240Hz Gaming Monitor recommendation

[axaro1]

Dude. Its not. I believe there is no IPS monitor with 1.9ms avg GTG response time. Don't make me report this to the admin.
First of all, 280hz at 80 OD is slower than 240hz 80 OD.
Proof (tfcentral):
https://i.imgur.com/1h4we9N.png
4.2 G2G at 240hz vs 4.7ms G2g at 280hz
https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/as ... g279qm.htm

More detailed tests from HardwareUnboxed:
SCRENSHOTS
(280hz at 3.82ms response time):
https://i.imgur.com/Sja3lB5.png
240hz at 3.55 ms response time:
https://i.imgur.com/ovd6sli.png

And here is a proof that MSI MAG251RX is better, due to faster response time (one of the reasons why i choosen this)
https://i.imgur.com/QqCIety.png

Ofc, yes, if in ur country msi is much expensive then get asus, but I would recommend 240hz 80 OD instead of 280hz 80 OD.
Still if you have money then MSI is better.

There are many things that you got wrong with this.

First of all you cannot evaluate the VG259QM based on VG279QM results since these two monitor use completely different panels, it would make more sense to compare the VG259QM to something like the AW2521HF.

When you say that it's better to use 240hz OD80 instead of 280hz OD80 you are missing that the overdrive is completely different on the 24.5" Asus compared to the 27" model, OD80 at 240hz has a lot of overshoot on the VG259QM, OD120 is decent if you are willing to try something inbetween OD60 and OD80.

I checked ur rtings measurements and I found ur value 1.9 ms but its NOT response time, its rise/fall:
https://www.rtings.com/images/reviews/m ... -large.jpg

TFTCentral has been using Rise/Fall 10-90% just like RTIngs (although they just switched testing methodology to 3-97% if I remember correctly but the VG279QM review is still using 10 to 90%).

Even Hardware Unboxed used 10-90% for their VG279QM review, they recently changed testing methodology admitting the flaws of 10 to 90% (20:13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zmxl-Btpgk) and the VG279QM scored 7.60ms when testing 3% to 97%.

[forii]

Not gonna argue, I had these 3 monitors with me + others. Here is my topic why I choosen MSI:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6778
-better motion blur, processing lag
-osd software (which changes profile depends on the desktop/application - no need to change it manually)
-and of course colors..

Still imo these 2 monitors are pretty much same and difference is not even noticeable. I wouldn't say one of them is much better than other but I found more positivies in MSI

[speancer]

ASUS VG259QM is a very good 280 Hz IPS monitor, featuring fastIPS panel which competes with TN performance, it achieves 1.9 ms average GTG response time (overdrive set to 80) with moderate overshoot (I don't notice it in CS:GO). Probably the best IPS monitor you can buy for FPS games, it's definitely my favourite one.

I can recommend MSI MAG251RX, better colors and better response time, 3.2 g2g vs 3.8.s. Altought they are both very similar anyway. So probably I would get the cheapest one.
Idk where did you get 1.9ms. I had both of these monitors in same time and I saw a little better response time on MSI + less ghosting/overshots
Also MAG has a bit lower input lag. You have also OSD app which automaticly sets specific profile for each app/desktop. No need to switch it manually.

VG259QM has 1.9 ms avg GtG response time on overdrive set to 80 (which is very impressive), I set overdrive to 80 when I play competitively, I do not notice overshoot introduced by OD80 in CS:GO. Check RTINGS measurements. Also, VG259QM achieves 3.7 ms avg GtG response time on OD60 with 0.0% overshoot.

I've also tested MAG251RX (among many other monitors) and I'd definitely NOT recommend it over VG259QM, the 280 Hz ASUS is the ultimate IPS monitor for competitive FPS in my opinion. ASUS is also cheaper and has a lot better ergonomics, MAG251RX is heavily overpriced, if you ask me (at least where I live the MSI is way more expensive and I see no justification for such a price gap between these two).

Also, the input lag difference is ever so slight I dare to say you'd never notice a difference that small. According to RTINGS measurements, VG259QM has below 2 ms input lag, which is even better than Zowie XL2546K, so that is top class responsiveness anyway.

Dude. Its not. I believe there is no IPS monitor with 1.9ms avg GTG response time. Don't make me report this to the admin.
First of all, 280hz at 80 OD is slower than 240hz 80 OD.
Proof (tfcentral):
https://i.imgur.com/1h4we9N.png
4.2 G2G at 240hz vs 4.7ms G2g at 280hz
Full link: https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/as ... g279qm.htm

More detailed tests from HardwareUnboxed:
SCRENSHOTS
(280hz at 3.82ms response time):
https://i.imgur.com/Sja3lB5.png
240hz at 3.55 ms response time:
https://i.imgur.com/ovd6sli.png

And here is a proof that MSI MAG251RX is better(3.2ms response time - same method tests vs ASUS so its legit that msi wins) -one of the reasons why i choosen this) + also better percent in window (100%)
https://i.imgur.com/QqCIety.png

I checked ur rtings measurements and I found ur value 1.9 ms but its NOT response time, its rise/fall:
https://www.rtings.com/images/reviews/m ... -large.jpg


Ofc, yes, if in ur country msi is much expensive then get asus, but I would recommend 240hz 80 OD instead of 280hz 80 OD.
Still if you have money then MSI is better.
I had them both and I liked more MSI

Don't need to be so aggressive dude, chill Go ahead, report this to the admin, see what happens, would love to see it!

I get a strong impression you're trying so hard to force your opinion on me just to defend your monitor choice. Ok, you liked MSI more, good for you, I did not, in my testing the ASUS was better.

Now let me surprise you - all the results you're showing were made for VG279QM, and they are not identical to VG259QM. These two monitors behave differently on the same overdrive levels. Also, different reviewers could have different results, it depends on the testing methodology and even individual units of the same panel. It does not mean RTINGS measurements are wrong.

Now even funnier, you think you're so smart, laughing at "my RTINGS measurements", but hey - average rise to average fall ratio equals to average grey to grey response time; rise/fall ratio = GtG (industry standard 10 to 90% GtG measurement used by RTINGS). Here, you learned something today.

Thank you @axaro1 for posting this (you posted while I was writing my response)

[Chief Blur Buster]

I've also tested MAG251RX (among many other monitors) and I'd definitely NOT recommend it over VG259QM, the 280 Hz ASUS is the ultimate IPS monitor for competitive FPS in my opinion. ASUS is also cheaper and has a lot better ergonomics, MAG251RX is heavily overpriced, if you ask me (at least where I live the MSI is way more expensive and I see no justification for such a price gap between these two).

I have noticed that (like how some people are picky about tearing artifacts), some people are picky about GtG pixel response symmetry. Some people prefer the look of symmetric GtG (both rise/fall same speed), rather than massively different rise-fall times (even if average amount of blur is less).

You know how going from color A->B may have faster GtG than going from color B->A.... LCD can behaves at different pixel response speeds for different colors. This is asymmetric GtG, and causes ghosting (extra blurbehind effect). Some people prefer symmetric blur (same blur on both ends of moving object), which requires as symmetric GtG pixel response as ossible.

Asymmetric GtG is the cause of ghosting (more blur on one side of moving objects), and even though ghosting thickness decreases at higher Hz, some people still can see the 2 pixel of asymmetry that +2ms differences (in rise/fall) produce at 1000 pixels/sec (half a screenwidth per second).

This is sometimes an issue with some super-high-Hz LCD panels like 360Hz, where some people eyes are really bothered by the GtG asymmetry (aka thin-ghosting artifacts). Some people just hate the "unbalanced blur" effect of ultra slight ghosting, even if 360Hz looks clearer than 240Hz, for example.

Not everybody is picky about asymmetric GtG, especially if both sides of the asymmetric GtG is still faster-pixel-response than the lower-Hz symmetric-GtG display.

GtG is a complex rabbit hole. Over the years, I understand why some people are more sensitive to inconsistent GtG speeds than other people. Displays are imperfect simulations of real-life, and anything that is artificially distorted is more noticeable in some human brains than others -- they immediately see the display artifact where others don't really notice.

[Discorz]

TFTCentral has been using Rise/Fall 10-90% just like RTIngs (although they just switched testing methodology to 3-97% if I remember correctly but the VG279QM review is still using 10 to 90%).

Did TFTCentral really swithced? If they did I suppose only new and some previous monitor data will be updated?

[axaro1]

TFTCentral has been using Rise/Fall 10-90% just like RTIngs (although they just switched testing methodology to 3-97% if I remember correctly but the VG279QM review is still using 10 to 90%).

Did TFTCentral really swithced? If they did I suppose only new and some previous monitor data will be updated?

TFTCentral did indeed change their test methodology but I was incorrect, it's not 3-97%, they are instead using RGB 10 tolerance (with RGB 15 for pure black, so a pixel transition from 0 to 255 will be instead calculated as 15 to 245), which translates into something less strict than 3-97% but still stricter than the classic 10-90%.

[Discorz]

That's interesting, didn't know that. I wonder if reviewers will ever go for same methodology.