Blur Busters Forums

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

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!

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Postby Chief Blur Buster » 01 Feb 2019, 02:09

oskansavli wrote:I forgot to mention that I don't use MAG241C in fastest mode since it gets too dark and freesync gets disabled. So it's more than 1ms GtG. (Even at fastest mode I've heard GtG is greater than 1ms on VA panels).
Let's say if the response time is 5ms, would it mean pixel visibility time is 6.9 + 5 ~= 12ms instead of 6.9 + 1 ~= 8ms of a TN monitor?

GtG is a lot more complicated on how it affects things. See videos at http://www.testufo.com/scanout to understand why better.
When GtG is a tiny fraction of a refresh cycle, it doesn't have as visible an effect.

But in practice, it's OK to add on the GtG time to try and estimate it. Use the overdriven version of GtG. It's a good handicapping factor. Sometimes it's a good match, sometimes worse/better. The motion blur formulas become much simpler (aka simple "linear" motion blur) with squarewave persistence rather than curves.

However, in all cases, you do want GtG to be less than half a frametime (refresh cycle time) in order for it to cease to be a very noticeable factor in motion blur.
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: 6371
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Postby pwn » 01 Feb 2019, 03:21

Now quite difficult to find: XG2402
What could be as close as possible replacement?
pwn
 
Posts: 30
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 18:22

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Postby MatrixQW » 01 Feb 2019, 10:18

You can find XG2402 on Amazon.
It's successor is XG240R.
Notty_PT, it just dropped to 310€ in case you want to get crazy. :D
I think this will be the difference (from PCMonitors):
For the XG2402 reference the performance is certainly very good, but if you look closely you can see a little conventional trailing and some ‘shadowy’ overshoot behind the UFO. We picked the dark background reference shot as it showcased this the best – compare to the top row (or indeed any row) of the XG240R test and you’ll see an already strong performance made even better.

Things were even better tuned than on the already impressive XG2402, as the small amount of ‘powdery trailing’ observed was cut back without being replaced by obvious overshoot.
MatrixQW
 
Posts: 157
Joined: 07 Jan 2019, 10:01

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Postby pwn » 01 Feb 2019, 11:57

MatrixQW wrote:You can find XG2402 on Amazon.
It's successor is XG240R.
Notty_PT, it just dropped to 310€ in case you want to get crazy. :D
I think this will be the difference (from PCMonitors):
For the XG2402 reference the performance is certainly very good, but if you look closely you can see a little conventional trailing and some ‘shadowy’ overshoot behind the UFO. We picked the dark background reference shot as it showcased this the best – compare to the top row (or indeed any row) of the XG240R test and you’ll see an already strong performance made even better.

Things were even better tuned than on the already impressive XG2402, as the small amount of ‘powdery trailing’ observed was cut back without being replaced by obvious overshoot.


Unfortunately, I live in a cold country where there is no Amazon))
Do I also advise AOC G2590PX to say something about it?
pwn
 
Posts: 30
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 18:22

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Postby Notty_PT » 01 Feb 2019, 17:49

MatrixQW wrote:You can find XG2402 on Amazon.
It's successor is XG240R.
Notty_PT, it just dropped to 310€ in case you want to get crazy. :D
I think this will be the difference (from PCMonitors):
For the XG2402 reference the performance is certainly very good, but if you look closely you can see a little conventional trailing and some ‘shadowy’ overshoot behind the UFO. We picked the dark background reference shot as it showcased this the best – compare to the top row (or indeed any row) of the XG240R test and you’ll see an already strong performance made even better.

Things were even better tuned than on the already impressive XG2402, as the small amount of ‘powdery trailing’ observed was cut back without being replaced by obvious overshoot.


Getting better! But I still think 310€ for a 144hz 24inch TN is a bit on the high side. I expect it to drop to 260€-270€ and then I pull the trigger!

My Asus XG248q 240hz cost me 330€ in comparasion. Now is at 450€.
Notty_PT
 
Posts: 481
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 02:50

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Postby yehaw » 02 Feb 2019, 20:27

I saw and mentioned lots of these problems a while ago, but most criticized my points, tried to dismiss me while attacking me for criticizing their beloved product they owned. Admins even renamed my thread to "opinion", which I responded with editing it to "Experience & Opinion". Then a few weeks later, they publish article on front page of their blog about 240hz panels not being optimized and how future 240hz will be "optimized". :lol:

I even linked some people experiencing the issues where 240hz looked blurrier than their 144hz, but nope, we were all wrong.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3758

And people saying you need the right tool for the job, that's the whole point of having VRR, it should look clean and smooth, regardless of the frame rate, but 240hz is just junk, IMO. And saying these are esports monitors as some excuse is silly, especially when they're marketed to the general audience on Amazon and other major retailers. And really? You get a 240hz monitor and make the excuse that it's not the right tool to play games at lower frame rates? Come on, stop being an apologist. It's a gaming monitor!

When you have 240hz monitors going on sale for $250 and 144hz is $250, the logical choice SHOULD BE to get the 240hz because on paper, it's better, but it's not. The technology just isn't there yet, regardless of what technical limitation it is, it looks blurry at lower frame rates. I don't know all the technical terms and I might make mistakes expressing what I see, but my eyes aren't lying to me, it looks blurrier than my 165hz panel.

And what bothers me about this site, you have all these technical people here arguing against, yet nobody puts these theories to the test and do some professional work. Why don't the admins test and disprove these complaints you can read across the web from multiple people? In my thread, they had me take photos with a phone camera to try and prove my point, then when I did, they criticized my photo taking and how I didn't take the perfect photo :lol:

https://i.imgur.com/JzCeCJz.jpg
yehaw
 
Posts: 71
Joined: 21 Dec 2017, 21:41

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Postby Notty_PT » 02 Feb 2019, 21:05

yehaw wrote:I saw and mentioned lots of these problems a while ago, but most criticized my points, tried to dismiss me while attacking me for criticizing their beloved product they owned. Admins even renamed my thread to "opinion", which I responded with editing it to "Experience & Opinion". Then a few weeks later, they publish article on front page of their blog about 240hz panels not being optimized and how future 240hz will be "optimized". :lol:

I even linked some people experiencing the issues where 240hz looked blurrier than their 144hz, but nope, we were all wrong.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3758

And people saying you need the right tool for the job, that's the whole point of having VRR, it should look clean and smooth, regardless of the frame rate, but 240hz is just junk, IMO. And saying these are esports monitors as some excuse is silly, especially when they're marketed to the general audience on Amazon and other major retailers. And really? You get a 240hz monitor and make the excuse that it's not the right tool to play games at lower frame rates? Come on, stop being an apologist. It's a gaming monitor!

When you have 240hz monitors going on sale for $250 and 144hz is $250, the logical choice SHOULD BE to get the 240hz because on paper, it's better, but it's not. The technology just isn't there yet, regardless of what technical limitation it is, it looks blurry at lower frame rates. I don't know all the technical terms and I might make mistakes expressing what I see, but my eyes aren't lying to me, it looks blurrier than my 165hz panel.

And what bothers me about this site, you have all these technical people here arguing against, yet nobody puts these theories to the test and do some professional work. Why don't the admins test and disprove these complaints you can read across the web from multiple people? In my thread, they had me take photos with a phone camera to try and prove my point, then when I did, they criticized my photo taking and how I didn't take the perfect photo :lol:

https://i.imgur.com/JzCeCJz.jpg


I think is unfair to go against the technical people on this website. Let me tell you why my friend. I am sure that you, just like me, as enthusiasts, faced a lot of people online dismissing some things:

- Lower input lag as possible

"I don´t notice any input lag difference between monitors, that´s all placebo"; "Lower 2ms input lag won´t make you play better because human reaction is 200ms on average"; "2ms input lag decrease is irrelevant because your ping will always be 30ms or higher", etc

- Lower pixel response time as possible

"IPS panels are just as good as TN"; "I can´t notice any difference between my IPS and a TN"; "TN 144hz won´t make you play better than an IPS 144hz monitor"; "IPS are just as good", etc

- Higher refresh rate as possible

"No one needs 144hz, skill is more important"; "85hz is fine, 144hz is for e-peen"; "240hz is completly useless and there´s no difference compared to 144hz". etc

Amongs other things. This was THE website that I found that had people who agreed with me when looking for the lowest possible input lag, the lowest possible response time and the fastest gaming experience as possible, without "human eye can´t see past 10 gb of ram" crap talk.

This website also has 3 or 4 very techincal people that know what they say. If I can agree that some don´t even test as much stuff as we do, their knowledge is objectively better than my knowledge at least. My advantage is that I´m a monitor enthusiast since a kid and I tried pretty much almost everything. I have my table full of monitors right now. I feel differences between 2 ms of input lag, wether people tell me is placebo or not and usually technical reviews shows me that I am right.

This is probably because I love playing Quake and Quake is one of the most skilled based games ever, perfect to test hardware. I am also a mouse freak and I tested 50 mice at least. But this website is not about mice, so moving on.

BlurBusters is my fav website, as a monitor enthusiast, by far. Chief, RealNC and jorimt are 3 guys that I respect 200% and they have teach me so much for free, that I would never ever complain about them. So I don´t support you on that mate, sorry.


PART 2

With that being said, I agree with you regarding 240hz. I wouldn´t call it crap. If I only played Quake Lieve (easy 250fps), Counter Strike (easy 240fps) or Overwatch (easy 240fps) or Painkiller, Quake 1, Quake 3, or any other older engine game, 240hz would offer me an objectively superior experience to any 144hz monitor with a 141fps cap. There´s no debate about this. The problem is that I can only sustain 240fps on 2 games out of the 20 games I play, And my main games, Quake Champions, Black Ops 4 and Battlefield series, can never sustain 240fps steady. And as you said, anything that is out of 240fps looks like crap on 240hz monitors.

Hardware is not ready to deliver 240fps, and probably when it is ready to deliver 240fps on Quake Champions or Black Ops 4, Black Ops 5 or Battlefield VIIII will be really demanding and you can´t max out 240fps again.

The fact 240hz current panels have so many problems aswell, doesn´t help either. Because if these panels were good, they would deal with a lower 170fps 170hz framerate without overdrive issues or other issues. And then it would be worth to keep a 240hz panel, wich we could max out when needed or we could use a lower refresh depending on the games. That would be the perfect scenario. But I tried most of them and all of them have deal breaking problems to me. They are all awful at even 200fps, enough to notice the overdrive struggling, full of blur or overshoot artifacts no matter the overdrive values.

And this is why I agree with you that 240hz is simply not worth it on most cases. Is not worth for me for sure, and wasn´t worth for you.

That image comparasion you show abour your 165hz monitor (I suppose is a Dell S24/S27) is legit. And you know why to me is legit? Because I found that even when comparing ViewSonic XG2402 144hz monitor, the best monitor I ever used in my life, to any 240hz monitor I had. At 144hz it has less ghosting than any 240hz I used. That´s why you see Rtings reviews and you will the 240hz models they reviewd all shown higher pixel response time than XG2402, for example. And that´s 144hz vs 240hz, shocking isn´t it? Right...

So 240hz basically gives you a 2,7ms advantage against a 144hz panel, and that´s when you can max out the framerate. So only Counter Strike or Overwatch players should realistically go for these panels.

And as I mentioned before, I´m an input lag and response time freak, but I play at least as good on my ViewSonic XG2402 as I do on any 240hz panel. My Lightning Gun is even better on ViewSonic (55% a lot of times) because framerate is steady, even with a 0,4ms + 2,7ms (persistence) input lag disadvantage (according to rtings ViewSonic is 4,1ms and Benq XL2540 240hz is 3,7ms).

But please don´t go against the people on this forum. Be aware that not everyone can test tons of monitors like we do, they can only comment based on their big knowledge.

I have also mentioned and assured that Asus monitors have higher input lag when you activate FreeSync/Gsync and they considered that as driver issue and I am sure it is not driver issue. But that´s becuase I have 10 monitors and I could see that VRR didn´t add noticeable input lag on other non-Asus models. We must respect everyone, specially the ones that know more than us.

Cheers and please don´t take me wrong, I agree with you! Right now after all the hassle I had buying almost 10 different models; after hours of testing and now with the current hassle trying to sell all my 240hz units (wich no one seem to want even at great prices), all I want to say is the same thing as you: 240hz monitors are crap! (if not used on a specific situation) :) Peace buddy!
Last edited by Notty_PT on 02 Feb 2019, 22:23, edited 1 time in total.
Notty_PT
 
Posts: 481
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 02:50

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Postby jorimt » 02 Feb 2019, 22:19

yehaw wrote:I saw and mentioned lots of these problems a while ago, but most criticized my points, tried to dismiss me while attacking me for criticizing their beloved product they owned. Admins even renamed my thread to "opinion", which I responded with editing it to "Experience & Opinion". Then a few weeks later, they publish article on front page of their blog about 240hz panels not being optimized and how future 240hz will be "optimized".

Notty_PT wrote:after hours of testing and now with the current hassle trying to sell all my 240hz units (wich no one seem to want even at great prices), all I want to say is the same thing as you: 240hz monitors are crap!

If it hasn't been brought up in this discussion already (I don't believe I've directly refuted anyone's opinion on these 1st gen 240Hz panels), I would just like to add that there is a difference between "240Hz" and 240Hz "implementation."

240Hz, in its raw form, is objectively superior to any lower refresh rate, at any framerate, and in any operating mode (sync or no sync) due to its increased scanout speed (4.2ms).

I agree, however, that 240Hz implementation on 1st gen monitors, is, in many cases, undeniably lacking in regards to how they handle overdrive tuning, lower fixed refresh rates, and input lag when directly compared to 144Hz panels. E.g. the panels and processing used in these 1st gen models simply aren't capable of doing 240Hz justice...yet.

It doesn't mean 240Hz is inferior to 144Hz, it simply means these panels are.

Notty_PT wrote:I have also mentioned and assured that Asus monitors have higher input lag when you activate FreeSync/Gsync and they considered that as driver issue and I am sure it is not driver issue.

I never said it was a driver issue, I said it could be. It's all relative. If there is indeed an input lag increase with FreeSync/G-SYNC enabled over disabled on the same monitor, without systematic testing, the reason could vary per model for all we know.

For instance, on one model, it could be because of the panel processing (monitor-side) and a driver interaction (system-side) issue, and on another model it could be only because of panel processing, or only because of driver interaction, or neither.

No way to really confirm unless it is tested on multiple affected FreeSync monitor models with both AMD and Nvidia GPUs and in both VRR and non-VRR modes via high speed camera methods or the like.
Author: Blur Busters "G-SYNC 101" Series

Display: Acer Predator XB271HU OS: Windows 10 Pro (1903) MB: ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero CPU: i7-8700k GPU: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti FTW3 RAM: 32GB G.SKILL TridentZ @3200MHz
User avatar
jorimt
 
Posts: 727
Joined: 04 Nov 2016, 10:44

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Postby yehaw » 03 Feb 2019, 21:20

Notty_PT wrote:
I think is unfair to go against the technical people on this website.


Maybe, but it rubbed me the wrong way that they labeled my thread an opinion, as if they were dismissing my issue and then locked my thread because nobody liked me saying 240hz was premature and blurry. Then a few weeks later they post on their blog "optimized" 240hz is coming, as if current gen 240hz wasn't properly working as it should be. I guess they didn't notice the irony in that. I even provided threads of other people complaining of the same issues I saw, as to prove I wasn't the only one seeing the issue.

And now we have admins coming out saying stuff like this:

I agree, however, that 240Hz implementation on 1st gen monitors, is, in many cases, undeniably lacking in regards to how they handle overdrive tuning, lower fixed refresh rates, and input lag when directly compared to 144Hz panels. E.g. the panels and processing used in these 1st gen models simply aren't capable of doing 240Hz justice...yet.


So you can see why I'm pissed the way the staff handled the situation. I saw these things early on, nearly everyone in my thread dismissed what I was seeing and tried to debunk my findings as an "opinion".

jorimt wrote:240Hz, in its raw form, is objectively superior to any lower refresh rate, at any framerate, and in any operating mode (sync or no sync) due to its increased scanout speed (4.2ms).


Completely agree, and that's why I said, on paper, 240hz should always be the choice over 144hz, but it's not due the issues being mentioned in this thread. I've tried 4 different 240hz and they've all been returned.
Last edited by yehaw on 03 Feb 2019, 21:31, edited 2 times in total.
yehaw
 
Posts: 71
Joined: 21 Dec 2017, 21:41

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Postby Kheri » 03 Feb 2019, 21:28

yehaw wrote:
Notty_PT wrote:
I think is unfair to go against the technical people on this website.


Maybe, but it rubbed me the wrong way that they labeled my thread an opinion, as if they were dismissing my issue and then locked my thread because nobody liked me saying 240hz was premature and blurry. Then a few weeks later they post on their blog "optimized" 240hz is coming, as if current gen 240hz wasn't properly working as it should be. I guess they didn't notice the irony in that. I even provided threads of other people complaining of the same issues I saw, as to prove I wasn't the only one seeing the issue.

And now we have admins coming out saying stuff like this:

I agree, however, that 240Hz implementation on 1st gen monitors, is, in many cases, undeniably lacking in regards to how they handle overdrive tuning, lower fixed refresh rates, and input lag when directly compared to 144Hz panels. E.g. the panels and processing used in these 1st gen models simply aren't capable of doing 240Hz justice...yet.


So you can see why I'm pissed the way the staff handled the situation. I saw these things early on, nearly everyone in my thread dismissed what I was seeing and tried to debunk my findings as an "opinion".


No, you're not the only one to notice. 240hz needs and can use improvements, I've heard it mentioned multiple times.
Kheri
 
Posts: 59
Joined: 29 Sep 2018, 13:39

PreviousNext

Return to General — Displays, Graphics & More

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests