Why I'm done with 240hz

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!
Notty_PT
Posts: 481
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 02:50

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Post by Notty_PT » 25 Jan 2019, 21:50

Q83Ia7ta wrote:I'm happy with mine XL2540. I've owned and used dozens of monitors before that 240Hz one. I just play only one game: Quake Champions and Quake Live before it. I don't use any x-sync or motion blur reduction techs.
Because the mouse sensitivity is always different if the framerate is fluctuating, as frame times are different all the time, and it totally messes up your muscle memory.
I don't get that because Quake Champions polls input 1000hz. Use simple test: set 60fps in Quake Live and try to play and set same 60fps in Quake Champions and you will feel difference.
Well, Quake Champions is my main game! And I do notice how a not steady framerate affects my LG big time. Try to cap framerate to a fixed value and see your LG tracking improve. If I play at 144hz with a 138fps cap, for example, I get even 55% a lot of times. If I use 240hz with fps around 160 to 240, I can never get those accuracies, is night and day difference to me.

On maps like Corrupted Keep, Tempest Shrine or Ruins, 240hz only hurts my accuracy because I can´t get fixed 240fps no matter what CPU or clock speeds I use. Even tried 4000mhz DDR4 + 5,2ghz overclock on a Coffee Lake CPU, no luck! Always got variable framerates and that´s not good to me.

For QUake Live 240hz is perfect because that´s a very old engine and any CPU can sustain its 250fps default lock. But I don´t play older games only, I spend more time on modern games like Quake Champions, Black Ops 4 or Battlefield V. Getting 240fps on those games is out of question. We need 2 more CPU generations maybe, to make 240hz optimal.

Vega
Posts: 191
Joined: 18 Dec 2013, 21:33

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Post by Vega » 26 Jan 2019, 02:28

I agree with the OP. CPU utilization is all over the map in newer games depending on what is being rendered. Gone are the old days of Quake or Counterstrike where you can lock on the highest refresh/FPS and not worry about it. (unless you still play those games of course!)

IMO, based on where games are at in my testing, 144 Hz/FPS to about 175 Hz/FPS is the "sweet spot" for a modern CPU to keep things chugging along without massive FPS swings.

But I may have to "settle" for 120 Hz/FPS (really 118 due to VRR frame-cap application) on the new Alienware 4K OLED coming out. ;)

MatrixQW
Posts: 168
Joined: 07 Jan 2019, 10:01

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Post by MatrixQW » 26 Jan 2019, 05:52

Notty_PT wrote:Now, at 144hz my average score after 50 rounds was 41350.
At 240hz my average score after 50 rounds was 39950.

Really close results. We can consider that I aimed as good with 144hz as I do with 240hz. The thing is that this engine is light, so I could use a steady 239fps cap without any fluctuation at 240hz.
With this exercise you confirm that 240hz doesn't make you play better even at steady fps.
So choosing 240hz thinking it will make someone a better player is a bad choice.
Sure, technically 240hz has less input lag than 144hz and maybe a bit more motion clarity but the reality is it doesn't translate to more frags.

Notty_PT
Posts: 481
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 02:50

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Post by Notty_PT » 26 Jan 2019, 09:41

Vega wrote:I agree with the OP. CPU utilization is all over the map in newer games depending on what is being rendered. Gone are the old days of Quake or Counterstrike where you can lock on the highest refresh/FPS and not worry about it. (unless you still play those games of course!)

IMO, based on where games are at in my testing, 144 Hz/FPS to about 175 Hz/FPS is the "sweet spot" for a modern CPU to keep things chugging along without massive FPS swings.

But I may have to "settle" for 120 Hz/FPS (really 118 due to VRR frame-cap application) on the new Alienware 4K OLED coming out. ;)
Exactly! And I could just use a 180hz refresh but the current 240hz models are terrible at lower hz. The overdrive gets really bad. I tried everything and couldnt get an as good experience as I did with a good 144hz panel. Asus pg248q and acer xb are 180hz monitors but it is with overclock too.
MatrixQW wrote:
Notty_PT wrote:Now, at 144hz my average score after 50 rounds was 41350.
At 240hz my average score after 50 rounds was 39950.

Really close results. We can consider that I aimed as good with 144hz as I do with 240hz. The thing is that this engine is light, so I could use a steady 239fps cap without any fluctuation at 240hz.
With this exercise you confirm that 240hz doesn't make you play better even at steady fps.
So choosing 240hz thinking it will make someone a better player is a bad choice.
Sure, technically 240hz has less input lag than 144hz and maybe a bit more motion clarity but the reality is it doesn't translate to more frags.
And in that test I had a steady framerate (239fps) as aim hero engine is very light. Now imagine with a floaty framerate. The motion clarity is defo superior and it enhances your experience but once you drop frames it is bad again.

User avatar
RealNC
Site Admin
Posts: 2827
Joined: 24 Dec 2013, 18:32
Contact:

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Post by RealNC » 26 Jan 2019, 17:36

Well, 240Hz panels are for eSports monitors. Obviously you can't run Final Fantasy XV, Deus EX and Assassin's Creed at 240FPS. These are for CS:GO, Fortnite, Overwatch, etc.

As with anything else: get the correct tool for your use case. The 240Hz panels are focused on eSports. If you're a normal gamer, you're probably better off with a regular gaming monitor. If you play eSports games for the majority of the time, then you can consider a 240Hz eSports display.

I have hundreds of games. The vast majority of games I play 95% of the time won't run even remotely close to 240FPS on any current hardware. Sure, I do enjoy a few rounds of CS:GO and Overwatch here and there, but that doesn't mean I should get an eSports display.
TwitterSteamGitHubStack Overflow
The views and opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Blur Busters.

Notty_PT
Posts: 481
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 02:50

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Post by Notty_PT » 26 Jan 2019, 18:48

Imo is not only about being competitive, but also about experiences. 240hz motion clarity is awesome if you can sustain the fps. And sure, I dont even play games like Tomb Raider or Batman on a monitor. I play most of those games on a big TV + PS4 with a controller + game motion plus (samsung interpolation wich provides only 21ms input lag and provides similar smoothness to 120hz). When I play that kind of game on PC I can get away with a 60fps cap anyway no problem.

The thing is that even shooters like Black Ops 4, Battlefield or Quake Champions cant sustain 220fps-240fps and on these 240hz panels the overdrive is messy when framerate drops. Something I dont notice when framerate drops to 100 on a 144hz monitor, for example.

According to rtings even XL2546 240hz monitor has higher response time than XG2402 144hz.

So I cant say 240hz is bad, is more about how hardware is not ready yet for it and the fact the panels are not matured enough.

Imagine if we had a 144hz monitor in 2002 and couldnt sustain 140fps on Medal of Honor AA or Half Life. 144hz was still superior to the usual 85hz in that time, but we couldnt take fully advantage yet. Unless we played Quake 1 from 1996 or Doom or Duke Nukem from the 90s. This is how I feel about 240hz. It is objectively superior, but unless you play an old engine game, it ends being a bad option, specially when it struggles so much with the pixel response timr at lower framerates or Hz.

But I am sure with time things will improve. 7nm are around the cotner. CPUs getting slowly faster and more 240hz models will appear for sure with better overdrive (0,5ms and matured tweaked overdrive etc).

The way I look at it is a bit like Ray Tracing. Amazing tech, but too early and better let it mature.

Sure if someone plays only CounterStrike (12 y old engine), Quake Live (20 y old engine) or Overwatch (more recent but still 5 year old), then they can fully take advantage already from 240hz. But altho I understand why you pair 240hz usage with esports, I think the experience it delivers should be enjoyed by more casual gamers too, the motion clarity is a joy.

User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
Posts: 6512
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Post by Chief Blur Buster » 26 Jan 2019, 20:56

RealNC wrote:As with anything else: get the correct tool for your use case.
This.
But I want to see game developers up the framepacing game to enable better operations at 240Hz. Adding VR-quality programming techniques to non-VR games to achieve consistent frametimes at high framerates.

Eventually I see frame rate amplification technology (FRAT) helping solve the "framerate consistency", "lag consistency" and "high framerate" problem within 10 years.
- Like Oculus Reprojection 45fps->90fps but applied to tomorrow, e.g. 96fps->480fps or 96fps->960fps or 100fps->1000fps
- You lock framerate at 100fps
- You have the frame rate amplification technology do the converting 100fps -> 500fps or 1000fps
- Lag stays more consistent
- Ultrahigh framerate on ultrahigh refreshrates provides motion blur elimination benefits
- This can theoretically be done at sub-frame latency with realtime feedbacking (mouse Hz) straight into the reprojection logic
- Interpolators are guessworky black boxes. Reprojectors and other framerate amplification technologies are NOT.
- Future reprojectors will be able to do high framerate amplification ratios like 10x instead of 2x
- Framerate amplification technology can be applied to realtime raytracing too! By being part of the temporal equation (including the realtime denoising algorithm)
- If reprojection looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has low lag like a duck, doesn't have interpolation artifacts, has proper parallax (thanks to Z-buffer awareness), fixes more of today's remaining artifacts , then reprojection might as well be perceptually lossless, and then we might as well not do a full hard-core GPU rerendering every single frame, and simply use framerate amplification technology to fill in the gaps between the games.
RealNC wrote:The 240Hz panels are focused on eSports.
There's other use cases, too, such as the blur-sensitive / flicker-sensitive.
The 240Hz eSports panels are a godsend for anyone who needs flickerfree motion clarity in the Windows desktop.
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: 6512
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Post by Chief Blur Buster » 26 Jan 2019, 22:01

I am cross-posting here because it's relevant to the Refresh Rate Race to future Retina Refresh Rates.
Chief Blur Buster wrote:
Notty_PT wrote:Why you want strobing at 60hz VS no strobing 144hz?
There are use cases.
Even Low-Hz strobing has less motion blur than even 240Hz.

Blur Buster's Law
"1ms of pixel visibility time (persistence) equals 1 pixel of motion blur per 1000 pixels/second"

(For more detailed math and animations, plus links to papers, see 1000Hz Journey article)

Non-strobed displays (where GtG isn't the limiting factor to the refresh rate)
60fps at 60Hz = 1/60sec motion blur ~= 16.7ms = 16.7 pixels of motion blur at 1000 pixels/sec
120fps at 120Hz = 1/120sec motion blur ~= 8.3ms = 8.3 pixels of motion blur at 1000 pixels/sec
240fps at 240Hz = 1/240sec motion blur ~= 4.2ms = 4.2 pixels of motion blur at 1000 pixels/sec
480fps at 480Hz = 1/480sec motion blur ~= 2.1ms = 2.1 pixels of motion blur at 1000 pixels/sec

Strobed displays, any refresh rate, as long as framerate equals refresh rate (e.g. VSYNC ON)
8ms flash per unique frame = 8 pixels of motion blur at 1000 pixels/sec
4ms flash per unique frame = 4 pixels of motion blur at 1000 pixels/sec
2ms flash per unique frame = 2 pixels of motion blur at 1000 pixels/sec
1ms flash per unique frame = 1 pixels of motion blur at 1000 pixels/sec

Image

See.... You only need 1ms flash ULMB VSYNC ON perfect FPS=HZ, to match the motion clarity of a 1000Hz display*
(*with some caveats, read below)

As a result, strobed VSYNC ON is a much easier way to reach those "diminishing points of returns" than ultra refresh rates. It does have more stroboscopic effects, but motion clarity of TestUFO is exactly the same. Remember, persistence is pixel visibility time, you can use shorter frames or do strobing to reduce pixel visibility time. The motion blur math is the same.

Strobe crosstalk (see FAQ) gets worse at higher Hz, so lowering the refresh rate well below maximum can massively improve strobe quality. A compromise strobe frequency is approximately 85Hz or 100Hz. Not as flickery as 60Hz, but not as strobe-crosstalky at 240Hz.

That's why we sometimes like 1ms-flashed 60Hz strobed displays. Though 60Hz flickers quite a bit.
  • Some of us have more eye pain from motion blur than eye pain from flicker.
  • Vision sensitivity to various things vary a lot between humans.
  • Some are sensitive to colors. Others are not (color blindness or partially)
  • Some are sensitive to stutters. Others are not.
  • Some are sensitive to tearing. Others are not.
  • Some are sensitive to motion. Others are not (motion blindness called "Akinetopsia", but partial cases exist too)
  • Some are sensitive to flicker (PWM, CRT, strobe, or only some kinds of flicker, etc). Others are not.
  • Some can see perfectly clear better than 20/20. Others are not.
Everybody tends to see slightly differently than the next human.

So if flicker is unimportant, 60Hz blur reduction (e.g. BenQ XL2411P) is sometimes a godsend for those 60fps-locked games or gaming consoles.

Sure, some of these are first world problems, but in the age of PWM-free monitors with GSYNC/ULMB, few monitors are properly targeted to the blur-sensitive. And the mantra of "use VSYNC OFF" does degrade strobe quality somewhat (kills the TestUFO-smooth effect) since framerate-locked motion has less eye-pain when you use strobed modes.

VSYNC OFF is great for low lag. But when using ULMB with refresh-rate unsynchronized motion....uhhhh, excuse me: Fluctuating low-framerate with strobe backlights can create eye pain during strobed operation for some people due to the serrating effect of random multi-image effect, it's like a serrated knife for certain human eyes:
Image
Some people can't stand that, it creates major eye pain (moreso from this artifact THAN from the flicker!) Sometimes flicker is the problem. But we have readers here who get eye-pain from PWM but no pain from ULMB VSYNC ON. So, to fix the problem, you need to lower strobe rate to the same ballpark of the framerate....or preferably perfect match.

Not everybody is bothered by it. But some of us are; the eyestrain disappears for some of us with perfect framerate-matched ULMB.
  • Some of us can tolerate global flash (varying average photons like ULMB)
    Pretty fine with ULMB
  • Some of us can only tolerate rolling scan flicker (constant average brightness; some dot is always illuminated)
    Only motion blur reduction we're comfortable with is CRT
  • Some of us are flicker sensitive of any kind (all pixels must stay continually illuminated)
    These people flickerfree LCDs, PWM-free, with ULMB turned off
  • Some of us are painfully stutter sensitive to the point where stutter is nausea
    These people find VRR, FreeSync, GSYNC a godsend.
  • Some of us are sensitive to the artifacts of flicker (can't stand motion artifacts like double-images)
    People who get eye pain from PWM-dimming but no eye-pain from strobing VSYNC ON ULMB
  • Varying combinations of above sensitivities.
    e.g. eye pain from PWM-dimming and eye pain from ULMB until ULMB reaches 144Hz.
    e.g. eye pain from stutters AND blur. Requiring perfect stutterless framerate-locked VSYNC ON ULMB
    e.g. eye pain from stutters AND blur AND flicker. Requiring ultra-Hz to fix.
    Or other vision-sensitivity combination
Thousands of people. Being the only website in the world, people reach out to me asking questions privately, email, PM, DM, etc. While I tell them to post publicly, sometimes they are desparate and I try to give them the best advice I can sometimes.

Blur Busters has many dozens of cases of EACH category above. Some of it is poorly scientifically studied, but some of the scientific links are also in the lighting industry paper linked from the 1000Hz-Journey article.

If any researcher reading this, I'm willing to fund a peer reviewed study about "motion blur eyestrain" and the varying thresholds of "flicker discomfort" ratio to "motion blur discomfort" that I've experienced hundreds of people with, ever since Blur Busters launched in Year 2012.

Now, keeping this in mind:

--> Respect People's Preferences From Vision Sensitivities <--
No feeding words in other people's mouths, everyone has preferences.

Myth: "Everyone will always hate 60Hz strobe, its useless to everyone" <-- discouraged on Blur Busters
Myth: "You should never bother with ULMB, it's stuttery/jittery" <-- discouraged on Blur Busters
Myth: "VSYNC ON is useless for everything" <-- discouraged on Blur Busters
Myth: "VSYNC OFF is useless for everything" <-- discouraged on Blur Busters
We all have our own preferences!

So, back to low-Hz strobing.
It doesn't help everyone, but some guidelines to make low-Hz strobing better:
1. Sit slightly further away. Modern computer monitors are bigger than CRT screens.
2. Reduce screen brightness or play games with dark backgrounds. LCDs are brighter than CRT.
3. Adjust ambient lighting.
4. Take breaks.

Then it's the lesser poison of "pick-poison" vision problems sometimes. Sure, some of us have to bump to 85Hz ULMB instead of the 60Hz ULMB Hack. Or we're perfectly fine with 60Hz strobing. It's annoying when NVIDIA disallows 60Hz ULMB when some manufacturers enable it. Some manufacturers just simply display a warning message "WARNING: Flicker. Discontinue using if you have headaches [...] yadda yadda" and that's good enough. Some of us need 60Hz strobing.

....

So, now, there's side effects of low-Hz strobing.

1. Stationary Gaze Issue While Motion Scroll Past: Stroboscopic artifacts
While motion blur is fixed, the stroboscopic effects aren't fixed. The lower the Hz, the more gapped motion is (e.g. steppy or dotty motion in games with high contrast stuff), regardless of whether you do strobing or not.
Image

2. Duplicate images during eye tracking if framerate not matched with refresh rate
That's why strobing often does not look good if frame rate diverges from strobe rate. This is the side effect caused by framerate (not strobe crosstalk caused by pixel response limitations). Same old fashioned CRT/plasma 30fps at 60Hz issue, the old double-image rule occurs when running framerate that is half strobe rate (e.g. 60fps at 120Hz ULMB).
Image

But, if stroboscopic artifacts are no problem, and you're not flicker sensitive....Then...Well, 60Hz strobing is a godsend.

Certainly the strobe lag is a problem for competitive sports but some of us love to play scrolly RTS games that looks amazing with ULMB. With perfect-clear Nintendo-smooth Sega-arcade-smooth TestUFO-smooth ULMB in those scrolly games like RTS or Sonic Hedgehog platformers or if we're an "eye-tracker instead of a crosshairs-starer" in certain turny/scrolly/panny games that have no fixed points of references like a crosshairs. For the non-flicker-sensitive person, 60Hz ULMB hack (or ULMB+GSYNC hack with the RTSS 60fps cap) can be a godsend for emulator use, and look better than software-based black frame insertion.

Low Hz Strobing Can Be Useful Tool
TL;DR Using low-Hz strobing can be a shortcut to motion nirvana than ultra-Hz, if you don't mind flicker or stroboscopic artifacts. You simply lower the strobe refresh rate to just above your flicker tolerance threshold. Then it's much easier to get "framerate = refreshrate = stroberate" with your GPU.

Unfortunately, the only way to solve flicker+stroboscopic artifacts simultaneously with fixing motion blur, will be the ultra-Hz technique of motion blur elimination, instead of the strobe-based technique of motion blur reduction..


However, Refresh Rate Race Must Go On, As One-Size Fixes All
--> 1000fps@1000Hz = No blur, no flicker, no stroboscopics, no stutter, no tearing, no motion artifacts, all gone simultaneously
--> 1000fps@1000Hz = merges all the advantges of VSYNC ON / VSYNC OFF / ULMB / VRR / GSYNC / FreeSync simultaneously into one
--> Even as games catch up, as well as Frame Rate Amplification Techonologies / Framepacing Technologies needing to catch up.
--> New readers: Want to read more about the refresh rate race?
Then read this amazing piece: Blur Busters Law And The Amazing Journey To Future 1000Hz Displays
Now, what is the name of this website about display motion blur... thinking. :D
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

pox02
Posts: 124
Joined: 28 Sep 2018, 06:04

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Post by pox02 » 28 Jan 2019, 23:28

you should look for hes brother XG240R(2.86ms) which have little more low input lag then xg2402(3.16ms)
monitors xg258q aw2518hf 27GK750F-B pg248q xg240r lg w2363d-pf xb270hu

Notty_PT
Posts: 481
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 02:50

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Post by Notty_PT » 29 Jan 2019, 11:57

pox02 wrote:you should look for hes brother XG240R(2.86ms) which have little more low input lag then xg2402(3.16ms)
I´ve seen it on the PCMonitors review, but their methodology to measure input lag is so outdated and innacurate, so I won´t bother until Rtings or Prad review that unit!

According to PCmonitors, Asus VG248QE is faster than XG2402 and oh boy, if you have them side by side you can notice a massive difference (ViewSonic is faster). That´s why Rtings gave 4,1ms to XG2402 and 5,2ms to the Asus, while on PCmonitors Asus model is faster :D

Rather wait for proper input lag test!

Post Reply