Sync is like that, except it also works on GPU-heavy games, and your FPS does not need to match the monitor's refresh rate.

Tnx man, will try that with csgo, see how it feels for me. If i were to go with gsync, do you think i would be pleased with Acer predator XB241H ? It's basically the cheapest gsync monitor i can find. Everything else goes above 400€.

[RealNC]

I don't know. If the reviews say it's good. There's also the Dell S2417DG, which is 1440p. The Dell S2716DG (or S2716DGR, same thing) is 27" but probably costs more.

[madDog]

I know about both dell models. The problem is they are hard to get here and much more expensive thene us....

[Chief Blur Buster]

The good news is that there's /usually/ a fair bit of consistency between G-SYNC monitors of the same era of the same panel, panel size and refresh rate.

For example, all the 24.5" 240Hz G-SYNC monitors tend to look the same in amount of motion blur, G-SYNC quality, and available brightness (e.g. nearly 300 nits for 144Hz ULMB). Vendors will often color calibrate differently, or make available different settings such as different gamma. But the monitor is calibrated by NVIDIA -- much of the firmware programming and tuning in a GSYNC monitor is actually done by NVIDIA.

[Notty_PT]

I don´t know if OP already made his decision and I´m sorry for bumping this one, but I tried the ViewSonic XG2402 wich he considered and holy.... it might be the fastest 144hz monitor I ever used in my life. I have 240hz monitor and I swear that XG2402 input lag wasn´t bigger even at 144hz vs my 240hz. I found this very weird until I came across Rtings review of the XG2402 and noticed its input lag is the lowest every they recorded on a 144hz screen - 4,1ms. And this is almost the same they recorded on the first gen 240hz panels, 3,9ms.

That made me ask a question to myself. What if every company had such a fast 144hz monitor... I mean, if you can go as low as 4,1ms on a 144hz screen, that only makes me thing 240hz panels could really be faster than what they are now. I have it side by side with my Asus XG248Q 240hz wich is the fastest monitor I ever used, and I assure you the difference is not noticeable. However if I compare the Asus XG 240hz to any other 144hz I have/had here, the difference is immediatly noticeable. So kudos to viewsonic on that model.

[phatty]

I think there's this fear of potential staggering of the action.

if say the action occurs right before the new frame but before the input lag to push the data through, you hit the display lag + the refresh of the screen.

If 5 ms is something that's noticeable, a 144 hz screen at 7 ms, vs 5 ms.

Input lag is 4 ms, you could be either 10.9 ms or 7.9 ms away from the action. Is that going to make a difference?

But the variance would be 7 ms + input lag, vs 5 ms within the refresh rate correct?

So you potentially have a 5+ ms difference would could affect the gameplay.

I'm not sure if what I'm saying actually occurs, but this is what I perceive is the issue between the two rates and why the 240 hz is very minor improvement to 144 but it is something the pro players can feel. The casual would never notice.

so let's say frame 1 is at 0 ms. then action occurs at 4 ms, on a 144 hertz machine, the next frame would be at 7 ms, which would not have the new data on it, then 14 ms the action would be seen.

on 240, frame 1 is at 0 ms, then actions occurs at 4 ms, next frame would be 5 ms, but 10 ms will be the frame with the action in it.

If you take the worse case scenario for monitor at 144 hz, vs the best case on the 240 hz, you have a notificeable time delay.

[Notty_PT]

I have no idea but lets make this clear. I ALWAYS noticed how more responsive 240hz is compared to 144hz. The thing is that this viewsonic xg2402 is so damn fast that I cant notice anything. Rtings also said is the lowest input lag they ever tested. Even at 60hz with 8,8ms (leo bodnar), wich is crazy as most gaming monitors are 10ms.

[Kjnmr]

Hi there,
you almost got me sold on the ViewSonic monitor, as I am looking for a faster panel. Do you think the panel on the 27 inch version is as good? I am looking for a monitor to replace my BenQ XL2411Z (panel:AUO M240HW01V8 firmware:v004-20141205)
It should be very fast and sharp. Would the Viewsonic be an upgrade to my current monitor?
Thank you!
Kind regards
Markus

[Notty_PT]

Hi there,
you almost got me sold on the ViewSonic monitor, as I am looking for a faster panel. Do you think the panel on the 27 inch version is as good? I am looking for a monitor to replace my BenQ XL2411Z (panel:AUO M240HW01V8 firmware:v004-20141205)
It should be very fast and sharp. Would the Viewsonic be an upgrade to my current monitor?
Thank you!
Kind regards
Markus

I would not risk it mate, because usually 27 inch versions are completly different. From colour banding to input lag, response time etc. So I can´t confirm this, I´m sorry. All I can confirm is that ViewSonic XG2402 is by far the fastest monitor I ever used in my life and it is not any slower than any of the 240hz available.

I wish Chief could have one and test it, even if we have Rtings testings. I assure no one will lose anything by going XG2402 instead of a 240hz panel. Apart, ofc, from more motion clarity and having the option of unlocked framerate across the board.

And even then... this thing is so fast that you can actually cap frames to 144 and you will still have an incredible low input lag, without needing a beefy GPU or CPU. Happy days.

For comparasion, Rtings testing shows that Asus VG248QE has 5,1ms input lag at 144hz. XG2402 has 4,1ms!!!! And Benq XL2540 240hz has 3,7ms. So a 0,4ms difference, not even half of 1ms, wich I doubt anyone can notice, being honest. Rtings also stated that no other monitor was as fast as XG2402 on their testings. And let´s remember Asus VG248QE is still a benchmark input lag wise, a very very fast monitor. So XG2402 is basically on 240hz input lag territory, while having better pixel response time than even those 240hz panels! Crazy! Because 240hz panels still have overdrive inconsistencies due to the refresh rate, while 144hz peaked as it is "old"/mature tech now. Rtings shows XG2402 has lower response time than those 240hz panels.

ANd this is why I said that if manufacters actually tweak their 144hz monitors right, do you really need 240hz? Or I mean, imagine if someone really tweaks 240hz monitor input lag, we could get way less than what we have right now. Let´s be honest, 240hz is almost double of 144hz. If you can have such a low 4,1ms delay on 144hz, you should be able to have 2,5ms on a 240hz screen right? Only Chief can explain this like no one, hope he can read this. So basically we are buying 240hz monitors to counter the fact that most 144hz monitors are not 100% tweaked for lowest possible input lag on the technology.

I seriously think that anyone coming from a ViewSonic XG2402 to a 240hz monitor will have a massive disapointment, because I can´t spot differences between those. While I can immediatly spot differences between 240hz and any other 144hz monitor I tested.

I´m just glad Rtings tested XG2402, because no one would believe me if I said it is as fast as 240hz Matter of fact, I noticed it by myself and couldn´t believe it. Then I looked up for reviews on google and found the rtings one. Quickly seen that they concluced the same; the fastest ever. So yeah I was sure it wasn´t placebo or in my mind only

[Kjnmr]

Thanks for all the info! I highly value your opinion since I read you also play fast paced games like quake. Do you think the 24 inch viewsonic will be a noticeable upgrade to my older benq 144hz? I found no review on input lag on my old monitor, so I cant compare them.