05/22/2020 UPDATE. The IPS 240hz monitor tier list.(I've measured/tried the all) and my honest explanation why.

[DrUninstall]

24.5" at 1080p is sort of a weird resolution to screen sized ratio.

The visual acuity distacce is 3.2m and the maximum viewing distance( 3.4m). The visual acuity distance to the maximum viewing for a 24.5" monitor in my opinion is wayyy too close to each other. Even at 3.2m visual acuity, i start to see more peripheral vision of my ROOM than the actual monitor itself. Whereas if i sit visual acuity distance on my 27" 1080p 240hZ monitor, (which is 3.4m), i have less peripheral vision of my room, yet have a PERFECT viewing distance to not be able to see any pixels yet, have a field of view good enough for my head to not ever turn.

99% of ppl who own a 24.5" 1080p monitor sit way too close(some peiople literally have it within elbow length. How they manage to do that yet don't get annoyed by the pixelation that they see, is beyond me.

how far do i sit on my 24.5" MSI?

i have an L-shaped desk so i'm able to sit further than most people. About 2 and a half feet when using the internet/browsing/etc. and 3 feet when i game. I always sit slightly further when i play video games since i like to kick back, recline my chair slightly and relax. I never play when i'm leadning forward or hunched on the monitor(although most ppl do)

. I sit fairly far compared to majority of ppl. I just don't like seeing a pixelated screen. With my 27" 1440p, i'm able sit within arms length of it and not see pixelation. WHY? because 1440p allows it. The visual acuity dist ance fora 1440p 27" is about 2 feet. Which is PERFECT for normal every day computer use.

ppl here argue that at 24.5",has a "competitive advantage". That is further from the truth. Field of view and peripheral vision, our brain and eyes adapt to it, whether it's 27" or 24.5", it won't have an impact on performance. Hell, i can also argue that at 27", i'm able to do 'head shots" better because everythiing is larger.

it's ALL PREFERENCE, nothiing more. A smaller screen makes zero difference in any "competitive advantages" because with that logic, why buy a 24.5" when you can buy a 21"? It's nothing but preference.

I prefer 27" over 24.5" since i like the immersion more.I generally don't like playing on 24.5" monitors but because the MSI is a 24.5" monitor and the best th at i've tested and used, i just didn't have much of a choice.

No offence but that sound like a "defending my purchase" reason.

Anyway truth of the matter is, ppl who play esports titles,prefer a smaller screen like 24.5 against 27inch due to peripheral vision. 27 is too big to see things like your crosshair and the radar of certain games. U will waste extra time moving your eyes/head to switch to see the radar and your crosshair, which is why esports players never use a 27inch.

Yes u can mention about sitting 2 inches away etc and all that reasoning. Basically it really sounds like the "defending your purchase" reasoning.

Ask any esports players, all will tell u the same thing no matter your reasoning.

I agree. We FPS gamers mostly sit too close to the monitor and looking at the minimap in the corner seems like miles away if you use 27". Plus, it's true that you notice the blurriness. Going from 1440p to 1080p in my IPS 27" feels wrong... The only time I'd see it wouldn't make so much of a difference is if you play a flanker hero that is always getting close to enemies or a sniper (you zoom-in so pixel density becomes irrelevant).

I notice it the most in games like Apex Legends or Warzone. In 1440p 27" I can always distinguish their heads from their shoulders/neck from far.

Then again, if you're an excellent gamer, you don't even need to see their heads, the outline is enough. Which is why some Overwatch players play in 24.5" Fullhd on 75% resolution. It accentuates the outline of the characters, albeit blurring the textures.

With that said, after trying 1440p on 27" and knowing what 1080p looks like in a 24.5" monitor, there's a reason my first 240hz monitor (FULLHD) will be smaller than 27". It looks better at my viewing distance and it's cheaper, so why not.

[jnashville]

24.5" at 1080p is sort of a weird resolution to screen sized ratio.

The visual acuity distacce is 3.2m and the maximum viewing distance( 3.4m). The visual acuity distance to the maximum viewing for a 24.5" monitor in my opinion is wayyy too close to each other. Even at 3.2m visual acuity, i start to see more peripheral vision of my ROOM than the actual monitor itself. Whereas if i sit visual acuity distance on my 27" 1080p 240hZ monitor, (which is 3.4m), i have less peripheral vision of my room, yet have a PERFECT viewing distance to not be able to see any pixels yet, have a field of view good enough for my head to not ever turn.

99% of ppl who own a 24.5" 1080p monitor sit way too close(some peiople literally have it within elbow length. How they manage to do that yet don't get annoyed by the pixelation that they see, is beyond me.

how far do i sit on my 24.5" MSI?

i have an L-shaped desk so i'm able to sit further than most people. About 2 and a half feet when using the internet/browsing/etc. and 3 feet when i game. I always sit slightly further when i play video games since i like to kick back, recline my chair slightly and relax. I never play when i'm leadning forward or hunched on the monitor(although most ppl do)

. I sit fairly far compared to majority of ppl. I just don't like seeing a pixelated screen. With my 27" 1440p, i'm able sit within arms length of it and not see pixelation. WHY? because 1440p allows it. The visual acuity dist ance fora 1440p 27" is about 2 feet. Which is PERFECT for normal every day computer use.

ppl here argue that at 24.5",has a "competitive advantage". That is further from the truth. Field of view and peripheral vision, our brain and eyes adapt to it, whether it's 27" or 24.5", it won't have an impact on performance. Hell, i can also argue that at 27", i'm able to do 'head shots" better because everythiing is larger.

it's ALL PREFERENCE, nothiing more. A smaller screen makes zero difference in any "competitive advantages" because with that logic, why buy a 24.5" when you can buy a 21"? It's nothing but preference.

I prefer 27" over 24.5" since i like the immersion more.I generally don't like playing on 24.5" monitors but because the MSI is a 24.5" monitor and the best th at i've tested and used, i just didn't have much of a choice.

No offence but that sound like a "defending my purchase" reason.

Anyway truth of the matter is, ppl who play esports titles,prefer a smaller screen like 24.5 against 27inch due to peripheral vision. 27 is too big to see things like your crosshair and the radar of certain games. U will waste extra time moving your eyes/head to switch to see the radar and your crosshair, which is why esports players never use a 27inch.

Yes u can mention about sitting 2 inches away etc and all that reasoning. Basically it really sounds like the "defending your purchase" reasoning.

Ask any esports players, all will tell u the same thing no matter your reasoning.

I agree. We FPS gamers mostly sit too close to the monitor and looking at the minimap in the corner seems like miles away if you use 27". Plus, it's true that you notice the blurriness. Going from 1440p to 1080p in my IPS 27" feels wrong... The only time I'd see it wouldn't make so much of a difference is if you play a flanker hero that is always getting close to enemies or a sniper (you zoom-in so pixel density becomes irrelevant).

I notice it the most in games like Apex Legends or Warzone. In 1440p 27" I can always distinguish their heads from their shoulders/neck from far.

Then again, if you're an excellent gamer, you don't even need to see their heads, the outline is enough. Which is why some Overwatch players play in 24.5" Fullhd on 75% resolution. It accentuates the outline of the characters, albeit blurring the textures.

With that said, after trying 1440p on 27" and knowing what 1080p looks like in a 24.5" monitor, there's a reason my first 240hz monitor (FULLHD) will be smaller than 27". It looks better at my viewing distance and it's cheaper, so why not.

exactly. i generally only take opinion from actual FPS gamers as we are the ones using it for its purpose instead of getting too technical opinions from a person who do not play an actual competitive fps. Anyway, there are bound to have defensive reasoning. Its evident in esports tournaments as well that they only use 25 inch and below but if one choose to argue about this, i let u win. We still know which one is more suitable haha..

[RLCSContender*]

lol, all i said was. JUST SIT FURTHER AWAY.

seriously guys, are we really having this discussion? you know what? i'll play along

https://stari.co/tv-monitor-viewing-distance-calculator

24.5" 1080p vs 27" 1080p resolution

24.5" min viewing distance= 1.2 feet
24.5" visual acuity(optimal viewing distance)3.2 feet
24.5" maximum viewing distance=3.3 feet

27" min viewing distance= 1.4 feet
27" visual acuity (optimal viewing distance)=3.4 feet
27" maximum viewing distance= 3.8 feet.

PPI argument? well, in order for me to not notice a difference in PPI, i would just have to sit back a whopping TWO inches and i get the same sharpness as someone who's viewing a 24.5" monitor sitting TWO inches closer than I am.


Basically, in order to not see any individual pixels, a 24.5" owner would have to sit basically the SAME distance as the maximum viewing distance allowed. Any more, that person's peripheral vision will start to see his ROOM moreso than the screen.

Whereas at 27" 1080p, the visual acuity distance of 3.4 feet(41 inches), and the max viewing distance of 3.8 feet. This means that the FOV(field of view) RELATIVE TO visual acuity(optimal viewing distance) is wayyy better than a 24.5" monitor.


btw, a good player will do well whether it's at 24", 21" , 27", 32" etc. It really depends how far he sits. If he prefers to sit close, then he should get a smaller monitor. If he prefers to kick back, then he should get a larger monitor. There is zero correlation of monitor size to performance, it's nothing but nerdbroscience placebo. "i feel dat my eyez move less and i react faster!" no, it means you need to stop making excuses on how small/big/medium sized your monitor and hold yourself more accountable.

[RLCSContender*]

Anyway, don't want my thread to be derailed

it looks like i gave up on the asus vg279qm/vg259qm. The reason why the MSI is better is because the MSIi s excellent at lower refresh rates with minimal input lag. The 280hz asus is HORRENDOUS at lower refresh rates. The input lag will skyrocket to 22-30ms

Another thing, the aw2520hf and the aw2521hf are basically the SAME AHVA PANEL, but released on different dates.

if anyone here sees an alienware, snag one. among the fastest IPS monitors right now, rivaling that of the MSI mag251rx>The AW is also excellent with console gaming. the contrast ratio however is horrible at 800 contrast. Compare that the MSI with 1200 contrast ratio, it's really a huge difference. You will see clouding on your screen due to how bad the contrast is on the AW

still, the AW is juts as fast as the MSI. WHichever is cheaper or readily available, get it. if u don't intend to use your monitor for console gaming, then get the Asus

[RLCSContender*]

speaking of which, i'm still waiting for the acer predator xb279 x g'-sync hardware with HDMI vrr(yes, the first g-sync hardware monitor to have VRR on its HDMI) to be available because they are takiing pre orders for it as we speak. I just dont' know when the backorder will arrive.

[Dirty Scrubz]

24.5" at 1080p is sort of a weird resolution to screen sized ratio.

The visual acuity distacce is 3.2m and the maximum viewing distance( 3.4m). The visual acuity distance to the maximum viewing for a 24.5" monitor in my opinion is wayyy too close to each other. Even at 3.2m visual acuity, i start to see more peripheral vision of my ROOM than the actual monitor itself. Whereas if i sit visual acuity distance on my 27" 1080p 240hZ monitor, (which is 3.4m), i have less peripheral vision of my room, yet have a PERFECT viewing distance to not be able to see any pixels yet, have a field of view good enough for my head to not ever turn.

99% of ppl who own a 24.5" 1080p monitor sit way too close(some peiople literally have it within elbow length. How they manage to do that yet don't get annoyed by the pixelation that they see, is beyond me.

how far do i sit on my 24.5" MSI?

i have an L-shaped desk so i'm able to sit further than most people. About 2 and a half feet when using the internet/browsing/etc. and 3 feet when i game. I always sit slightly further when i play video games since i like to kick back, recline my chair slightly and relax. I never play when i'm leadning forward or hunched on the monitor(although most ppl do)

. I sit fairly far compared to majority of ppl. I just don't like seeing a pixelated screen. With my 27" 1440p, i'm able sit within arms length of it and not see pixelation. WHY? because 1440p allows it. The visual acuity dist ance fora 1440p 27" is about 2 feet. Which is PERFECT for normal every day computer use.

ppl here argue that at 24.5",has a "competitive advantage". That is further from the truth. Field of view and peripheral vision, our brain and eyes adapt to it, whether it's 27" or 24.5", it won't have an impact on performance. Hell, i can also argue that at 27", i'm able to do 'head shots" better because everythiing is larger.

it's ALL PREFERENCE, nothiing more. A smaller screen makes zero difference in any "competitive advantages" because with that logic, why buy a 24.5" when you can buy a 21"? It's nothing but preference.

I prefer 27" over 24.5" since i like the immersion more.I generally don't like playing on 24.5" monitors but because the MSI is a 24.5" monitor and the best th at i've tested and used, i just didn't have much of a choice.

No offence but that sound like a "defending my purchase" reason.

Anyway truth of the matter is, ppl who play esports titles,prefer a smaller screen like 24.5 against 27inch due to peripheral vision. 27 is too big to see things like your crosshair and the radar of certain games. U will waste extra time moving your eyes/head to switch to see the radar and your crosshair, which is why esports players never use a 27inch.

Yes u can mention about sitting 2 inches away etc and all that reasoning. Basically it really sounds like the "defending your purchase" reasoning.

Ask any esports players, all will tell u the same thing no matter your reasoning.

I agree. We FPS gamers mostly sit too close to the monitor and looking at the minimap in the corner seems like miles away if you use 27". Plus, it's true that you notice the blurriness. Going from 1440p to 1080p in my IPS 27" feels wrong... The only time I'd see it wouldn't make so much of a difference is if you play a flanker hero that is always getting close to enemies or a sniper (you zoom-in so pixel density becomes irrelevant).

I notice it the most in games like Apex Legends or Warzone. In 1440p 27" I can always distinguish their heads from their shoulders/neck from far.

Then again, if you're an excellent gamer, you don't even need to see their heads, the outline is enough. Which is why some Overwatch players play in 24.5" Fullhd on 75% resolution. It accentuates the outline of the characters, albeit blurring the textures.

With that said, after trying 1440p on 27" and knowing what 1080p looks like in a 24.5" monitor, there's a reason my first 240hz monitor (FULLHD) will be smaller than 27". It looks better at my viewing distance and it's cheaper, so why not.

exactly. i generally only take opinion from actual FPS gamers as we are the ones using it for its purpose instead of getting too technical opinions from a person who do not play an actual competitive fps. Anyway, there are bound to have defensive reasoning. Its evident in esports tournaments as well that they only use 25 inch and below but if one choose to argue about this, i let u win. We still know which one is more suitable haha..

I'm a fairly competitive player, I don't compete in esports or anything but I do very well in most FPS games I play and 27" vs 24.5" is all about personal preference. RLCScontender is right that the miniscule PPI difference (<10 ppi) is meaningless between 27" and 24.5". Arguing otherwise is just personal opinion, it doesn't make you some esports legend. Just because some pro streamers and players are stuck on 24.5" doesn't mean they know better, it's usually what the sponsors throw at them and place at events so it became the norm for them. Kinda like how a lot of them still use 400 DPI w/500 Hz although technically it offers zero advantage.

[LawlessKai]

I have a benq xl2430 and am wondering if its worth upgrading to the msi 240hz ips ?

[rasmas]

RLCScontender: After reading how you changed your mind about the MSI optix MAG251rx, i'm wondering: What monitor did you have before starting to try 240Hz IPS panels? I'm really curious because you did not notice an huge improvement from your previous monitor, otherwise you would have loved it at first glance, right?

Also, did you have to get "used to" something of it (its coating or blur) or tune it (lowering brightness or something) to start loving it?

Thanks anyway .


P.S. By chance did you try the AOC 24G2U? (144Hz).

[RLCSContender*]

i owned the viewsonic elite xg270qg. 165hz ips g-sync monitor with Nano backlight.

I had to return it though because i couldn't stand not having an SRGB mode. Basically, i'm not even 100% sure if i was in SRGB or still in "oversaturation" since the wide color gamut of the viewsonic nano cannot be clamped.

But yes, the MSi is definitely a huge improvement. Not only was there less ghosting, but the input lag is night and day. Keep in mind, the viewosnic has among the BEST input lag out there since it's an actual g-sync monitor, but when i play on my MSI, it's night and day.

Keep in mind, the viewsonic isn't some "cheap" monitor. It's among the fastest 1440p IPS monitors since it has the Nano panel which is extremely quick. But if you used the MSI and the viewsonic elite xg270qg, the MSI defnitely has less input and and way better motion clarity.

ever since i purchased a 240hz ips, i never went back. Even if the mponitor is among the best right now(xg270qg). I had that monitor replaced with the LG 27gl850-b since it has SRGB mode

[Blehhh]

I want to ask something about overclocking the Asus VG279QM, is it safe to permanently overclock it at 280hz all all times?
Does this reduce the lifespan of the monitor? or As time goes by the panel will degrade in response or clarity or some sort?
i apologize for my ignorance, im new to this monitor overclocking.