Best monitor for low (50-100) FPS?

[rasmas]

Hello all,
I was looking at the Viewsonic XG270 and to the ASUS VG279QM (does it have red phosphor problems?), although i was leaning to the asus as seems to have better screen coating (could not really find a lot of info on the xg270 one). -offtopic: asus ask chief to tune your VG279QM as you have overdrive problems!! And you already have the firmware usb!-

But the problem is that as i think, most of the time and on most games, my PC won't be able to get more that +50 fps (probably more, but aiming low as i use my PCs for a lot of time without upgrades).

So, after reading that gaming with 50-60 fps on a +200Hz monitor can be a WAY worse experience than when using an i.e a 60Hz, i'm thinking that the best could be to just find the best or a good low refresh rate monitor.


Main question: what are the best monitors to play with 50-70-100 fps? Which are good for games and text (=less eye strain either for screen coating, blur, panel type or whatever)?


Thank you very much in advance and hope you can help me find the right monitor for me (why can't they do just 3-4 models ).

P.S. I totally agree with "Everything Better Than 60Hz™" but sometimes our PCs can't .

[rasmas]

After looking for info, may i assume the best (and only option? ) for 30-90 fps with good blur non strobed and, also, good-decent +60 fps strobed (and even 30fps), can only be the Benq Zowie XL2411P? Any way to know how is the screen coating?
Are there better alternatives either non-strobing or strobing?


I have never used strobing before so no idea if i can get used to it, so i'd like to have most and best options as possible to try to find something that gives me no eye strain and can use with (sharp) text and games; that's why i wanted to invest enough money on the new +240 IPS monitors if they could give widest possibilities, but having to mantain +200 fps seems dificult if i don't plan on upgrading often.



Wish there were a mix between the best of the XL2411P and the best of the new IPS panels.

[Chief Blur Buster]

good blur non strobed

Currently, it is difficult to have low blur for non-strobed staying at low frame rates. You will need a Frame Rate Amplification Technology (interpolation, extrapolation, reprojection). Some HDTVs such as Samsung NU8000 series have a reduced-lag interpolation mode that works in Game Mode.

This doubles 30fps to 60fps for console games. If you need to reduce blur WITHOUT strobing, there's no way to do so without increasing frames somehow (whether original frames, or via interpolation, extrapolation, reprojection, etc). Some of these tech adds noticeable lag and some of these tech don't.

After looking for info, may i assume the best (and only option? ) for 30-90 fps with good blur non strobed and, also, good-decent +60 fps strobed (and even 30fps), can only be the Benq Zowie XL2411P? Any way to know how is the screen coating?

XL2411P is the best desktop option for 60Hz strobed, but it is not necessarily the best for non-strobed. You almost won't tell a motion blur difference among most 1ms panels (TN or IPS) for low frame rates. Although overdrive quality (ghosting, coronas) will vary somewhat.

Have you considered an LG C9 OLED, to gain access to its OLED VRR and OLED BFI? That would be a better "jack of all trades" if you need ONE display to do a good job of low frame rates *and* also have 60 Hz strobing.

You might need two displays.

Also... Have you ever seen a variable refresh rate before? It's like a magic stutter eraser for single frame drops. See www.testufo.com/vrr to find out what G-SYNC and FreeSync looks like. What I can tell you is that variable refresh rate is probably more important to you than strobing. VRR is great for making low framerates look better.

As you can see in FreeSync / G-SYNC animation demo, the higher the frame rate, the less blur. So if you want less blur without strobing, the only way to do so is higher frame rates once you've erased other display limitations (e.g. GtG insignificant portion of a 60 Hz refresh cycle).

[rasmas]

Thank you very much for the detailed answer!

...
You will need a Frame Rate Amplification Technology (interpolation, extrapolation, reprojection). Some HDTVs such as Samsung NU8000 series have a reduced-lag interpolation mode that works in Game Mode.

This doubles 30fps to 60fps for console games. If you need to reduce blur WITHOUT strobing, there's no way to do so without increasing frames somehow (whether original frames, or via interpolation, extrapolation, reprojection, etc). Some of these tech adds noticeable lag and some of these tech don't.

So, if i understand correctly this is like the ugly-hated "soap opera effect" but done well.

...
XL2411P is the best desktop option for 60Hz strobed, but it is not necessarily the best for non-strobed. You almost won't tell a motion blur difference among most 1ms panels (TN or IPS) for low frame rates. Although overdrive quality (ghosting, coronas) will vary somewhat.

So, for non strobed blur i guess you need 100 fps and up?

Have you considered an LG C9 OLED, to gain access to its OLED VRR and OLED BFI? That would be a better "jack of all trades" if you need ONE display to do a good job of low frame rates *and* also have 60 Hz strobing.

I guess it'll do good job on higher fps too, right? I'd love an OLED but TVs are too big for a-my PC (but is an option i'm really thinking about) , i even think burn-in problems maybe are not worse than on CRTs nowdays, and i use CRTs for games and text-browsing without visible, for me, problems. Been waiting +2 years for OLED monitors to release, since my lcd broke and been using a bad CRT Mistsubishi diamond plus 73 . But, aren't TVs a bit laggier? Guess i. e. C8 lack of some of these features? Glossy coating could be a problem on close distances?

You might need two displays.

OLED TV for games and lcd for sharp(?) text, i guess?

Also... Have you ever seen a variable refresh rate before? It's like a magic stutter eraser for single frame drops. See www.testufo.com/vrr to find out what G-SYNC and FreeSync looks like. What I can tell you is that variable refresh rate is probably more important to you than strobing. VRR is great for making low framerates look better.

Nope never seen VRR myself (will check the demo soon on a PC) but thought it was mainly to avoid screen tearing. Does it add lag or something?

So if you want less blur without strobing, the only way to do so is higher frame rates once you've erased other display limitations (e.g. GtG insignificant portion of a 60 Hz refresh cycle).

So:
- Low FPS non-strobing "a) ": +100 fps (at "lowest"?) and good quality monitor model.

- Low FPS non-strobing " b) ": good model with VRR.

Can i ask what model(s) would be the best for " a) " and "b)" non-strobed? (+100 fps -at "lowest"?-and good model with VRR?).

- Low FPS strobed: XL2411P as only option (seems the XL2411P is mostly(?) used non-strobed, so maybe not bad either?).


I admit i'm not 100% sure about what i want (15%? xD). I just want a monitor for as many years as possible that is good with as many situations as possible like high-low FPS, sharp text,... and no matter the image quality as far as i don't get eye strain and can comfortably use it for many hours (because of screen coating, panel type, blur, lag or whatever). Well the "perfect one" .

Thank you very much again (and sorry for late answer) .

[Chief Blur Buster]

So, if i understand correctly this is like the ugly-hated "soap opera effect" but done well.

Correct. The Oculus Rift implementation is amazing.

When I am playing Half Life Alyx on my 90 Hz Oculus Rift original -- the Asynchronous Space Warp 2.0 converts my 45fps gameplay to 90fps perceptually artifactlessly. The 90fps mode and 45fps mode is indistinguishable (except an almost imperceptible lag difference) since it's so well framerate-amplified using 3D geometry and Z-buffers so I don't even see any parallax artifacts (from old SOE algorithms that are black box with no knowledge of source 3D material).

Eventually I see frame rate amplification as a long-term solution to achieve blurless sample-and-hold (motion blur reduction without strobing. And that's better, because real life doesn't strobe). That's why I wrote Blur Busters Law: The Amazing Journey To Future 1000 Hz Displays -- articles I write is also why some companies, like ASUS, told me they now have a long-term (10yr?) roadmap to 1000 Hz displays.

So, for non strobed blur i guess you need 100 fps and up?

There is no number. It is kind of a continuum. See chart:



This is the amount of blur you will see when looking at www.testufo.com at different Hz. Also, low framerates at higher Hz will look practically identical average blur on LCDs (60fps at 60Hz looks the same as 60fps at 120Hz, for the same GtG speed).

Double frame rate halves motion blur. You notice this easily on variable refresh displays such as G-SYNC and FreeSync where as the frame rate goes higher, the motion blur becomes less -- as seen at www.testufo.com/vrr ....

Though low frame rates will look choppy and will always look perpetually choppy (e.g. 20fps or 30fps choppiness), things only smooth out after that. The regular-stutter amplitude (size of stutter) is the same thing as motion blur amplitude (thickness of blur), they just blend into each other as frame rates increase, as noticed in variable-refresh-rate framerate ramping up and down, www.testufo.com/vrr .....

For regular stutter (of low frame rates), the "stutter = persistence" equivalence is explained halfway down the 1000Hz Journey link that stutters and persistence blur are actually related -- basically the difference between a slow guitar string (noticeably vibrates) and a fast guitar string (looks like blur). Higher frame rates will vibrate the fixed-framerate-motion so fast (relative to eye tracking gze), that it's just persistence blur. It's well explained in the RTINGS video at the top.

It's the same reason why there's an optical illusion at www.testufo.com/eyetracking (varying speed setting). With that animation, it becomes a bit easier to understand better how stutters blends to display motion blur when the stutter is above the vibration detection threshold (flicker fusion threshold).

Have you considered an LG C9 OLED, to gain access to its OLED VRR and OLED BFI? That would be a better "jack of all trades" if you need ONE display to do a good job of low frame rates *and* also have 60 Hz strobing.

I guess it'll do good job on higher fps too, right?

If you get the newest model that supports 120 Hz variable refresh rate, definitely yes. For OLED 120Hz, 120fps is half the motion blur of 60fps, which is half the motion blur of 30fps (at which point, the motion blur has visible regular stutter due to low frame rate).

I'd love an OLED but TVs are too big for a-my PC (but is an option i'm really thinking about) , i even think burn-in problems maybe are not worse than on CRTs nowdays, and i use CRTs for games and text-browsing without visible, for me, problems. Been waiting +2 years for OLED monitors to release, since my lcd broke and been using a bad CRT Mistsubishi diamond plus 73 . But, aren't TVs a bit laggier? Guess i. e. C8 lack of some of these features? Glossy coating could be a problem on close distances?

You might need two displays.

OLED TV for games and lcd for sharp(?) text, i guess?

Also... Have you ever seen a variable refresh rate before? It's like a magic stutter eraser for single frame drops. See www.testufo.com/vrr to find out what G-SYNC and FreeSync looks like. What I can tell you is that variable refresh rate is probably more important to you than strobing. VRR is great for making low framerates look better.

Nope never seen VRR myself (will check the demo soon on a PC) but thought it was mainly to avoid screen tearing.

It fixes tearing but that's not the only purpose.

VRR is a magic eraser for single frame-drop stutters. It allows frame rate changes to look 100% seamless. 60fps->59fps->60fps looks perfect -- you don't even see any small change in frame rate. This is because instead of missed frames having to wait 1/60sec, missed frames are refreshed immediately (0.5ms late = 0.5ms late instead of 1/60sec late). Bye, bye, framedrop stutter.

With variable refresh rate technology -- the monitor is slaving refresh cycles to the game engine essentially (whenever frametimes stay within VRR range) -- the monitor is refreshing asynchronously. Refresh rate matches frame rate. There can be over 100 refresh rate changes per second and your eyes won't see it, because they're seamlessly stitched to each other, thanks to variable refresh technology. 59fps, 57fps, 60.5fps, 59.3fps, 58fps, 57fps, 56fps, 58fps 59fps, etc, etc.... all in one second, and all the framerate-change stutters are seamlessly erased by VRR.

Even a random 50fps-60fps framerate looks smooth -- (TestUFO VRR with "Struggle Near Max" setting). It looks smooth! If you are sensitive to "stutter-caused-by-framerate-fluctuation", you will like VRR.

Does it add lag or something?

Only compared to ultrahigh framerate VSYNC OFF. But G-SYNC is much, much, much, much, much, much lower lag than VSYNC ON.

One must ask oneself: Why are you worrying about VRR "lag" anyway? -- at low frame rates (50fps), your dominant cause of lag is likely the frametime lag. (50fps = 1/50sec = 20ms GPU rendering lag!!!!!). So, you don't have to worry about VRR lag, when you obviously have much bigger mountains to worry about? *wink* The anecdotes you read about VRR lag is a red herring distraction for you.

There are different lags associated with different sync technologies. At your lowness of frame rates, you have far more severe latency problems to worry about.

Another piece of lag education, is that 60fps at 240Hz is lower latency than 60fps at 60Hz. That's because of scanout latency (high speed videos) since not all pixels on a display refreshes at the same time.

I admit i'm not 100% sure about what i want (15%? xD). I just want a monitor for as many years as possible that is good with as many situations as possible like high-low FPS, sharp text,... and no matter the image quality as far as i don't get eye strain and comfortably use it for many hours (because of screen coating, panel type, blur, lag or whatever). Well the "perfect one" .

Monitor technology is changing a bit fast in the last 10 years because of all the new innovations going on. So it's a fast moving target of display innovation.

If you're anxious to buy today instead of 5 or 10 years later -- then the most jack-of-all-trades desktop-size (24-27") that you can get today for 1080p is currently those 240Hz 1ms IPS panels at the moment. You get IPS colors, you have VRR, you have low-blur non-VRR, you have an optional strobe mode. A monitor such as the ASUS VG259QM, VG279QM, or the ViewSonic XG270 (Blur Busters Approved).

It's not perfect jack-of-all-trades master-of-all, but you do get many choices (VRR ON/OFF) (VSYNC ON/OFF) (Strobe ON/OFF) (lower lag low frame rates) (flexibility to upgrade frame rates) with several of the current 240Hz 1ms IPS panels, even if you don't always use 240Hz, the 240hz does make your browser scrolling clearer (text scrolling is 4x sharper in Chrome than at 60Hz), www.testufo.com/framerates-text

You won't be able to fix your blur of low frame rate, but NO desktop monitor can anyway....so you can only do your best to "make low frame rates as good as possible given today's technology" and that's almost always 240Hz VRR. Because you get natural quick frame transport with low-framerate VRR (For 240Hz VRR, those 60fps frames transmitted to monitor in only 1/240sec yet looks exactly like a perfect 60fps VSYNC ON but feels largely like VSYNC OFF). And variable refresh rate erase your stutters + tearing.

Now if you earn money as an esports champion player and want 1ms or 2ms less lag for 500 frame per second VSYNC OFF, then it will be slightly lower lag than G-SYNC and FreeSync. Just a tiny, tiny smidge. Besides, you can turn VRR on/off for different game situations. Your low frame rate admission tells me that doesn't apply to you (VRR latency worry much ado about nothing). Your low frame rates are a dominant cause of latency anyway.

You said you dislike motion blur, so why not have 240Hz even just to fix your blurry browser scrolling too? There are other benefits of 240Hz that doesn't apply to games too. 240Hz is beautiful for non-competitive too. 240Hz gets you closer to CRT without strobing, for things like text scrolling. And besides, you will probably upgrade your GPU later, correct? Which will benefit if you're planning to keep monitors for a long time.

Maybe 240Hz is overkill for you, but if you are picky about motion blur, then maybe it is not? You said you use a CRT, so are you aware of the CRT-style benefits of 240Hz for non-gaming stuff? I know non-gamers who are wildly happy with their 240Hz monitors for their browser smooth scrolling (mousewheeling without the 60Hz blur).

[rasmas]

...(60fps at 60Hz looks the same as 60fps at 120Hz, for the same GtG speed)...

...
Another piece of lag education, is that 60fps at 240Hz is lower latency than 60fps at 60Hz. That's because of scanout latency (high speed videos) since not all pixels on a display refreshes at the same time.
...
It's not perfect jack-of-all-trades master-of-all, but you do get many choices (VRR ON/OFF) (VSYNC ON/OFF) (Strobe ON/OFF) (lower lag low frame rates) (flexibility to upgrade frame rates) with several of the current 240Hz 1ms IPS panels, even if you don't always use 240Hz, the 240hz does make your browser scrolling clearer (text scrolling is 4x sharper in Chrome than at 60Hz), www.testufo.com/framerates-text
...

For this I was looking the new +240 IPS monitors (XG270 and VG279QM), i was really close to getting the VG279QM, actually ordered it but cancelled because, from what i have (wrongly?) understood "gaming with 50-60 fps on a +200Hz monitor can be a WAY worse experience than when using an i.e a 60Hz", but, after reading you, in which way is worse? or is it, then?

Note: Looking the VG279QM because, from videos, it seems to have a nice screen coating and can't really find XG270 videos. Does the VG279QM have red phosphor problems? I would love if you were hired by ASUS to tune it to fix its overdrive problems.

You won't be able to fix your blur of low frame rate, but NO desktop monitor can anyway....so you can only do your best to "make low frame rates as good as possible given today's technology" and that's almost always 240Hz VRR. Because you get natural quick frame transport with low-framerate VRR (For 240Hz VRR, those 60fps frames transmitted to monitor in only 1/240sec yet looks exactly like a perfect 60fps VSYNC ON but feels largely like VSYNC OFF). And variable refresh rate erase your stutters + tearing.

Will VRR be noticeable changing from 48fps to 200fps? (pretty unlikely but just curious)

And besides, you will probably upgrade your GPU later, correct? Which will benefit if you're planning to keep monitors for a long time.

Yes, i'm going to buy a new PC with a GTX 1660 Super, but even right now doubt it gives +150 on new games, and with newer ones (and new-consoles port games) i think that playing some at 50fps will not be unlikely.

...Maybe 240Hz is overkill for you...

Not at all, only if it will bring problems that i will not have with i.e. 60Hz monitors. I don't want to spend more on something that will give me problems (no sure which).

Semi-EDIT: i knew i read you talking about input lag of the xg270 (240Hz) when using 60fps games. Now i am confused, is it because he was using a Console? Will it be that setting the Windows-monitor to 240Hz and playing at 60fps will be better than if it is set to 60Hz? (on this web they checked several reviews, being one with a 27.5ms delay, and they wonder if "This could be a mistake, a 60hz measurement {means setting windows to 60Hz?} or a different version of the monitor." ).

Thank you very much for your answers .

[Chief Blur Buster]

gaming with 50-60 fps on a +200Hz monitor can be a WAY worse experience than when using an i.e a 60Hz

It depends on what parameter is worse.

Fixed 60Hz at 240Hz -- sometimes worse, due to scan conversion
60fps at 240Hz VRR -- much lower latency than 60fps at 60Hz, can be vastly superior.
60fps at 240Hz VRR -- might or might not have more overdrive artifacts (monitor dependant)

Study material: Not all pixels refresh at the same time. Based on how things are configured, there can be less lag or more lag than 60Hz. The rule of thumb is that there are general recommendations, so the fog of FUD should not detract you from buying a monitor that can still outperform 60Hz with certain settings.

Lag Point of View
In other words, you don't really want to use a 60 Hz gaming console with most 240Hz monitors (except those synchronous-scanout panels that sync panel horizontal scanrate to cable horizontal scanrate -- like ASUS XG258 or XG248 etc), because the TCON/scaler scan conversion adds some extra lag to lower refresh rates unless you compensate via Quick Frame Transport tricks (hard) or you use VRR mode (easier) to reset the full-velocity scanout (e.g. delivering a 60fps frame in 1/240sec).
TL;DR: Use 240Hz VRR to get easy low-lag 60fps that is massively lower-lag than a 60Hz panel
Example: You save more than 20ms of lag if you do 60fps@240Hz VRR instead of 60fps@60Hz fixed-Hz VSYNC ON. Both look identical in smoothness, tearinglessness, and motion blur excluding visible overdrive-artifacts differences (if any).

Artifacts Point of View
If overdrive is very good (e.g. NVIDIA G-SYNC native), there should be practically little difference between 60fps @ 240Hz, versus a good 60Hz monitor, if tuned well and done well. At least in theory. Then again, GtG are like soccer balls to be kicked (fast scanout = less running-start time per pixel to kickoff a fast GtG), which can slow GtG at higher scanout velocity (aka higher Hz) occasionally. Overdrive artifacts, can thus change as framerates change, which is a problem with cheap generic adaptive-sync VRR. The quality of variable overdrive has a big effect on VRR quality.
TL;DR: Choose a high quality VRR technology with dynamic overdrive, such as NVIDIA Native G-SYNC. Or if you choose FreeSync certified, get one that is also NVIDIA G-SYNC Compatible certified, since those will have better-than-average overdrive behavior than generic Adaptive Sync panels. That said, assuming identical overdrive artifacts, non-strobed 60fps@60Hz and 60fps@240Hz looks visually identical since it's the same persistence -- aka pixel visibility time.

One compromise is that since the overdrive artifacts may vary a lot at low Hz versus high Hz, but if you're capped at 60fps, then your frame rate is consistent, so you could also adjust overdrive (if it is adjustable in VRR) to match your dominant frame rate, to make sure it has fewer artifacts, since overdrive optimized for 240fps on generic adaptive-sync can cause artifacts for low frame rate material (Even if it still looks smoother/better than 60Hz monitors, thanks to the erased stutters and lower lag). Emulator users also like the low-lag of VRR as a lower-lag identical-looking fixed-framerate alternative to VSYNC ON.

So, it can be better or worse, dending on settings & on variables.

Does this help answer you why it can be worse, and why it can be better?

Further important dominant determinator question:
(A) Are you a VSYNC ON casual player, or a hardcore VSYNC OFF user?
(C) Are you picky about tearing? (Example Solution: VSYNC ON or VRR)
(D) Are you picky about motion blur? (Example Solution: high frame rates or strobed fps=Hz)
(E) Are you picky about stutters? (Example Solution: VRR)
(F) Are you picky about low-lag 60Hz on a 240Hz monitor? (Example Solution: 60fps@240Hz VRR on PC)
(G) Are you earning money in esports? It's very important to separate the advice given by paid esports players from advice given to Excel/Office/Photoshop users who love to casually play an occasional Bioshock or CyberPunk 2077 game (while still having a monitor that can still be sufficient competitive to win many Fortnite and CS:GO games, even if not necessarily against paid players). I often give totally different advice to totally different audiences.

[Chief Blur Buster]

Will VRR be noticeable changing from 48fps to 200fps? (pretty unlikely but just curious)

- A smooth framerate increase looks like a slowly-thinning motion blur.
- A smooth framerate decrease looks like a slowly-thickening motion blur.
- Double framerate will have half motion blur.
- 60fps increasing to 120fps over the course of 1 second will simply look like motion blur halved

It's a smooth subtle feeling compared to annoying stutters.

Motion blur = pixel visibility time = frame time!

It follows what I call Blur Busters Law: 1ms of translates to 1 pixel of motion blurring per 1000 pixels/sec motion. This is identical to frametime on VRR monitors running within VRR range. So if you are panning at 3000 pixels/sec and your framerate is currently 100fps (simplistically, that is 10ms MRPT100% persistence for VRR), you'll have 30 pixels of motion blur. At 200fps, that halves to 15 pixels of motion blur. At 50fps, that's 60 pixels of motion blur.

60fps@240Hz VRR ideally looks like a 60Hz monitor running at full frame rate of 60fps
120fps@240Hz VRR ideally looks like a 120Hz monitor running at full frame rate of 120fps
150fps@240Hz VRR ideally looks like a 150Hz monitor running at full frame rate of 150fps

Yes, i'm going to buy a new PC with a GTX 1660 Super, but even right now doubt it gives +150 on new games, and with newer ones (and new-consoles port games) i think that playing some at 50fps will not be unlikely.

Just as written above -- depending on if you are extremely picky about motion artifacts.

Casual-play 50fps is not a problem on most 240Hz monitors. It feels a LOT less laggy than playing on a 60Hz monitor. Sure, the reports of worse overdrive is true, but it's often less lag (if you use 60fps@240Hz VRR, and NOT switch 240Hz to 60Hz), and sometimes the overdrive is virtually identical looking at all frame rates (especially on really good NVIDIA native G-SYNC chipped monitors)

Happy users don't complain. I know many using 240Hz monitors to run 60fps emulators at much lower latency. It does take some cherrypicking to choose the right monitor and right settings.

...Maybe 240Hz is overkill for you...

Most 240 Hz monitors will be laggy if you use an external console.
But if you use a PC, 60fps at 240Hz completely solves your "60Hz VSYNC ON latency problems". It's the world's lowest-lag easy "60Hz VSYNC ON" mode money you can buy. The problem is PlayStations don't do 240Hz so they cannot take advantage of the high-velocity refresh cycle delivery feature of VRR (60fps at 240Hz VRR delivers a whole refresh cycle in 1/240sec).

Overdrive artifacts are completely another thing altogether (e.g. 60fps @ 240Hz generic cheap adaptive-sync VRR can have more overdrivey-artifacty look than 60fps at 60Hz) but lag? It's silky super LOW -- if you are a "stutterless VSYNC ON" lover but don't like the lag of VSYNC ON, then you'll absolutely love the silky low lag of VRR and the lack of framedrop stutter (single framedrop stutters magically disappearing).

Now, I can't say what you're picky about -- everybody sees differently. Some hate tearing, others do not. Some hates overdrive artifacts, others aren't as picky. Some hate motion blur, others do not. Some hate input lag, others can tolerate a bit if other quality is better.
Etc.

[rasmas]

Two complete answers! Nice!

Does this help answer you why it can be worse, and why it can be better?

I think i understand that 50-60fps on a monitor set to 240Hz with VRR will be always better than on a monitor set to 60Hz, unless it is of a bad quality or has a bad VRR quality.

Further important dominant determinator question:
(A) Are you a VSYNC ON casual player, or a hardcore VSYNC OFF user?
(C) Are you picky about tearing? (Example Solution: VSYNC ON or VRR)
(D) Are you picky about motion blur? (Example Solution: high frame rates or strobed fps=Hz)
(E) Are you picky about stutters? (Example Solution: VRR)
(F) Are you picky about low-lag 60Hz on a 240Hz monitor? (Example Solution: 60fps@240Hz VRR on PC)
(G) Are you earning money in esports? It's very important to separate the advice given by paid esports players from advice given to Excel/Office/Photoshop users who love to casually play an occasional Bioshock or CyberPunk 2077 game (while still having a monitor that can still be sufficient competitive to win many Fortnite and CS:GO games, even if not necessarily against paid players). I often give totally different advice to totally different audiences.

I can't really know, so i'll explain and maybe you can fit me on the correct one : i've been using an LG W2261V 60Hz until it broke, although it was "fine" i was not really comfortable (eye strain?) and had some "motion sickness situations" ( maybe 100% game related), then when using the CRT i have unsharp text and i even think it is not free of blur or double images as, if i focus when panning i see a trail of images, but i've tried several monitors like the Viewsonic VX2458-mhd and the LG 24GL600F and also an iiyama red eagle and a cheap HP IPS(w24), and have not really apreciated an improvement, and i even had more eye strain (maybe brightness -but hated lowering it- or the screen coating? No idea at all).
Also, as a second part of the "symptoms" , i'm """" good""" (or at least i did...twice the campaign xD) playing the CoD WWII with under 40fps inconsistent (you can imagine the overall performance and quality).

So, as i said "I just want a monitor for as many years as possible that is good with as many situations as possible like high-low FPS, sharp text,... and no matter the image quality as far as i don't get eye strain and can comfortably use it for many hours (because of screen coating, panel type, blur, lag or whatever).", and also i should add that i don't really like the idea of fine tuning the monitor for every day-night-cloudy situation or every single game (maybe not that hard and better-neccesary but don't know yet), and i'll use it on a sunny room ( Sun can even hit the screen or too close).

So, will any or both of the Viewsonic XG270 and the ASUS VG279QM (is there an MSI too, right?, but i don't think is available here) be good for me and my "futureproof" plans?

Have you been able to check to compare both the Viewsonic XG270 and the ASUS VG279QM?

Although i'd love the XG270 is not available sold by amazon, is a bit more expensive and i'm unsure about the coating as the ASUS VG279QM seems to have a "cleaner" one (that i don't know if would be better or worse for me) , but on the other side it has bad overdrive at low fps strobing, although seems for only VRR it may be fine (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xGluvAAE5RU) . Also, if it has the red phosphor problem, well it can be a problem.

Thank you for the great answers .

[rasmas]

The more i read the more confused i am . Mostly because i don't know what can make my eyes comfortable (without mayor drawbacks like extreme input lag,...but maybe?).

Hope you can give me some input :


- 240Hz IPS (or TN?): Some say is a waste if you don't get +180fps. 144Hz or even 75Hz is what they recommend. Also most 240Hz IPS have not G-sync, so VRR is good enough?

- OLED: Too big, but an OLED 48CX should be released soon(??), still big, and i bet expensive. Is burn-in problems worse than on CRTs?

- Plasma (TV): Can these have any advantage? Shows 400Hz, but can that be chosen on Windows (via HDMI) or is an "internal mechanism" and most it will be set is 60Hz? (enough, maybe?).


Also, setting 144Hz, 240Hz or 400Hz(?) on Windows desktop will overload and short lifespan of the GPU even on idle?


About Plasma, will a Panasonic TX-P42S10E be worht it? how much should i be willing to pay (supposedly new)?

And, what does "Fast liquid crystal" (ZOWIE XL2546S) means? marketing?


I'm really lost here xD .


Thank you in advance .